[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

No - he can do that. Supposed implies obligation

I see. So I suppose that you consider the idea of moral obligation as absurd - since we established, I hope, that certain imaginary processes are immoral. Are you arguing that one is free to do whatever one wants, imagination included, no matter how strong that contradicts one's own morality?

Originally Posted by davem

But they may take it 'seriously' as a work of fantasy with no relation to the real world, so I would still argue that their support of the 'evil' side cannot be used to judge their morality as far as the real world is concerned. Supporting 'evil' characters in a fantasy world so far detached from the everyday world they live in means such conclusions cannot be drawn.

Davem, do you argue that there is any qualitative difference between one's imagination and a book? If certain fantasies are immoral when one engages in them, as we explored previously, then these ideas are immoral too when one recognizes them in a book and adheres to them.
[QUOT=davemE] I cannot declare someone who thinks Orcs slaughtering Elves is cool (however 'seriously' they might take the slaughter) [/QUOTE]You are rather vague about this; what could they consider 'cool' about slaughtering elves?

Originally Posted by tgwbs

In the second quote, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that the "norm" - that is, the majority view

Are you kidding? You take a statement of mine which states one idea, then you take another general affirmation I make, and define its meaning in your own way, [one which contradicts my previous statement and my previous opposition to moral relativism], then you attribute its meaning to me and ask me why I contradict myself? When did I define norm as majority view? Please clarify. I simply view norm as a whatever rule, standard, model; your qualification of it as 'majority's view' in the context of my argument is unwarranted.

Originally Posted by tgwbs

Can't we just accept that if somebody likes orcs, then they are evil according to the 1000th reader, Raynor or Thenamir, and not evil according to Lalwende and Davem?

My argument was that siding with the evil actions of the orcs may contradict one's own morality [if one holds various moral values to be true], regardless what other view as moral or not.

Originally Posted by davem

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?

As far as I know, all western societies prohibit any kind of discrimination based on beliefs.

It has often been remarked that Middle-earth lacks priests and churches, but interestingly it also lacks police and lawyers--at least until Sharkey gets his hands on The Shire.

The hobbits have the shirrifs; the king was a priest-king in Numenor, and Tolkien speculates in the letters that Aragorn would return to that function.