Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
I am not saying that at all. Morality, to my mind, can vary over both time and geography. I know this only too well from my job. In any event, I do not regard cannibalism as immoral per se. Indeed, I believe that it is justified in certain circumstances (such as those depicted in the film and book Alive). However, I would regard Hannibal Lector's behaviour as immoral and, indeed, evil. Murdering people and eating them is both illegal and regarded as immoral in the society within which I live and my question was directed towards people living within the same society.
|
So morality is determined by the society in which one happens to live? So a reader who willingly sides with the Orcs at the beginning of the 21st century is 'immoral' but a reader, say 200 years in the future who happens to live in a society where 'orcish' behaviour is generally accepted would be 'moral'? To me this seems not to make sense because it reduces 'morality' to whatever is socially acceptable. But
in theory what is socially acceptabie could be different in 20 years, or two years - or two months. So, a person who is considered 'immoral' today could be considered 'moral' in two years time & 'immoral' again two years later - without changing their position as regards what is right & wrong but simply because what is socially acceptable changes.
And to move on. Let's say someone who fully supports the evil side in LotR is 'immoral'. What should we do about them? Should they be watched? Should they be allowed to adopt children? Can they be trusted not to steal cars, rob houses or mug grannies?
But can we judge their 'morality' only through the way they respond to fictional characters - is that sufficient evidence on which to base our judgement? And which fictional works are we to use in order to make our judgement? Who decides? And is it to be a question only of judging the reader's morality? I'm sure Germaine Greer for example would decide that anyone who liked Tolkien (whether they were rooting for the Good guys or the Bad guys) was emotionally & intellectually immature for instance.
You see, this whole issue of judging an individual's moral, ethical or intellectual state based on their choice of who to cheer on in a work of fiction puts those who use that criterion in a difficult position in regards to other people - if you truly believe someone who cheers on the Orcs is 'immoral' then what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do with them? Either you believe that although they are immoral people they are harmless (in which case the whole issue has nothing more than curiosity value - & morality is trivial issue as far as you are concerned because it has no effect on people's behaviour or the way they treat others) or you believe that their immorality makes them at least a potential threat to others, & you therefore have an obligation to restrict what they can do for the greater good....
Based on whether they think Orcs are cooler than Elves. On whether they enjoy the thought of (non-existent) Elves being dragged into a (non-existent) Angband by (non-existent) Orcs to be tortured by a (non-existent) Morgoth & his (non-existent) Balrogs . Or even on whether they get off on the idea of a (non-existent) dragon razing a (non-existent) town built in stilts in a (non-existent) lake.