Absolute Good in Lord of the Rings

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Whether someone commits atrocities in the name of their religion, to me, is less of a question than whether their actions obey or disobey the tenets of their faith (or absence thereof.) For a Christian to commit atrocities is fundamentally disobedient to their moral and religious duty, and for a Christian that does so this is the proper criticism: not that your moral and religious code is invalidated by your actions; but that you have been shown to be disobedient to that code. If Hitler claimed to be a Christian, then he showed himself disobedient (to put it mildly.) If someone is striving to love his neighbor and defend the innocent, and fails, then he failed. That doesn't invalidate the directive to love the neighbor and defend the innocent.

At the risk of inciting further off topic posts, let me compliment Helen for this classic, logical rebuttal. Free will can lead to terrible choices.

Of course, we don't know what choices would be made had there been no revealed code of virtue.

In the books, Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Faramir, Legolas, Gimli, Sam, and even Merry and Pippin adhered pretty well (consistently!) to their own codes of virtue.

From where do these characters get their codes of virtue? Gandalf apparently received his directly from a source, although I cannot recall how much of this is specified in LotR. Elrond and Galadriel apparently have the long memories of elven lore but we not know how much memory (and each has a long, long span of memories) has affected that lore (assuming elves do not have perfect memories) over time. Aragorn would have received his code by virtue of his birthright and teachings from his mother and Elrond. Faramir's code comes from his inheritance. They have no practice of revealed religion, but their codes are learned, taught, instilled in them. For the Gondorians particularly, there is a sense of bloodline of the faithful.

But where or how was the hobbit code of virtue developed? As the Prologue makes clear, hobbits have no preserved knowledge of the vanished time of Elder Days; their records begin with the founding of the Shire and they have only legends and tales of an earlier time. So hobbits no longer have (if they once did) a form of revealed path to goodness or virtue.

Do hobbits represent a natural or innate form of spirituality? Do they demonstrate the actions of natural law? In the absence of a character of "absolute goodness" (who traditionally would inform all the other characters) whence comes the moral sense of Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin, to say nothing of Gaffer or Tom Cotton or Farmer Maggot or even Lobelia (granting of course that their actions do not necessarily come from the same source or motivation)?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Whether someone commits atrocities in the name of their religion, to me, is less of a question than whether their actions obey or disobey the tenets of their faith (or absence thereof.) For a Christian to commit atrocities is fundamentally disobedient to their moral and religious duty

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

At the risk of inciting further off topic posts, let me compliment Helen for this classic, logical rebuttal. Free will can lead to terrible choices.

A classic, logical rebuttal, yes; however, when has logic ever been an article of faith? The interesting thing about the Bible or Koran is just how thin a variance there is between peace and genocide. If you want to find a reason to kill or enslave your neighbor, the proper text is there in black and white, right alongside loving thy neighbor. Churches have for centuries used holy scripture to kill their neighbors (the neighbor being branded a heretic or infidel is no longer a neighbor but an enemy of god). Muslims that strap bombs to themselves truly believe they are going to heaven. Atrocity or Act of Faith? Depends on your interpretation. I am sure Hitler, even in his lunacy, could somehow justify the Holocaust from a doctrinal viewpoint as well -- others certainly have throughout history with horrifying success.

Perhaps this is why men of Gondor continued their feud with the Haradrim, and vice versa, for so many millenia: an earnest belief in the other people's inherent evil.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

A classic, logical rebuttal, yes; however, when has logic ever been an article of faith? The interesting thing about the Bible or Koran is just how thin a variance there is between peace and genocide. If you want to find a reason to kill or enslave your neighbor, the proper text is there in black and white, right alongside loving thy neighbor. Churches have for centuries used holy scripture to kill their neighbors (the neighbor being branded a heretic or infidel is no longer a neighbor but an enemy of god). Muslims that strap bombs to themselves truly believe they are going to heaven. Atrocity or Act of Faith? Depends on your interpretation. I am sure Hitler, even in his lunacy, could somehow justify the Holocaust from a doctrinal viewpoint as well -- others certainly have throughout history with horrifying success.

Perhaps this is why men of Gondor continued their feud with the Haradrim, and vice versa, for so many millenia: an earnest belief in the other people's inherent evil.

Hmm, that's interesting, Gondor Vs the Haradrim as reflecting the current West Vs East conflicts...

Lately I've been coming round to thinking that so many of the conflicts supposedly down to Faith are actually about other things if you look at them, and religion is just used as a handy excuse: Islamists for example often merely want their land back (Palestinians) or want to establish a new Caliphate empire; the Northern Ireland troubles were definitely about questions of Nationality much more than Faith; Henry VIII's (and the rest of the UK's monarchs) struggles were more about who ruled the Kingdom and owned the wealth and the people's allegiance, the monarch or the Pope.

OT, but not entirely so...because we do both blame religion for a lot and attribute a lot to it when other things are at work. This is what had me thinking:

Originally Posted by Bb

Aragorn would have received his code by virtue of his birthright and teachings from his mother and Elrond. Faramir's code comes from his inheritance. They have no practice of revealed religion, but their codes are learned, taught, instilled in them. For the Gondorians particularly, there is a sense of bloodline of the faithful.

Our culture can bring to us as many of these good things such as honour, compassion and fairplay as belief can. Plenty of people exist and existed without any faith but still possess that good stuff that the best believers do. Put simply, it's down to how you are raised and what you are taught, the environment you grow up in.

I don't think it's 'bloodline', as generations of people have for example come to live in the UK but quickly become 'British' and acquire our cultural norms and practises - it's not their blood which does this, just their surroundings and what they learn.

This is why I think the Orcs cannot have been 'bad to the bone', that they acquired much of their nature.

[Lalaith]

Waes hail, Cailín!

In answer to the original question, referring specifically to LotR, I would say Elbereth is your best bet when it comes to absolute good.

She is (I am fairly sure) the only Vala featured in the trilogy, except for a passing reference to Orome. And while we are not told much about her, her name drives away evil, and makes those who call upon her feel wholesome.
I would also say the light of Earendil (via Frodo's phial) has the power of good. If we were to broaden the reference to the Silmarillion, the source of this light, the Silmarils, are so holy that they burn that which is impure. So perhaps they too embody absolute good.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

OT, but not entirely so...because we do both blame religion for a lot and attribute a lot to it when other things are at work.

It's about power and control. I mean, there has been lots of argument over which creed to say and which one takes priority, but who kills over which creed to say, unless the creed opens up avenues of wealth and influence. Religion in Europe became tied with cultural hegemony; the faith of the ruler became the state imposed religion. The tragic fate of the Stuarts is that they remained Catholic in a nation being taken over by Presbyterians, so it worked the reverse for them. But still, little freedom of worship outside the majority group.

Our culture can bring to us as many of these good things such as honour, compassion and fairplay as belief can. Plenty of people exist and existed without any faith but still possess that good stuff that the best believers do. Put simply, it's down to how you are raised and what you are taught, the environment you grow up in.

I don't think it's 'bloodline', as generations of people have for example come to live in the UK but quickly become 'British' and acquire our cultural norms and practises - it's not their blood which does this, just their surroundings and what they learn.

Well, in the case of the Gondorians, it was definitely bloodline that was important, otherwise why would the Stewards have become "Reigning Stewards" and not "Kings" outright--and note that the Stewardship was hereditary? Certainly in their cultural lore, their ancestry back to the Numemorean faithful is important, as it is with Aragorn.

But what you say about the immigrants to the UK is interesting, as apparently there is some pressure or impulse or motivation to become British, rather than to make the UK a multi-cultural country, just as in the US there is overwhelming pressure to become "American." The culture of the immigrant is second rate to the ruling culture I guess. I'm sure there are countless problems within immigrant communities who struggle with their dual cultural experiences.

But to return to my question, I wasn't meaning to imply that goodness comes only from believers. Really, I was ruminating on how the authority of or for goodness takes hold. And what happens when it loses ground to the influence of evil? Really, in your terms, my question would be, how does a culture (as opposed to a faith) determine or decide what is good? What is the basis for saying that killing is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that lying is wrong? What is it that makes that "environment" that you speak of nurture goodness?

After all, we aren't sure what kind of environment nurtured Gollem. Did Smeagol know that killing was wrong or did his hobbit clan pursue a culture of self-centeredness and personal aggrandisement? Did his selfish motives merely overwhelm his better knowledge or were his base motives in fact nurtured by his environment? Eventually he was shunned by his community--rejected, forced out. Was that rejection of "otherness" part of what made him Gollem or was it just the influence of the Ring? Was his tragedy that his clan didn't know any elves as Frodo's clan did?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, in the case of the Gondorians, it was definitely bloodline that was important, otherwise why would the Stewards have become "Reigning Stewards" and not "Kings" outright--and note that the Stewardship was hereditary? Certainly in their cultural lore, their ancestry back to the Numemorean faithful is important, as it is with Aragorn.

I should clarify, I was getting onto the Real World talking about 'bloodline' there. The Numenoreans, as Tolkien's creation, had and were free to have (because as Author, it's Tolkien's call on how characterisation was done) personality characteristics inherited by blood; of course in the Real World this is a much less likely thing, if it happens at all.

But what you say about the immigrants to the UK is interesting, as apparently there is some pressure or impulse or motivation to become British, rather than to make the UK a multi-cultural country, just as in the US there is overwhelming pressure to become "American." The culture of the immigrant is second rate to the ruling culture I guess. I'm sure there are countless problems within immigrant communities who struggle with their dual cultural experiences.

Most immigrants to the UK are easily absorbed into the culture - and don't lose much of their own in the process. The media like to highlight differences as it makes for a far more interesting story to paint people as racists when the truth is that the white working classes have for hundreds of years lived next door to waves of new immigrants and get along remarkably well, given the difficulties both groups face.

OT again, but it's interesting stuff, isn't it?

But to return to my question, I wasn't meaning to imply that goodness comes only from believers. Really, I was ruminating on how the authority of or for goodness takes hold. And what happens when it loses ground to the influence of evil? Really, in your terms, my question would be, how does a culture (as opposed to a faith) determine or decide what is good? What is the basis for saying that killing is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that lying is wrong? What is it that makes that "environment" that you speak of nurture goodness?

After all, we aren't sure what kind of environment nurtured Gollem. Did Smeagol know that killing was wrong or did his hobbit clan pursue a culture of self-centeredness and personal aggrandisement? Did his selfish motives merely overwhelm his better knowledge or were his base motives in fact nurtured by his environment? Eventually he was shunned by his community--rejected, forced out. Was that rejection of "otherness" part of what made him Gollem or was it just the influence of the Ring? Was his tragedy that his clan didn't know any elves as Frodo's clan did?

You often get this question of "Where does morality come from?" when you suggest that it can come from other things than Faith. However, you could also ask who put the moral rules into faith?

If we could answer the question of where moral rules come from we might solve a myriad of ethical dilemmas but the best we can do is make an educated guess and that's that rules stem from the needs of the culture which writes them.

Taking the rules set out in the Bible for example - all of them stemmed from the contemporary culture when those texts were written - this is why alongside thoroughly sensible rules that are still relevant like "Thou shalt not steal" we have anomalies about not eating prawns.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I should clarify, I was getting onto the Real World talking about 'bloodline' there. The Numenoreans, as Tolkien's creation, had and were free to have (because as Author, it's Tolkien's call on how characterisation was done) personality characteristics inherited by blood; of course in the Real World this is a much less likely thing, if it happens at all.

Oh, but we can talk about it, though, just as we talk about the Drowning of Numenor or the presence of Coffee and umbrellas.

Originally Posted by Lal

Most immigrants to the UK are easily absorbed into the culture - and don't lose much of their own in the process. The media like to highlight differences as it makes for a far more interesting story to paint people as racists when the truth is that the white working classes have for hundreds of years lived next door to waves of new immigrants and get along remarkably well, given the difficulties both groups face.

Well, really, I am a bit limited in my ability to watch/read your media. I mean, I do get the BBC World News and Doctor Who but that's about the limit of my exposure to your media. And the only time I read your tabloids online is when they have a juicy scandal about the Royals beating animals or wishing they were some form of sanitary device. I often think of the English as a bit Elvish, if you know what I mean. It must come from reading the likes of Nadeem Aslam's Maps for Lost Lovers or Monica Ali's Brick Lane. I think we could probably have a good discussion about the elves in terms of the mid-twentieth century English thoughts on the loss of the Empire. Still Tolkienish but I suppose not really about absolute good.

Originally Posted by Lal

Taking the rules set out in the Bible for example - all of them stemmed from the contemporary culture when those texts were written - this is why alongside thoroughly sensible rules that are still relevant like "Thou shalt not steal" we have anomalies about not eating prawns.

I myself often wished that the Levitical injunction against the wearing of mixed fabrics had been more often observed. It would have saved us from the indignity of the polyester leisure suit.

Originally Posted by Morth

As opposed to the more 'advanced' Hobbitish culture in the Shire, the retrograde Stoors (who had left the Angle and had resettled back along the Anduin), were a matriarchal society which seemed to me more gypsyish hunter/gatherers rather than staid farmers (Gollum fondly remembered teaching his grandmother to suck eggses), but they certainly knew right from wrong. Smeagol/Gollum was banished from their society for thievery and suspected murder, not necessarily because of a perceived otherness (although the change that came over him could have been construed as part and parcel of his criminal activity while using the Ring).

I'm not so sure they did know right from wrong--or rather, I wonder what Tolkien was doing in assigning them those two very intriguing attributes. All faiths--all cultures--have ways of enforcing normative behaviours but not all of them practice that form of extreme control, with its (unintended) damaging, detrimental effects. I've often pondered Tolkien's depiction of Smeagol's clan and what might be called the psychological consequences of Smeagol's shunning.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, really, I am a bit limited in my ability to watch/read your media. I mean, I do get the BBC World News and Doctor Who but that's about the limit of my exposure to your media. And the only time I read your tabloids online is when they have a juicy scandal about the Royals beating animals or wishing they were some form of sanitary device. I often think of the English as a bit Elvish, if you know what I mean. It must come from reading the likes of Nadeem Aslam's Maps for Lost Lovers or Monica Ali's Brick Lane. I think we could probably have a good discussion about the elves in terms of the mid-twentieth century English thoughts on the loss of the Empire. Still Tolkienish but I suppose not really about absolute good.

I think you should start this thread!

I myself often wished that the Levitical injunction against the wearing of mixed fabrics had been more often observed. It would have saved us from the indignity of the polyester leisure suit.

Would that be what's known on our shores as a Shellsuit?

Though they do serve a purpose because if you see someone wearing one you know to cross the road well in advance so as to avoid them

I'm not so sure they did know right from wrong--or rather, I wonder what Tolkien was doing in assigning them those two very intriguing attributes. All faiths--all cultures--have ways of enforcing normative behaviours but not all of them practice that form of extreme control, with its (unintended) damaging, detrimental effects. I've often pondered Tolkien's depiction of Smeagol's clan and what might be called the psychological consequences of Smeagol's shunning.

I don't think most people would ever think of shunning as a bad thing - I think it's one of those things (like childbirth or depression) that until it happens to you or someone you know, you can never really comprehend. On the surface it just sounds as though someone has been sent away but in reality it means the loss of your identity, friends, loved ones, and maybe even worse. It happened to my grandmother when she married outside her faith and her own mother died.

So if Tolkien included it as something which happened to one of his characters I wouldn't necessarily say that he was equating the shunners with wrong doing. Plus there's the fact that he himself was threatened with punishment if he carried on seeing Edith before he was 21 and he went along with that.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

After all, we aren't sure what kind of environment nurtured Gollem. Did Smeagol know that killing was wrong or did his hobbit clan pursue a culture of self-centeredness and personal aggrandisement? Did his selfish motives merely overwhelm his better knowledge or were his base motives in fact nurtured by his environment? Eventually he was shunned by his community--rejected, forced out. Was that rejection of "otherness" part of what made him Gollem or was it just the influence of the Ring? Was his tragedy that his clan didn't know any elves as Frodo's clan did?

As opposed to the more 'advanced' Hobbitish culture in the Shire, the retrograde Stoors (who had left the Angle and had resettled back along the Anduin), were a matriarchal society which seemed to me more gypsyish hunter/gatherers rather than staid farmers (Gollum fondly remembered teaching his grandmother to suck eggses), but they certainly knew right from wrong. Smeagol/Gollum was banished from their society for thievery and suspected murder, not necessarily because of a perceived otherness (although the change that came over him could have been construed as part and parcel of his criminal activity while using the Ring).

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But where or how was the hobbit code of virtue developed? As the Prologue makes clear, hobbits have no preserved knowledge of the vanished time of Elder Days; their records begin with the founding of the Shire and they have only legends and tales of an earlier time. So hobbits no longer have (if they once did) a form of revealed path to goodness or virtue.

Another question to toss in with that one: The classic (Western) virtues are listed as, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude; faith, hope, and charity (agape love, or generosity). Do those virtues have anything to do with hobbits? With rangers? With elves? With the White Council, or some of our aforementioned archetypal candidates?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So hobbits no longer have (if they once did) a form of revealed path to goodness or virtue.

Do hobbits represent a natural or innate form of spirituality?

In a general manner, I shall wave my hands while irresponsibly scattering a few pipe-ashes, and say that Sam, Merry, Pippin, and Frodo all got their sense of The Something Higher from Bilbo's elf-stories. After all, if Sam had three verses of Gil-Galad Was an Elven King memorized, he knew something about elves, and Mordor, too.

Those Tooks who went off on adventures might have known Something Higher, but at this point it is anybody's guess. I shall choose to neglect the un-Tookians.

Lobelia is on her own. Come to it, might she not have had an awakening from her experiences with Sharkey?