Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But our moral person is supposed to do that about himself.

No - he can do that. Supposed implies obligation

A message cannot be immoral? How about a message promoting racism or fascism?

A message is just words. The writer's intent may be immoral, The reader's reaction may be immoral but the words cannot be immoral as they either consist of sounds or letters

You keep throwing this argument at me. We were talking here strictly about your proposed 'perfectly moral' person and what it could or could not do.

And I say again, the 'moral person' may not choose to analyse the work in such a way. And there is no requirement for them to do so.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lal

If your life was ever threatened or that of someone close to you (and I sincerely hope it is not!) you may be driven to thinking about what you'd like to do to someone which may indeed involve killing them. I'm sure I don't have to spell out the kind of circumstance, you know what I mean! Of course few of those in such horrible circumstances ever act on their imaginations but nevertheless the potential is there in all of us. A difficult thing to acknowledge perhaps, but never say never until you are in their shoes...

I don’t deny that I might well experience those kinds of feelings in the situation that you describe, and I don‘t actually find it that difficult to acknowledge. It would, nevertheless represent a lapse from my own moral stance, however understandable, because I do not regard murdering someone in response to a crime that they have committed, whatever the crime, as morally acceptable. Nor do I regard torture as morally acceptable under any circumstances.

Just because a moral person may have a certain impulse, it does not make that impulse morally acceptable. Nor does having the immoral impulse make them an immoral person, particularly if they would never dream of acting on it.

Originally Posted by davem

Yes - because we recognise that person is a human being, not a literary creation.

Quite, and I was responding to your description of a hypothetical “real life” situation.

That said, I cannot, as I have said previously, agree that a reader’s response to a work of fiction cannot necessarily tell us anything about that reader. It depends what the work of fiction is. Your examples of Tom & Jerry and South Park are false analogies. One has to look at the context of the fictional world in which the events portrayed take place. Where violence takes place in a cartoon context, where it is understood by the viewer that its purpose is humour, that it is not intended to raise moral issues, and that no “real harm” ever comes to the protagonists, then I see no problem in that. But where evil, torture and suffering are portrayed in a world with a similar moral code to that of our own society and are portrayed as causing real harm in that fictional world, and where morality is necessarily implicated by the creation and portrayal of good beings and evil beings, then it seems to me that it does say something about the reader’s morality if they genuinely side with those who are portrayed as evil and who are responsible for the torture, murder and suffering, and regard those things as worthy (as opposed to simply finding them interesting, playing at sympathising with them, or admiring certain (admirable) qualities in them).

I note that you did not address my examples of 1984 and Silence of the Lambs. Would you draw no conclusions about a reader if they were genuinely to sympathise with the stated aims and actions of Big Brother and thought Winston Smith had it coming to him, or if they were genuinely to regard Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism as acceptable? If not, then we have no common ground here, because I most certainly would.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

That said, I cannot, as I have said previously, agree that a reader’s response to a work of fiction cannot necessarily tell us anything about that reader. It depends what the work of fiction is. Your examples of Tom & Jerry and South Park are false analogies. One has to look at the context of the fictional world in which the events portrayed take place. Where violence takes place in a cartoon context, where it is understood by the viewer that its purpose is humour, that it is not intended to raise moral issues, and that no “real harm” ever comes to the protagonists, then I see no problem in that. But where evil, torture and suffering are portrayed in a world with a similar moral code to that of our own society and are portrayed as causing real harm in that fictional world, and where morality is necessarily implicated by the creation and portrayal of good beings and evil beings, then it seems to me that it does say something about the reader’s morality if they genuinely side with those who are portrayed as evil and who are responsible for the torture, murder and suffering, and regard those things as worthy (as opposed to simply finding them interesting, playing at sympathising with them, or admiring certain (admirable) qualities in them).

I note that you did not address my examples of 1984 and Silence of the Lambs. Would you draw no conclusions about a reader if they were genuinely to sympathise with the stated aims and actions of Big Brother and thought Winston Smith had it coming to him, or if they were genuinely to regard Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism as acceptable? If not, then we have no common ground here, because I most certainly would.

And I can only restate my opinion that it all depends on how the reader treats the story. What you may find to be a work with an ethical stance may be read by the another person as no more 'real', with no more relation to the real world than South Park or Tom & Jerry.

In short, the reader may not take the work seriously. One is not obliged to. One of Lal's favourite movies is The Wicker Man (the original). She takes it absolutely seriously & finds the ending horrific. I found it comical & thought the ending hilarious. Christopher Lee singing 'Summer is icummen in' & prancing around in a dress while Edward Woodward goes up in flames was the most surreal & hilarious thing I can remember. I found 1984 so over the top - as did Aldous Huxley btw - & Silence of the Lambs so ridiculously far up its own fundament that I couldn't take either of them seriously, & to be honest, if 1984 had ended with Big Brother dancing around in a dress singing 'Summer is icummen in' while Winston was scoffed by rats it would not have seemed out of place. And if Hannibal had eaten the annoying Clarice's liver with some fava beans & a nice chianti I wouldn't have blamed him.

A reader will respond to a text as they wish. For some readers The Sil is as far fetched as South Park & a lot less entertaining. I respect their right to feel that way about it, even though I do not share their view, & don't therefore think I can draw any conclusions about their morality as far as events in the real world are concerned.

[The Saucepan Man]

But we are not talking here about people who find Tolkien's works silly or ridiculous. We are, as far as I am concerned anyway, talking about people who treat it seriously, yet genuinely support the evil characters.

I would agree that, if they find it silly, they are not really genuinely siding with evil, and so few, if any, conclusions could be drawn with regard to their morality.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But we are not talking here about people who find Tolkien's works silly or ridiculous. We are, as far as I am concerned anyway, talking about people who treat it seriously, yet genuinely support the evil characters.

I would agree that, if they find it silly, they are not really genuinely siding with evil, and so few, if any, conclusions could be drawn with regard to their morality.

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.

I cannot declare someone who thinks Orcs slaughtering Elves is cool (however 'seriously' they might take the slaughter) to be 'immoral' in the same way (or at all if it comes to that) that I would instantly declare someone who thought Serbs slaughtering Bosnians was cool. And I don't accept that the same thought processes are behind the former as behind the latter.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

One of Lal's favourite movies is The Wicker Man (the original). She takes it absolutely seriously & finds the ending horrific.

Certainly NOT that modern desecration *spits* - I certainly have imagined what I'd like to do to those film-makers...

I like it because it's pure gothic horror, suspense building throughout, surreal moments, black humour...I find that kind of thing genuinely frightening, but the most frightening thing I have ever seen and ever will see was Threads. As for traditional horror films, those with suspense like Halloween are scary, those which just have gore are pure comedy. I laughed all the way through The Evil Dead, the same with The Exorcist and The Omen - both were just stupid.

What makes The Wicker Man frightening is that you can imagine a small community going collectively insane - in fact cults do go insane in this kind of way, and what makes Threads frightening is we're only ever one step away from nuclear holocaust happening. However children do not get possessed by the devil, there's no such thing as an antichrist and the only evil thing that shacks in the woods are likely to contain are loads of woodlice and spiders.

Originally Posted by SpM

Just because a moral person may have a certain impulse, it does not make that impulse morally acceptable. Nor does having the immoral impulse make them an immoral person, particularly if they would never dream of acting on it.

It makes you human. We all experience unpleasant feelings from time to time, and many of us hold them all of the time. And you know, being a legal professional, how important it is to be very careful when applying decisions of 'morals' to cases e.g. it may be 'moral' to some religions to hate gays, but a judge cannot ever let off someone who is a gay basher on the basis of the accused's 'moral' grounds. Likewise, if the public were to decide we'd soon have capital punishment back, but our law makers judge this to be immoral and will not allow it. Thankfully! Just one example of how blurred the boundaries really can be...

[The Saucepan Man]

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.

I will note my disagreement and leave it at that.

Lal, as I made clear earlier, I accept that there are grey areas in the field of morality and ethics. Even with regard to torture, which some people might regard as justifiable to gain information in order to avert an atrocity (an argument which I consider fails logically, as torture is generally one of the less effective means of gaining reliable information). I can only speak from my own moral stance, but I believe that there is a large part of it which is shared by the society which I live in generally.

As regards the relationship between law and morality, there are very many areas of conduct which I would regard as immoral or unethical, even though not wrong in the legal sense. Similarly, there are laws enacted in some places of the world (even in the UK) which I find contrary to my own sense of ethics and morality. This is an area with which I am rather familiar, being the person responsible for the code of business conduct in the company for which I work, and for training people on both legal and ethical behaviour.

In any event, I would regard a momentary lapse in morality, such as in the circumstances we were discussing, as very different from taking a genuine delight in, and sympathising with, the torture and murder of innocents, even in a fictional fantasy setting. Neither, of course, are illegal.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't think I follow, can you please rephrase?

Okay. I'll reproduce those two quotes here.

Originally Posted by Raynor

What is your argument here? That a certain thing is good because it is popular? That, in and of itself, is an instance of "ad populum" fallacy. Yes, I argue that there is a degree of immorality if we delight in evil qualities, and the fact that many people find it acceptable doesn't make it so. If I may quote Gandhi, the truth is the truth even if spoken by one single person.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Norm is a standard notion in ethics and morality.

In the first quote, you say that popularity cannot be used to define morality. Consensus does not equal righteousness. The many cannot justify acts of evil by virtue of being many.

In the second quote, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that the "norm" - that is, the majority view - is a standard notion in ethics, and that a majority view is an ethical one.

Obviously you can't hold both these contradictory views at once, so you must choose one. If you choose the latter, then morality is defined by culture. If you choose the former, then it is pointless to discuss the issue of morality with you, because you'll be certain that your morality is the only right one.

Would you draw no conclusions about a reader if they were genuinely to sympathise with the stated aims and actions of Big Brother and thought Winston Smith had it coming to him, or if they were genuinely to regard Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism as acceptable?

There have been many cultures where cannibalism is seen as perfectly acceptable. Obviously it would be a little odd if the man down the street in Britain started eating people, but you can't just say that anybody who has belonged to a cannibalistic culture is evil.


The argument between davem and raynor seems rather cyclical. So, if I may, I'll bring in amorality again.

Originally Posted by Terry Pratchett

Humans need fantasies to make life bearable... Show me one atom of justice. One molecule of mercy. And yet you act like there was some sort of rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.

Isn't the whole argument about morality pointless, seeing as what evil is is entirely subjective? 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?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by TGWBS

There have been many cultures where cannibalism is seen as perfectly acceptable. Obviously it would be a little odd if the man down the street in Britain started eating people, but you can't just say that anybody who has belonged to a cannibalistic culture is evil.

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.