Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

The kinds of people I am admittedly ranting about in my long-winded post are those who also know the difference between fiction and reality, but who also sympathize with and would (if they could) emulate the practices and methods of the villains. In essence, they are calling evil good, and good evil. I humbly ask The 1,000th Reader to confirm whether or not I have interpreted the question correctly.

Pretty much. On a lesser note, it is also wondering why some less obsessed fans always say that Melkor was doing good things yet never acknowledge that in the end, Melkor was a jerk and they're just playing.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, my point is that one doesn't have to act on a certain desire/intention to be immoral. One cannot say that he delights in evil and still claim complete morality.

But the sticking point is that we cannot say what is moral and what is immoral. You can't tell me what's moral. I can't tell you what's moral. And even 'God' can't tell us what's moral.

As an aside - why can't 'God' tell us that? Simply because there are many 'Gods' and even those who ostensibly share the same God can have huge differences - e.g. many still think homosexuality is immoral whereas their brothers and sisters in the same faith wholeheartedly believe it to be perfectly moral. These kinds of differences are common across all faiths and ideologies.

Even when we get into questions of 'violence' there are questions of what morality is. Some tribespeople in New Guinea have been cannibals (and are said to remain cannibals, despite attempts to persuade them away from the practise) and this is a deeply held part of of their morality - the enemy must be consumed in order to achieve a complete victory over him. That kind of morality makes Westerners cringe, but it's a morality all the same, no matter if we feel uncomfortable with it. Even in the West similar differences are thrown up by the question of circumcision. A friend of mine was 'honoured' with an invite to a female ceremony in Tanzania and despite finding this act to be immoral had to go along as this was very much moral in that culture; likewise there has been a storm in the UK after a Jewish baby died following a circumcision with both sides throwing around terms like 'child abuse' and 'religious tradition'.

Who's right? I can't say. Nor can you.

So in an infinitely less serious circumstance, that of say whether you find Saruman a bit exciting, is it:
a. even possible or permissible to say someone is immoral just from whether they like x, y or z character in a book, given that morality cannot be determined at some static point anyway.
and
b. is it important anyway? Are we just being a little bit silly?

I have to say that if anyone from outside the Tolkien community saw this they'd be laughing their heads off. Just how irrelevant and out of touch do we sound? Like it actually matters if you like the literary creations that are Orcs when there are people out there right now engaging in real, genuine and truly frightening acts of cruelty. And we're being asked if we want to tar and feather some ordinary kid for being fond of imaginary characters in a ruddy book!

All I'm asking is that we simply Get A Grip.

[Salacia Deloresista]

I don't think it's at all petty to examine the bad guys. The heroes are extremely heroic, and that's why we love the story, but what makes the bad guy's tick, and why is that fascinating? That's a question worth a discussion thread.

Now granted, I don't root for the bad guys in LotR (at 4' 11" I sympathize a little too much with the hobbits) but I have to admit to a kind of fascination with them. One of the things that really struck me when I read LotR for the first time was how, unlike a lot of other fairy tales, the lines between "good" and "evil" are not quite as defined. The ring works by twisting the weaknesses and desires of each character and bending them to it's own will. The servants of Sauron are not some "other" which we can put in a box and call evil, but a vision of what we could become, a vision of fallen humanity. Sauron's servants are those creatures who simply gave up fighting with themselves and gave in to the lure of the ring.

We all know/knew people like that, especially in high school. That's the guy who got sick of constantly trying and failing and so gave up, became a stoner, dropped out of school and now flips burgers somewhere. Recognizing that evil is something we all have in us brings the orcs and goblins and other creatures a lot closer.

So those guys, the ones who root for the bad guys, they're not rooting for evil, they're rooting for themselves.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

even possible or permissible to say someone is immoral just from whether they like x, y or z character in a book, given that morality cannot be determined at some static point anyway.

Ah, the moral relativism defence.

I have little reason to worry about it; logically, moral relativism is twice contradicting: it allows for two opposite propositions, p and non-p, to be true (it defeats the very foundation of logic); and second: if there is no single standard to judge the value of a proposition, then even moral relativism has its limits and it naturally implies that other standards, contradicting moral relativism, are true as well. Frankly, moral relativism has no logical standing in a debate.

I have no problem drawing a line between concepts which lie upon a continua in the conceptual space - and matters are not as shady in Middle Earth as in the primary world. There, the very essence of Melkor and Sauron is nihilism. I am really curious who would argue that nihilism, utter destruction of everything, could be construed in a moral way. Nihilism itself excludes morality, since it allows for nothing to exist and therefore no distinctions to be made.

[Thenamir]

Bravo, Raynor, well said indeed.

Can I interject one more thought here (implying that you could say "no" ) -- that just as many here have said, there is far less gray and more black-and-white in Middle-Earth. I can understand someone being intrigued by Saruman or Gollum, who appear to have had struggles with their choices, the spark of good fighting, albeit unsuccessfully, their selfish bent. Such was the case in the end with Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker, a wonderful study into the dynamics of an evil character who repents in the end. I don't think anyone here would object to that.

What I believe is causing so much heated verbaige here is the existence of those who don't just appreciate a well-written literary exploration of a character who turns out to be evil (as most of us here do) -- they would BE Sauron or Morgoth if they could -- or, to put it in more real-world terms, they would BE Hitler or Stalin or Hannibal if it was within their ability. The ones who who don't care about others, being supremely consumed with self.

In other words, they're not just fascinated by evil -- they embrace it, they emulate it, they take it as a role model. It's that kind of person we don't understand.

[the guy who be short]

First, a defence of moral relativism:

1) Raynor, you don't explain your contradictions. However, I presume the first works as follows. The statements "no moral system is better than another" and "moral relativism is the only logical moral system" contradict one another.

In reponse to this, moral relativism is not a moral system, it is amoral. It does not say "this is good, this is bad, live your life by these rules." It says "good and bad do not exist, they are unnatural fabrications of the human mind enforced by society."

2)

if there is no single standard to judge the value of a proposition, then even moral relativism has its limits and it naturally implies that other standards, contradicting moral relativism, are true as well.

Again, moral relativism is not a morality system.

To relate this to Tolkien:

Viewed from a morally relative, or amoral, perspective, I see no objective evil in supporting evil characters. It's all in the minds of those who are offended.

[Thenamir]

Viewed from a morally relative, or amoral, perspective, I see no objective evil in supporting evil characters. It's all in the minds of those who are offended.

A genuinely curious question -- since you use the phrase in your explanation, would you mind defining "objective evil" from an amoral perspective?

[Lalwendë]

An observation: I'm chucking to myself how the debate seems to have subtly shifted away from people criticising those who just get some fun out of supporting the bad guys into criticising those who take the bad guys as an inspiration for sociopathy. Quite a different thing, and I'd venture to say you're as likely to find someone inspired to acts of sociopathy inspired by Tolkien's bad guys as you are to find a Leprechaun. And nobody would disagree that sociopathic behaviour is bad. Of course, saying that someone who is just into the bad guys and gets some fun out of it is evil or immoral, is actually quite rude to a lot of Downs members, who we know are decent people.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Frankly, moral relativism has no logical standing in a debate.

On the contrary. It takes centre stage in such a debate as this where we are criticising our fellow Downers for liking the bad guys and finding them entertaining (or that's the way it started anyway before the U turn!). Standing back and asking What Is Morality is vital where we are throwing around insults at decent people and casting aspersions on their moral fibre and character.

I aint going to judge others by anyone else's standards, only by my own. I won't be told who to like and who to mark down as 'immoral'.

Sorry but the thought just occurred to me that the point of this whole thread is supremely dodgy! The cheek of it! Why should anyone tell me or anyone else which characters we should like and which we should dislike?!

Can we not get on to looking at the much more fruitful question of why people like bad guys rather than offending people any further?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

moral relativism is not a moral system, it is amoral. It does not say "this is good, this is bad, live your life by these rules." It says "good and bad do not exist, they are unnatural fabrications of the human mind enforced by society."

Moral relativism is all fine and dandy, until we get to the hard stuff. There are certain horrors and degradations of human behaviour that simply cross cultural boundaries. And this is even more true in Tolkien's world, where evil acts with a mythological-level power.

If the only people who disagree that <<delighting in evil is immoral>> are the same people who consider that <<there is nothing wrong, evil, or immoral about rape, or unnecessary harm, or Melkorian-style nihilism>>, then, frankly, I will happily rest my case.

If it is only all the other people [the ones who consider that <<rape, or unnecessary harm, or Melkorian-style nihilism are wrong, evil, immoral, in and of themselvs>>] agree that delighting in evil is immoral, then I am satisfied. I need not go any further than that.

Originally Posted by Lal

Standing back and asking What Is Morality is vital where we are throwing around insults at decent people and casting aspersions on their moral fibre and character.

Why are you trying so hard to twist arguments about ideas into arguments about persons? No single person has been targeted, only ideas. If a general moral judgement is true, then uttering it is not an insult, so please don't make it look so.

This whole discussion has started when you claimed that there is nothing wrong with liking bad guys because they are fictional. If you make this statement in an open debate, then you must be ready to have it challenged.

The curiosity of this is that, as pointed previously, you implied the existence of an absolute moral value: "it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice." and "We don't fail to see that at all [that "good" is good for all"], but when confronted, you resort to an argument that "there isn't in fact an absolute moral scale", which denies the previous "ok". Unless you qualify your statement as a purely personal position, then it can only be naturally read as presuming an absolute morality. I hope you see the contradiction.

Originally Posted by Lal

you agree that just because Johnny or Susan think Orcs are fun and likes to write evil characters in RPGs or maybe habitually goes to conventions dressed as the Witch King or has a Balrog theme on their profile or likes to wind up Elf-heads by acting the minion, it does not mean they are immoral or evil?

Please qualify your statements. Do they think that orcs can sometimes make jokes or do they think destruction done by the orcs is fun? Do they dress as the witch-king because such clothes are trendy (or whatever adjective, or whatever reason) or because they believe that (almost) irredeemable allegiance to evil is acceptable? I don't understand your last refference to make a comment on it.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why are you trying so hard to twist arguments about ideas into arguments about persons? No single person has been targeted, only ideas. If a general moral judgement is true, then uttering it is not an insult, so please don't make it look so.

A person's ideas are very personal to them. What you fail to take in is that by saying if a person likes the bad guys in a book that they are immoral you are INSULTING them. And I personally thought that kind of thing was not allowed on here. All I want to do is to defend those Downers who I personally know are decent people and are anything BUT immoral who happen to like one or two of the bad guys. There is NOTHING wrong in what they do.



I'm afraid I want no more part of this. It's offensive, frankly. I will not 'justify', 'prove', 'qualify' or otherwise anything I have said because I am simply defending the right of people not to be insulted for the things in Tolkien which they personally find entertaining.