[Mister Underhill]

Mho, is the problem you described really the sort of moral quandary you face in your daily life? I agree that large scale moral quandaries (How do we help the homeless? Was it right to invade Iraq?) can leave us feeling powerless and disheartened. But I would submit that such quandaries have only as much bearing on your own personal life and the choices you make as you allow them to. Selfishness, greed, bigotry, thievery, oppression, infidelity, gluttony, dishonesty – I think almost anyone can agree that these are unambiguously immoral, not to mention the sort of problem that we more frequently encounter in our day to day lives.

I’m not saying that the life of perfect virtue is attainable. It certainly is usually easier in the short run to commit (and justify) immoralities large and small. The thing is, it has never been easy to strive after a virtuous lifestyle; does that make it not worth doing? The easy path is seldom the most rewarding, at least in my experience. You don’t just nod and shrug and accept that your day-to-day life is riddled with moral compromises.

Sauce, I think we differ over our definitions and ideas of what things like happiness, fulfillment, and inner peace really mean. I also see that you’re still a bit stuck on the idea of punishment, which I do not think has anything to do with Plato’s assertion. For instance, you quoted me on the subject of art – but I wasn’t referring to punishment. Example: Dickens’ much-beloved “A Christmas Carol” is about an amoral man who is miserably unhappy and unfulfilled in spite of his wealth and power. Rather than being punished, he is redeemed. He may have gone unpunished his whole life – and indeed, strictly by the laws of society, he wasn’t doing anything illegal – but he still would have died a miserable, emotionally bankrupt, lonely man had he not turned to a life of virtue.

The serial killer who murders with impunity and is never caught? Well, he may escape punishment, at least on earth and in terms of some authority outside himself meting out justice for his crimes, but if you think such a person is capable of healthy relationships, a fulfilled life, and inner peace, we have wildly different ideas about what such things mean. I’m no expert on sociopathic behavior, but I’ve read enough to know that such people frequently kill precisely because they are incapable of relating to people in healthy ways.

Hitler and his ilk are interesting case studies in a discussion like this because they represent unfettered immorality. Hitler had power, wealth, fame, a certainty in the justice of his cause, etc. – but do you think he was in any way happy or fulfilled? Here was a man who could trust no one, who was constantly in fear of conspirators, who was consumed by hatred, who, as far as history tells, was unable to relate in any meaningful way to anyone (especially women), who was given to fits of depression and rage. Is this happiness? Himmler was convinced of the morality of genocide – but when he witnessed mass executions in Minsk, he nearly fainted. Is this the sign of a man with a clear conscience?

As for theories that have been outlined which suggest that morality is merely an evolved set of behaviors which are the most conducive to a smoothly running society, well, I find them cold and hollow, a diminishment of the great dignity and compassion of which the human spirit is capable to a trivial bit of sociological conditioning. Within such a view, the great humanitarians and heroes of civilization are simply aberrations, people who for unknown reasons (maybe it was something off-kilter in their brain chemistry or their upbringing) exceed the sociological imperative that society run only more or less smoothly. Even the aforementioned Kant, I believe, finds this sort of thinking too cold to motivate him, and must seek beyond the boundaries of human reason for motivation.

Stay awhile and be patient, Sharkey – we haven’t lost touch with Tolkien yet. I think these sort of questions bear directly on Tolkien and his work. Sauron represents the ultimate embodiment of Plato’s assertion. Alone, consumed by lust and hatred, unable to feel compassion, tortured by fear and doubt – he is the answer to the question, “What do we get if we take immorality as a lifestyle to its most extreme logical conclusion?” Gandalf is his opposite, and though he is not perfectly virtuous, we see that he enjoys the fruits of a life spent in the pursuit of virtue – deeply fulfilling, harmonious relationships, a character of unimpeachable integrity, a history of personal accomplishment and spiritual fulfillment, and an inner peace which allows him to sacrifice himself in Khazad-dûm even though, as far as he knows, his sacrifice may mean the failure of all that he has worked for.

I’m curious about the people who admire Tolkien’s work, but view its morality as untenable in the “real world”. Would you still admire Aragorn if he gained his throne through trickery or treachery? Would Gandalf be the same character if he had, say, used some deception to assassinate Saruman on the premise that the ends justify the means? Do you think that the pity of Frodo and Bilbo with regards to Gollum is fine for a novel, but not really applicable to real life? Inquiring minds want to know.

[ October 24, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]