'The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy'

[Lyta_Underhill]

Certainly it may seem like the universe is always staying a step ahead of science, but surely it's not literally true that the universe is actually changing its fundamental laws as we discover them.

I may have been muddy here: I did not mean to say the fundamental nature of the universe changes with our discoveries, but rather that each new discovery opens up a new box of complexities that seem to lead in many directions. Also, on that same string, so to speak, there is also the question of the observer affecting the equation.

As for not knowing the purpose of physics: this is surely a case of making a question more complicated than it really is. The purpose of physics is to predict the positions of particles at arbitrary times. And that purpose has not changed since the invention of mathematical physics.

Certainly this is the nuts and bolts of physics, and there is great complexity therein. But, the human mind will always draw parallels by its nature, even if there are no logical connections to be made. It is irresistible. The fact that the Schrodinger equation could accurately predict the energy levels and positions of a single hydrogen atom (well, back when I studied it anyway) but fell down and broke into complex assumptive fragments when more was attempted may merely speak to the imperfection of the mathematical models, or it may speak tangentially of another, more insidious effect--the observer's or experimenter's affect on the thing observed. Can a scientist truly stand outside what he is observing?

And to bump back up on the road, can a philosopher truly define a nebulous concept such as "morality" in any exactitude? One could draw the easy parallel that morality and science are both "constructs," but that sidesteps the motivations for their construction. There must always, IMO, be room for intuition and spiritual application, or morality and science both fall flat, for me at least.

Well, that's all I can dredge out of my mind for now! Thanks for a lively discussion!

Cheers,
Lyta

[Kuruharan]

Saucepan

But at the same time, I firmly believe that morality is not a human construct. Which leaves me with little choice but to believe that it is a pattern of behaviour which forms the basis for the development of human society because it is generally in society's interests (and the interests of the individuals within it) to follow this pattern.

Well, then the next obvious questions to ask are "Why?" and "Where does it come from?"

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, then the next obvious questions to ask are "Why?" and "Where does it come from?"

Indeed. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

(I'm done with long, turgid posts for now [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] )

[mark12_30]

Above, October 23, 2003 03:44 PM. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[the phantom]

the majority of people (albeit to varying degrees) derive contentment from adhering to those moral norms and guilt and remorse from immoral action... only a minority (those towards the bottom of my sliding scale) are able to derive contentment from immoral action

Even if this is completely true, what about that "minority" that does derive contentment from immorality? What reason do they have to act morally?

Also, if someone is acting morally just for the contentment it brings to them, does it make them moral or self-centered? If contentment is their goal, wouldn't they act immorally in some situations if they could see that it would yield more contentment than the moral path? (sort of an ends justify the means situation)

virtuous behaviour is generally beneficial to society as a whole, rather than just the individual

And why should society matter to someone? Why should they try to help others at their expense? If someone at the bottom of the "sliding scale" is not naturally very concerned with others, why should he not act selfishly?

If his existence is over when he dies then the universe is basically over at his death (from his point of view), so why should he care what effect he has?

What I'm getting at is there doesn't appear to be an all encompassing logical or explainable reason for everyone to behave morally.

And Kuruharan, I love your scenario of a person hanging over a cliff. It really inspires thought.

What would I do? Well, I suppose it would mostly depend on who was hanging over the cliff. I would make some attempt at saving almost anyone, but I wouldn't put myself at the same risk for everyone. If it were my little cousin Daniel I would swing over the edge of the cliff myself to help him. On the other hand if it was some serial killer guy who had just killed my baby cousin and fell over the cliff while attempting to kill me- well, I might just step on his fingers.

And since the slaying of a serial killer would likely benefit society does this make my emotional reaction moral?

(and this is not directed just at SPMan, I'm curious what the rest of you guys think too)

[Arwen1858]

And since the slaying of a serial killer would likely benefit society does this make my emotional reaction moral?

That's an interesting question, phantom. Would it really be any different than having said killer executed? Either way, he'd be paying for his crime through death. He wouldn't be able to kill anyone else. And what exactly makes something moral? Something that benefits all of society, as oppossed to an individual person? Would it be more moral to later have the serial killer executed for his crimes, after he's had a trial and been found guilty, or to kill him there on the spot, in the heat of the moment from an emotional response? Is there a difference? If so, why?

Also, if someone is acting morally just for the contentment it brings to them, does it make them moral or self-centered? If contentment is their goal, wouldn't they act immorally in some situations if they could see that it would yield more contentment than the moral path? (sort of an ends justify the means situation)

That makes sense. They would just do whichever would make them feel better at the time. So why do some people act morally, if they think they would be happier doing something immoral? Would they act morally simply because they know in their heart its the right thing to do? Why should someone do anything to help other people, if they have to go out of their way to do it? Because they know it's the right thing to do?
These are some questions that came tomind while reading the phantoms post, and just wondered what everyone else thought!
Arwen

[mark12_30]

Would it really be any different than having said killer executed?

Yes.

Murder is very, very different than executing a person convicted via due process.

Many would say that Frodo would have been justified in killing Gollum. But he chose to show mercy, and Tolkien's oint is that the mercy of Frodo towards Gollum actually saved the world on Mount Doom.

Likewise in the book, Frodo shows mercy towards Saruman, and Tolkien uses the moment thus: "You have grown, halfling. Yes, you have grown very much."

A society has the burden of creating a safe haven for its inhabitants, and must make choices regarding such things as war and serial killers. Some place this burden on a king, others place it on a judge and jury, but the decisions should be made by law, not because of an individual's preference.

Tolkien valued mercy very very highly-- more highly, perhaps, than many of us do. Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn, and even in the end Sam, display this tendency towards mercy.

And since the slaying of a serial killer would likely benefit society does this make my emotional reaction moral?

Some might way yes. Tolkien, however, repeatedly wrote in favor of mercy-- even in such murderous cases as Gollum and Saruman and Wormtongue; Aragorn showed mercy to the men who had served under Sauron if they surrendered to him.

(Orcs don't get much mercy, nor does Sauron himself; yet I would class the orcs with demons, not neccessarily with people... likewise Trolls, etc... Tolkien seemed to draw a major distinction between the races that Morgoth twisted and those he simply enslaved. As I recall, in his letters he states that Trolls were incapable of mercy and orcs were too.)

[ October 29, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Eurytus]

Likewise in the book, Frodo shows mercy towards Saruman, and Tolkien uses the moment thus: "You have grown, halfling. Yes, you have grown very much."

I actually read this a little differently than you. Frodo is showing mercy, yes, but Saruman’s reply is not that Frodo has grown because he has shown mercy.

I interpreted Saruman to be saying here that Frodo was punishing him far more effectively by letting him live (perhaps eternally given Saruman’s origin) without power. Also Saruman implied that those that struck him down would be cursed and that Frodo preventing that would rob him of his vengeance.
I read it as Saruman saying that Frodo’s perception of those facts were the indication that he has grown. I do not think that Saruman would see mercy as evidence of growth, after all he did not see it as Frodo showing mercy.

[Kuruharan]

the phantom

What would I do? Well, I suppose it would mostly depend on who was hanging over the cliff.

That is part of the problem though. The question assumes that you do not know this person and don't know anything about them. There is also no time to launch a full scale inquiry into the matter because the victim's arms are getting mighty weak. And even if you did, you have no way of checking what the victim tells you before they fall. If they are a bad sort they are probably not going to tell you that.

It is essentially a question of whether you consider another life to be at least as valuable as your own (however much value you place on your own life).

[The Saucepan Man]

phantom

... what about that "minority" that does derive contentment from immorality? What reason do they have to act morally?

They don't. That's why they act immorally.

Also, if someone is acting morally just for the contentment it brings to them, does it make them moral or self-centered?

Both. I accept that moral action may be based on seflish motives. But associating individual pleasure with behaviour that furthers the species is a basic principle in ensuring the continued survival of that species.

If contentment is their goal, wouldn't they act immorally in some situations if they could see that it would yield more contentment than the moral path?

Not where moral behaviour is itself the source for their contentment.

And why should society matter to someone? Why should they try to help others at their expense?

The individual benefits from living within a scoiety. Therefore it is generally in the interests of the individual to act in the interests of society.

If his existence is over when he dies then the universe is basically over at his death (from his point of view), so why should he care what effect he has?

Precisely. That's why, to my mind, there has to be more to it than belief in a higher authority. Otherwise, why would those who do not believe in such an authority act, as the majority do, in a moral manner?

What I'm getting at is there doesn't appear to be an all encompassing logical or explainable reason for everyone to behave morally.

There isn't. Not everyone does behave morally.

And since the slaying of a serial killer would likely benefit society does this make my emotional reaction moral?

No, not if you were to act on it. Society does not benefit from "mob rule" or from people taking the law into their own hands. In this case, the benefit to society would lie in the serial killer being apprehended and convicted through due process.

[mark12_30]

"...Now I must go hence in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you!"

Yes, Saruman perceived Frodo's mercy. Frodo discussed it openly with the nearby hobbits and Saruman heard him.

[the phantom]

The question assumes that you do not know this person and don't know anything about them.

Well, in that case I suppose I'd put myself at approximately the same degree of risk for everyone.

... what about that "minority" that does derive contentment from immorality? What reason do they have to act morally?

They don't. That's why they act immorally.

That's what I was hoping to hear. I'm looking for a reason for everyone to behave morally. If a reason only causes most people to act morally and isn't good enough for some people then it doesn't totally answer the question 'Why be moral?'.

I accept that moral action may be based on seflish motives.

I find this interesting. It says that the motivation of the person is meaningless and that only the action matters.

Isn't selfishness immoral? But apparently not if the selfishness results in an act that benefits society. But what happens when that same individual, who has set a precedent for selfish actions, does yet another selfish action that instead harms society? His motivation, attitude, and character haven't changed, yet suddenly he's immoral where as he was moral before? I don't get it.

But associating individual pleasure with behaviour that furthers the species is a basic principle in ensuring the continued survival of that species.

This seems to indicate that moral behavior is merely evolved instinct. If it's just instinctual behavior, then how can we call it moral or immoral? If we're merely acting on ingrained biological tendencies, then we're basically just animals, and morality, free will, and choice have been negated.

And why should society matter to someone? Why should they try to help others at their expense?

The individual benefits from living within a scoiety. Therefore it is generally in the interests of the individual to act in the interests of society.

I notice that you said "generally". In other words, sometimes it's not in the interest of the individual to act in the interest of society (which is true). Why in those situations should they act morally?

That's why, to my mind, there has to be more to it than belief in a higher authority. Otherwise, why would those who do not believe in such an authority act, as the majority do, in a moral manner?

Here is the the focus of all of my questions. Why should those who do not believe in a higher being, state of being, or truth behave morally?

You've given some non-theological reasons for moral actions already but I've shown that there are exceptions to every single one of those reasons, so why would those who are exceptions act morally? When I asked this earlier you said this-

They don't. That's why they act immorally.

Are we to just accept that some people can't be expected to act morally?

I don't. I believe that everyone does have a say in the way they act, but that they must be given a good reason to act a certain way. And if those exceptions, like you said, don't have any earthly reason to act morally then they must be given a non earthly reason.

Some sort of religious belief is the only thing that would compel everyone, without exception, to behave morally.

[Eurytus]

Some sort of religious belief is the only thing that would compel everyone, without exception, to behave morally.

It is probably not a debate we should be having here but I find this answer to be totally wrong. A quick look back through history shows that religion very rarely helps people to act morally, and when it does those actions often do not appear to be moral to outside observers.
Cynically speaking it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a time when everybody acts in a moral way. People’s morals are different and hence people may act in a way that they feel is moral but that I, for example, do not.
The only really way to obtain a standard morality is to impose restrictions or guidelines and enforce them through either the carrot or the stick.
However human nature being what it is, this is unlikely to be successful.

[the phantom]

I think you're misunderstanding my intentions, Eurytus. I didn't say religion would make anybody act morally, I said it's the only thing that could compel everyone to act morally. Belief in a higher authority and eternal punishment is a reason to act moral.

Naturally there are religions that seem immoral to others, but I'm sort of discounting that by saying if we were to define morality by their choice of religion then they would be considered moral if they were following their religion's teachings.

In summary, anyone who genuinely believes in a specific religion and its teachings has an unquestionable reason to act morally (with morally being defined as the code of ethics that their religion teaches).

A quick look back through history shows that religion very rarely helps people to act morally

I don't know, there are countless people around the world right now who are trying to live a certain way specifically because of their beliefs. I readily admit that someone of any religion can behave immorally, but only when they deviate from what they believe.

Religion doesn't make people behave morally, it just gives them a reason to.

Cynically speaking it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a time when everybody acts in a moral way.

I agree. But as I said before, I'm not trying to find what will make everyone be moral, but rather what would compel people on a personal level to be moral.

[Eurytus]

Belief in a higher authority and eternal punishment is a reason to act moral.

True to an extent but I also believe that punishment here on earth can compel some people to act morally. Just not all.

[Bêthberry]

I am very late in returning to this discussion, and do not, at this time, have the time to reply at length about some of the points I made earlier and which others took up. Partially I was, as Mr. Underhill suggested, playing the scamp to draw others into the discussion, but I do have a serious point to make about the kind of moral universe in LOTR.

For now, however, I wish to protest this statement strongly and emphatically:

Some sort of religious belief is the only thing that would compel everyone, without exception, to behave morally.

1. It is morally wrong to coerce or compel moral behaviour. Such behaviour would not, in fact, reflect a moral understanding but simply bullied fear.

2. The list is long and horrifyingly brutal of immoral behaviour which has been inspired by, supported by or otherwise condoned by religious belief.

A few quick examples include the following:
--the witch hunts of medieval Europe
--9/11
--the Protestant/Catholic terrorism in Northern Ireland
--the atrocities committed by both Protestants and Catholics after the Protestant Reformation in Europe
--Nazi persecution of Jews, gypsies, Slavs in WWII

3. I have, in my own personal experience, seen Atheists behave with more courtesy, decency respect for human life and with less ambitious greed to dominate other people than those who claim religious belief.

4. Large, grand sounding abstractions such as "moral behaviour" and "immoralitty" need to be closely and carefully defined in any discussion. I think it would be wiser to try to look at Tolien's work and attempt to discuss what he propounds as moral behaviour in LOTR than to simply assume that we all mean the same thing when we talk about moral or immoral behaviour.

My apologies for ranting with strength and feeling here, but such emphatic statements as the above quotation shows frighten me profoundly.

In my reading of history and of my personal experience, whenever we make such all inclusive statements, we close our eyes and ears to those who disagree with us, to thoughtful consideration of what precisely we mean. The moment anyone says, "Only I have the key to correct behaviour" is the moment when the most immoral actions become likely. Not that I am accusing the writer of immoral actions, but that that frame of mind leads to closed minds.

Humbly submitted,
Bêthberry

[Arwen1858]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it really be any different than having said killer executed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Murder is very, very different than executing a person convicted via due process.

Many would say that Frodo would have been justified in killing Gollum. But he chose to show mercy, and Tolkien's oint is that the mercy of Frodo towards Gollum actually saved the world on Mount Doom.

I definitely agree with this. I was just posing some questions I had thought of to see the responses they would bring, and toget people to think about them, too. Frodo's mercy is one of my favorite aspects of the book. If Frodo hadn't shown mercy on Gollum, thering wouldn't have been destroyed when they got to Mount Doom.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this: If we don't know from our conscience most things that are right and wrong, or don't follow God and try to do what's right to please Him, or behave morally for some other religious belief, why do some of us try to behave morally? What's the point and the reason behind it? To benefit all of society? But why do that? Why not just benefit yourself? I'm pretty much trying to play the devil's advocate here to find out how y'all would answer these questions.

[mark12_30]

Bethberry, you wrote:

The list is long and horrifyingly brutal of immoral behaviour which has been inspired by, supported by or otherwise condoned by religious belief.

Some religions are violent by nature and encourage violence by their dogma (Aztec human sacrifices come to mind.) I would call these immoral religions; and I would also add that they are not rooted in truth. And I would argue that that judgement can and should be made.

Other religions are deeply pacifistic. It does matter whether an atrocity which is committed in the name of religion is performed **according to the precepts of that religion.** if it is performed **despite ** the precepts of that religion, then it is not a religious act, regardless of under what name the act is performed.

A Fransiscan monk who commits murder is acting despite his religion, not because of it. To blame an atrocity on the religion to which its perpetrators belong, when the religion expressly forbids such an act, is hardly a fair judge of the religion.

Would you really put St. Francis in the same category as bin Laden? Perhaps you would like to clarify your intent here.

I have, in my own personal experience, seen Atheists behave with more courtesy, decency respect for human life and with less ambitious greed to dominate other people than those who claim religious belief.

But in what do they base their actions? By its very nature, Atheism has no higher authority, and hence, no rules. Stalin murdered his share of people and he was an atheist. In fact, Stalinist Russia holds the record for genocide: well beyond twenty million dead. China and Cambodia have similarly dismal records and full graveyards. Communism and socialism, founded in atheism, overall have a dismal human rights record. I fail to see the connection between atheism and morality.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your attitude towards religion. How do you feel about Tolkien's catholicism? Do you feel it was no help to him in behaving morally?

Tolkien believed in absolute truth, believed that God is the supreme authority. Do you feel that his belief in God, that his staunch faith in the Gospel, his devotion to his religious practices, and his belief that the Gospels are The One True Myth (sounds pretty absolute to me) gave him license for immoral behavior? Do you feel it made him a tyrant who imposed his immoral views on others?

[Child of the 7th Age]

I am stepping into this discussion as an outsider. As I read over a goodly chunk of the thread, several thoughts came to mind.

First, I think folk are trying to come up with a single, magic, controlling key to explain behavior, which simply does not exist.

Some sort of religious belief is the only thing that would compel everyone, without exception, to behave morally.

There are a thousand different reasons why a person might choose to follow a path which he or she deemed to be "moral." Religious belief is certainly one possible reason to compel a person in a moral direction but it is not the only one. There are people out there who do not hold any formal religious beliefs or even a belief in the existence of God but who feel compelled to act in a decent way towards their fellow human beings, who put themselves out again and again to help others. There are people who act morally because they are afraid of the consequences that might occur if they behave in a different fashion. Such individuals may be motivated by the law set down by the state or by religion itself -- the belief or fear that retribution could be forthcoming. And there are saints among us who can see beyond the mundane and truly glimpse a vision of a universe grounded in morality. That vision may be based on the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of Man, or some combination of both... But, whatever it is, they see and understand more than I could ever do.

My basic point is this. The world contains such amazing variation in people, cultures and belief structures, religious and otherwise, that one can't jam everything into a single explanation. The one thing I will say with certainty is that whatever Creator brought this universe into existence, he or she must have loved diversity and complexity. We were all given brains and each of us thinks a little differently. The Creator did not turn us out on a one-size-fits all model, and I would therefore argue that a one-size fits all approach to morality just doesn't work.

You run into similar problems when you get into discussions of religion and immoral behavior. You can judge a movement-- any -- movement on the basis of its beliefs or you can judge it on its results.

If you look at core beliefs in terms of morality, then you would not find a great deal to criticize harshly in the major relgions of the world. (Yes, I'm sure you could debate this or that, but we're talking real evil, and that's not there.) But if you were to look at actual behavior or results, then it is quite a different story.

But where does that evil come from? The movement itself or the individual souls of the people who make up that movement. And I would say it is the latter. Whatever institution you look at -- the home, the school, the government--you can find instances of the "dark side." A religious movement or organization is no exception. And it would be possible to make a list of individual and mass atrocities which grew out of institutions and beliefs that had nothing to do with religion. We can put the word "nationalism" at the top of that list and go on from there.

The interesting thing is to take a close look at Middle-earth itself and see if the basic idea holds -- that of religious belief compelling morality. And the answer there is absolutely no. Tolkien has depicted characters who are deeply moral, but who do not act out of a religious impulse.

Those who've read my posts from way back when know I love to look at Tolkien's Catholicism and see how it influenced his writing. But having said that, I would also argue this: Arda in the Third Age was a world in which religious belief per se was virtually absent. Eru is a very distant figure whom only a few folk know about, at least in any formal sense. Yes, there are the Elves... But how many were there? They kept to themselves and did not go around telling people about their stories. It took a little rotund hobbit named Bilbo Baggins to decide to translate the tales into Westron!

A few men like Faramir still preserved some of the religious customs of Numenor, but this was not the norm. Most of the Men of Middle-earth had no idea who Eru even was. As Tolkien states in his Letters:

There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers."

And hobbit culture is among the most "secular" that I have ever seen. If Frodo was extraordinary, it was because he seemed to instinctively grasp truths (which might be labelled 'spiritual') that had never actually been revealed to him. He was unusual in this regard. Yet, despite their total lack of formal beliefs, the hobbits as a whole were basically a moral people. (Alright, I know there were a few exceptions like the Sackville-Baggins family, but hobbit "sins" are really rather small!)

T.A. Shippey has some interesting things to say about all this---how Tolkien used LotR to study how Man clung to morality and stayed the course despite all the forces pushing him towards darkness and despair. And this was at a time when Man had not been given the slightest revelation of what lay beyond.

Tolkien did not feel that religious beliefs were the only reason to compel a person to act morally. His book carries a different message. Even in a world where Eru is a distant figure glimpsed only through an occasional providential act, Man is expected to act in a moral fashion and not to give in. There are no acceptable excuses for not doing so-- belief or no belief. Certainly, there are times when man will fail -- Frodo and the Ring is a case in point -- but, as Tolkien states in his Letters:

He [i.e. Frodo] was honoured because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do.

It would have been easy for Frodo to say "no" to the Ring quest at several points in the story, but he chose to go on. Tolkien doesn't say a lot about why Frodo and the other characters choose to follow such a moral road. But we do get glimpses -- things like friendship, a way of life in harmony with the earth, and the feeling that some things are simply worth fighting for. I can't help feeling that he was telling us that there is a still, small voice in each of our hearts that, despite the pull to evil, tells us the track we should be on, if only we would listen to it.

[ October 29, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Bêthberry]

Hello Helen,

My comments were directed solely to the rhetorical nature of the passage I quoted. My point was to suggest that, as the statement stood, it was faulty, in that throughout much of human history religious belief per se has not stopped believers from engaging in immoral behaviour.

You raise the quite valid point that people have often committed acts contrary to the precepts of their faith. The passage I was addressing did not make this distinction. It merely argued that any kind of religious belief is the one thing needed.

I also objected to the idea of coercion being essential to moral behaviour.

Other than that, I don't think it is fruitful for this thread to engage in an argument over the greater virtue of faith or atheism or to speculate on Tolkien's private, personal thought, to which we are not the ones who have (or had) access.

Bêthberry

[Eurytus]

I find this assumption that there are Good and Bad religions to be pretty naive to be honest.
Most people would classify Christianity amongst the 'Good' religions and yet its roots lie in the Old Testament of the Bible, within which lies one of the most violent religious tracts in existence.
Not to mention Christianities long and shameful history of violence, persecution and hypocrisy.
Religions are a human construct and like their makers are full of flaws. To pick some as 'good' and some as 'bad' is to ignore the evidence.

[Bêthberry]

Child,

I was posting my reply to Helen as you were posting and so have just read it.

You have, with great sensitivity and clarity, expressed many things I would have said about this question, had I had time, that the path to moral behaviour is diverse and complex, and that an essential element in LOTR is Frodo's voluntary choice to take the Ring.

Kudos!

Bêthberry

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thank you very much, Child ot7A, for getting this discussion back on the basis of Tolkien's writing. I ask all participants to refrain from an exchange of religious opinions, since that is not our topic here.

[Mister Underhill]

Gone for a day and now it’s me who’s scrambling to catch up. I’ll try to keep things succinct.

Aiwendil, any relevance it may have had is now surely unimportant, but I am almost certain that you are in error as regards Plato (Aristotle is up for grabs at present; I make no claims one way or the other). In his Republic, Plato, like Kant, postulates an absolute, objective morality. Virtue is virtue for anyone. Practicing virtue (i.e., being in tune with objective morality) results in a “healthy soul”, while giving in to vice results in a sort of soul-sickness. Where am I going astray? My readings of Kant and Plato (which I grant may both be in error) seem to agree at least on this broad principle.

Physics and astronomy used to be casual hobbies of mine (I have less time to stay current nowadays, alas). My point about physics was that while it can describe in detail how its laws work, it can’t explain why they work. “Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it,” said physicist Max Planck. I might add, “And why am I here?” This is neither an ill-formed nor an irrelevant question for a great many people.

You say, “...we can be as strictly rational as possible in admitting further evidence.” I say, we need be only if we conceive of logic as being the highest and most important avenue to truth. Logic and science have little of substance to say about, for instance, creativity – but that does not make creativity any less interesting, less useful, or less real. I contend that, just as we know a great many things about the laws of physics, we also know a great deal about the principles that govern human behavior. Just because they don’t lend themselves well to scientific study and incontrovertible logic doesn’t make them any less interesting or valid.

I find your explanation for personally living a moral lifestyle quite interesting. You seem to be operating on an intuition that there is a rational derivation for morality despite apparent evidence to the contrary. (!)

Legolas – nice post on 10/27 regarding Saruman. It’s an interesting point that in Tolkien, evil often arises out of an intention to do “good”.

Saucepan, it’s easy to hypothesize evil villains who are “fulfilled” by their immoral crimes and achieve “happiness” and “inner peace” only by doing bad, but I’d wager it’s difficult to scare up actual examples outside of fiction. Your argument seems to be that in the vast majority of cases, living a more or less moral lifestyle produces the expected results – healthy relationships, inner contentedness, and happiness – but that since a few possible hypothetical cases may contradict the rule, the rule is invalid. Well, fair enough. But I’d answer that I can just as easily hypothesize situations where the laws of physics don’t apply. You can’t definitively prove me wrong if I hypothesize that somewhere out there in the universe are a few planets that don’t obey the laws of gravitation. But you’d think me silly for arguing such a point when the vast weight of evidence suggests otherwise.

Your moral dilemma regarding Gandalf sacrificing Pippin and Merry to achieve Sauron’s downfall is an interesting one. Your conclusion seems to contradict your theory. An evolutional, societal model of morality would seem to logically endorse the sacrifice of a few (innocent or not) for the good of society. This sort of morality seems to give rise to situational ethics, as you hinted in one of your posts, where the individual good, the good of society at large, and the cost of the sacrifice called for are weighed in every decision.

Lush, you’ve made a characteristically provocative assertion – that people who suppress their immoral impulses are worthy of scorn because they not only have the urge, but they are hypocrites in some sense for not at least honestly following through on the urge. No doubt you have in mind seemingly innocuous and harmless “immoralities”, such as doing the occasional line of coke or hit of X. But we can easily imagine dozens of situations that have more obvious implications. A guy is alone with his passed out date after a night of partying. He feels the urge to have sex with her – to rape her, since she’s in no condition to say either yes or no to his advances. A frustrated mother feels the impulse to shake her baby because he won’t stop crying. A corporate executive feels the impulse to rob the company blind – no matter that his immorality may end up in financial disaster for hundreds of people. Surely in each case we can breathe a sigh of relief if the person is able to suppress the immoral urge?

Even supposedly “harmless” immoralities have deeper consequences. For instance, just by participating in the use of illegal drugs, a person is, at however distant remove, helping to perpetuate the deeply immoral structure that provides those drugs.

I’m hardly a paragon of virtue and I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers. I’m simply suggesting the idea that immoral actions have consequences, and that there can be a world of difference between impulse and action.

I take your point about what your priest says about the divine being unreachable through “works”, and that we are all fallen and corrupted somehow. This sounds like a bit of selective listening though. Check back with your priest on whether or not it is still incumbent upon us to do our best to live up to high moral standards. I think I can guess his answer – unless he’s one of those dudes who sent away to an ad in the back of Rolling Stone to get ordained, in which case he is much less likely to give an answer that would kill your buzz.

Child, great post, and one that brings us back around full circle in some respects, inasmuch as Tolkien strongly comes down on the side of a moral lifestyle being the best, in spite of its challenges, sacrifices, and occasional disappointments. And oddly enough, despite the great number and disparity of reasons why, people here on the thread seem to generally agree.

[ October 29, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[the phantom]

Some sort of religious belief is the only thing that would compel everyone, without exception, to behave morally.

Child of the 7th Age, Bethberry, and others appear to have translated the meaning of this statement incorrectly. It doesn't say that religion is the only thing that can compel someone, it says that religion is the only thing that can compel everyone.

In other words, I'm not discounting the ability of other factors that cause someone to behave morally, I'm saying that religion appears to be the only thing that could compel those "exceptions" that SPMan and I were discussing (those "exceptions" being people who can derive their contentment from immoral acts).

I hope this makes my statement more clear. I should use more careful wording next time.

Such behaviour would not, in fact, reflect a moral understanding but simply bullied fear.

You are focusing merely on the eternal punishment aspect of religion. What about those who behave morally in order to please their creator because they are thankful for the existance that they have been given?

but I also believe that punishment here on earth can compel some people to act morally

Agreed. That's why we have laws.

The list is long and horrifyingly brutal of immoral behaviour which has been inspired by, supported by or otherwise condoned by religious belief.

And as I said earlier, there are some religions that seem immoral in their nature, and who knows what to do with them. But often, those that are acting immorally in the name of religion are doing so against the fundamental beliefs of their religion.

For instance, if someone who claims to be Christian regularly blows people up with bombs in the name of Christianity, is that person really a Christian?

I thought that mark12_30 summed this up well-

A Fransiscan monk who commits murder is acting despite his religion, not because of it. To blame an atrocity on the religion to which its perpetrators belong, when the religion expressly forbids such an act, is hardly a fair judge of the religion.

An estute observation, mark.

I have, in my own personal experience, seen Atheists behave with more courtesy, decency respect for human life and with less ambitious greed to dominate other people than those who claim religious belief.

Most certainly, but as I said before the behavior of those who claim religious belief is not necessarily following the doctorine of their belief.

Large, grand sounding abstractions such as "moral behaviour" and "immoralitty" need to be closely and carefully defined in any discussion.

And this is another huge question I have. Is it really possible to define moral behavior? If we use religion, there are several religions so can we pick one to impose on everyone? If we don't use belief in a higher authority then what do we use? Our own definition? That wouldn't be good because not everyone agrees.

The only thing that we can do with morality is determine what is right and wrong in Tolkien's world.

And what is morality in Middle Earth? Well, I suppose Eru is morality. But Tolkien also appears to have given every individual the ability to discern and choose without guidance in most situations. It seems that everyone, while different, was given the same basic moral compass in Middle Earth.

Does this reflect his view of the real world?

[Ransom]

It is morally wrong to coerce or compel moral behaviour.

I understand your statement about coercion, Bethberry, but I'm a little confused about your use of the word "compel".

According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

compel (tv)

• To force, drive, or constrain
• To necessitate or pressure by force; exact
• To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway

I think it's safe to assume that you used the word compel to imply one (or more) of the above statements.

A ordered society (as apposed to an anarchy) is based on the idea that *some* sort of behavior or act *somewhere* should be curbed or even outright banned for *some* reason. The actual reasons and conditions(and their relative morality) are largely irrelevant at the moment. I think it's fairly clear that both bad laws (e.g. persecution of religous groups) and good laws (e.g. penalties on rape, murder) both fit into this extremely rough template.

At least in America, government holds power by the consent of the people. It has a mandate from the people to perform certian duties (listed in the Constitution).

For example:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The highlighted section seems to fairly clearly indicate that the new government is intended to keep order and justice. To such an end, the government has passed a large number of laws. It bans premeditated murder, grand larceny, drug use, child abuse, and a large number of other questionable activities. It regulates (and sometimes bans outright) certain economic activities.

In the case of criminal laws, the government takes a fairly uncompromising position on enforcement. People know that if they commit murder, it's extremely likely that the police will find them and arrest them. The fear of punishment would therefore force a certain reaction from citizens. (E.g. Not murdering)

This (hopefully) becomes even more clear in the economic aspect. The government forces companies to operate in a free market through anti-trust litigation. It drives durg companies to comply with FDA rules and regulations. Both are economically necessary--monopolies promote economic inefficiency and defective drugs that cause irreperable harm or death would harm the industry's productivity.

Basically, I'm wondering if your statement that compeling a "moral behavior" (whatever that is defined as [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]) is wrong would lead to a direct (or indirect) condemnation of the modern system of judicial thought.

[ October 29, 2003: Message edited by: Ransom ]

[Lush]

Lush, you’ve made a characteristically provocative assertion – that people who suppress their immoral impulses are worthy of scorn because they not only have the urge, but they are hypocrites in some sense for not at least honestly following through on the urge.

Nah, nah, nah, as much as I like to stay in chatacter when jabbering about illegal substances and whatnot, what I really meant was:

It's wrong for a person that doesn't do drugs to judge a person that does. It's wrong for us to judge Frodo for screwing up at the last minute. As I see it, it's wrong to judge in general.

Naturally, in order for our society to function somewhat (though whether or not it has really ever functioned is a question I'm still trying to answer for myself), we must bring criminals to trial and punish them according to law.

In that context and in many others, it is therefore our responsibility as human beings to search for that which constitutes morality.

I just don't think that any one of us will ever be wholly successful in that regard.

That doesn't, for one second, mean that we shouls stop trying however.

How's that for a conundrum?

Anyway, having decided on the ultimate failure of secular reasoning en masse, I join the good Professor in leaving the final answers and decisions up to God and the individual together (in my view, religion is an intimate, one-on-one conversation).

My apologies to anyone that isn't satisfied with the progression of my pseudo-logic.

[mark12_30]

In letter 156, after a discussion of the decline of Numenorean religious practices and Gondorian refusal to create temples or worship anything created or any 'dark lord'or satanic demon. He then speaks of the third age during and after the War of the Ring:

...the Shadow will arise again (as foretold by Gandalf), but never again (unless it be before the great End) will an evil daemon be incarnate as a physical enemy... But if you imagine people in such a mythical state, in which Evil is largely incarnate, and in which physical resistance to it is a major act of loyalty to God, I think you would have the 'good people' in just such a state: concentrated on the negative: the resistance to the false, while 'truth' remained more historical and philosophical than religious.

Hence, Tolkien connects resistance to the false, the shadow, as being a major act of loyalty to God. The context is a discussion of The Third Age.

Other than that, I don't think it is fruitful for this thread to engage in an argument over the greater virtue of faith or atheism

Clearly the Professor had an opinion on the relation of faith with morality, for instance, Letter 310:

With that we come to religion and the moral ideals that proceed from it.

or to speculate on Tolkien's private, personal thought, to which we are not the ones who have (or had) access.

He gives us that access in his letters. For instance:

Letter 246:

Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as comvceived by simple minds; he gave in, ratted. I do not say 'simple minds' with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. Thier weakness, however, is twofold. They do not percive the complexity of any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget that strange element in the World that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgement (since it is present in the Divine nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God. For finite judges of imperfect knowledge it must lead to the use of two different scales of 'morality'."

He continues with his description of these two scales, and then returns to his discussion of Frodo's 'failure' at the Sammath Naur.

Note the following:

... Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgement (since it is present in the Divine nature).

All of Letter 310 is another fascinating treatment of morality flowing from religion, but since the Professor does not delve into Middle-Earth as such, I will not quote more of it here.

[ October 29, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

We may be running into problems because we're trying to carry on a discussion framed in terms of one overarching question. To my mind, there are at least three separate issues involved here, which need to be dealt with individually

• Tolkien's view on the relation of religion and morality in terms of his personal life and beliefs.
  
• The extent to which Tolkien portrayed the general framework of Arda and its moral underpinnings as having been determined by Eru.
  
• The relation of religious beliefs and/or worship to morality in terms of the individual characters and their choices.
  

Helen,

Several of the quotes you provided definitely tie in with the first two questions. I think few would dispute that, in his own life, Tolkien regarded religion as the single more important factor shaping and influencing his moral choices and actions.

Similarly, reading over the early pages of the Silmarillion, the reader is left with no doubt that Eru is the creator of Arda. He is the one who understands the music in a way no other does; it is said that even those who think they are rebelling against his plan will find their actions turned around and mysteriously used to advance Eru's intentions.

With the third question, we're in a different realm, at least as far as the late Third Age goes. Tolkien consistently states:

(....there is practically no overt 'religion', or rather religious acts or places or ceremonies among the 'good' or anti-Sauron peoples in The Lord of the Rings

There were two reason for this. First, because of what happened in the Second Age, with the worship of a 'dark lord', good Men refused to partake in any worship for fear it could be perverted. Secondly, Eru generally kept himself at a distance from Arda. Tolkien explained:

The immediate 'authorities' are the Valar (the Powers or Authorities): the 'gods'. But they are only created spirits--of high angelic order we should say, with their attendent lesser angels--reverend, but not worshipful...

As a Catholic, Tolkien could not bring himself to create a world in which beings less than Eru would be worshipped. As a result, although God or providence occasionally acts behind the scenes in LotR, it is only in the most extreme situations and in very veiled ways. There is a note in Letter 153 which goes into this in depth. Let me quote just a small piece which stresses how distant Eru is...

There are thus no temples or "churches" or fanes in this 'world' among 'good' peoples. They had little or no 'religion' in the sense of worship. For help they may call on a Vala.... But this is a 'primitive age': and these folk may be said to view the Valar as children view their parents or immediate adult superiors, and though they know they are subjects of the King he does not live in their country nor have there any dwelling. I do not think Hobbits practised any form of worship or prayer (unless through exceptional contact with Elves)....

All this has implications for the whole question of the relationship of religion and morality in terms of The Lord of the Rings. The "good" characters in the book are exceedingly moral. As Aragorn put it, right does not change from one age to the next..., but this morality did not rest on formal religious beliefs or worship, since the latter simply did not exist in Middle-earth. And nowhere was this more true than in the Shire; Bilbo and Frodo and Sam were exceedingly unusual in even knowing a few tales and names of the Valar.

Yet what the Shirelings lacked in belief or knowledge, they made up for with a basic goodness and morality. In some ways the hobbits, with all their silliness, put modern men to shame. Would that we could say no man had killed another for the past 500 years!

In the Letters, Tolkien clearly states that none of the rest of the story makes sense--the entire struggle to be rid of the Ring-- without the Shire standing in the background. The meaning of the whole tale, the reason why Frodo struggled on, is that he could not bear to see the goodness and morality of the Shire destroyed. So Tolkien can and does depict decent men who struggle to act in a moral way out of some innate goodness rather than any formal belief system or mode of worship.

I do not doubt that Tolkien viewed resistence to the shadow as an act of loyalty to God. But this was not something the hobbits themselves were consciously aware of, since they had no knowledge of who Eru was, either in terms of his nature or deeds. Tolkien himself says "the Third Age was not a Christian world", but rather one of "natural theology" (Letter 165), and this natural stance, devoid of revelation, is something all of us can understand and appreciate, whatever our individual religious views.

[Bêthberry]

Ransom,

Basically, I'm wondering if your statement that compeling a "moral behavior" (whatever that is defined as <http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/smilies/tongue.gif> ) is wrong would lead to a direct (or indirect) condemnation of the modern system of judicial thought.

I would answer this by examining first your initial assumption that the obverse of ordered society is anarchy and second by taking the point back to Tolkien.

Most of North Americans' general assumptions about constitutions and governments derive from the Age of Reason, the eighteenth century. We assume that these are good things and represent a progressive, positive form of social organization.

However, not all contemporary thought accepts this. Here, I am thinking particularly of the philosopher Michel Foucault, who argued that the ideas of a "disciplinary society", of a society marked by systems of judicial thought, supervision, regulation, discipline and punishment, institutionalization, and mechanization were formed in the eighteenth century but were not constituted as such in earlier structures of society.

The question of how we come as cultures to create government is not, I think, as cut and dried as saying that a government is established by a written constitution to act upon the will of the people. Anthropology, sociology, philosophy, psychology would all have very different ways of looking upon how governments come to have power.

In fact, there is one form of argument which suggests that the very act of institutionalizing human conduct in governmental organizations, penal insitutions and madhouses, factories creates a very different relationship between moral and immoral behaviour. This placed these concerns within an authoritarian order rather than within a moral order, linking them to civil law. I am greatly simplifying the complex argument here, but essentially it is an argument which says that the very forms of immoral or anti-social behaviour which we now fear are created by the social constructs we now have in place. (Note, he does not say that theft, murder, madness, cruelty did not exist before this form of social organization, but that they were differently understood and handled.)

What I find fascinating here is to look at Tolkien's ideas about power, domination, personal moral responsibility and obligation and consider how he depicted his various races. We know little about dwarven social organization, not terribly much about Rohirrim or Gondorian social order. We probably know The Shire best. All of these societies are what modern rational thought would call primitive and even pre-literate (with the possible exception of Gondor here). Tolkien seems to harken back to some kind of "organic" form of social organization where the people as individuals were responsible for their society.

Think of Saurman's supervisory tower, his desire to impose his will upon others, the nature of The Shire when the hobbits return. It is true that Tolkien creates a Shire initially under the protection of Rangers and then under the jurisdiction of Aragorn, who closes it off to men. But I cannot help but wonder if Tolkien's view of the horrors of modern mechanized society extends also to a sense that moral order should not be relegated to civil order.


This is a very greatly generalized statement which I offer for suggestion only.

Bêthberry

[The Saucepan Man]

Phantom

I'm looking for a reason for everyone to behave morally.

There is no reason for everyone to behave morally.

… suddenly he's immoral where as he was moral before? I don't get it

A person is capable of both moral and immoral actions.

This seems to indicate that moral behavior is merely evolved instinct.

It is in its basic form, yes. But, as I explained above, I believe that we have gone beyond the merely instinctive, so that the pleasure which moral action can bring has become an end in itself. We all eat to survive, don’t we, animals and humans alike? And yet we have taken eating to a new level, beyond that which is simply necessary for survival, by cooking our food, flavouring it, combining dishes, and generally striving towards a more pleasurable eating experience.

… and morality, free will, and choice have been negated.

No more so than if we are compelled by a higher authority to act in a certain way. Indeed, no more so than if you believe (and I think that we all do here, whatever the reason) that humans have a tendency (to put it at its lowest) towards moral behaviour.

In other words, sometimes it's not in the interest of the individual to act in the interest of society (which is true). Why in those situations should they act morally?

They won’t necessarily. If they do, it is because they derive more pleasure from doing so than from satisfying their material desires.

Are we to just accept that some people can't be expected to act morally?

I think that we have to. Although that doesn’t mean that we have to accept immoral behaviour – we have laws to compel people not to perpetrate it in its most extreme form.

Some sort of religious belief is the only thing that would compel everyone, without exception, to behave morally.

This quote has been discussed by others, and I concur very much with what Bêthberry said. I agree that most if not all modern religions (in theory if not in always in their practical application) advocate a basically moral lifestyle. In my view, that is because religion has adopted as its model pattern of behaviour that which has gudied the development of society. But religious faith cannot compel everyone to behave morally because not everyone can be compelled to have religious faith.

Helen

Atheism has no higher authority, and hence, no rules.

If that were the case, then there would be no reason for atheists (or agnostics like me) to act morally. And yet, on the whole, we do.

Sharon

I think folk are trying to come up with a single, magic, controlling key to explain behavior, which simply does not exist.

I firmly believe that there is a fundamental reason why humans tend towards moral action (my “evolution” of society theory). But I wholly agree with you that there are a myriad of different factors (both internal and external) governing whether a particular individual might or might not act in a manner which he or she perceives as “moral”. And I also believe that there are a myriad of different factors affecting exactly what each individual perceives as “moral” or “immoral”. While there are certain types of behaviour which can, I think, be objectively labelled as either moral or immoral, there are a lot of “grey areas” in between.

Mister Underhill

You can’t definitively prove me wrong if I hypothesize that somewhere out there in the universe are a few planets that don’t obey the laws of gravitation. But you’d think me silly for arguing such a point when the vast weight of evidence suggests otherwise.

But where is the weight of evidence to suggest that an immoral person will inevitably be less happy than a moral one?

Your conclusion seems to contradict your theory. An evolutional, societal model of morality would seem to logically endorse the sacrifice of a few (innocent or not) for the good of society.

No it doesn’t. A society which sanctions immoral behaviour, even for the greater good, will not serve the interests of the majority of the individuals within that society (for a variety of possible reasons: less security, increased brutality, increased criminality, greater likelihood of conflict with other societies etc). Often societies such as this will serve only the interests of the (immoral) ruling elite. They are therefore not properly functioning societies and most will suffer the consequences of their immoral character in that they will be unhappy and, frequently, short-lived societies.

Sorry Esty. My next post will be Tolkien-related, I promise. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[The Saucepan Man]

Tolkien seems to harken back to some kind of "organic" form of social organization where the people as individuals were responsible for their society.

You make an interesting point, Bêthberry . Gondor and Rohan did have military institutions which no doubt acted as some form of "police force" and would have been used to keep order where necessary. And in the Shire, of course, Shirriffs were charged with keeping order. We do hear very little of crime and punishment in LotR, although that is no doubt because the narrative is focussing on wider events. I would suspect that there were criminals in both Rohan and Gondor, and that each had in place some form of criminal justice system.

I can see wat you are getting at with regard to the Shire, though. The Shirriffs clearly had very little "serious" work to do, and the fact that Sharkey's Men had to use storage tunnels as Lockholes suggests that there had previously been no requirement for a jail.

Similarly with Elvish society. There seems to have been little need for individuals specifically charged with keeping order. Although Thranduil had dungeons in his Palace, I would suspect that these were more for locking up outsiders than for incarcerating denizens of his realm. Really, it is difficult to imagine there being much need for a system to compel good behaviour in Elvish communities. There are, of course, exceptions (Saeros' dispute with Turin and the Kinslaying at Aqualonde spring to mind), but on the whole Elves seem to have been fairly capable of taking individual responsibility in this regard.

But these are surely highly idealised societies. I really cannot imagine any but the most rudimentary of societies existing in reality without some means of keeping order. And, in terms of the level of advancement of the Hobbits and Elves in LotR, the equivalent societies in our history had criminal justice systems of sorts (even if they were not terribly just by our standards today).

As I said, I can imagine the Human societies in Middle-earth having formal systems directed towards compelling comliance with the law. I wonder, therefore, whether Tolkien was intentionally drawing a distinction between Elves (and Hobbits) and Men in this regard.

[Bêthberry]

Hi there Saucepan,

My point was really to suggest that our current, contemporary concept of morality and immorality is heavily determined by our criminal codes. Many, many behaviours are now deemed 'criminal', to various degrees, which were never in the past subject to law enforcement per se. (The history of the regulation of alcohol consumption in the USA and in Europe is one example.) In fact, the USA has one of the highest rates of incarceration of any of the Western nations.

It might be interesting, as an aside, to look at these links on the history of policing. Many of our modern ideas of policing are still derived from Sir Robert Peel's ideas when he established the first London Police force c. 1829 (the 'Bobbies', named after him).

The descriptions of the social organization for Anglo Saxon England (prior to William the Conqueror's invasion and usurption of the English throne) are fascinating in terms of Tolkien's depiction of The Shire.

History of Policing

Tything and Hundreds, Reeves in Shires

It might be a bit mad to discuss a post modern philosopher like Foucault (for whom all knowledge is a social construct) alongside an author like Tolkien (who believed, of course, in absolute truth), but I thought it was a helpful way to suggest that our current conceptions might not reflect the historical accuracies which Tolkien suggests.

Crime and punishment, as you correctly note, have little to do with Tolkien's moral universe.

[ November 01, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Kuruharan]

Saucepan

There is no reason for everyone to behave morally.

-and-

I firmly believe that there is a fundamental reason why humans tend towards moral action

I suggest that there is, at the very least, an inconsistency here.

It is in its basic form, yes. But, as I explained above, I believe that we have gone beyond the merely instinctive, so that the pleasure which moral action can bring has become an end in itself.

I’m going to try again and ask "How?" and "Why should it have developed in the first place?"

[The Saucepan Man]

I suggest that there is, at the very least, an inconsistency here.

Not at all. The phantom was considering whether there was a reason for everyone to behave morally. I do not believe that there is. But I do believe that humans tend towards moral behaviour and, if so, there must be some reason for this.

Why should it have developed in the first place?

It's an evolved pattern of behaviour originally directed towards facilitating the survival of the species - see my earlier posts.

I really don't think that it's worth taking up any more space on this thread discussing my views on this. But feel free to PM me if you do want to discuss these issues further. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Kuruharan]

I really don't think that it's worth taking up any more space on this thread discussing my views on this.

Well, you are perhaps right about that. Things have wandered a bit. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[mark12_30]

*bump*

Originally Posted by Estelyn

I’d like to introduce the first chapter and hear your ideas on it.

Any interest in The Next, or subsequent, Chapters?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Though I'm not currently reading in this book, I'd welcome contributions and try to take time to post if someone begins to discuss further chapters. Go for it!