The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 10-27-2003, 09:29 PM   #11
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Pipe

Good golly! This subject has certainly generated an astounding number of thoughtful and well-argued posts. I cannot begin to do them all justice, largely because my knowledge of philosophy (which was never great in the first place) is now all but a distant memory. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

But I do feel it necessary to comment on some of the responses to my previous post (now buried somewhere on the first page). I should, however, preface my comments by making the point that what follows is my own personal view. I am not saying that I am right and everyone else is wrong. Nor am I seeking to deny the views (and faiths) of others. I am just seeking to explain my own thoughts on morality and, in so doing, explain (I hope) why I am able to derive personal enjoyment from Tolkien’s works and also inspiration from his depiction of morality.

First, I argued that Plato’s analysis could not, in my view, form the basis for a sound philosophy because I believe that those who act immorally can (unfortunately) sometimes achieve happiness and fulfilment. Mister Underhill challenged the examples that I gave on the basis that their circumstances would inevitably cause them unhappiness:

Quote:
The fearfulness of the Machiavellian prince and his feeling that he is justified in using any means to maintain his position is not compatible with true happiness as I understand it. I would reiterate this argument with regards to other sorts of hypothetical situations put forward. Is the hypothetical sociopath who feels no moral qualms truly happy, fulfilled, and at peace? To what degree a person is able to justify or harden their heart against immoral actions isn’t really the question – the question is, what is the result of this sort of lifestyle? Is it better and more fulfilling than a lifestyle spent in the pursuit of virtue? I think not.
But Aiwendil made a good point when he said:

Quote:
Well (and I suppose it would have been good to have asked this up front), what exactly do you mean by "happy" and "fulfilled"? If what you mean is simply what these words suggest at face value - that is, a simple state of mind - then you are on rather shaky ground in making claims about what other people secretly feel. If you mean something more complicated, something like living a certain type of life, or having certain types of relationships, or something along these lines, then you are constructing a tautology for yourself.
I do not think that, in seeking to assess whether a person is happy and fulfilled, we can necessarily impose on them our own views of what happiness and fulfilment are. Quite possibly, the serial killer’s fulfilment in killing outweighs for him the lack of ability to form personal relationships. Similarly, the wealth and power enjoyed by the mafia boss might well outweigh the lack of security inherent in his lifestyle. Of course, the majority would not find contentment in these ways because, in consequence of the moral norms that govern us, the guilt and remorse provoked by such actions would outweigh the benefits that they bring.

Kuruharan queried whether money or power can really bring contentment, given that there will always be an insatiable desire for more. I don’t disagree that these things can never bring complete fulfilment. But, then again, can a person whose goal is virtue ever achieve such a thing? To achieve a life of complete virtue is incredibly difficult, indeed impossible for most of not all.

Mister Underhill asked:

Quote:
If it is easier, more expedient, and more profitable to be immoral, and yet through an immoral lifestyle you can still be happy and fulfilled and at peace, isn’t it logical to live an immoral lifestyle?
But that misunderstands my point. I am not saying that it is necessarily easier, more expedient or more profitable to act in an immoral manner. Because of those moral norms that I keep mentioning, the person that leads an immoral life is more likely to get caught and punished, less likely to be able to form normal relationships, and so more likely to find unhappiness and discontent as a result. Those that act immorally do so because a combination of circumstances (upbringing, economic situation, laxity of laws and/or their enforcement, psychological make-up etc) lead them to believe that society’s moral norms do not apply to them and/or that it is in their better interests to act immorally. I would like to think that, frequently, they are wrong on this. But I would maintain that there are those who are probably correct in their assessment and do, in fact, find happiness and contentment (on their terms) in their immoral behaviour. And, going back to my original point, this is why I do not accept Plato’s analysis as a sound foundation for a philosophy.

Of course you may say that the converse of this is pretty depressing, namely that the majority of us act (broadly) morally because we are afraid of the consequences if we do not. Well, I think that this is part of it. But, I also believe that the majority of us do find greater satisfaction in acting on a moral basis and that the contentment that this brings does outweigh the benefits that immoral actions might otherwise bring us. Which leads me nicely to my theory on the “evolution” of morality.

Diamond said:

Quote:
… morality starts with acknowledging that God is the only One who has any right to define morality because He is true Morality, the First and Last reason for being, for doing, for thinking and feeling.
Similarly, the phantom said:

Quote:
I think you have shown the importance (and perhaps necessity) of religious beliefs in forming a moral society … It seems that a certain amount of faith is needed to justify a moral lifestyle, for behaving in such a way without clearly seeing an earthly incentive for the behavior does not seem logical unless one believes in a dimension of life that is not "earthly", but rather eternal or supernatural.
From a purely personal point of view, I cannot agree with either of these statements. I do not believe that a person needs to have faith, in the sense of acknowledging the existence of God (or indeed any god) in order to live a moral life. Atheists are just as capable of behaving morally as believers (of any denomination). I cannot believe that morality comprises an external set of rules imposed upon us by a divine being, since I do not have a strong faith and cannot therefore accept that the way in which I live my life is governed by a God whose existence I cannot be sure of.

On the other hand, I do not believe that morality is a human construct, in the sense that people got together and decided how they should and should not behave. In this sense, I agree with Diamond that:

Quote:
If it is, indeed, merely a result of people learning how to co-exist, there is, in fact, no such thing as right and wrong.
I believe that morality is a pattern of behaviour, a set of natural laws if you like, adherence to which brings benefit to the individual and to society as a whole. Mankind did not develop these laws as civilisation developed. Rather, civilisation developed on the basis of these laws because it was generally in its interests to do so. I believe in evolution, which involves creatures developing in a way that best suits the environment in which they find themselves. They do not choose to evolve in a certain way, they just do because it is in their best interests to do so. Of course, as Lord of Angmar pointed out, we would find many of the practices of past societies (and those of some societies today, possibly even are own) to be fairly barbaric. That is because society is continually developing, and as it develops, it strives to find greater compatibility with this moral code. And there are, and possibly always will be, “grey areas”. To what extent, for example, is it justified to kill in the common good (capital punishment, war etc)? Those who would regard themselves as moral persons will have differing views on such issues. Perhaps this moral code that we are striving for will one day give us the answer. I don’t know because we haven’t got there yet.

Mister Underhill said:

Quote:
As for theories that have been outlined which suggest that morality is merely an evolved set of behaviors which are the most conducive to a smoothly running society, well, I find them cold and hollow, a diminishment of the great dignity and compassion of which the human spirit is capable to a trivial bit of sociological conditioning.
I disagree. Just because society has evolved on the basis of a code which it is in society’s interests to follow does not mean that the code is “cold and hollow”. It is precisely because these moral norms are such a good thing to strive for that we (or the majority of us, at least) adhere to them. And because we acknowledge the correctness of behaving in such a matter, we can admire the dignity and compassion shown by those who do so in such a comprehensive manner.

Quote:
Within such a view, the great humanitarians and heroes of civilization are simply aberrations, people who for unknown reasons (maybe it was something off-kilter in their brain chemistry or their upbringing) exceed the sociological imperative that society run only more or less smoothly.
I see what you’re getting at. Why would someone lay down their life for another or follow a humanitarian cause for no personal (material) gain, when this might not be for the greater benefit of society as a whole? Indeed, why do some people care so for the rights of animals when this doesn’t even offer any benefit to our species? Well some such actions can be justified on the basis of my theory alone. I believe that an adult who gives their life in order to save a child is acting in the best interests of society, as is someone who alleviates the suffering of millions at great personal sacrifice. But there is something more. Because moral action benefits society, I believe that we have developed to feel happiness and contentment in consequence of behaving in such a manner (in the same way that we take pleasure in other acts which benefit our society). And so (some) people do act in such a manner even when there is not necessarily any personal or societal interest in them doing so, save for the contentment that they (and perhaps others) feel in consequence of their actions. I would not necessarily regard them as “aberrations”. They have simply taken adherence to the moral code to a different level.

Quote:
Moral actions frequently are difficult, even painful to perform because they involve some personal sacrifice. I’m speaking more of a deep inner happiness, an abiding fulfillment and deep contentment.
Yes, I agree. It is fairly easy to live a broadly moral life. And this brings its own rewards to those that feel contentment in acting in such a manner. But to live a life of great virtue at great personal sacrifice is difficult and something that a great many are not able to achieve. Rather, their happiness comes from acting in a broadly moral manner, while maintaining the material benefits that they would otherwise have to sacrifice. It is, I suppose, a sliding scale. And further “down” the scale are those who are able to derive happiness from immoral action. Personally, I set great store by moral action and I do live my life in what I would consider to be a moral manner. But, at the same time, I acknowledge that I am no saint since I am not able (or perhaps I should say I do not feel the need) to make the personal sacrifices that that would entail. I am nowhere near the bottom of my sliding scale but by no means at the top of it.

And so, after wittering on at such length, it is time to apply my views to Tolkien’s works. And, of course, I agree with those who have made the point that moral action in Tolkien’s world derives from service to Iluvatar. The way I see it, that is because, being the “creator” of the world, he was able to impose upon it his own moral values. And being a religious man, he saw moral action as deriving from service to God. Because he viewed morality in terms of acting (or striving to act) in a way that best serves God’s purpose, morality in Middle-earth is necessarily portrayed in terms of acting (or striving to act) in a way that best serves the purposes of Eru.

Mister Underhill said:

Quote:
I’m curious about the people who admire Tolkien’s work, but view its morality as untenable in the “real world”. Would you still admire Aragorn if he gained his throne through trickery or treachery? Would Gandalf be the same character if he had, say, used some deception to assassinate Saruman on the premise that the ends justify the means? Do you think that the pity of Frodo and Bilbo with regards to Gollum is fine for a novel, but not really applicable to real life?
Well, for a start, I do not regard the morality of Tolkien’s works as untenable in the real world (save to the extent that he portrays immoral behaviour as necessarily leading to unhappiness). While I do not hold the beliefs that Tolkien held, I do still share his moral outlook. As I hope I have explained above, I come at it from a different angle. I perceive the morality in the deeds of those such as Aragorn and Frodo in the fact that their actions are directed towards to the greater benefit of their society. Indeed you can’t really do any more to benefit society than to save it from dominion by one such as Sauron and the suffering that such dominion would bring. Even though my views on the source of morality differ from those of Tolkien, I can nevertheless appreciate the value in the actions of these characters and therefore admire, and derive inspiration, from the personal sacrifices that they made in doing so.

The point that you make about whether the ends might justify the means is an interesting one, Mister Underhill. This was touched on in Telchar’s thread about “Wyatt Earp”, where their was almost universal agreement that Gandalf’s “deception” of Sauron, by drawing his attention to the Black Gate, in order to afford Frodo and Sam a greater chance of reaching Mount Doom, was justified. The strategy was not immoral because it harmed only Sauron, the paradigm of immorality. Rather it was moral because it achieved immeasurable benefit for Middle-earth in the destruction of Sauron. On that thread, I posited in contrast a situation where Gandalf sacrificed Merry and Pippin in order to achieve Sauron’s defeat. That would be a situation where the means would certainly not justify the end. By perpetrating one terrible immoral act to defeat the immorality of Sauron, Gandalf would have been simply replacing one evil with another. A society where sacrifice of the good and the innocent was acceptable would be no better than a society ruled by Sauron, and so no benefit would have been achieved.

Tolkien’s treatment of the characters who fall in the grey areas is particularly interesting. There are many to choose from, but I have probably way overstayed my welcome on this post, so I will consider only Boromir. Here is a character who is basically moral. But he perceives that his own interests and those of his society (Gondor) are best served by using the Ring against Sauron. And so he perpetrates one immoral act (an assault upon Frodo, possibly with intent to murder) in order to achieve that. But he has failed to see what the wise have seen, namely that using the Ring against Sauron would be in the best interests of neither Gondor nor the wider society (Middle-earth), since it would only help to bring about Sauron’s victory. And so, although he is ultimately redeemed, he nevertheless has to answer for his actions.

And this brings me full circle to my original point, which is that no character in Tolkien’s works who behaves immorally in some way escapes the consequences of doing so. Even Pippin’s “theft” of the Palantir results in him undergoing a severe trauma when he looks in it and is confronted by Sauron. And Frodo has to answer for the consequences of ultimately succumbing to the Ring. And that, I believe, is where Tolkien’s works do depart from real life since, in my view, people are in real life sometimes able to escape the consequences of their immoral behaviour.

Whoops! Sorry about the inordinate length of this post. I’ll shut up now. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:56 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.