[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Note meaning to imply that loyers are baddies, of course.

Of course not. Some of them ... ahem ... us have chosen the light side.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And that's why I say it is extremely rude to place the highly emotive and loaded term 'immoral' on someone for who they like and do not like in a piece of fiction.

I am not talking about making judgments on the basis of which characters people like and dislike, so please do not imply that I am being rude by reference to something that I have not done. Heavens, it is well documented that I am a great fan of Smaug as a character. That does not mean that I think he was right to attack a bunch of innocent people and destroy their homes. My point was referring to those who delight in, sympathise with and support the atrocities committed by the evil characters in LotR. I consider myself perfectly justified to view that as an immoral standpoint, although I would not necessarily judge them as a person by it (or not by that alone, at least). I am merely stating my own personal view in a debate on the issue. Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything that you say.

Originally Posted by davem

Aren't you in effect simply saying 'its not a nice way to think but it makes no practical difference to you or anyone else'?

In a nutshell, yes. To be honest, I see little relevance to my life or anyone else's in this debate, but I am a sucker for pointless debates ...

With one caveat. If a person habitually delighted in, sympathised with and supported the evil acts of fictional characters, I would expect that to be relevant in any psychological assessment of that individual and, were there evidence of such behaviour, it would be relevant in any criminal prosecution of them for any serious crime which they might commit. As I said, such a pattern of behaviour is not illegal, and 9.99 times out of 10 it will not lead to dangerous behaviour. But, were it to do so, it would be considered relevant in assessing their state of mind.

However, I know of no one who approaches fiction in this way, and I believe that there are very few people who do. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the views referred to in the opening post, which kicked of this debate, were not genuinely held but were merely "showing off". So, yes, it is largely irrelevant.

Indeed, the "off topic" elements of this debate, concerning moral relativism and the application of systems of morality and ethics are of far more interest to me, particularly as it is an area in which I work.

Originally Posted by TGWBS

However, you seem to be saying that this does not make that society's morality any less valid as a system and, furthermore, that a society's system of morality should be used to judge the individuals within it.

Not all situations require society's moral judgment. Most of those which do are enacted in law. In many situations that are not, no moral judgment is required at all by society in general (although individuals may take it upon themselves to make such a judgment, and are generally free to do so).

Sometimes, however, moral judgments are required, even where there is no issue of law involved. To take an example with which I am professionally familiar, should a company do business in a country with a poor human rights record? There are arguments both ways. On one side, it might be argued that the company brings employment to people and treats them well as employees (assuming that it does), and also that bringing investment into the country might benefit its people and even, ultimately, lead to a change in the regime or a more enlightened approach. On the other, it might be argued that, in doing so, the company is supporting an appalling regime. Similarly, where mundane bribes are accepted (and legal) in a country, should a company doing business in that country pay those bribes simply in order to be able to compete? In these sorts of situations, people have to make moral judgments, and they will generally apply the moral standards of their home society.

Originally Posted by TGWBS

How can you support temporal, societal-based morality to judge people today, but be against using it historically?

In the same way that I generally support the application of the law as it is now, rather than as it was 20, 100 or 200 years ago. But, as I said, where the moral issue is not enacted in law, and where differing moral standpoints cause no harm to society, I personally see no particular reason to judge, in the sense of condemning, although I may well form a view and feel myself perfectly at liberty to state it.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And to follow on from what tgwbs says about how people have struggled to change the morality 'accepted' by society, what about those who go against the grain of a wider society which is, according to them, immoral? What about resistance fighters?

What about them? They may well have a good cause. As I said, it is perfectly possible to regard a law, or indeed the moral values of a society, as immoral. Of course, they can only reach that stage by making a moral judgment. Having made that judgment, are they justified in using violence to enforce it? Instinctively, I would say no. Yet some who have been hailed as great heroes were once terrorists, carrying out terrorists acts.

To be honest, while this is a fascinating area, and one in which I have a particular interest, it is veering quite seriously off-topic. It is also an area in which there are often no easy answers. So I think that I'd best leave it be for now, much as I would like to continue this discussion.