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.
|