'The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy'

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I’m reading a fascinating new book, The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy. (It belongs to the Popular Culture and Philosophy series, Open Court publishers, which includes similar books on the Simpsons, Matrix, etc. – an interesting concept!) Some of the chapters remind me of the great book discussions we’ve had in the past on the Downs. I’d like to introduce the first chapter and hear your ideas on it.

‘The Rings of Tolkien and Plato: Lessons in Power, Choice, and Morality’ is written by Eric Katz. He compares LotR’s concepts with those of Plato’s The Republic. In it, Plato poses the question, “Why be moral?” and tells the story of the shepherd Gyges, who finds a magical ring that makes him invisible. He uses it “to enter the palace, seduce the queen, and kill the king”.

Glaucon, who defends a life of immorality in The Republic, says that

people are morally good only because they cannot act with impunity – they fear punishment for their evil actions.

Plato refutes with the argument that

the immoral life is a worse life than a morally virtuous life because ultimately the immoral life leads to a fundamental unhappiness: mental anguish, the loss of friends and loved ones, and emotional bankruptcy. All the power in the world cannot compensate for the psychological emptiness of an immoral life. The moral person, in contrast, lives a life of integrity and personal fulfilment, even if he or she is limited in power, wealth, and fame. The moral person is at peace with himself.

Now, Tolkien did not write the LotR as a work of philosophy, but he was certainly familiar with the classics. Katz states that JRRT not only illustrates the above principle by showing us the “thoughts and actions of ‘living characters’” but that his stories “improve and augment Plato’s argument, for Tolkien’s Ring explicitly corrupts the souls of its possessors.”

Tolkien also shows us the difficulties involved in living a life of virtue: there are burdens to be undertaken and sacrifices that must be made.

While Gollum is the obvious example of the effect of Plato’s principle,

the crucial moment in each character’s story is the moment in which they are tempted to use the Ring.

Boromir’s story shows that

a Ring of Power corrupts even the person who is brave, strong, and virtuous.

while Galadriel shows that

a strong and virtuous person can refuse the temptation of immense power, even at a great personal cost.

The most interesting aspect of this choice is the fact that

the virtuous and strong-willed person can turn away from a life of evil, a life of almost unlimited power, by focusing on his or her true self.

This thought I find fascinating!

Galadriel does it – “I will remain Galadriel”.

Frodo does it on Amon Hen:

Suddenly he was aware of himself again. Frodo, neither the Voice nor the Eye: free to choose.

And Sam does it at Cirith Ungol:

The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command.

Katz concludes:

All who come in contact with the Ring (except, it appears, Bombadil) lose themselves (at least momentarily) in the desire to be greater than they are.

If you need a Ring of Power to live your life, you have chosen the wrong life.

Still with me? I did want to share enough of this chapter to start a discussion, since many may not yet have read it. Are you familiar with Plato’s The Republic? Do you think the comparisons are valid? What is your opinion on Katz’ conclusions about morality? I look forward to hearing what you think!

[burrahobbit]

That is a surprisingly apt comparison, except that Mr. Gyges is not necesarily immoral, he just has a free shot at it. The Ring in Tolkien's mythos, however, takes an active part in causing immorality.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Plato had a few dodgy arguments, but his quote that you gave, Estelyn, does fit in extremely well with the story of The Lord Of The Rings. I like his definition of morality very much.

It sounds like a must read!

[ October 17, 2003: Message edited by: Eomer of the Rohirrim ]

[The X Phial]

Burra - I'd say killing someone and taking his wife and crown is rather immoral. His ring did not cause him to be immoral, however, he just took advantage of it.

The real comparison I can see is to Bilbo. When he first puts the ring on he is not swept away by feelings of greatness (at least as far as we know) which may mean that the influence of Sauron was simply less strong. Like Gyges, he could have killed using his new powers, but he did not. This seems like a more direct comparison, and even better argument for the morality in Tolkien. It is the pity of Bilbo (and Frodo) that saves them all, to paraphrase Gandalf. So, morality is rewarded far along the way, but not immediately.

[The Saucepan Man]

Smeagol, of course, uses the Ring for nefarious purposes (albeit petty compared to this shepherd chappie). He is punished for doing so by being cast out from his community (and his life doesn't get much better after that, either [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ).

[Lord of Angmar]

Burra - I'd say killing someone and taking his wife and crown is rather immoral. His ring did not cause him to be immoral, however, he just took advantage of it.

Are we are speaking of immortality as action or as belief and virtue? The ring certainly did cause the sheperd Gyges to act immoraly, giving him the power to kill and to usurp, but it was not necessarily the reason for his rationalizing this immoral action.

Immorality as a way of life, as Plato said, starts with simple immoral actions as a means of achieving goals, and ends with the alteration of one's mind and spirit for the irreparably worse. In this case, Gyges's immoral action stemmed from an opportunity to attain a previously impossible goal, and from that one immoral action he became an immoral man.

The Ring in Professor Tolkien's work is far different, I think. The Ring is inherently a corrupter, and though the moral characters in Tolkien's works can fight it, it will ultimately overcome even the most moral mind (as long as that mind belongs to a being of lesser power than Sauron). In the case of Gyges, the ring is but a springboard into the immoral, a means of achieving a great feat through immoral action.

In other words, Tolkien's Ring is corrupts and demoralizes by nature. Plato's ring tempts by its virtue (invisibility) alone, not by any actions or 'mind-control' of its own.

The book you bring up, Estelyn, sounds like an excellent read. I think I have seen it at my local Barnes & Noble, but I usually have no patience of the nit-picking of Professor Tolkien's works by scholars in philosophy and English.

[mark12_30]

Esty,

I've been picking thru the book rather casually, enjoying enough of it to make the book purchase worthwhile, and shrugging off the rest.

Your quote from Plato struck me afresh:

the immoral life is a worse life than a morally virtuous life because ultimately the immoral life leads to a fundamental unhappiness: mental anguish, the loss of friends and loved ones, and emotional bankruptcy. All the power in the world cannot compensate for the psychological emptiness of an immoral life. The moral person, in contrast, lives a life of integrity and personal fulfilment, even if he or she is limited in power, wealth, and fame. The moral person is at peace with himself.

Frodo initially felt peace when the Ring was destroyed, but that peace faded. Isn't it sad that Frodo cannot remain in the "moral person's" personal fulfilment, but rather slowly and steadily falls into

mental anguish, the loss of friends and loved ones, and emotional bankruptcy

At the Mount Doom meltdown when all is over and Gollum gone, it looks like he'll be okay-- that his victory at Amon Hen will prevail. But slowly, his defeat at Sammath Naur eats him away, and we see him broken, bereft of friends, peace, and health, until he must leave Middle-Earth for any chance of healing.

I wonder how Galadriel would have fared if she'd had to carry the One Ring all the way from the Shire to Mount Doom and try to throw it in. It's hard to compare the two, isn't it? Galadriel passed the test, and didn't accept the Ring; but if she had accepted the burden in order to destroy it and made the journey herself, would she have fared better than Frodo? Tolkien seems to think she would not, nor Sam either; he essentially says in Letters that no one could have fared better than Frodo given his same circumstances.

So the tests differ. Frodo would have passed Galadriel's test, I think, as would Sam.

"I am wounded by sting, blade, tooth, and a long burden." That long burden culminated in the defeat at Sammath Naur, there unmentioned, yet certainly the seed of the self-doubt that gnaws at Frodo more and more with the passage of time. The Sammath Naur defeat was Frodo's ultimate undoing as long as he remained in Middle-Earth, and thus the moral man was worn down to an immorality that he never intended nor desired, and could not by himself escape.

Tolkien never said it was fair...

(edit)

L.O. Angmar, you bring up an interesting distinction between immoral actions and immoral desires. Man can only judge what he sees or understands, and so, judges actions since they are visible; but most men will take desire, or intent, into account when considering mercy. In contrast, I believe God judges desire for its own sake, and then on top of that, considers what actions resulted from the desires.

That's what makes Frodo's case seem so unfair. He initially had no desire for the Ring (unlike Galadriel or Boromir) but due to long exposure, it became his desire (I would say through little or no fault of his own and from the letters I think Tolkien would agree) and that (initially undesired) immoral desire turned into immoral action.

the virtuous and strong-willed person can turn away from a life of evil, a life of almost unlimited power, by focusing on his or her true self.

This to me implies judgement of intent. And according to this definition, what was Frodo's true self? I would argue that Frodo's true self appeared on Amon Hen, not at Sammath Naur. But according to Plato's rule, in Frodo's own conscience rather than being rewarded for Amon Hen, Frodo was punished for Sammath Naur.

Considering all that, I'm quite glad Arwen showed him mercy, and gave Frodo her westward berth.

[ October 17, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Tolkien never said it was fair...

Not always for the good guys, no. But Tolkien seems to be scrupulously fair when it comes to the bad guys. I cannot think of one principal bad guy in all of Tolkien's works who did not ultimately get his or her "come-uppance".

In this respect, Tolkien adheres to the proposition put forward here:

the immoral life is a worse life than a morally virtuous life because ultimately the immoral life leads to a fundamental unhappiness: mental anguish, the loss of friends and loved ones, and emotional bankruptcy. All the power in the world cannot compensate for the psychological emptiness of an immoral life.

Applying it to fiction, it works well. The reader (or viewer of a film) is satisfied when the baddie receives his or her just desserts. But it is, unfortunately, not applicable in real life. There are many examples of people who have acted immoraly (judged by reference to standard norms) and yet who reap the rewards of their immorality and suffer no (earthly) punishment. So, this proposition cannot form the basis of a sound philosophy.

[Eladar]

But Tolkien seems to be scrupulously fair when it comes to the bad guys. I cannot think of one principal bad guy in all of Tolkien's works who did not ultimately get his or her "come-uppance".

Looking at the other side of the coin, we do have a good guy who reaps nothing but sorrow, Turin.

Melian did nothing wrong, but she definitely suffered.

It is possible that some of the Nazgul were evil to begin and were rewarded for following Sauron. True, they ended up dead, but this was thousands of years after they should have died.

[ladyhwi]

Thank you Estelyn Telcontar. I am not familiar with Plato's Republic. I have heard the story of Gyges. You've all made me think whatever choices we have to make in life moral or immoral a most important thing is to know thyself.

[Arwen1858]

Mark, I really like what you said in your post.

Saucepan Man, you said:

There are many examples of people who have acted immoraly (judged by reference to standard norms) and yet who reap the rewards of their immorality and suffer no (earthly) punishment.

That's true, but the key is earthly. They will suffer punishment after they die.

mark12_30 said:

Considering all that, I'm quite glad Arwen showed him mercy, and gave Frodo her westward berth.

I am, too. Frodo suffered so much, both while bearing the ring and afterwards. I'm really glad he was able to go into the West and live out the rest of his days in peace.
Arwen

[hobbit punk]

I agree with what someone said about Plato's ring and Tolkien's ring being different. It is true that in LOTR the ring is itself evil and has the power to corrupt those it comes in contact with. In Plato's Republic, the ring only serves to help the shepard live out the things he would have liked to do but were only possible with the aid of his magic ring. In other words, he would not face public ridicule and punishment if they did not know it was him. Another example of this is the truly awful movie Hollow Man. In it, the Kevin Bacon character is made invisible through some experiment and goes on to commit some very immoral acts. It is not the formula itself that made him invisible which corrupts him, it is his own nature coming into play. The feeling like he can get away with anything. He then goes on to rape a girl, kill an innocent animal, kill a man and attempt to kill his former team mates. It is the lure, the temptation of being invisible that makes the person feel like they can get away with anything. It gives them what they think is the ultimate power. In LOTR, the ring does have a mind of its own. So it is an outside force that corrupts and puts these thoughts into the mind of people who come into contact with it. The ring can make you believe sometimes that by using it, you will be doing the right or moral thing. Such was the case with Boromir. The ring corrupted him, but it did subtley, making Boromir believe that if he took it, he could use it to save his people. This was, however, not the reality. In Plato, the ring just makes you invisible. It is not an outside force, so when you use it, you are acting entirely out of your own influence, your own thoughts, wants and desires. In the case of the shepard, these were evil desires. In LoTR, the characters on the good side who come into contact with the ring, only do so in order to benefit others in some way. Boromir wants to defend his people, Frodo wants to undertake the mission to destroy it in order to save the free peoples of ME, Sam takes it when he believes Frodo to be dead because he also understands the importance of the mission. In conclusion, I feel that the rings seen in Lotr and Plato's Republic are very different.

[ October 19, 2003: Message edited by: hobbit punk ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I’m happy that this topic has gotten good responses – thanks to each of you! There are several points which have prompted me to continue thinking about it.

Yes, the rings are different – Tolkien’s does play a much more active role in corruption of a person.

In LOTR, the ring does have a mind of its own. (hobbit punk)

I agree with Lord of Angmar that

Plato's ring tempts by its virtue (invisibility) alone, not by any actions or 'mind-control' of its own.

However, I do not agree that

from that one immoral action he became an immoral man.

I would say that it is the other way around – one who is intrinsically immoral acts immorally. For that reason, I also disagree with burrahobbit’s statement that

Gyges is not necessarily immoral.

As TheXPhial said,

His ring did not cause him to be immoral.

and hobbit punk adds,

the ring only serves to help the shepherd live out the things he would have liked to do but were only possible with the aid of his magic ring.

Since the ring itself (Plato’s) is neutral, the person determines which course of action he takes.

hobbit punk, thanks also for the interesting comparison to the “Hollow Man” movie – I haven’t seen it, but it sounds like a modernisation of Plato’s story! Again, as you say,

It is not the formula itself that made him invisible which corrupts him, it is his own nature coming into play.

True, Saucepan Man, real life does not deal out justice to wicked persons as we would like to see it, yet I would like to think that they do experience some of those effects -

mental anguish, the loss of friends and loved ones, emotional bankruptcy … psychological emptiness…

Mark12_30, you bring up the tragic aspect, the fact that Frodo did suffer those unhappy consequences though he was not himself an immoral person. How aptly you phrase it:

The moral man was worn down to an immorality that he never intended nor desired, and could not by himself escape.

I too am glad that he experienced the grace of his final journey to Elvenhome and hopefully, complete healing there.

[Mister Underhill]

Others have challenged this point, but it caught my notice too, so I’ll add a few remarks.

There are many examples of people who have acted immoraly (judged by reference to standard norms) and yet who reap the rewards of their immorality and suffer no (earthly) punishment. So, this proposition cannot form the basis of a sound philosophy.

I’m not sure I follow your logic here, Sauce. The quote you reference does not refer to “punishment” per se – unless the punishment is a miserable internal life. Certainly there are numerous examples of people who have reaped all the material, outward “rewards” of their immorality, but do they have fulfilling relationships, clear consciences, peace of mind?

Plato’s assertion is, I would argue, one of the few bedrock principles that most systems of traditional wisdom, secular and non-secular, can agree on: you can’t put a price tag on the value of a life of integrity and virtue; virtue is its own reward; immorality leads only to unhappiness, no matter how much riches or fame may be obtained thereby.

[Aiwendil]

Mister Underhill wrote:

The quote you reference does not refer to “punishment” per se – unless the punishment is a miserable internal life. Certainly there are numerous examples of people who have reaped all the material, outward “rewards” of their immorality, but do they have fulfilling relationships, clear consciences, peace of mind?

and

virtue is its own reward; immorality leads only to unhappiness, no matter how much riches or fame may be obtained thereby.

I disagree. A view like this rests upon the claim that all immoral people are unhappy; in fact, in order for it to be the basis of any kind of moral philosophy, it would need the claim that all people are unhappy to the degree that they are immoral.

You are right in pointing out the distinction between external signs of happiness and one's internal state of mind. But do you really think that all immoral people are secretly miserable? There's no pressing reason to think that this is so. Such claims have always struck me as unsupportable tautologies that people use to convince themselves to be moral.

But even supposing that this turns out to be true for every human that has acted immorally, it runs into problems. For it is certainly possible to imagine a hypothetical person that lacks a conscience and that genuinely, thoroughly enjoys being immoral. If morality is simply based on happiness, we have no justification for telling this person to be moral.

Maybe it's true that sometimes or even often, immorality leads to unhappiness. But this does not mean that happiness and morality are inextricably bound together.

[mark12_30]

To me this "failure of conscience" (another writer calls it a "seared conscience") points to the major weakness in Plato's theory: he leaves out something that Tolkien would certainly include. We will answer for our actions. Tolkien certainly believed this, although he was also conscious of mercy and grace. The missing peice is some elegantly stated version of "... and besides, Eru said so."

Without that final say-so, Aiwendil is right; we are left with little more than the Dogpatch saw, "Good is better than evil because it's nicer." While that makes a certain abount of emotinonal sense for the individual with a healthy conscience, logically it's less than convincing.

In contrast, Gandalf refers to a higher power when he discusses Frodo's being "meant" to have the Ring; Tolkien agreed that this was so in his letters, stating that in LOTR, Eru is nowhere named but everywhere felt.

Conscience by itself works for a while, maybe, but in the end, knowing we will answer for our actions is a powerful motivator.

[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Mister Underhill]

But this does not mean that happiness and morality are inextricably bound together.

As a matter of fact, I happen to think that they are.

Can I prove it? Obviously I’m not in a position to know the secret thoughts and hearts of the six or seven billion people on the planet, so there’s no way for me to mount a logically unassailable defense of this position. If thousands of years’ worth of writings of the wisest men in history haven’t been able to produce a bulletproof defense of the logic of morality, I won’t be able to do it here in the context of these boards, so I won’t even try.

But logic isn’t the whole story. Logic and morality seem to be uneasy bedfellows at best. Yet I think there is a reason why the words of Plato, Confucius, the Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, et al have survived for centuries. I can’t prove it, but I know it when I see it. People seem to respond to the principle in a general way in art and entertainment. My personal experience bears it out. I can't rule out your hypothetically immoral but perfectly happy and at peace person, but I've never met him or her. It may all be some grand illusion propagated by the (secretly) wise and powerful and eminently happy and fulfilled immoral elite to trick the masses into being moral, but I don’t think so.

[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Arwen1858]

I can't rule out your hypothetically immoral but perfectly happy and at peace person, but I've never met him or her.

I think it would be very hard for an immoral person to be happy. In his heart, that person would know what he was doing was wrong, and while he might try to ignore his conscience, and his heart may harden, to where he isn't as bothered by doing whatever immoral act he's in, he still wouldn't be truly happy. If someone, through immoral methods, gained a large amount of money, he could try as much as he wanted to fill his desires with material things. He could buy the biggest house, the best car, and the most expensive clothes, but those would not satisfy him. If he got the money through ill methods, he wouldn't be truly happy with it, even if he tried to act as if he were.

[Aiwendil]

Mark12_30 wrote:

We will answer for our actions. Tolkien certainly believed this, although he was also conscious of mercy and grace. The missing peice is some elegantly stated version of "... and besides, Eru said so."

That's true; within Tolkien's world Eru is certainly the arbiter of all moral issues. But that's putting it a bit wrong. Eru's judgement is the source and the essence of morality in Arda.

Without that final say-so, Aiwendil is right; we are left with little more than the Dogpatch saw, "Good is better than evil because it's nicer." While that makes a certain abount of emotinonal sense for the individual with a healthy conscience, logically it's less than convincing.

Note that I wasn't saying that a logical basis for morality is impossible. Rather, I was criticizing the Platonic/Aristotelian view that morality is to be identified with happiness.

Mister Underhill wrote:

Obviously I’m not in a position to know the secret thoughts and hearts of the six or seven billion people on the planet, so there’s no way for me to mount a logically unassailable defense of this position.

It's not just that one can't make a logically unassaialbe defense of this view. It's rather that this view seems to depend critically on a claim that is - at best - supported only by personal anecdotes and folk wisdom.

If thousands of years’ worth of writings of the wisest men in history haven’t been able to produce a bulletproof defense of the logic of morality, I won’t be able to do it here in the context of these boards, so I won’t even try.

You make it sound as though every moral philosopher more or less agrees with Plato about this. But there are a great many who do not. Take Hume, or Kant, or Mill, for example.

I can't rule out your hypothetically immoral but perfectly happy and at peace person, but I've never met him or her.

Note that I'm not saying that there must be no relation whatsoever between happiness and morality. Perhaps it's a good approximation to say that behaving immorally makes one feel bad. But, considering hypothetical cases like this one, I think it's a mistake to assume that morality must at it's most basic level have to do with happiness.

[Finwe]

I think the first principles of morality were founded on just what "felt" right to early (or relatively early) Man. For most of us, killing, stealing, committing adultery, etc. don't "feel" nice. They (usually) leave one feeling a bit "dirty" or "tainted." To simplify things, mankind condensed "what felt right" into a code of laws or morals, that we continue to follow today. It generally makes for a much happier society. (Although I don't claim to speak for all those sociopaths out there who truly enjoy killing.)

[Lord of Angmar]

JRR Tolkien and Plato believed what you are saying Finwe; that immoral actions have, in essence, a bad aftertaste. The reason we define things as 'moral' and 'immoral' is for this very reason; if immoral things felt good and proper, then they would not be considered immoral by the populace. Since, however, immoral acts (arguably, at least in the majority of cases) lead to degradation of the spirit and a feeling of uncleanliness and unhappiness, they are not pursued as a way of life by those seeking happiness (which is most of us).

Look at Turin; the more blood he shed, the more psychotic he became, until at last he became suicidal. He did not start out as an immoral man per se, but when one looks at the individual acts of immorality he committed in their context, one can clearly see the steady degradation of his reasoning process when faced with decisions of morality vs. immorality.

The Ringwraiths are another example; they did not start out as fixtures of immorality, but because they became subservient to Sauron and became evildoers, they were (as I believe Aragorn put it) torchured and tormented souls.
Their torchure was a result of their obedience to a cruel and immoral leader.

To simplify things, mankind condensed "what felt right" into a code of laws or morals, that we continue to follow today

That is exactly what I think: we consider things immoral because they lead to unhappiness, a feeling of taintedness, a feeling of being at odds with one's inner-self, and, in extreme cases suicidal/homicidal tendencies. These, of course, are subjective terms and ideas, but it is generally agreed on by members of the human race what it feels to be 'happy' and what it feels to be 'sad.'

The idea of happiness and immorality being able to coincide within one person is one that is never really addressed by Tolkien. All of his evil characters tend to degrade into hatred of everything and inherent unhappiness.

Note that I'm not saying that there must be no relation whatsoever between happiness and morality.

Morality and happiness are relative terms. One can be perfectly happy who has never learned the Western ideology of 'morality', and who lives in what we would consider to be a barbaric and immoral manner. In this sense, there could be people who are "immoral but perfectly happy and at peace," but they would only be immoral by subjective standards, and would not be immoral by their own reasoning.

[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[the phantom]

Although I don't claim to speak for all those sociopaths out there who truly enjoy killing.

Well, sociopaths believe that they are moral. In fact one of the identifying marks of a sociopath is that he believes in the absolute perfection of his beliefs, judgements, and perceptions.

[Arwen1858]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I don't claim to speak for all those sociopaths out there who truly enjoy killing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, sociopaths believe that they are moral. In fact one of the identifying marks of a sociopath is that he believes in the absolute perfection of his beliefs, judgements, and perceptions.

So I guess just because a person doesn't feel that what they're doing is 'immoral' that doesn't mean it's right.

I think the first principles of morality were founded on just what "felt" right to early (or relatively early) Man. For most of us, killing, stealing, committing adultery, etc. don't "feel" nice. They (usually) leave one feeling a bit "dirty" or "tainted."

I think that's our conscience at work, when we feel something like that isn't right. But sometimes, people probably ignore their conscience so many times, and commit immoral acts anyways, their heart hardens, and what they once knew as wrong becomes second nature to them, and they see it as being a perfectly fine thing to do.

[Mhoram]

In regards to the argument over the results of an immoral life, I offer as a hypothetical example, Machiavelli's Prince.

Brushing aside idealism, Machiavelli outlines what a good ruler must do to best maintain the stability of the state and his own power. He states that "It is much safer for a prince to be feared than loved." A good prince would need to use his force in every facet, be it the putting down of rebellions, the interrogation of citizens by torture, executions, invasions of neighboring states, breaking of promises, every supposed immoral action can be justified for the good of the state and the security of his power.

Agree with Machiavelli or no, it can easily be seen that a person could do these things with full confidence in their justification and in their moral rightiousness. Afterall, what he does is done in the interest of keeping the state safe and secure, and in keeping himself in power, which is a moral good in and of itself because so long as he is in power, the state will be kept strong and secure. Perhaps somewhat delusional, but by all means sane and possible opinions.

(Machiavelli seemed to hold no delusions about his tactics being morally unsound, just the better of two evils. However we can allow our hypothetical prince to hold that these tactics are indeed morally sound.)

And so, I offer that a person can act in such an immoral way and remain happy in all aspects, both worldly (by joy of his power and position) and internally (by confidence in his believed rightious actions)

My point is to discount the 'immoral life = unhappiness' argument as a _proof_ of the virtue of morallity. It is at best, I think, only an example of what 'works'


On the original topic, I also think Tolkien's ring and Plato's principle are too different to make a fair and balanced comparison. And I can't really see the benefit of doing so, Plato's example is clear enough, not sure what value there is in trying to pin another on Tolkien's work.

[Mister Underhill]

Hume, Kant, Mill... we’ve wandered into this neighborhood before in previous discussions, and I confess that I am just as ill-equipped now to discuss them in any depth as I was then. Could you perhaps elaborate a bit here? Though they come at the question from different angles, these men all seem to fundamentally agree with Plato. My impression of Mill is that he draws a direct correlation between morality and happiness. Am I way off base? Hume also seems to draw a correlation between virtue and good feelings, and vice and bad feelings. Even Kant’s very rational morality seems to argue for a moral life as the means by which higher meaning and purpose in life are realized, or perhaps I should say that we accept moral imperatives on faith that there is a higher meaning and purpose in life.

The “philosophies” I cited are all agreed that the path of virtue leads to a fulfilling life and inner peace, while the path of vice leads to misery and disharmony, and none of the more modern philosophers you mentioned seem to dispute this notion at first glance.

We sort of went over Machiavelli in chat, Mho, but I’ll just state for the benefit of others on the thread here that I don’t follow you that Machiavellian immorality can lead to a life of fulfillment and inner peace. The fearfulness of the Machiavellian prince and his feeling that he is justified in using any means to maintain his position is not compatible with true happiness as I understand it. I would reiterate this argument with regards to other sorts of hypothetical situations put forward. Is the hypothetical sociopath who feels no moral qualms truly happy, fulfilled, and at peace? To what degree a person is able to justify or harden their heart against immoral actions isn’t really the question – the question is, what is the result of this sort of lifestyle? Is it better and more fulfilling than a lifestyle spent in the pursuit of virtue? I think not.

I suppose I’m sort of shocked to find so many people willing to argue that a life of amorality can be just as fulfilling and happy as a life of virtue; perhaps it’s simply that words like “morality” and “virtue” have acquired certain ominous and hypocritical connotations and associations in our modern world.

[the phantom]

the question is, what is the result of this sort of lifestyle? Is it better and more fulfilling than a lifestyle spent in the pursuit of virtue?

Fulfilling? Yes. More fulfilling? No.

I don't have my Bible handy now, but I recall a quote about choosing sin and that it would yield "pleasure for a season".

I believe that those who reject virtue can obtain fulfillment through immorality, but their fulfillment will be less deep and shorter lived. And even if their happiness lasts until their Earthly death, they will pay dearly for their choice in eternity.

[Mhoram]

I suppose I’m sort of shocked to find so many people willing to argue that a life of amorality can be just as fulfilling and happy as a life of virtue; perhaps it’s simply that words like “morality” and “virtue” have acquired certain ominous and hypocritical connotations and associations in our modern world.

I would suggest that this is a reaction to living in a world where what is moral is a very relative abstract notion, being so hard to define...and that seems to be necessarily at odds with itself. You must take food that belongs to John in order to save the life of the starving Henry. Henry's right to help takes precedence over John's right to his property; nevertheless John's right remains, and John in wronged by the act which saves Henry. Once again, the lesser of two evils. Daily we are confronted with decisions of one immorality versus another.

It seems better to spend time justifying the immorality that is matter-of-fact in everyone's life than to spend time musing over the morally virtuous lifestyle that seems so alien and perhaps even idealistic.

Estel: Does this book cover other topics of philosophy, comparing them to Tolkien's writing? If so, you might wish to start a new thread on another topic at some time.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Nice to have you posting here, Mho! Yes, the book does have other chapters and yes, I will open new threads to avoid cluttering this one with a completely different discussion.

[Arwen1858]

The Phantom said:

I don't have my Bible handy now, but I recall a quote about choosing sin and that it would yield "pleasure for a season".

It's in Hebrews 11:25, talking about Moses. It says:

v.24 By faith, Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter; v. 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, that to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.

I think that when someone is going to commit an immoral act, say he had a way to steal some money without anyone ever knowing, he would know it was wrong, yet would still take some pleasure in it. He would enjoy being able to buy a huge house, and a fancy car. He would love to drive his car and show it off to people. He would enjoy the money to some degree. But only for a season. His conscience would still prick him at times, and it would also be harder for him knowing the money was gotten through ill means.
Mister Underhill said:

the question is, what is the result of this sort of lifestyle? Is it better and more fulfilling than a lifestyle spent in the pursuit of virtue? I think not.

I don't think it could be more fulfilling. To fulfill means to satisfy, and while there may be some enjoyment from whatever is gained through the immoral act, I don't think it could be fulfilling.

[Sharkû]

Call me cynical, but I like the posts which manage to combine philosophy with Tolkien best [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I am amazed that my somewhat "off the cuff" comment has caused such debate. But, I stand by what I said and therefore feel beholden to defend it (even though I would very much like to believe that I am wrong on this one).

My original point was an observation that, while Tolkien clearly adhered to the Platonic view that:

the immoral life is a worse life than a morally virtuous life because ultimately the immoral life leads to a fundamental unhappiness

... it does not reflect the realities of life. I therefore concluded that Plato's analysis cannot form the basis of a sound philosophy.

First, to address Tolkien's view on this, the following comments by mark12_30 and the Lord of Angmar are pertinent:

We will answer for our actions. Tolkien certainly believed this, although he was also conscious of mercy and grace. (mark12_30)

JRR Tolkien ... believed ... that immoral actions have, in essence, a bad aftertaste. (Lord of Angmar)

Precisely. As I said in my original post on this particular subject, I cannot think of one "bad guy" in Tolkien's works who does not get his or her "come uppance", either physically or spiritually (or, more often than not, both). Lord of Angmar cites a prime example: Turin Turambar. Not a "bad guy" per se but, whether through the curse of Morgoth or bad (moral) judgment on his part, he acts immorally (sometimes) and unwisely (often), and is he is punished in his life both spiritually (he certainly did not have a happy life) and, ultimately, physically (in the act of taking his own life) as a result.

Mister Underhill wrote:

People seem to respond to the principle in a general way in art and entertainment.

Well not always (good art does not always punish the wrongdoer) but, as a general rule, yes. Since the majority of us adhere to moral norms (of which more later), we respond better to art which punishes those which refuse to adhere to them. Tolkien is squarely within this tradition, since he makes sure that his immoral characters (even those, such as Boromir and Denethor, who are noble characters seduced into acting wrongly) receive punishment in some way for their wrongful deeds. Even Frodo, for all the bravery and herosim that he displays, does not escape the consequences of his final temptation.

However, much as this might offer us some comfort when neatly packaged as a work of fiction or as a philosophy, it does not reflect reality.

I’m not sure I follow your logic here, Sauce. (Mr U)

Well, in response to this, let me first say that I endorse everything that Aiwendil and Mhoram have posted. And also, to clear another point up at this stage, Underhillo posted:

I suppose I’m sort of shocked to find so many people willing to argue that a life of amorality can be just as fulfilling and happy as a life of virtue

Well, while I do believe that such a life can be just as fulfilling and happy (as I will explain), I don't, of course, believe that to be a desirable state of affairs. It should not be so, but I believe that unfortunately, it is.

In mounting a defence of my position, I feel that it is first necessary to explore (tentatively) why we (society as a whole) act morally.

To simplify things, mankind condensed "what felt right" into a code of laws or morals, that we continue to follow today. (Finwe)

That is exactly what I think: we consider things immoral because they lead to unhappiness, a feeling of taintedness, a feeling of being at odds with one's inner-self, and, in extreme cases suicidal/homicidal tendencies. (Lord of Angmar)

Well, I think that this is putting the cart before the horses. I don't think that moral action evolved because it makes us feel better. Rather, I think that moral action makes us feel better because that is the way that society has evolved. Finwe went on to say:

It generally makes for a much happier society.

And I think that this is much closer to the truth. We act morally, because society works better that way. As mankind developed, it found that coming together in groups afforded a better chance of survival. Mankind flourished by coming together in a society. And, as it coalesced into societies, it discovered that there were certain ways of behaving that enhanced those societies and other ways of behaving that did not. So, society developed "moral norms": ways of behaving that allowed societies to flourish. Murder, assault, theft etc were not conducive to the furtherance of society, and were therefore branded as immoral. And because it has become ingrained in us that we should act in a certain way for the benefit of society, acting that way makes us (or at least the majority of us) feel better in ourselves. There are grey areas, of course, but there are also instances of clear immoral behaviour, such as murder for pure personal gain.

So why do people act immorally? Well, broadly, I can perceive three general bases for immoral behaviour. First, there are those who (whether through their upbringing or by reason of biological abnormality, or perhaps both) simply do not respect moral boundaries. These are the psychopaths and paedophiles whose behaviour I cannot begin to understand. Secondly, there are those who act immorally because they truly believe that it is in the wider interests of society to do so. These are the Machiavellians that Mhoram referred to, and this category would probably include the likes of Hitler and Osama bin Laden. These people really believe that what they are doing is right, however misguided they might be. And finally, there are those who act immorally because they perceive a personal gain in doing so which outweighs the risk of behaving contrary to the moral norms that I mentioned earlier (and therefore, frequently, contrary to the law). Examples of those falling in this category would range from drug barons and mafia bosses down to burglars and shoplifters. There is, of course, much overlap between these groups. So, someone with a psychological imbalance or a poor upbringing which causes them to respect moral boundaries less is more likely to perpetrate immoral acts in the "common good" (Stalin) or simply turn to a life of crime. And the converse is true, so that much of society (most of it, I would hope) is able to act morally even when they perceive that it might be in their personal interests to act immorally.

So, to the question - does acting immorally necessarily lead to a life of unhappiness? As Mr U asked:

Certainly there are numerous examples of people who have reaped all the material, outward “rewards” of their immorality, but do they have fulfilling relationships, clear consciences, peace of mind?

Well, unfortunately I think that some of them do, Mr U. Not all of them admittedly. Those who act contrary to society's moral norms run a greater risk being caught and physically punished. And I am sure that their chances of living a happy and fulfilling life are lessened, if for no other reason than, by virtue of their chosen lifestyle, their relationships (and quite possibly their freedom) will be limited.

But Aiwendil made an extremely good point when she said that:

A view like this rests upon the claim that all immoral people are unhappy; in fact, in order for it to be the basis of any kind of moral philosophy, it would need the claim that all people are unhappy to the degree that they are immoral.

I simply (albeit reluctantly) cannot believe that every immoral person will inevitably live a life of unfulfillment and unhappiness. What about the serial killer who murders with impunity and without regard to moral values, but who is never caught? What about the brutal dictator who is able to live a privileged life without ever being challenged? What about the powerful drugs baron who is beyond the reach of the law? Although I do so with a heavy heart, I cannot but conclude that there are such individuals that do lead their lives happily and (on their terms) with a clear conscience. Their conscience is clear because they have no regard for moral boundaries and/or because their own interests are furthered by what they are doing and/or because they truly believe that what they are doing is for the greater good.

Obviously I’m not in a position to know the secret thoughts and hearts of the six or seven billion people on the planet, so there’s no way for me to mount a logically unassailable defense of this position. (Mister Underhill)

Perhaps this is the nub of it. Even if you were to know their secret thoughts, you would not understand them because their idea of happiness and fulfillment is different from yours and mine. A drug baron is happy and fulfilled because he has enriched himself beyond measure, and that means more to him than any kind of fulfillment that moral action might bring. The Machiavellian Prince is happy because he is secure in the knowledge that his actions are for the greater good of society. Place you or I in those positions and we would find ourselves with inner turmoil, not inner peace. But they don't bother themselves with such qualms.

I believe that those who reject virtue can obtain fulfillment through immorality, but their fulfillment will be less deep and shorter lived. And even if their happiness lasts until their Earthly death, they will pay dearly for their choice in eternity. (the phantom)

Their fulfillment might well be more short lived (the risk of being caught or ousted in a coup d'etat), but is it really less deep? We would like to think so, but they would not, so does it really make any difference? If they believe themselves to be happy, and don't get caught, then they are not really suffering inwardly.

Will they pay for their choice eternally, in the afterlife? Well, I would like to think so, but my faith is not strong so I am afraid that I cannot be sure on that one.

Wow, making that post has really quite depressed me. But that's reality for you. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Edit: Sharkû, you are cynical (sorry, couldn't resist it). [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

While I did study a bit of philosophy at university, my detailed knowledge of the concepts is long gone. But I did manage a bit of Tolkien-related comment at the beginning of my post. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ October 24, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[mark12_30]

Mho wrote:

It seems better to spend time justifying the immorality that is matter-of-fact in everyone's life than to spend time musing over the morally virtuous lifestyle that seems so alien and perhaps even idealistic.

That's a popular outlook these days. But would Tolkien agree? Why or why not? Or... which of his characters would agree or disagree and why or why not? What would Frodo say to that? Gandalf? Strider? ....

[Mister Underhill]

Mho, is the problem you described really the sort of moral quandary you face in your daily life? I agree that large scale moral quandaries (How do we help the homeless? Was it right to invade Iraq?) can leave us feeling powerless and disheartened. But I would submit that such quandaries have only as much bearing on your own personal life and the choices you make as you allow them to. Selfishness, greed, bigotry, thievery, oppression, infidelity, gluttony, dishonesty – I think almost anyone can agree that these are unambiguously immoral, not to mention the sort of problem that we more frequently encounter in our day to day lives.

I’m not saying that the life of perfect virtue is attainable. It certainly is usually easier in the short run to commit (and justify) immoralities large and small. The thing is, it has never been easy to strive after a virtuous lifestyle; does that make it not worth doing? The easy path is seldom the most rewarding, at least in my experience. You don’t just nod and shrug and accept that your day-to-day life is riddled with moral compromises.

Sauce, I think we differ over our definitions and ideas of what things like happiness, fulfillment, and inner peace really mean. I also see that you’re still a bit stuck on the idea of punishment, which I do not think has anything to do with Plato’s assertion. For instance, you quoted me on the subject of art – but I wasn’t referring to punishment. Example: Dickens’ much-beloved “A Christmas Carol” is about an amoral man who is miserably unhappy and unfulfilled in spite of his wealth and power. Rather than being punished, he is redeemed. He may have gone unpunished his whole life – and indeed, strictly by the laws of society, he wasn’t doing anything illegal – but he still would have died a miserable, emotionally bankrupt, lonely man had he not turned to a life of virtue.

The serial killer who murders with impunity and is never caught? Well, he may escape punishment, at least on earth and in terms of some authority outside himself meting out justice for his crimes, but if you think such a person is capable of healthy relationships, a fulfilled life, and inner peace, we have wildly different ideas about what such things mean. I’m no expert on sociopathic behavior, but I’ve read enough to know that such people frequently kill precisely because they are incapable of relating to people in healthy ways.

Hitler and his ilk are interesting case studies in a discussion like this because they represent unfettered immorality. Hitler had power, wealth, fame, a certainty in the justice of his cause, etc. – but do you think he was in any way happy or fulfilled? Here was a man who could trust no one, who was constantly in fear of conspirators, who was consumed by hatred, who, as far as history tells, was unable to relate in any meaningful way to anyone (especially women), who was given to fits of depression and rage. Is this happiness? Himmler was convinced of the morality of genocide – but when he witnessed mass executions in Minsk, he nearly fainted. Is this the sign of a man with a clear conscience?

As for theories that have been outlined which suggest that morality is merely an evolved set of behaviors which are the most conducive to a smoothly running society, well, I find them cold and hollow, a diminishment of the great dignity and compassion of which the human spirit is capable to a trivial bit of sociological conditioning. Within such a view, the great humanitarians and heroes of civilization are simply aberrations, people who for unknown reasons (maybe it was something off-kilter in their brain chemistry or their upbringing) exceed the sociological imperative that society run only more or less smoothly. Even the aforementioned Kant, I believe, finds this sort of thinking too cold to motivate him, and must seek beyond the boundaries of human reason for motivation.

Stay awhile and be patient, Sharkey – we haven’t lost touch with Tolkien yet. I think these sort of questions bear directly on Tolkien and his work. Sauron represents the ultimate embodiment of Plato’s assertion. Alone, consumed by lust and hatred, unable to feel compassion, tortured by fear and doubt – he is the answer to the question, “What do we get if we take immorality as a lifestyle to its most extreme logical conclusion?” Gandalf is his opposite, and though he is not perfectly virtuous, we see that he enjoys the fruits of a life spent in the pursuit of virtue – deeply fulfilling, harmonious relationships, a character of unimpeachable integrity, a history of personal accomplishment and spiritual fulfillment, and an inner peace which allows him to sacrifice himself in Khazad-dûm even though, as far as he knows, his sacrifice may mean the failure of all that he has worked for.

I’m curious about the people who admire Tolkien’s work, but view its morality as untenable in the “real world”. Would you still admire Aragorn if he gained his throne through trickery or treachery? Would Gandalf be the same character if he had, say, used some deception to assassinate Saruman on the premise that the ends justify the means? Do you think that the pity of Frodo and Bilbo with regards to Gollum is fine for a novel, but not really applicable to real life? Inquiring minds want to know.

[ October 24, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Aiwendil]

Mister Underhill wrote:

Though they come at the question from different angles, these men all seem to fundamentally agree with Plato. My impression of Mill is that he draws a direct correlation between morality and happiness.

Mill does connect morality with happiness, but in a fundamentally different way from Plato. The view of Plato and Aristotle was that virtue is, as a matter of definition, the sort of thing that leads its possessor to happiness. Someone who is not virtuous is not fulfilling his or her highest human function, and as a result becomes unhappy and unfulfilled. In order to support this view, Aristotle had to develop his "metaphysical biology", which has at its heart the claim that humans have a natural characteristic function.

Mill's theory is completely different. In Mill's utilitarianism, the central principle of morality is: the moral thing to do is whatever produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Note first of all that this is a claim about what is moral, not why it is moral. And it certainly makes no claims about whether or not a moral person will end up being happy. One could easily be very moral (that is, go around making lots of people happy) and yet be personally unhappy. Or, one could be immoral (go around making people unhappy) and yet be personally happy.

Hume also seems to draw a correlation between virtue and good feelings, and vice and bad feelings.

You may be right about Hume, now that I think about it. My impression, though, was that Hume, in trying to empirically study what was considered moral and what immoral, concluded that morality is generally constructed to make people feel good. But I don't think he made any foundational claims of the sort Plato did.

Even Kant’s very rational morality seems to argue for a moral life as the means by which higher meaning and purpose in life are realized, or perhaps I should say that we accept moral imperatives on faith that there is a higher meaning and purpose in life.

I don't think Kant wanted us to accept moral imperatives on faith. I got the impression that Kant thought he was deriving a purely logical system of morality - that is, one that could be deduced and proven. He failed, for a number of reasons, but this was his intent. And the categorical imperative, Kant's guiding moral principle, makes no reference at all to whether the person acting feels good or bad (and Kant is explicit about this).

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

Well (and I suppose it would have been good to have asked this up front), what exactly do you mean by "happy" and "fulfilled"? If what you mean is simply what these words suggest at face value - that is, a simple state of mind - then you are on rather shaky ground in making claims about what other people secretly feel. If you mean something more complicated, something like living a certain type of life, or having certain types of relationships, or something along these lines, then you are constructing a tautology for yourself. For naturally, you can then simply define "happiness" in such a way as to match up exactly with your conception of "virtue".

I suppose I’m sort of shocked to find so many people willing to argue that a life of amorality can be just as fulfilling and happy as a life of virtue; perhaps it’s simply that words like “morality” and “virtue” have acquired certain ominous and hypocritical connotations and associations in our modern world.

I don't think of "morality" and "virtue" as ominous or with hypocritical connotations. I admit, I am highly dubious about the possibility for a rational justification of morality (and this rather depresses me). But supposing that there is such a thing as morality, then it seems to me that it ought not to be so limited as to depend on human emotions, or on human neurology. It seems to me (and it seems natural to me) that the right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of how the doer feels about it and regardless of how it will make the doer feel.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

But Aiwendil made an extremely good point when she said that:

That would be "he". But I'm glad you thought it was a good point. And I must say I agree with nearly all of your post.

We are moving into rather different territory with Lord of Angmar's, the phantom's, and Arwen1858's posts. An implicit question here is whether morality actually exists (that is, whether there is really some rational justification for ideas of right and wrong) or whether it is merely a human invention. I hold out some hope for the former, but the more I think about things the more I am inclined toward the latter. And in this case, it makes no sense to talk about something actually being right or wrong; we can only talk about things being called right and wrong by humans.

[Kuruharan]

Just a smattering of ideas here.

Saucepan

I can perceive three general bases for immoral behaviour. First, there are those who (whether through their upbringing or by reason of biological abnormality, or perhaps both) simply do not respect moral boundaries.

If immorality is the result of biological abnormality would that make morality something more than just a societal norm? Saying that it is something to do with biology seems to imply that there is something ingrained in people to perceive moral behavior. Could you clarify?

A drug baron is happy and fulfilled because he has enriched himself beyond measure

Does money really bring that sort of happiness? It seems to me to be an insatiable desire. You constantly have to have more and more of it. To say that this ravenous appetite brings fulfillment is to say that there is fulfillment in being unfulfilled. A similar thing could be said about power. Ultimately, the lust for power is about subjugating everything to yourself. This is very difficult and has not been done in the world (yet). So, here is another example of finding fulfillment in being unfulfilled.

Even if such total domination were to occur I think this problem would almost instantly arise, "Now What?" The next obvious step is to make everything into Yourself. If that is accomplished you are suddenly presented with, "Now What?" and this time you have little else to work with.

That got abstract.

[Arwen1858]

Aiwendil said:

Well (and I suppose it would have been good to have asked this up front), what exactly do you mean by "happy" and "fulfilled"? If what you mean is simply what these words suggest at face value - that is, a simple state of mind - then you are on rather shaky ground in making claims about what other people secretly feel.

The definition given in the dictionary for fulfill that goes along with this discussion it 'to satisfy.' Are those people, who are living the immoral lives, satisfied? Do they have everything they desire? Are they completely happy with everything they have and everything they've done? I doubt that.
Kuruharan said:

Does money really bring that sort of happiness? It seems to me to be an insatiable desire. You constantly have to have more and more of it. To say that this ravenous appetite brings fulfillment is to say that there is fulfillment in being unfulfilled.

I think that can be seen in the lives of some athletes. How many of them have millions, and make millions a year, but complain that they don't get enough, or take a job with another team so they can get more? I mean, how many millions do they really need?? Some of them aren't happy with the millions they already get, and want another million or so. Because they aren't satisfied. Like Kuruharan said: it's insatiable. You constantly need more and more. And by the way, I'm not saying all athletes are like that. Not at all. Just making a point.
Arwen

[Lord of Angmar]

Murder, assault, theft etc. were not conducive to the furtherance of society, and were therefore branded as immoral. (Saucepan Man)

Are we talking about the intellectual, social and spiritual advancement of a society or the physical advancement of a society? If we are talking about the latter, look no further than Rome for an outlier in your theory. The Romans assailed countless smaller nations, stole their land and slaughtered their soldiers and even civilians. They took slaves, showered praise upon "heroes" of war, and enjoyed daily the spectacle of death and carnage as an entertainment form. Yet certainly they were an extremely imposing society whose citizens (if not all of their members) were generally well-educated and enjoyed a high standard of living relative to other places at the time. One could come to the logical conclusion that the Roman Empire was by and large rooted in what we would consider immoral acts, yet as a society they flourished.

Tolkien's belief that morals are rooted in human beings rather than bestowed upon humans by the society in which they live is apparent in the Silmarillion. It is known that the Elves will be wise, beautiful and moral beings even before they appear in Middle Earth. When faced with the trickery and deception of Morgoth during their long wars with him, the Elves and Edain remain (for the most part) moral in their actions, despite the fact that their purposes might be advanced better if they stooped to the level of Morgoth in deceit and treacherous warfare.

I am highly dubious about the possibility for a rational justification of morality (Aiwendil)

I think, happily, that one can rationally justify what we would call a life of morality and virtue. I would say that the phrase "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," would loosely sum up a virtuous way to live life. I agree that not all cultures can be set in the same code of morality, as many cultures are and have been more survivalist and 'uncivilized' (a term I hate to use, but in this sense I mean to use it not so much as 'barbaric' but as 'less organized/structured') than our own. However, in the context of most of our own societies, and in the context of Professor Tolkien's world, the "Do Unto Others" proverb seems to serve as a basic guideline for moral action.

[ October 25, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[mark12_30]

Aiwendil wrote:

An implicit question here is whether morality actually exists (that is, whether there is really some rational justification for ideas of right and wrong) or whether it is merely a human invention. I hold out some hope for the former, but the more I think about things the more I am inclined toward the latter. And in this case, it makes no sense to talk about something actually being right or wrong; we can only talk about things being called right and wrong by humans.

I think Tolkien would heartily disagree, since his worldview was deeply and staunchly Catholic. This (Catholic) worldview and morality pervades LOTR/SIL and all his other works; and since we are talking about morality and philosophy as pertains to Tolkien, we need to take that into account. Our views may differ, but imposing our views on Middle-Earth without considering Tolkien's views will give us a slanted view of the characters and their motives, and their (just or injust?) rewards.

[Lord of Angmar]

I agree, mark 12_30, that we cannot take our own moral insights into Professor Tolkien's world.

Aiwendil said:

An implicit question here is whether morality actually exists (that is, whether there is really some rational justification for ideas of right and wrong)

Let me expand on the "Do unto others" part of my previous post, as I feel it left me seeming like a somewhat hard-headed Christian to leave you with such a simple Biblical proverb and no explanation. Since I think we can all agree that nobody wants to be killed, and that we can all agree that it inherently makes us feel worse having been stolen from, lied to or cheated out of something, as I think has always been the case for civilized humanity, then we can sum up those things (murder, thievery, etc.) as being immoral. Although certainly not all people in past ages have been able to see the difference between doing something to someone and having something done to you, I think most of us can agree today that what is immoral is any deliberate human action that results in the loss of life, or any human action that the majority of people would not want inflicetd on them (i.e. rape, theft).

[Bêthberry]

Keeping an eye on Sharkû's cynical eye, I would like to put the discussion under a slightly different lens.

Mr. Underhill, you have quite nicely put your finger on an important aspect of reading: do we read for what we cannot find in our banal, daily lives or for something else? Tolkien's discussion of faerie would be particularly relevent here I think.

But, I will inflame matters. I think any problem in a discussion of morality in LOTR must consider how Tolkien depicts moral and immoral behaviour. And I think we have a sticking point.

The novel depicts the successful refusal of the Ring's power by Gandalf and Galadriel, and the struggle and painful consequences of being Ring-bearer for Bilbo and Frodo.

It could, however, be argued that both Gandalf's and Galadriel's refusals of the Ring are, essentially, a form of telling rather than showing (to use the distinction made in discussion of story writing). By this I mean both scenes concern simply the holding of the Ring itself, with the characters' comments on what the attraction is. At least for Bilbo and Frodo the desire to use the Ring is 'shown' in dramatic action, with clear, direct consequences for the outcome of the plot in LOTR. This puts the question of moral choice in a specific context rather than in the kind of generalizations which to which philosophy is prey.

What LOTR never gives us is the dramatization of Saruman's fall. We are told over and over than he is the bad guy. And we see behaviours which are not estimable. But we are never shown how it was that he succumbed to this evil. If we weren't told he was bad from the outset, would we be able to recognize his turpitude?

Likely this is a consequence of Tolkien's decision (I assume) to attempt to dramatize good rather than evil. But it leaves us, I would argue, with a fuzzy view of evil. A view which tends towards the relatively simple habit of naming things evil without really analyzing what is the perilous attraction of evil. And without demanding from readers an active effort to discriminate who is good and who is evil.

Humbly submitted,
Bêthberry