# Tolkien and morality



## Thorondor_ (Jul 10, 2005)

To what degree do you think that Tolkien hoped (or wanted) his work to influence the measure in which his readers observe morality?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 11, 2005)

It depends on what you mean.


I have elsewhere stated that Tolkien could not help but write within his own morality. He would naturally create creatures that fit into his idea of right and wrong. I don't think he, as he was writing, said, "I hope that people draw from this scene a sense of 'this action is bad.'" 

For one thing Tolkien is a story teller not a parable writer. For another, I think most of the morals (not all but most) are black and white, good and evil, obvious and would just come naturally. 

Now I do think Tolkien would be happy to know we derived moral lessons from his work. I think that if we derived moral lessons he didn't intend for us to derive or that he would disagree with he would roll over a few times in his grave. I think he even has a few lectures for us in his work. I think the story was of first concern.

However, he was a man of moral character. He would write within that character. He is a powerful writer and I think he would know he would have an influence on his readers. I think he would therefore have been very careful in every phrasing to get the right morals across rather than the wrong ones. I think this is especially clear in the case of suicide. As a Catholic Tolkien would have been against suicide, but he has the kings of Numenor going down to early, willing deaths. I think he phrased this in ways that make a clear distinction between this willing falling into slumber and suicide, so that he did not endanger leading people astray.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 11, 2005)

I hope others will join our little discussion.


> For another, I think most of the morals (not all but most) are black and white, good and evil, obvious and would just come naturally.


I don't think it was that natural and obvious in the Silmarilion that Saruman would turn corrupted. And Gandalf warns Frodo about thinking in black and white.


> As a Catholic Tolkien would have been against suicide, but he has the kings of Numenor going down to early, willing deaths.


Hm, I doubt the kings thought at any moment about suicide; sacrifice of some of their own for their goal, maybe. But even the valar acknowledged that the numenoreans could wreak havoc.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 11, 2005)

> Hm, I doubt the kings thought at any moment about suicide; sacrifice of some of their own for their goal, maybe. But even the valar acknowledged that the numenoreans could wreak havoc.



I'm not sure if we are on the same page here. I am referring to when, for instance, Aragorn dies. He goes willingly to the tombs, lays down, and falls asleep of free will. I am saying that I think Tolkien phrased this all very carefully to distinguish it from suicide which he would have been against (though he does use it to a great effect in some of his other works, ie Turin).



> And Gandalf warns Frodo about thinking in black and white.


 
Which quote are you referring to?
I'm not refering to a particular instance but rather the whole tone of the book where Sauron is evil, pure and simple, the ring is evil pure and simple, bad is bad and good is good. Tolkien has very few anti-heroes, heroes who become heroes by bending the rules and doing wrong. Faramir would not lie to snare an Orc, meaning that the morality of telling the truth is absolute, that lying to do "good" is still lying. 

Now, there is a certain amount of grayness in pity (ie Gollum) and understanding, but I think the idea of good vs evil is very clear cut.


----------



## Hammersmith (Jul 11, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> I hope others will join our little discussion.
> 
> I don't think it was that natural and obvious in the Silmarilion that Saruman would turn corrupted. And Gandalf warns Frodo about thinking in black and white.


Saruman being corrupted wasn't the point. The point was that even those who believe themselves to be great are in danger of corruption. It might easily have been Gandalf.

I think that you have also taken that quote about thinking in black and white out of context. Tolkien certainly does have moral absolutes, and the fact that characters can move in or out of these absolutes, or from side to side, does in no way detract from the strong blocks of good and evil that exist.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 11, 2005)

> Saruman being corrupted wasn't the point.


It wasn't neither natural nor obvious in Silmarilion that he would get corrupted. Only after reading _Lotr_ that the ring has such an influence on him does it become obvious he will get corrupted.


> Tolkien certainly does have moral absolutes
> Which quote are you referring to?


"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
I think this is a clear indication that we shouldn't judge in absolutes.


> Faramir would not lie to snare an Orc, meaning that the morality of telling the truth is absolute, that lying to do "good" is still lying.


I tend to disagree. The first exampe that comes to my mind is Gandalf lying about his staff in order to get to see Theoden.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 11, 2005)

> I think this is a clear indication that we shouldn't judge in absolutes.


 Then you are misreading it. We shouldn't be quick to deal out death, but that doesn't mean that absolutes don't exist. 

When does Gandalf lie? All I remember him saying is something like, "You wouldn't take an old man's walking stick, would you, sonny?"


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 12, 2005)

> When does Gandalf lie? All I remember him saying is something like, "You wouldn't take an old man's walking stick, would you, sonny?"


The guards at the door explicitly asks that all weapons are to be left at the door; Gandalf lies about his staff being anything more than a mere stick, and even Hama acknwoledges the power of a wizard's staff. The latter use of the staff clearly proves that the guards suspicion about the staff being a weapon were correct.


> We shouldn't be quick to deal out death, but that doesn't mean that absolutes don't exist.


"Only a sith deals in absolutes"  
There are alot of limits to the "absolute" approach: on the rational (or if you will, pragmatical) level, not even the very wise can see all ends. No one can say for certain if a situation/condition/person is good or bad. Since evil can lead to good, evil is not absolutely evil (same with good). Should we condone a manicheistic view, then the only solution would be to destroy the worl in order to destroy evil - and the valar were wise enough to refrain from doing such a thing. An acceptable world view is one which is most inclusive and opened, as Men are not left astray, but Eru watches over them and teaches them in suprising ways.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 12, 2005)

Now, we need to get into finer points of what you mean by absolutes. I would say that it is impossible for a human being to be absolutely bad in this world. The Nazgul in Tolkien I would say, however, are beyond redemption. Gollum, however, is not absolutely bad. He could have been redeemed, which is the tragedy of his part. 

The Ring in Tolkien is an obvious absolute. It can't be used for good. Even using the ring for good will turn the user to evil. You can't get much more absolute than that.

Now people are not their actions. Actions define who we are. Actions are often results of who we are, but they are not who we are, so a person can be redeemed from action. Therefore a person cannot be an absolute. However, the actions are absolute, otherwise there would be no need for redemption.

Absolute morality is actually the only sort that I think can logically exist. Non-absolute morality is nothing more than opinion, therefore it is totally useless.

Morality is not always an easy thing. Following it can often get you killed. Following it can often hurt, and it is rarely what you want to do. Therefore pragmatic morality is a contradiction in terms. Rational morality exists if you think of it in terms of a solid system. Something that changes can not be rational unless it follows a set pattern. There is nothing rational about random chance. 

Now, if you want we can get into catch 22's where either way you have to do something wrong. You can lie or you can let your friend be killed. Both could be technically counted as a sin. So you end up in a catch, but it is evil that puts these catches in the world, which is itself an absolute. 

Destroying the world to destroy evil would also be to destroy the good in the world, and destroying good is evil, so your "solution" doesn't work, does it? By destroying evil in that manner they would be creating more evil.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 12, 2005)

I don't think we can further reffer to Nazguls as a relevant case for morality, since their free will is most likely void, due to their evil conditioning. Even Gollum isn't a good refference, because the one ring crushed him to a certain degree.
Even if the one ring, in itself, is completely evil, it can still be put to good use. It can be argued that without the ring, Sauron woulnd't have fallen for two times, or that Aragorn wouldn't marry Arwen, or that Sam would never meet elves, or that Theoden will always be under Saruman's power. _Anything_ that is evil in itself can still lead to a lot of good (the contrary is true also, considering the simlarils).
I don't think that it is the actions themselves which bring redemption or fall, not even in Tolkien's world - but how we relate to the world. One could do a constructive deed, but with an evil purpose in mind. Even if that evil never occurs, that person cannot make a claim towards redemption, as long as the innet attitude is wrong - no matter how good the deed is.
I don't think there is random chance, neither in real life, neither in Ea. Everywhere Men should see Eru's grace, helping his creation return to Him. 
[Last year, I decided all my pc games were too violent for me. At the same time, I realised that they would have a negative influence on someone else too. Furthermore, even if I threw them away, I wouldn't be sure what harm I could do - to the environment or to others]. How could a Man solve his dilemma about the effects of his actions? Simple: he/she should constantly relate to Eru, as Eru is the only person who knows the purpose of the creation of the Second Born; with complete love of him, they cannot sin, because they manifest Eru's will, who is in constant relation with them. If they decide that: "this certain action will certainly lead to good", they only show how ignorant they are of their own ignorance. And tolerance of ignorance is inexcuseable for a moral person when harm is done. The only solution for Men is their complete love/faith on Eru, _followed_ by their desire to do good.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 12, 2005)

Just because something leads to good doesn't mean it is good. 

God/Eru has an amazing way of taking our mistakes and turning them for the better. That does not make the initial mistake good. 

I agree with you in that intention makes a difference. According to my theology an evil thought and an evil act are on the same level. Evil acts done intentionally stem from an evil thought. Evil acts done unintentionally are only evil in their results or are the results of someone who is incapable for one reason or another of understanding good and evil, such as a mother who, blinded by the desire to protect, holds a child back from reaching his potential. 

However, if there is no absolutes, how are we to say that the an intention is evil? How can we judge it? If bad action leads to good and evil intentions lead to evil actions or good actions just as evil actions lead to good results, how can we call an intention evil? It is a useless, meaningless word, and we are left with nothing.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 12, 2005)

But also the contrary case can be made: just because something, at a certain stage, produces bad effects, doesn't mean it is bad. Good an evil intermingle.
The fact that Men are allowed to make mistakes I interpret as a gift from Eru: he allows them to go astray, only to find that understanding the final meaning of creation means taking into consideration Eru. If Men would live only in ivory towers, protected from all harm, they would soon be subjects to either hedonism or self-idolatry. But by realising the futility of a marred Arda, that no hope should reside on this world alone, they can finally open themselves to a greater understanding.
An intention is evil when the doer considers himself and his purposes as different (or even worse, against) from the others, the creation and Eru. This is the very falling of Melkor, when he hears his "own" thoughts and starts doing evil - he considered himself to be separate from Eru, and acted as such and against Eru. This is the very falling of Men, when their minds were too filled with their passion to create - so they stopped listening to the Voice, they stopped the communion. Any feeling of egoism, jealousy, greedyness, fear (name any negative emotion) - is a manifestation of an inner, deep, strong conviction that we are separated. We are not separated. Such a conviction of fragmentation within creation is false and is the root of _all_ evil actions.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 13, 2005)

> But also the contrary case can be made: just because something, at a certain stage, produces bad effects, doesn't mean it is bad. Good an evil intermingle.


 
I never said producing bad effects make things bad. I think sometimes good things, intentions especially, produce bad effects because we live in a twisted world and some people will hate you for loving them. However, that does not change the bad or the good. The results do not matter. I don't believe in an Ends Justify Means morality. Such a morality is, in fact, impossible for humans to hold as we never know the end. 

For instance, if I say it is all right to beat my child senseless because it makes him stronger and therefore the evil of the beating is justified. However, I don't know that I won't kill the child or drive him not to strength but to hatred so that he goes out and murders someone and so gets hung. On the other hand the child could just grow up to be a heavy weight boxer. As I do not know the end, I cannot base my action upon the end. I must base it upon the morality of the action itself. 

So in the end the effect does not matter, only the action/intent. I add intent because as you pointed out you can do good actions with bad intent or bad actions with good intent. As humans, however, can never be certain of another persons intent (even if they tell you, they could be lying), we can never judge intent, so I think bringing intent into morality discussions is difficult.



> The fact that Men are allowed to make mistakes I interpret as a gift from Eru: he allows them to go astray, only to find that understanding the final meaning of creation means taking into consideration Eru.


 
Wouldn't it be easier if he just took away mistakes? I mean, after all, they have nasty, cruel consequences. At least could he take away the consquences? Couldn't he just tell creation? 

In Christian theology man starts in the perfect position to know all about God. I don't know if the same is true for the Elves in the Sil. I'd have to research that. But in the garden of Eden men start in direct contact with God, able to ask him anything. I think a perfect world would involve this. And because there wouldn't be evil in a perfect world, not know about it would be like not knowing about Griffins. It really doesn't matter if you don't know about Griffins because they don't exist.



> If Men would live only in ivory towers, protected from all harm, they would soon be subjects to either hedonism or self-idolatry.


 
Not if they lived in a world without evil. Hedonism and self-idolotry are evil so without evil they can't exist. Hedonism is a corruption of a love of pleasure which Eru created for men to enjoy. Self-Idolatry is a corruption of self-respect, which you need to live, as well as a corruption of the natural inclination to worship something, in this case God. 

Without evil to take these traits the step further there is no difficulty.



> This is the very falling of Men, when their minds were too filled with their passion to create - so they stopped listening to the Voice, they stopped the communion.


 
Back this up.

The desire to create is shown everywhere in Tolkien to be a good thing. The desire to create is a manifestation of Eru-like goodness, as he is the original creator. The Elven smiths are loved for their craft. Creatures are given the natural ability to reproduce after their own kind. Where do you get the idea that the passion to create is an ill thing?

I think the desire to be powerful and the fear of death (ie the inability to trust Eru with their afterlife) was what led to manfall's decline. In the case of Melkor it was the desire to create that got in the way as much as his hatred for what Eru and the others had created. All of the Vala were creating with their songs. Eru could have joined in. Instead he attempted to destroy what they created. Elves fall when they fail to surrender their creation to the Vala out of pride.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 13, 2005)

> And because there wouldn't be evil in a perfect world, not know about it would be like not knowing about Griffins. It really doesn't matter if you don't know about Griffins because they don't exist.


You previously defined evil as corruption of the natural state of things. But this is necessary, in order for life to evolve. We need conflicts, challenges; this is what stimulates our capacity to adapt - and adaptability is often described as the meaning of inteligence. If a muscle isn't used, it whiters. How much do you think that the elves are evolving in Valinor, with eternal life, bliss and health, and with little or no challenge for them?


> Hedonism and self-idolotry are evil so without evil they can't exist.


But one can still _chose_ hedonism of self-idolatry, it can be an act of free will, not of corruption. If these two options are prohibited by Eru, then we can't speak of a complete creation, but of a chopped one - and nor can we speak of free will then.

"This is the very falling of Men, when their minds were too filled with their passion to create - so they stopped listening to the Voice, they stopped the communion" - I was reffering to this passage:


> But we were in haste, and we desired to order things to our will; and the shapes of many things that we wished to make awoke in our minds. Therefore we spoke less and less to the Voice.


I am not saying that creating itself is evil - but, as I defined previously, evil relies in our false idea that we are separate. When the Men started arranging the world according to their "own" ideas, around their false center i.e. ego - this started their fall. Evil manifests itself plainly only when the love of God diminishes (it is only after the Men "separate" from Eru on the inside that Melkor appears as a powerful, objective manifestation of evil).


> Wouldn't it be easier if he just took away mistakes?


This is why I say that making errors (as in the process of finding) is a great gift from Eru:


> In that time we called often and the Voice answered. But it seldom answered our questions, saying only: 'First seek to find the answer for yourselves. For ye will have joy in the finding, and so grow from childhood and become wise. Do not seek to leave childhood before your time.


"We fall from grace to grace"


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 13, 2005)

> How much do you think that the elves are evolving in Valinor, with eternal life, bliss and health, and with little or no challenge for them?


 
I don't associate challange with evil. In fact, I think challenge is a very good thing, quite healthy, quite normal. There is challenge in every task, many of which would exist. Mainly in creation of new and beautiful things. This is very challanging and very good.

I think they could grow a great deal. Also, being in direct contact with goodness, I think they would grow more than Elves receiving the continual set backs of evil and sickness.

You take two children. You raise one in a healthy home and the other in a home where they are often abused and not given proper care. The one in the healthy home does generally better even though the abused one has had more challenge. This is because the cared for child has been given a healthy environment for growth. Elves without evil would be living in such a healthy environment and would have greater potential for growth than elves raised in your so called "challanging" environment.



> But one can still _chose_ hedonism of self-idolatry, it can be an act of free will, not of corruption.


Why can't you choose corruption? Corruption can be an act of free will. You can choose to be corrupted. Just because you are freely choosing something doesn't make it right. Choice isn't a good in itself. It is just the means by which we do good or evil willingly .

I think that passage is describing Man's desire for mastery more than his desire for creating, which we apparently agree is a good thing. 

First seek your answers for yourself does not mean "Go screw up and then get back to me with what you find out." 

It means "Earnestly seek the truth." 

I do think that seeking Eru is part of the reason Man was created. I don't think Truth is best saught through sin and deceit. Evil is what stand between us in truth, so seeking truth does not mean making mistakes. It means pursuing goodness.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 13, 2005)

One of Tolkien's main "morally right" ideals coercion, or of the evils of coercion, even if one person was to coerce another person for the "good" of the other-he believed that individuals should make their own choices, and though they should accept council (and be given it by wiser beings) they should not be forced into doing something they don't want to do. Certainly Melkor, Sauron and Saruman felt they could "coerce" people into doing as they wanted; thinking that they would be able to improve the lives of the individual better than the individual themselves could improve it. Look at all the heroes and heroines who neglected coercion-the Valar could have stopped the march of the Ñoldor but didn't, Melian could have forced Morwen to come to Doriath for Morwen's good but she didn't, Turgon could have forced Húrin and Huor to stay in Gondolin but he didn't and Gandalf frequently neglects coercion as a viable way of achieving an end which he deemed good-but he didn’t, and in the end all of the above, though initially having a negative outcome eventually led to the “greater good” being served.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 14, 2005)

I think that "corruption of the natural state of things" (which you defined as the meaning of evil) is also a challenge, actually _the_ challenge.

I think that the elves are living in a golden cage in Valinor. They can't experience challenges, only those stemming from the creative process. And how are the elven kids going to mature? Just through purely theoretical tales? If everything is provided for everyone, you really come to question yourself, what is your purpose? To a great extent, Valinor doesn't provide a purpose to life, other than being a passive spectator to the world show.

A healty family is not necessarily one without evil, but one in which responsabilities are _adequate_ for one's power and maturity; so what could be evil for one kid, is a desired challenge for another one, and vice-versa.

"Choice isn't a good in itself" I think choice is crucial to the purpose of creation. Can there be morality without free will? 



> I think that passage is describing Man's desire for mastery more than his desire for creating, which we apparently agree is a good thing.


The quote reffers not only to organising (which could be the mastering you reffer to) but also to creating - which I think has a very significant part in departing from the Voice. Imo, any desire which leads to the perceived "separation" of Man from Eru is the root of evil.



> First seek your answers for yourself does not mean "Go screw up and then get back to me with what you find out."


True, I do condemn immorality; but I think that what the quote means is that you should try, to the best of your morality and abilities, to pursue the truth. The fact that you are not infaillible, and that Eru accepts your falibillity (at his expense, ultimately), is the gift I am reffering to.
Furthermore, I interpret even Men's lives as a gift; all of them are allowed to return to Eru, no condition is made - so life can be a paid school or holliday (depending on your luck).


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 14, 2005)

> A healty family is not necessarily one without evil, but one in which responsabilities are _adequate_ for one's power and maturity;



Responsibility is also not an evil. Evil is evil. In some ways depriving children of responsibility is an evil. A parent has a role of teacher as well as provider. A parent, for instance, who would not potty train his child would be deemed an unfit parent. 

A healthy one is one that balances responsibility by not giving the children enough that they will harm themselves while still giving them enough that they learn. A healthy parent does not allow a ten-year-old to drive because they would hurt themselves. A healthy parent does not put a child in danger. A healthy parent accepts, of course, that there is some danger in everything, that you can't protect a child from everything, so you have to allow for some risk. The job of a parent is continually weighing the risk against the advantage. Parents are fallible, they don't know everything, they don't always make the right decision. Eru is infallible. He doesn't have this problem.



> I think that "corruption of the natural state of things" (which you defined as the meaning of evil) is also a challenge, actually _the_ challenge.


 
Challenge isn't a good thing of itself. I mean, I can challenge someone with, "run this race and I will reward you." Good thing. Then I can challenge someone with "Run this race and I won't poke your eyes out with a stick." 

Same result. One is good. One is bad. I can easily envision a world where good challenges occur every day withou your bad challenges. I think it would be better.

Also, I don't think a world without evil would be a world without annoyances. I think, rather, a world without evil would be one where we know how to better deal with annoyances. When a person is singing off key next to you, it isn't evil, it is simply annoying. In a perfect world, rather than replying to this with confrontation, a person might take the opportunity to instruct the person in singing lessons, therefore an annoyance has actually been converted into a challenge. 

Also, in a perfect world, there would be no laziness as everyone would be inspired by the presence of Eru to press higher, to make better things, to be better people, to learn more.

Why are Elves, who are great creators and lovers of good, so eager to get to Valinor if it is such a stagnent place? Easily deceived? Or just lazy?



> "Choice isn't a good in itself" I think choice is crucial to the purpose of creation. Can there be morality without free will?


No, there cannot, and I would say free will is a good thing, but not always the choices we make with it. Just because you chose something in no way makes it good. If that were so, there could be no evil whatsoever, and then morality doesn't exist. 

So you are saying men can't do evil because by making choices they do good, and even the choice not to choose is a choice, isn't it? So then there really is not such thing as evil, so evil doesn't exist.. .so what's all the fuss about?


More later


----------



## Valandil (Jul 15, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> > "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
> 
> 
> I think this is a clear indication that we shouldn't judge in absolutes.



I don't see that as a cautioning against determining absolutes of right and wrong. This is all about a response of mercy to a moral judgement that something is wrong - a very 'moral' attitude from a Christian point of view, as Tolkien's would have been. Gandalf is advocating mercy for Gollum in hopes that he might be redeemed (which did not happen) - or at least that his further evil might be turned to good (which did).


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 16, 2005)

> I don't see that as a cautioning against determining absolutes of right and wrong.
> Responsibility is also not an evil. Evil is evil.


If not even the very wise can see all ends, then how could a moral judgement have absolute validity?


> I think, rather, a world without evil would be one where we know how to better deal with annoyances.


According to Galtung, that is the very definition of positive peace  - the capacity to deal with conflicts peacefully and constructively. And that condition _can_ be achieved even in Arda marred - imo. It's a question of education - humans have to sufficiently rid themselves of the fear Melkor instilled in them, and then they can create what you described as a perfect world.


> So you are saying men can't do evil because by making choices they do good, and even the choice not to choose is a choice, isn't it?


I just pointed to the fact that free will is crucial; I agree that whatever humans do with this gift can lead to harmful or constructive outcomes.


> Also, in a perfect world, there would be no laziness as everyone would be inspired by the presence of Eru to press higher, to make better things, to be better people, to learn more.


In my opinion, that would occur _only_ if people sense that this is what Eru wants.


> Why are Elves, who are great creators and lovers of good, so eager to get to Valinor if it is such a stagnent place?


I would say they are so eager because Arda is marred.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 18, 2005)

> If not even the very wise can see all ends, then how could a moral judgement have absolute validity?


 
It has validity because morality involves the action, not the result. In fact, it was my earlier conclusion that the ends do not matter in morality, only the means, because we cannot see the ends. Morality is not Machievellian. 

It's the old, destroying property to create economic boost arguement, sort of. Sure, your bad created activity, but it doesn't undo the bad.



> I just pointed to the fact that free will is crucial; I agree that whatever humans do with this gift can lead to harmful or constructive outcomes.


 
You said that Free Will was a good in itself, unless I misread your logic severely. Yes, free will is necessary for decisions to be made, but that does not mean that the decisions made cannot be evil. You say it can lead to evil or constructive outcomes, but can the acts themselves be either A. or B.? Evil or constructive?

I would say definitely yes.



> In my opinion, that would occur only if people sense that this is what Eru wants.


 
I think Eru built this striving into most race's nature. However, why wouldn't the be able to know that this is what Eru wants? Wouldn't they be in reach of his messengers if not him himself. Wouldn't he be able to tell them?



> I would say they are so eager because Arda is marred.


 
But according to you the very marring of Arda is what allows for these challenges and thus for the lack of stagnation. Are these Elves just looking a gift horse in the mouth?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 18, 2005)

> You say it can lead to evil or constructive outcomes, but can the acts themselves be either A. or B.? Evil or constructive?
> It has validity because morality involves the action, not the result.


If what is implied is that mere intention makes an action moral then I disagree. Morality is system of principles, and observing these principles implies knowledge and reason. _At most_, good intentions implies that this certain action is moral as far as that person is concerned, but it doesn't imply that this action is good at an absolute level.
Furthermore, I believe that a person can perform an action which is absolutely moral only if that person is perfect, omniscient and omnipotent - otherwise the action is marred by faulty character, knowledge _and_ means. And there is only one person who has these attributes: Eru.


> I think Eru built this striving into most race's nature. However, why wouldn't the be able to know that this is what Eru wants? Wouldn't they be in reach of his messengers if not him himself. Wouldn't he be able to tell them?


I agree, but I would say that there is no greater pleasure than to be in perfect comunion with Eru. Striving for anything else that would be contrary to this communion is actually a sign that that certain person is still limited in character and perspective.
["But according to you the very marring of Arda is what allows for these challenges and thus for the lack of stagnation. Are these Elves just looking a gift horse in the mouth?" The elves are leaving because challenges can lead to progress only if those challenges are matched by the adaptive power of the challenged - otherwise, like in the case of the elves, the challenge of staying in Arda marred leads to certain death.]


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 18, 2005)

> Striving for anything else that would be contrary to this communion is actually a sign that that certain person is still limited in character and perspective.


 
I would say that creativity is actually within such a communion. We please Eru in three ways: A. By loving him. B. By loving his other creations C. by growing and creating.



> otherwise, like in the case of the elves, the challenge of staying in Arda marred leads to certain death


 
If so, how could Arda being marred be a good thing? Eru set his creations in a challenge they could not meet? Why? Didn't he, who knows everything, know that they would ultimately fail? If so, why bother giving them the challenge at all?



> Morality is system of principles, and observing these principles implies knowledge and reason. At most, good intentions implies that this certain action is moral as far as that person is concerned, but it doesn't imply that this action is good at an absolute level.


 
It is neither the outcomes or the intention, but rather a combination of intention and action. Outcome does not figure at all because as we cannot predict it, we cannot know it, and therefore we cannot act upon it. As I said good action can be done with bad intention, or bad action can be done with good intention if a person is deceived or misguided or mentally ill. However, in these cases, you garner a bit of a balance of good and evil and I think it comes across as actually a moral "blah" (blah being my own personal expression.).

Also, it is very hard to do a good action with bad intentions. 



> Furthermore, I believe that a person can perform an action which is absolutely moral only if that person is perfect, omniscient and omnipotent - otherwise the action is marred by faulty character, knowledge and means.


 
I think you are partially right, but I don't think Eru expects his creations to be more than they can be. He knows their limits and expects from them what they can deliver. By absolutely moral, you mean perfect, however, and I don't think an action needs to be perfect to be good.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jul 19, 2005)

Tolkien's _moral worldview_ is clear-cut. What has "shades of gray" is the responses that are made to various moral dilemmas. For instance, the morality of LOTR and Tolkien's other works definitely state (among other things) that [1] the ends never justify the means, [2] one cannot use evil means to accomplish good ends and [3] one should not make _moral_ judgments about others. That, by the way, is what is being said when Christ tells His followers not to "judge" other men. He didn't mean that they should not make the necessary judgment calls that would prevent them from being betrayed or deceived. What He meant is that men were not to spend time considering where other people "stood with God"; that is, that that particular situation was between the person involved and God. As for the other situations, I think you can find them clearly presented throughout the story(ies).

As for the "areas of gray", these are the individual characters' responses to their particular situation. In these settings, there are virtues of a higher character than others even though those others are themselves virtue. For instance, mercy is more exalted than justice and love more blessed then courage. All are virtues, but some are greater than others and the stories show that the "importance" of the individual does not help or hinder the expression of these virtues. Frodo is every bit as courageous as Aragorn and Sam every bit as loving as Gandalf. But frequently - as with mercy - mitigating circumstances are found for wrongdoing and "strict justice" is not carried out (see Beregond). Here Tolkien permits the softening not of his moral philosophy, but of the response made within its parameters by his characters.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 19, 2005)

> I would say that creativity is actually within such a communion. We please Eru in three ways: A. By loving him. B. By loving his other creations C. by growing and creating.


I agree, but the danger lies in the fact that creativity also led humans away from Eru when they treasured it more than they loved Eru.


> If so, how could Arda being marred be a good thing? Eru set his creations in a challenge they could not meet? Why? Didn't he, who knows everything, know that they would ultimately fail? If so, why bother giving them the challenge at all?


Eru states that everyone is his instrument, so I doubt that Melkor damaged his plan in any manner; He also decided that it is the _humans _that will inherit the Earth. I would interpret this decision as saying that, one way or the other, the elves had to dissapear from the "stage" (even if they had a certain role to play at a certain point, in fighting evil and spreading the light). This is all Eru's will/plan.


> I think you are partially right, but I don't think Eru expects his creations to be more than they can be. He knows their limits and expects from them what they can deliver. By absolutely moral, you mean perfect, however, and I don't think an action needs to be perfect to be good.


(When I am saying "an absolutely good action" I am not reffering (primarily) to outcomes, but to whether that action is, _in itself_, serving only the absolute good. It is not only a matter of intention, but, primarily, of wisdom.) I agree that any being can do a good action, at least as far as that being is concerned. But in order to claim that this action is good at an absolute level, it implies (at least) omniscience. I think that only by _pure chance_ can a being do an absolutely good action. Limited wisdom/ knowledge and good intention can't lead, by themselves, to such an action.


----------



## ingolmo (Jul 22, 2005)

I don't think that Tolkien wanted to make his readers more moral, he was just writing a fantasy story. Even though there are moral aspects in the books, I don't think Tolkien wanted them to be a main focus of writing. After all, almost in all books in which good is meant to truimph there will be some moral values, but that doesn't mean that that is the main point of the story.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 22, 2005)

> he was just writing a fantasy story.


I disagree. Lewis told Tolkien that myths were "lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver."

"No," Tolkien replied. "They are not lies. Far from being lies they were the best way — sometimes the only way — of conveying truths that would otherwise remain inexpressible. We have come from God and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic "progress" leads only to the abyss and the power of evil"


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 23, 2005)

Sorry to backtrack, but I finally got around to looking it up, and Thor, Gandalf doesn't lie about his staff in the Golden Hall.




The King of the Golden Hall said:


> 'Foolishness!' said Gandalf. 'Prudence is one thing, but discourtesy is another. I am old. If I may not lean on my stick as I go, then I will sit out here, until it pleases Theoden to hobble out himself to speak with me.'


 
He only makes one statement (I am old), which is undeniably true. The rest is a threat which for all we know he might have carried out and really sat there and sulked had Hama not given him his way. He was being sneaky and tricky, but he didn't lie. He never said, "Ah, it's just a piece of wood and I won't hurt anybody with it." He just said, "It is rude. I am old. Show some respect or I will throw a tizzy fit." 

And it was somewhat rude. I believe in those days allowing Aragorn to come in with Anduril would have been considered courteous. Forcing warriors to unarm would be the Middle Earth equivelent of putting guests through a strip search. The members of the Fellowship visit many other courts in their time with weapons on.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 23, 2005)

"Forcing warriors to unarm would be the Middle Earth equivelent of putting guests through a strip search"
I would say that if the visitors really wanted to respect their host, they should obbey to the rules of the house, whichever they may be (esspecially if the visit is in the interest of the visitors).
"If I may not lean on my stick as I go"
Well, Gandalf didn't need any stick to lean on; and it wasn't just a stick, it was a weapon, even if it was made up of wood or of whatever materials sticks are made of; so calling it a stick is like calling a disguised arrow a stick, or labeling whatever weapon as a mere inoffensive object.
"He was being sneaky and tricky, but he didn't lie"
If I am correct, a lie and a trickery mean deception, I don't think they are essentially different (only that a trickery is more general stratagem than a lie).
However, I see no moral problem with Gandalf lying - as the morality of an act is obviously dependent on intentions. However, imo, good intentions can't justify any sort of action. For very grave actions, such as killing, necessity itself (coupled with good intentions) doesn't (completely) exempt one - only the community with Eru could.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 24, 2005)

Sneaking and Tricking are not the same as lying, in this context, though they may be in other contexts. My parents used to sneak my birthday presents down the hall after shopping trips. Also, not telling is not a lie by default. I have tricked my little sister who comes into my room to steal things she isn't supposed to play with by hiding those things where she can't find them. That is tricky. It's not a lie.

A staff is a walking stick, so he was just stating fact there and failing to mention that it was more. He never says he needs it. He just says he won't go in without it. He doesn't correct Hama when Hama says it is more than a staff.

Yes, following the host's rules is important which is why they left Anduril there after a huge fuss, but that does not make the host's request any less rude. A host can be unfairly demanding, and if so you, to be polite, can't refuse the unfair demands.You can decide to leave and take that person out of host's position, but if you decide to stay, you need to follow the rules.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 24, 2005)

Well, I believe that tricking/sneaking/partial or complete withholding of crucial information qualify as deceit, which, per se, is immoral (unless the end actually justifies these means).


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 24, 2005)

In that case Bilbo's going away party was a regular debauchery.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 25, 2005)

["In that case Bilbo's going away party was a regular debauchery" not supported by the historical records concerning the event  ]
Well, I would say that tricking is immoral per se, because it implies the breach of the moral obligation of truthfulness.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 25, 2005)

I think that the guest should obey the host-as long as the host is in his right mind, yet Theoden wasn't in total control of his faculties at the time.

I don't see how Bilbo "tricking" the Hobbits was immoral when it was none of their bussiness what Bilbo did with his life, and most of them were to narrow minded to care anyway, telling "the truth" is not always the best option, like when you tell somebody their cooking is good when it isn't, and tricking is not always immoral, like tricking my nieces and nephews or other people for good reasons.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 25, 2005)

> telling "the truth" is not always the best option, like when you tell somebody their cooking is good when it isn't, and tricking is not always immoral, like tricking my nieces and nephews or other people for good reasons.


I agree, that's why I stated previously:


> I believe that tricking/sneaking/partial or complete withholding of crucial information qualify as deceit, which, per se, is immoral (unless the end actually justifies these means).


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 25, 2005)

I think there is also a difference between a "trick" and a "lie." A trick implies illusion. Magicians do not lie to the audience. You do not lie to your children by hiding their Christmas presents. A bank robber does not really lie if he comes in with a conceal weapon, even though this is very vital information. 

Hiding isn't lying.


----------



## Beleg (Jul 25, 2005)

*Re: The original question*

I don't think that factor was a particularly strong motive behind his writing.


----------

