The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > Novices and Newcomers
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-10-2007, 11:48 AM   #121
Formendacil
Dead Serious
 
Formendacil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perched on Thangorodrim's towers.
Posts: 3,346
Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.
Send a message via AIM to Formendacil Send a message via MSN to Formendacil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
For the same reason?? In what manner can you say that Tolkien delighted in evil? I am really curious.
I'm speaking as an amateur writer here (RPGs for the most part), but what tales do you think are the most fun to write? The most satisfying to have come out finished?

It's not the happy ones.

Of all of Tolkien's tales, I would personally say that the one that would be the most satisfying to finish would have been the Narn i Chín Húrin. The Lay of Leithian simply doesn't compare, in terms of satisfaction of completion. Why? Well, this is all complete opinion as to why I would enjoy writing Túrin's tale most-- it's the saddest, most evil. Maybe we never see Morgoth or Sauron up close, but to say that we don't see much of them is simply nonsense. The entire tragedy of the House of Húrin is Morgoth's work. The dialogue of Morgoth and Húrin, and the dialogues later of Glaurung and Túrin are dialogues that I think would have been absolutely delicious to write. And yes, the good, noble characters would have been pleasing to write in all their tragic-heroic glory... but the really fun lines to have penned would have been Morgoth's, would have been Glaurung's.

It has already been brought up how Tolkien liked dragons... and I don't think anyone would say that Tolkien's dragons are nice characters. They are purely evil. But fascinating. Deadly fascinating. Are ANY characters really so seductive as Smaug or Glaurung? We know they are evil--Tolkien makes that quite clear--and we are glad when Túrin or Bard kills them... but they are compelling, fascinating characters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
This subject has been raised previously; if we check the Silmarillion, there is little said of Melkor, even at the height of his power. The most compelling part is one phrase. The same goes for LotR, as Sauron never takes the center stage; there isn't even a single instance where he is directly addressed in the second person. Should I presume you are reffering to mercy towards evil characters?
Mercy towards evil characters?

Not at all.

To be honest... I find the idea that one should berate readers for enjoying the evilness of the evil characters to be a little ridiculous. I was attempting to raise, with a deliberate pointness, the question that if one is going to censure the reader then one ought to censure the author. After all, in condemning those who view pornography, do we not normally reserve even greater condemnation for those who provide the pornography?

Of course... who around here wants to make the claim that Tolkien had some severe psychological problems and was morally in the wrong to have relished (as I think he must have) writing those scenes of evil in ascendance. And it doesn't even matter if he actually did relish writing them or not-- the logical principle remains the same. If we can conceive of Tolkien enjoying it, and still think him a moral person, then I think a reader enjoying reading the same cannot either be censured.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
Formendacil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2007, 12:16 PM   #122
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
I think Form raises an important point - one may enjoy, relish even, a good villain. One does not have to agree with, let alone support what they do, but one may enjoy it. The villains often get the best lines, perform the most entertaining acts & in a way most significant, get the most spectacular endings.

So, one may side with the 'villains' & not see then as 'wrong' in any way. Or one may see them as wrong but enjoy what they get up to - Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham was the only good thing about Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves in many people's opinion. Darth Vader was the dark heart of the Star Wars movies & let's face it Han Solo was vastly more attractive than that 'goody-goody' Luke - because Han was a bit dangerous, & much more of a 'rebel' than most of the 'worthies' in the Rebel Alliance. Ask any actor whether they would rather play a villain or a hero & they would choose the villain.

Or in a more literary vein - who is the most charismatic figure, the tragic 'hero' of Paradise Lost - Satan. Which leads us on to the question of why writers like to write such attractive, charismatic villains & why readers like to read about them & enjoy being around them?

My theory? Not because in most cases they feel a psychological, let alone a spiritual, affinity with them - but more often than not because they don't. The villain is so 'different' to the reader/viewer that they are attractive for that very reason - opposites attract.

And, yet, as I've been arguing, some readers may actually like the villain, & feel fine about what he's up to. But again, that tells us nothing about the reader's psychological state. It may simply be that they find the 'good' side so bland & uninteresting that they side with anyone who is out to give them a good kicking. Which is why, again one cannot judge a reader's relationship with the primary world by the choices he or she makes regarding the secondary world - the 'good' guys in the secondary world may bore them silly.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2007, 03:06 PM   #123
Lalwendë
A Mere Boggart
 
Lalwendë's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Heh. In actual fact it's not only pretty tedious but very difficult to write a character who is 100% perfect - they invariably come out like our ol' friend Mary Sue. All good characters have at least one flaw, a fatal flaw preferably, and a combination of a few flaws is usually good as they not only struggle with the obstacles of a plot but struggle with these in individual ways and at the same time, struggle with their flaws. Without flaws, characters cannot grow - how could you grow if you were already perfect?
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Lalwendë is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2007, 03:14 PM   #124
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Of course, Turin is a pretty good example of a flawed character. Someone so driven by pride (ofermod if you will - at least Tolkien's conception of ofermod), who kills innocent people - including his best friend, marries & impregnates his sister & probably provokes a massacre of his own people - taken at face value we would have to class him among the 'bad guys' - yet Tolkien makes him a tragic figure with whom the reader sympathises. Turin is classed among the good guys, but Gollum, an equally tragic victim of circumstances, tends to be classed among the 'bad guys'.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2007, 06:51 PM   #125
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
To imagine torturing an Elf is not the same thing as imagining torturing your next door neighbour.
...
Again, you seem to be rejecting the idea that the reader/player can distinguish between fantasy & reality & understands that Morgoth torturing Hurin is absolutely different from Mengele torturing a Jewish child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macalaure
Can a moral person not delight in fictional immorality?
If a person defines torture and derriving pleasure from torture or recount of it as immoral, then: the instance in which <<the description of torture (to oneself or to others)>> is correlated with <<adherence to the idea of torture and of derriving pleasure from torture or recount of it>> is immoral. No matter the context, real, imaginary, hypothetical.

Davem, you have yet to address my point that fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas, where any intention is subject to moral evaluation, regardless of whether it becomes enacted or not.
Quote:
To portray Morgoth in a game requires the player to wipe out & torment the Elven & Human characters in the same way Morgoth did in the story.
Really? From do you derrive this necessity?? Show me one such instance of an rpg in the Downs where a character describes how he torments elves and humans as Morgoth did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lal
Going down that road leads us to state or authoritarian control over culture.
I disagree; in my argument at least, the problem does not rest with the content, but with what sort of satisfaction one derrives from that content. Immoral feelings can be cultivated from practically anything, if imagination serves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the guy who be short
Can anybody prove Freud's theory conclusively? No, because it is so difficult to falsify. However here is some supporting evidence for his ideas about dreams:

PET scans indicate that the rational part of the brain (which includes the superego, which imposes morality) are inactive during dreaming. By contrast, the forebrain, concerned with motivation (the id is Freudian terms, the primitive urges) are very active. Why is it necessary to hand the body over to the primal urges during dreaming? Freud's theory - that it is necessary to allow them some expression so that they do not interfere with real life - fits. (Solms, 2000)
I know far too little about this subject to make comments. I will take your point that this is not a conclusive evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the guy who be short
Morality is defined by the norm, and yet defining morality by the norm is wrong?
I don't think I follow, can you please rephrase?
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I think its clear that there are dragons in Tolkien's mythology not because he wanted 'an evil creature' but because he desired them to be there.
And he explains there why: because they are by definition other-wordly and therefore have the trademark of Faerie. He finds them a fascinating product of the imagination, which enlarges the status of the hero. He is definitely able to differentiate between draco and draconitas. He talks in M&C about the perfect resistance of the northern heroes: perfect because it has no escape or hope for victory. The might of this terrible foe, "more evil than any human enemy" gives "lofty tone and high serioussness". As you stated yourself, the literary role of the dragon is to give more valour. Tolkien talks about the author of Beowulf as liking dragons as a poet for a good reason, since they are "essential both to the machinery and the ideas of a poem or tale". I certainly doubt that he considers that the writer of Beowulf adhered to the moral values of malice, greed, destruction" which describe his dragon. "He has victory but no honour" - the honour belongs rightly to the moral side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
The idea that he viewed them with as much hatred as his good characters is, to my mind, a misunderstanding.
I find this idea horribly misrepresentative of Tolkien, since he considered Melkor & co to be the manifestations of evil/Satan. There is no single shred of evidence in the letters or anywhere that he has any afinity with it, with the moral values that it represents. Neither in imagination, nor in matters relating to real life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil
Are ANY characters really so seductive as Smaug or Glaurung?
Mark Luthien for me. I'll give quotes anytime you want, although I guess it is quite pointless, no matter how superb she is portrayed, if our tastes vastly differ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil
I was attempting to raise, with a deliberate pointness, the question that if one is going to censure the reader then one ought to censure the author. After all, in condemning those who view pornography, do we not normally reserve even greater condemnation for those who provide the pornography?
The intent of 99.999% of pornography in the movie is clear; they want to promote pornography, it is an end, not a means to an end. They don't do this stuff to transmit any other message. To say that the presence of evil characters in Tolkien's work equates promotion of evil characters, is, well, beyond false comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
It may simply be that they find the 'good' side so bland & uninteresting that they side with anyone who is out to give them a good kicking.
I am sure you know what Tolkien thought of this, emphasis added
Quote:
Originally Posted by Letter #256
Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Turin is classed among the good guys, but Gollum, an equally tragic victim of circumstances, tends to be classed among the 'bad guys'.
False analogy; Turin was fighting, to the best of his knowledge, the good fight - unlike Gollum. Yet it is clear that Gollum knows the differences between right and evil and still persists in wickedness. Turin was forced by a greater power to do evil too; Gollum refused his chances of repentance.
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free."
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2007, 07:07 PM   #126
Formendacil
Dead Serious
 
Formendacil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perched on Thangorodrim's towers.
Posts: 3,346
Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.
Send a message via AIM to Formendacil Send a message via MSN to Formendacil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
Mark Luthien for me. I'll give quotes anytime you want, although I guess it is quite pointless, no matter how superb she is portrayed, if our tastes vastly differ.
Yes, I imagine you could come up with quotes... you are certainly this website's quote-master. But much as "Studies show..." can be used to promote any position in the book, quotes can back up just about any position one wants to take on any subject. Tolkien certainly changed his mind about enough things enough times to make that the case.

In any event, you seem to be taking "seductive" a bit too literally. It is not my intent to suggest that Smaug or Glaurung has a greater sexual appeal to the reader (or other characters) than Lúthien. Seduction is not, of course, a term limited in its usage purely to sexual matters. By seductive here, I was meaning the ability to draw the reader in, to fascinate the reader, to make the reader like the character despite his/her "real life" dislike for anything the character would actually be in the real world.

Though I am sure that face-to-face, Lúthien would (by simple reason of being human in appearance, gorgeous, possessed of a positive personality, and there being a strong case for her being persuasive) be much more seductive than either dragon, as a CHARACTER to a READER, the ones that seduce are more often the dragons.

It might make a good Poll question, if Fordhim or someone ever wants for another topic there, to ask who readers think is more seductive, as a character to a reader: Lúthien or the dragons. My hunch? The dragons. I've heard a lot of people on this site say that Lúthien is boring... or a bore to read, anyway. I haven't heard anyone say that of Glaurung or Smaug that I am able to recall.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
Formendacil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2007, 07:16 PM   #127
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil
Yes, I imagine you could come up with quotes... you are certainly this website's quote-master.
Since I take this as a compliment, thanks!
Quote:
But much as "Studies show..." can be used to promote any position in the book, quotes can back up just about any position one wants to take on any subject.
My opinion is that Tolkien uses far less equivocal terms than you imply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
one may see them as wrong but enjoy what they get up to
I believe this is our middle ground.

I will go further than that; I was talking a few years back to my teacher of peace studies, and he mentioned that there exists yin and yang in every situation, so I asked him about yang in SS soldiers. He mentioned discipline and, IIRC, comradery and courage. These are points I concede. Enemies, whether real or imaginary, may display (moral) qualities which we already agree with, and recognising them in these persons is not in itself something immoral. But, as you say in this particular instance, this does not amount to agreeing with their immorality.

One could look at a great master's painting depicting a battle. One may admire heroism, sacrifice, or deplore the stupidity of dying for the economical or dogmatic interest of others (if somehow this was the historical motive, which it usually was). However, if one was to delight in all the wounds and harm, if one was to be derriving some sadistic pleasure from this, then, if it fits my previous argument about moral values, it would be cultivating immorality.

Regarding enjoying imaginary humorous situations, I don't see any moral contradiction in that, as long as the person in question, if it has the moral values I mentioned, delights only in the genuine hilarity and derrives zero pleasures from infliction of harm. Also, I don't believe such a person would put oneself in moral contradiction with oneself if he somehow involuntarily laughed at a particulary hilarious (in itself) element in a real life dramatic event, as long as there was no siding with any values he himself considers immoral.

Many persons view cartoons as particulary violent and don't watch Tom and Jerry for that reason, despite what might amount to some exoneration of humour in both real and imaginary situations. I know many persons, westerners included, who share these feelings. The "whole/package deal" is not worth it for some.
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free."

Last edited by Raynor; 03-11-2007 at 01:27 AM.
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 03:02 AM   #128
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
Davem, you have yet to address my point that fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas, where any intention is subject to moral evaluation, regardless of whether it becomes enacted or not.
I attempted to address it when I asked whether you believed this was a 'universal' 'truth' or one that only applied to those who believe/accept it - which seems to be. Its a bit difficult to answer such a question - you seem to state 'x' is a fact (ie 'fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas' or ''x' is the norm') but when I challenge such statements & point out exceptions to your 'universal truths' you simply come back & say 'Well, obviously 'x' doesn't apply to everybody only to those who accept 'x' is the case.'

To attempt an answer I would say that fantasy & imagination are part of one's universe of ideas but that the ability to distinguish between fantasy (torturing an elf or Donald Duck) & reality (torturing your next door neighbour) is the first requirement of a sane human being.

Quote:
I find this idea horribly misrepresentative of Tolkien, since he considered Melkor & co to be the manifestations of evil/Satan. There is no single shred of evidence in the letters or anywhere that he has any afinity with it, with the moral values that it represents. Neither in imagination, nor in matters relating to real life.
Well, he wouldn't have come out & said he thought Morgoth, Balrogs, Ringwraiths etc were 'cool' would he - I think one can pick that up from the way he uses them.

And I do not think there is any evidence that he considered Melkor to be the manifestation of Satan - he may have used he names Sauron/Satan interchangeably but I think he could distinguish between the two - & if he couldn't then he was a bit weird & should have known better. The point you're missing is that he chose to write about a world of dragons, Balrogs & Orcs.

Now, by quoting:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Letter #256
Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good.
I suppose your point is that Tolkien would have felt that anyone who had no time for his Elves is simply 'sated with good'. This is hardly an inevitable conclusion - the reader may just find them boring, irritating & want the silly smile knocked off their face - & that wouldn't make the reader a 'bad person' or that they were 'sated with good'- it would just mean the reader was the kind of person who found Tolkien's Elves boring, irritating & in need of being de-silly-smiled'.

Now, back to Dragons:

Quote:
But the land of Merlin and Arthur was better than these, and best ofall the nameless North of Sigurd of the Volsungs, and the prince of all dragons. Such lands were pre-eminently desirable. I never imagined that the dragon was of the same order as the horse. And that was not solely because I saw horses daily, but never even the footprint of a worm. The dragon had the trade-mark Of Faerie written plain upon him. In whatever world he had his being it was an Other-world. Fantasy, the making or glimpsing of Other-worlds, was the heart of the desire of Faerie. I desired dragons with a profound desire. Of course, I in my timid body did not wish to have them in the neighbourhood, intruding into my relatively safe world, in which it was, for instance, possible to read stories in peace of mind, free from fear. But the world that contained even the imagination of Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril. The dweller in the quiet and fertile plains may hear of the tormented hills and the unharvested sea and long for them in his heart. For the heart is hard though the body be soft. (On Fairy Stories)
You state my position as:

Quote:
As you stated yourself, the literary role of the dragon is to give more valour. Tolkien talks about the author of Beowulf as liking dragons as a poet for a good reason, since they are "essential both to the machinery and the ideas of a poem or tale".
I stated that was part of it - not the whole thing. If you read the above quote from OFS you can see what I'm talking about -
Quote:
But the world that contained even the imagination of Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril.
Note- the world that contained the imagination of Fafnir, not Sigurd. And Tolkien is clear that to have a world that contained Fafnir is worth any kind of peril. In short, Dragons are worth having whatever the cost. Worth having around, not worth having around simply to 'elevate' the hero when he kills them. And when we come to the statement:

Quote:
The dweller in the quiet and fertile plains may hear of the tormented hills and the unharvested sea and long for them in his heart.
Who, in Tolkien's mythology, 'tortures the hills'? Melkor. And yet Tolkien talks of longing for them in his heart. Tolkien wanted the whole of hiss world - not just the 'good' parts. He wanted Balrogs & dragons & Orcs & Trolls. Because that was the world of the 'Nameless North' which inspired him & drove his imagination.

I think the problem here is that you are viewing (& expecting the rest of of us to do the same) the Legendarium as a work of moral didacticism, if not of Christian theology. It is not. It is a work of Art. It is as it is & not something else. It is not a parable, or a re-write of the Bible.

EDIT

Re Turin & Gollum. Turin is hardly just a victim of circumstances - he brings disaster on himself by his attempts to avoid Morgoth's curse. His fate is determined for the most part by his own decisions. This is why his fate is tragic. Gollum is hardly that different.

As to the way you are approaching Tolkien's work - you seem to feel that because a character is said to be 'good' that the reader must agree that that character is good because if he/she doesn't then the reader is 'bad'. Readers have different tastes. Many readers distinguish between fact & fantasy, & wouldn't have a problem with Tom having a piano dropped on his head or Kenny being riddled with bullets & eaten by rats, because they aren't real people. They wouldn't think that the writer who has Kenny being killed in that way is no different from some sick individual who fantasised about doing the same thing to a real child.

One may find Orcs or dragons more interesting & entertaining than Elves. Some readers think Lizzie Bennett one of the most interesting, witty & insightful characters in English literature - others may find her annoying, trivial & self obsessed & wish that someone had dropped a piano on her head. Neither reader is good or bad, moral or immoral.

Last edited by davem; 03-11-2007 at 03:56 AM.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 05:44 AM   #129
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
To attempt an answer I would say that fantasy & imagination are part of one's universe of ideas but that the ability to distinguish between fantasy (torturing an elf or Donald Duck) & reality (torturing your next door neighbour) is the first requirement of a sane human being.
Davem, what is the significant difference between imagining torturing your neighbour and imagining torturing a neighbour who is in every detail similar to the "real" one, in a world where the only difference from the "real" one is that your town's name ends with an extra "t" (or put any trivial difference, or no difference at all)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I think one can pick that up from the way he uses them.
However, there is a distinction to be made between the literary value and moral values of an evil character. Working to enhance the value of a literary work by presenting a properly powerful enemy does not amount to adhering to that evil character's values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
The point you're missing is that he chose to write about a world of dragons, Balrogs & Orcs.
Why do you say I miss this point? I already acknowledged, at least in my second to last post the literary value, giving high tone and lofty serioussness. Again, literary, not moral, value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I suppose your point is that Tolkien would have felt that anyone who had no time for his Elves is simply 'sated with good'.
No, I was addressing what I understood from your post that dislike of the boredom of good characters somehow implies or allows for siding with immoral characters in their evil. This is a false dilemma, a reader is not forced to side with the opposite side in the performing of their immoral acts, if the good side is somehow boring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
And yet Tolkien talks of longing for them in his heart.
Yeah, for tales of valour, for the heart of a timid boy may be tough, although his body may be soft. Desiring to display and cultivate courage (even if only in an imaginary setting) could imply respect of enemies, but not adherence to their values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
It is not. It is a work of Art.
I am not aware that being a work of Art negates all the stated intentions concerning the moral and religious truths in the Legendarium. This is a false dilemma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Turin is hardly just a victim of circumstances - he brings disaster on himself by his attempts to avoid Morgoth's curse. His fate is determined for the most part by his own decisions.
Do you deny the importance of Melkor's curse or of how Glaurung messed his mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
others may find her annoying, trivial & self obsessed & wish that someone had dropped a piano on her head.
Oh, the irony of that in the context of our discussion .
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free."
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 06:04 AM   #130
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
Davem, what is the significant difference between imagining torturing your neighbour and imagining torturing a neighbour who is in every detail similar to the "real" one, in a world where the only difference from the "real" one is that your town's name ends with an extra "t" (or put any trivial difference, or no difference at all)?
The difference is that one is a real person & the other a fantasy being that only exists in your imagination.

Quote:
However, there is a distinction to be made between the literary value and moral values of an evil character. Working to enhance the value of a literary work by presenting a properly powerful enemy does not amount to adhering to that evil character's values.
No it doesn't. But I still reckon he feels Smaug is awesome.

Quote:
Why do you say I miss this point? I already acknowledged, at least in my second to last post the literary value, giving high tone and lofty serioussness. Again, literary, not moral, value.
He could have acheived the same effect by writing a novel about WWII. He chose to write a novel based in Northern Myth & people it with monsters.

Quote:
No, I was addressing what I understood from your post that dislike of the boredom of good characters somehow implies or allows for siding with immoral characters in their evil. This is a false dilemma, a reader is not forced to side with the opposite side in the performing of their immoral acts, if the good side is somehow boring.
I was merely pointing out that a reader may take such a dislike to good characters that he or she would like to do to them what the enemy does. Or they may just find the good guys no more convincing & 'real' than Tom or Kenny & think Fingolfin getting 'maced' just as funny as Kenny getting skewered with a girder.

Quote:
I am not aware that being a work of Art negates all the stated intentions concerning the moral and religious truths in the Legendarium. This is a false dilemma.
And I'm not aware that Art has to include an element of moral didacticism - or that even if it does the reader has to pay any attention to them.

Quote:
Do you deny the importance of Melkor's curse or of how Glaurung messed his mind?
Nope. But Turin brought 90% of his disasters on himself by attempting to escape from Morgoth's curse rather than being a direct result of it. Its quite likely that Morgoth's curse actually consisted of just making Turin a cocky so-&-so & let him destroy himself.

Quote:
Oh, the irony of that in the context of our discussion .
Nope. I honestly think that if someone had dropped a piano on Lizzie Bennett's head Pride & Prejudice would have been a much better novel. I wouldn't have wished anyone to drop a piano on Jane Austen's head though.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 07:13 AM   #131
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
The difference is that one is a real person & the other a fantasy being that only exists in your imagination.
I can't even begin to grasp this

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this moral person we are talking about can have two imaginary proccesses, one which deals with the actual neighbour, the other with an imaginary identical neighbour - and the only thing that makes the first imaginary process immoral and the second not so, is that the second imaginary process is, well, more imaginary.

It seems to me that you fail to acknowledge - in this argument - that the "real" neighbour doesn't exist in one's mind as such, but it is only an imaginary construct. All the world is re-created in our mind - we imagine it. Frankly, l find this to be common sense in the modern world.

If two imaginary processes are identical, in every aspect, then if one implies immorality, so does the second.
Quote:
He could have acheived the same effect by writing a novel about WWII. He chose to write a novel based in Northern Myth & people it with monsters.
I beg to differ:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Part Five, Biography, by John Carpenter
Once or twice he decided to move away from the mythical, legendary, and fantastic, and wrote a conventional short story for adults, in a modern setting. The results were unremarkable, showing that his imagination needed myth and legend in order to realise its full potential.
Quote:
And I'm not aware that Art has to include an element of moral didacticism - or that even if it does the reader has to pay any attention to them.
But this work does contain, in and of itself, elements of moral and religious truths, regardless of whether reader chooses to ignore them or not.
Quote:
I honestly think that if someone had dropped a piano on Lizzie Bennett's head Pride & Prejudice would have been a much better novel.
I take it this is an instance of british humour concerning the possibility of writting better novels while being brain damaged and crippled.
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free."
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 07:16 AM   #132
Lalwendë
A Mere Boggart
 
Lalwendë's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
What's that coming over the hill?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Form
In any event, you seem to be taking "seductive" a bit too literally. It is not my intent to suggest that Smaug or Glaurung has a greater sexual appeal to the reader (or other characters) than Lúthien. Seduction is not, of course, a term limited in its usage purely to sexual matters. By seductive here, I was meaning the ability to draw the reader in, to fascinate the reader, to make the reader like the character despite his/her "real life" dislike for anything the character would actually be in the real world.
Indeed. 'Desire' can cover all manner of things, not just sex. I know what Tolkien meant about profoundly desiring Dragons - you do not want them living next door to you and burning your house down, but this doesn't stop you from finding them utterly awesome and fantastic (in oh so many ways!) and wishing that somehow they really could exist in this world with us. Ever noticed how many kids love dinosaurs and other huge beasts? It's the same thing - awe. The film Reign of Fire, which is not one of the best things around, there is a scene in it which just has to be watched over and over again - when this ridiculously monstrous dragon just sits back on his haunches and annihilates Leicester with one firey blast. It's cool. Simple as. Now I don't want Leicester destroying, oh no, as tgwbs lives there (although any wandering, homeless dragons are quite welcome to nest in L**ds or in the environs of Richard Branson's house if they wish )! But in the film this is just jaw-droppingly awesome.

It's monsters. They are bigger and badder than us. They are scary yet beautiful. If you wanted to write a fantasy with all the elements in place you'd have to get a Dragon in there. I'm enjoying ITV's shockingly good (shocking because ITV are usually crud) Saturday 'monster drama' Primeval which features all kinds of awesome monsters, and waiting for the next series of Doctor Who with the Daleks, Cybermen, etc, and another series of Torchwood with it's Weevils and evil faeries. Plus hopefully another series of Robin Hood with it's deliciously evil bad guys. TV makers have cottoned on to the fact that we like things like this, because they're just so much more exciting than the 'reality' stuff that's churned out! I don't care if some kid from Doncaster can sing well or not, I want Monsters and baddies!
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Lalwendë is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 07:42 AM   #133
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
I can't even begin to grasp this

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this moral person we are talking about can have two imaginary proccesses, one which deals with the actual neighbour, the other with an imaginary identical neighbour - and the only thing that makes the first imaginary process immoral and the second not so, is that the second imaginary process is, well, more imaginary.
Yes, but you see, I can tell the difference between the real neighbour & the fantasy one - even if both exist in my mind. And the point is I wouldn't act out my fantasy on real life.

Quote:
It seems to me that you fail to acknowledge - in this argument - that the "real" neighbour doesn't exist in one's mind as such, but it is only an imaginary construct. All the world is re-created in our mind - we imagine it. Frankly, l find this to be common sense in the modern world.
Yes, & the universe is simply a vast energy field - & I'd like to see how you bring morality into things on the sub atomic level. Morality comes in at a higher level.

Quote:
If two imaginary processes are identical, in every aspect, then if one implies immorality, so does the second.
It may 'imply' it. It doesn't prove it. It may just imply one can create a false analogy.

Quote:
But this work does contain, in and of itself, elements of moral and religious truths, regardless of whether reader chooses to ignore them or not.
Not if the reader doesn't pick up on them. And who says it 'contains elements of moral & religious truth anyway - who says that the 'moral & religious truths' are actually 'true'? Again, this is assuming that which is to be proved. The reader may be perfectly moral, but not hold these 'truths' to be true. They may not consider Tolkien's characters to be anymore 'real' or convincing than a cartoon character. They may even be able to recognise that they are made up figures with no emotions, thought processes, capacity to really suffer, hope or dream, than Tom or Kenny. They may have no more reality to the reader than a figure in a computer game.

The problem is you are attempting top make moral judgements about a reader based on what the characters mean/represent to you, when the reader may feel nothing of the sort about them.

Quote:
I take it this is an instance of british humour concerning the possibility of writting better novels while being brain damaged and crippled.
No. Its an example of a character being hit by a piano, which character, as far as we know, did not write a novel. Lizzie Bennett being the heroine of Pride & Prejudice which was written by Jane Austen. (Though actually, in my fantasy of Lizzie being hit by the piano she wasn't left brain damaged or crippled, but made a full recovery - the only long term effects being that she had piano keys for teeth......)
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 08:05 AM   #134
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Yes, but you see, I can tell the difference between the real neighbour & the fantasy one - even if both exist in my mind.
But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.
Quote:
And the point is I wouldn't act out my fantasy on real life.
I never argued on that direction in this thread.
Quote:
It may 'imply' it. It doesn't prove it.
Can you please rephrase?
Quote:
Not if the reader doesn't pick up on them.
Who do you think cannot pick up this moral and religious elements? If you mean that one spots them but chooses to ignore them, then no problem.
Quote:
The reader may be perfectly moral, but not hold these 'truths' to be true.
So, what 'truths' could not be hold by a 'perfectly moral' reader, to use your own expression?
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free."
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 08:19 AM   #135
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.
I can.

Quote:
Quote:
It may 'imply' it. It doesn't prove it.
Quote:
Can you please rephrase?
It doesn't prove it. It may imply it.

Quote:
Who do you think cannot pick up this moral and religious elements? If you mean that one spots them but chooses to ignore them, then no problem.
I mean someone who thinks they're just reading a fantasy novel. And if the reader is not religious they may not be aware of the 'religious' elements - all they may be aware of is that some of the characters have a religious belief.

Quote:
So, what 'truths' could not be hold by a 'perfectly moral' reader, to use your own expression?
Ones that may apply in a secondary world but not necessarily in the Primary world. In the secondary world it is 'true' that balrogs are a threat to life & limb. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it is 'true' that Morgoth has corrupted the very stuff of the material universe. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it may be 'true' that torturing an Elf is a bad thing. In the primary world one would have to prove that Elves actually exist here for that to be true. A reader may be reading the book for escape, not for edification.

Of course, the reader is free to decide that torturing an elf is a fine thing, something to be encouraged, & that medals should be handed out for doing so. I won't condemn them for it, or think any less of them. In short, I don't think the reader's response to the characters in a book says anything about their morality. I'm not going to judge someone on their response to a book. I don't believe anything of any value can be learned about a person from their response to fictional characters.

Last edited by davem; 03-11-2007 at 08:29 AM.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 08:45 AM   #136
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
It doesn't prove it. It may imply it.
Thanks davem, that is really helpful. I can only pray you will excuse me if I don't give you a rep for this tremenous effort, but I am too tired by your game. This is the worst I ever got in any discussion on any Tolkien board.
Quote:
Quote:
But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.
I can.
This is pretty pointless, but I will ask anyway: how?
Quote:
I mean someone who thinks they're just reading a fantasy novel.
I am not aware that reading a book merely as a fantasy novel precludes naturally identifying moral or religious elements.
Quote:
And if the reader is not religious they may not be aware of the 'religious' elements - all they may be aware of is that some of the characters have a religious belief.
Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Quote:
In the secondary world it is 'true' that balrogs are a threat to life & limb. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it is 'true' that Morgoth has corrupted the very stuff of the material universe. In the primary world it is not.
But these are not examples of moral truths, but examples of persons and events. You are dodging my question
Quote:
In the secondary world it may be 'true' that torturing an Elf is a bad thing. In the primary world one would have to prove that Elves actually exist here for that to be true.
But surely you recognise that what is immoral is "torture of living beings" in itself.
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free."
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 08:59 AM   #137
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
This is pretty pointless, but I will ask anyway: how?
It is pretty pointless of course. You set up a false dilemma. 'How can one distinguish between two identical things?' We aren't dealing with two identical things - we were talking about two similar things.

Quote:
I am not aware that reading a book merely as a fantasy novel precludes naturally identifying moral or religious elements.
Again, they may not be looking for such elements, they may not even care about such elements.

Quote:
But surely you recognise that what is immoral is "torture of living beings" in itself.
Elves are not 'living beings'. Again, you're failing to distinguish between a reader's response to fictional characters in a fictional world & real people in the real world. You cannot claim the 'thought' behind the two events is identical - its like claiming that thinking about a blue car is the same as thinking about blue sky because both thoughts are about blue things.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 09:15 AM   #138
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
We aren't dealing with two identical things - we were talking about two similar things.
So, the names, figures, places, sounds, and everything one can imagine about that scene are identical, but still, the two imaginary processes are not identical? How do they differ, davem?
Quote:
Again, they may not be looking for such elements, they may not even care about such elements.
Does that mean that nothing precludes "naturally identifying moral or religious elements" when a book is read merely as a fantasy novel?
Quote:
Elves are not 'living beings'.
But they represent living beings. By your reasoning, no 'perfectly moral' person could hold any truth to be actually true, because all characters in a book are in fact fictional.
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free."
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 09:27 AM   #139
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
So, the names, figures, places, sounds, and everything one can imagine about that scene are identical, but still, the two imaginary processes are not identical? How do they differ, davem?
If they were 'identical' they wouldn't be two imaginary processes but a single imaginary process duplcated. Thus it is not possible to 'compare or contrast' them.

Quote:
Does that mean that nothing precludes "naturally identifying moral or religious elements" when a book is read merely as a fantasy novel?
It doesn't 'precude' it. It simply may not be part of the reader's response. Making a salad does not preclude using celery, but a salad does not require celery to be a salad.

Quote:
But they represent living beings. By your reasoning, no 'perfectly moral' person could hold any truth to be actually true, because all characters in a book are in fact fictional.
And yet they are not 'living beings' therefore the reader is not responding to living beings - unless they choose to respond to them as living beings. You seem to be implying that the reader has no choice in the matter, & that if they think a dragon frying an Elf is cool, or exciting they should be judged as immoral. Again, if a viewer laughs when Kenny is killed is the viewer laughing at the death of a child or his he laughing at the dispatching of a cartoon character? Is there a 'qualitative' difference or are the thoughts 'identical'? The reader may respond to Tolkien's characters as living beings, but they are free not to. A 'perfectly moral' being can choose how they respond to characters (or truths) in a book. Because its fiction.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 10:00 AM   #140
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
If they were 'identical' they wouldn't be two imaginary processes but a single imaginary process duplcated. Thus it is not possible to 'compare or contrast' them.
So if there is no difference between them, then if the first imaginary process is immoral, then so it the second.
Quote:
It doesn't 'precude' it.
Then you agree that anyone can pick up the moral and religious elements in the works.
Quote:
You seem to be implying that the reader has no choice in the matter
No, you are missing my point. The question was what (general) moral or religious truths from M.E. cannot be hold true by a 'perfectly moral' reader - so far you have presented nothing that precludes this. The cartoons you are reffering to are a false analogy, since they are not trying to convey an immoral idea, but hilarity - if they do try to portray unncessary killings or suffering as acceptable values, then they are immoral.
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free."
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 10:18 AM   #141
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
So if there is no difference between them, then if the first imaginary process is immoral, then so it the second.
If one chooses to judge it. However, I dispute that fanatasising about killing an Elf is the same as fantasising about killing a real human being, & that fantasising about killing a real human being is qualitatively different from actually killing them. All the rest is a side issue as far as I can see.

Quote:
Then you agree that anyone can pick up the moral and religious elements in the works.
I also agree that anyone can pick up the spelling mistakes, typos & bad grammar. I'm arguing they may choose not to, that they may not be interested in them & that they may not correspond to the reader's own moral value system.

Quote:
No, you are missing my point. The question was what (general) moral or religious truths from M.E. cannot be hold true by a 'perfectly moral' reader - so far you have presented nothing that precludes this. The cartoons you are reffering to are a false analogy, since they are not trying to convey an immoral idea, but hilarity - if they do try to portray unncessary killings or suffering as acceptable values, then they are immoral.
And I'm arguing that this may not be the reader's approach to the story. You seem to be elevating a 'moral' reading over any other. A work of fiction cannot be 'immoral' - only the intent of the maker & the interpretation of the reader can be judged moral or immoral. Therefore the whole thing is subjective.

What this comes down to is a simple question - are you prepared to judge a person's character based on whether they choose Morgoth over Eru, or think A Nazgul is cooler than an Elf? If a reader chooses to approach Tolkien's work as being no more 'serious' or 'deep' than South Park then, however 'moral' they are they may side with Morgoth, Eru or the Fox in the Shire & it will have absolutely no relevance at all in terms of understanding the reader's moral value system. Again, you are taking your own approach to the work as being the 'norm'.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 10:41 AM   #142
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
If one chooses to judge it.
But our moral person is supposed to do that about himself.
Quote:
A work of fiction cannot be 'immoral' - only the intent of the maker & the interpretation of the reader can be judged moral or immoral.
A message cannot be immoral? How about a message promoting racism or fascism?
Quote:
are you prepared to judge a person's character based on whether they choose Morgoth over Eru, or think A Nazgul is cooler than an Elf?
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.
Quote:
If a reader chooses to approach Tolkien's work as being no more 'serious' or 'deep' than South Park then, however 'moral' they are they may side with Morgoth, Eru or the Fox in the Shire & it will have absolutely no relevance at all in terms of understanding the reader's moral value system.
I agree, since in this case there is no actual siding in either instance.
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free."
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 11:00 AM   #143
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
But our moral person is supposed to do that about himself.
No - he can do that. Supposed implies obligation

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 11:17 AM   #144
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Pipe Picking up on some responses from way back ...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
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
Old 03-11-2007, 11:33 AM   #145
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
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.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 11:40 AM   #146
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
White-Hand

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.
__________________
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
Old 03-11-2007, 11:59 AM   #147
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
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.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 12:04 PM   #148
Lalwendë
A Mere Boggart
 
Lalwendë's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Lalwendë is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 12:27 PM   #149
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
White-Hand

Quote:
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.
__________________
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
Old 03-11-2007, 12:44 PM   #150
the guy who be short
Shadowed Prince
 
the guy who be short's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Thulcandra
Posts: 2,496
the guy who be short has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
I don't think I follow, can you please rephrase?
Okay. I'll reproduce those two quotes here.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 guy who be short is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 01:21 PM   #151
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Silmaril

Quote:
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.
__________________
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
Old 03-11-2007, 02:09 PM   #152
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
White-Hand

Quote:
Originally Posted by TGWBS
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?
I think that there is a legitimate issue here. To depersonalise it somewhat, I would suggest the following proposition:

If X is regarded as immoral within the moral norms of a particular society or group, is it immoral within that society/group genuinely to delight in, sympathise with and support the fictional representation of the perpetration of X?

I would say that it depends upon the fictional context, but would disagree that it is necessarily not immoral to do so. In other words, depending upon the fictional contest, I would say that it can be immoral to do so.

Edit: To contextualise it in terms of Tolkien's works, I would say that it is immoral within the society/group in question genuinely to delight in, sympathise with and support the perpetration of X within Tolkien's works.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!

Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 03-11-2007 at 02:13 PM.
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 02:16 PM   #153
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
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.
So morality is determined by the society in which one happens to live? So a reader who willingly sides with the Orcs at the beginning of the 21st century is 'immoral' but a reader, say 200 years in the future who happens to live in a society where 'orcish' behaviour is generally accepted would be 'moral'? To me this seems not to make sense because it reduces 'morality' to whatever is socially acceptable. But in theory what is socially acceptabie could be different in 20 years, or two years - or two months. So, a person who is considered 'immoral' today could be considered 'moral' in two years time & 'immoral' again two years later - without changing their position as regards what is right & wrong but simply because what is socially acceptable changes.

And to move on. 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?

But can we judge their 'morality' only through the way they respond to fictional characters - is that sufficient evidence on which to base our judgement? And which fictional works are we to use in order to make our judgement? Who decides? And is it to be a question only of judging the reader's morality? I'm sure Germaine Greer for example would decide that anyone who liked Tolkien (whether they were rooting for the Good guys or the Bad guys) was emotionally & intellectually immature for instance.

You see, this whole issue of judging an individual's moral, ethical or intellectual state based on their choice of who to cheer on in a work of fiction puts those who use that criterion in a difficult position in regards to other people - if you truly believe someone who cheers on the Orcs is 'immoral' then what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do with them? Either you believe that although they are immoral people they are harmless (in which case the whole issue has nothing more than curiosity value - & morality is trivial issue as far as you are concerned because it has no effect on people's behaviour or the way they treat others) or you believe that their immorality makes them at least a potential threat to others, & you therefore have an obligation to restrict what they can do for the greater good....

Based on whether they think Orcs are cooler than Elves. On whether they enjoy the thought of (non-existent) Elves being dragged into a (non-existent) Angband by (non-existent) Orcs to be tortured by a (non-existent) Morgoth & his (non-existent) Balrogs . Or even on whether they get off on the idea of a (non-existent) dragon razing a (non-existent) town built in stilts in a (non-existent) lake.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 02:34 PM   #154
Lalaith
Blithe Spirit
 
Lalaith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,876
Lalaith is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Lalaith is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Hmmm.....

I've lived long enough to feel fairly confident about the following things.

a) lots of young people find bad and naughty things glamorous and exciting. This is, inter alia, why rumours of devilish messages played backwards at the end of certain heavy metal records do nothing but increase interest in said records. And why bands like Iron Maiden call their albums things like "Number of the Beast".

b) mostly this fascination with the bad and naughty is harmless, and most people eventually get bored with it. In real life, evil tends to be mundane, nasty, stupid and unpleasant - the hyperintelligent villain a la Lecter is a total fiction. I don't think Tolkien is a particularly good example of evil fascinatiion, because his villains are mostly quite un-glamorous, lacking a hinterland....they don't have a patch on Milton's Satan, for example...with the possible exception of Saruman, and Sauron-as-Annatar. The personification of Sauron in the films was a bit more metal, however, and that may be what's got people excited.

c) on the other hand, moral relativism sucks. I am probably considered to be on the liberal end of things, but there are certain things that I strongly believe are wrong, and I don't give a monkeys if these things were/are considered ok in ancient Babylon or Easter Island or whatever. They're still wrong.
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling
Lalaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 02:44 PM   #155
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
White-Hand

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
So morality is determined by the society in which one happens to live?
Largely, yes. Quite obviously so, to my mind. Otherwise we would still have slavery and we would still be putting people on the rack. And I can assure you, from my professional experience, that what is regarded as entirely ethical within one society may well be regarded as quite unethical within another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
... if you truly believe someone who cheers on the Orcs is 'immoral' then what are you going to do about it?
I didn't say that it necessarily made them an immoral person. I said that the "act" of doing so was an immoral one. And I don't propose doing anything about it. I simply don't regard it as a moral way to react to the work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Either you believe that although they are immoral people they are harmless (in which case the whole issue has nothing more than curiosity value - & morality is trivial issue as far as you are concerned because it has no effect on people's behaviour or the way they treat others) or you believe that their immorality makes them at least a potential threat to others, & you therefore have an obligation to restrict what they can do for the greater good....
Davem, this is quite preposterous, and you know it. For one thing, I did not say that it necessarily made them dangerous. And, for another, it is not a crime to think in an immoral way, and I would strongly oppose any suggestion that it should be.
__________________
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
Old 03-11-2007, 03:01 PM   #156
Bęthberry
Cryptic Aura
 
Bęthberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 6,159
Bęthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bęthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bęthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bęthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a certain loyer
And, for another, it is not a crime to think in an immoral way, and I would strongly oppose any suggestion that it should be.
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.

I wonder if the thugs of the Shire are as attractive as orcs for some readers? I mean, are some baddies more interesting than others?

Note meaning to imply that loyers are baddies, of course.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.
Bęthberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 03:25 PM   #157
Lalwendë
A Mere Boggart
 
Lalwendë's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Course, the more I read that morality is based upon what society you live in and what age you live in, the more it sounds like morality is indeed relative! That's on both a global and a temporal basis. But even within one nation 'morality' can be very different. To me, it's instinctively abhorrent that a woman should feel she ought to go around with her face covered, but to the woman living just a few houses away, it's the correct moral thing to do. And that's where the bind lies.

I do my best not to judge (though I acknowledge that it is pretty much inevitable that I will judge people - as a human I am constantly comparing people to find out "Are they like me? Are they not?" - something which stems from our basic survival instinct). In a society, especially a modern society, a multi-cultural society, sometimes it's the only way that you can get along with your neighbours and colleagues, to accept that you will never agree, and that their morality is very different to your own. That's why morality is relative in the modern world. If we all conform to one 'norm' then everyone in a multi-cultural society must behave in the same way, including women all either wearing or not wearing the hijab; the fact that women do not tells us morality is not at all 'fixed' but that it fluctuates.

And that's why I say it is extremely rude to place the highly emotive and loaded term 'immoral' on someone for who they like and do not like in a piece of fiction. We have no knowledge whatsoever of that person, their background (cultural, religious, political, economic, temporal, geographical etc), their intentions, their other likes/dislikes (if they generally like evil characters or good ones, and if this is just one instance of liking a bad guy or one in a long sequence) - so we cannot simply say He or She is immoral based on whether they like an Orc or an Elf.

That is what is commonly known as Judging A Book By It's Cover.

Something we should all avoid. Me too. I tend to react when I see a chav (holding on to my handbag and wondering where the car is etc), but I find that if I actually speak to said chav, he's usually perfectly ordinary and up to no harm at all (and often quite pleased to be finally spoken to like a human being!). Basing your moral judgement of someone based on something as purely surface as which characters they like or do not like without knowing much, much more about that person is at the root of prejudice.

"You do not like the same thing as I do, therefore I do not think you are as moral as I am" is not far from "You do not follow the same faith/politics/football team as I do, therefore you are not as good as I am". We all do it, we should perhaps try to avoid doing it and confront our prejudices - it's a lifelong struggle, constantly challenged when someone of the opposite view confronts us, but one we have to deal with or we may as well drop the civilised front and all pick up our bone axes and go for it.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Lalwendë is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 03:53 PM   #158
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
I didn't say that it necessarily made them an immoral person. I said that the "act" of doing so was an immoral one. And I don't propose doing anything about it. I simply don't regard it as a moral way to react to the work.

Davem, this is quite preposterous, and you know it. For one thing, I did not say that it necessarily made them dangerous. And, for another, it is not a crime to think in an immoral way, and I would strongly oppose any suggestion that it should be.
The problem is we have three options - 1) the person is immoral & their choice of who they support reflect their natural immorality, 2) the person is moral but chooses to agree with an immoral act & 3) the person is amoral & chooses to agree with an immoral act. I leave aside the sudden flashes of anger & desire to lash out which will soon pass or be over-ridden by the individual.

The reason this is a 'problem' is that all three of the above alternatives mean that the person is actually 'immoral'.

1) means we are dealing with an immoral person.

2)If a moral person chooses to behave immorally, or support an immoral action he or she cannot be considered 'moral' - why would a moral person choose to support an immoral action? Indeed, how could a moral person be considered 'moral' by anyone if they choose to support an immoral act? Hence, a 'moral' person who chooses to support an immoral act is a logical impossibility. Thus, option 2) means we are dealing with an immoral person.

3) If an 'amoral' person chooses to support an immoral act they cannot actually be considered 'amoral' because they are making a conscious choice not to be either moral or amoral. So, option 3) again means we are dealing with an immoral person.

Which leaves us with an immoral person (said immorality being a temporary or permanent state). And it further leaves us with your statement that the immoral choice (freely made) does not make the person dangerous. But what does it make them - & if it doesn't make them dangerous in any way then for all practical purposes it is irrelevant - other than to give us someone to look down on as being 'less moral' than we are - but that is pretty much worthless if moral or immoral choices make no difference in real terms. What effect in real terms does making immoral choices have in your view? Aren't you in effect simply saying 'its not a nice way to think but it makes no practical difference to you or anyone else'?

Or when you say 'it does not necessarily make them dangerous' are you adding the unspoken corrollory 'but it may do'? In which case what do you do? You know that someone who consciously supports an immoral act may be dangerous but you do nothing about it?

My position is that supporting the 'bad guys' in a work of fiction is an aesthetic/emotional choice which may be made for many reasons - not a 'moral' choice. It is a matter of personal taste not ethics & personal taste is not something which can be held up for moral judgement.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 04:41 PM   #159
the guy who be short
Shadowed Prince
 
the guy who be short's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Thulcandra
Posts: 2,496
the guy who be short has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
3) If an 'amoral' person chooses to support an immoral act they cannot actually be considered 'amoral' because they are making a conscious choice not to be either moral or amoral.
An amoral person will consider their acts to be amoral, whatever these acts may be. It would be better to say that, from the viewpoint of somebody who thinks supporting orcs is immoral, the person is immoral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalwende
"You do not like the same thing as I do, therefore I do not think you are as moral as I am" is not far from "You do not follow the same faith/politics/football team as I do, therefore you are not as good as I am".
Nicely stated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalaith
moral relativism sucks. I am probably considered to be on the liberal end of things, but there are certain things that I strongly believe are wrong, and I don't give a monkeys if these things were/are considered ok in ancient Babylon or Easter Island or whatever. They're still wrong.
Why? What makes them so wrong? Where does this "wrongness" come from?


SpM - In saying that morality depends on social context, you are supporting moral relativism. However, you seem to be saying that this does not make that society's morality any less valid as a system and, furthermore, that a society's system of morality should be used to judge the individuals within it.

What about dissenters? Mixed-race marriages, gay marriages and supporting women's right have all been regarded as immoral in history (simply staying within British history). I presume you have no objection to these things now. How can you support temporal, societal-based morality to judge people today, but be against using it historically?

I'm sleepy (shamefully early, I know!) and am aware that I'm a bit rambly, but I hope that was clear enough to be understood.
the guy who be short is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2007, 04:54 PM   #160
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the guy who be short
An amoral person will consider their acts to be amoral, whatever these acts may be. It would be better to say that, from the viewpoint of somebody who thinks supporting orcs is immoral, the person is immoral.
Yes. I know. But I am a bear of very little brain ....
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 04:04 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.