Kant disputes the notion of a morality in which happiness is the highest ethical goal, but he also writes: “I class the principle of moral feeling under that of happiness, because every empirical interest promises to contribute to our well-being by the agreeableness that a thing affords, whether it be immediately and without a view to profit, or whether profit be regarded.”
Again, I’m a bit out of my depth here, but I don’t think Plato asserts a system in which personal happiness is the highest goal either. Happiness, fulfillment, inner peace, and so on are rather side effects of virtue, not its goals.
To argue that perfect immorality can equal perfect happiness has a rather Orwellian twang to it. If it is easier, more expedient, and more profitable to be immoral, and yet through an immoral lifestyle you can still be happy and fulfilled and at peace, isn’t it logical to live an immoral lifestyle? And isn’t the morality of LotR then so much deluded hogwash, not even admirable as an unattainable ideal because it espouses the opposite (sacrifice, humility, mercy) of what is ‘rational’?
I suppose I don’t require the absolute rational justification of morality that some of you require, so I am unable to provide it for you on your terms. I’m back to where I was before – better men than me have tried and failed. Do I need to define happiness and fulfillment? I can tell you what happiness isn’t – the (fleeting) rush of feelings of omnipotence and power that some serial killers report feeling when they humiliate and murder their victims. A fulfilling relationship does not include the probability that either party will betray the other at any time if an opportunity for personal gain or pleasure presents itself. Inner peace is not compatible with scheming, manipulation, and duplicity. Listen, I can’t rationally prove that love is worth anything, but I’m not waiting around for proof. Am I merely constructing tautologies for myself, and striving after untenable, unsound, even foolish ideals (and all too often falling short of the mark)? So be it. I’d rather aspire after high ideals than neatly argue myself out of any responsibility to live up to a high moral standard. Better to idolize the likes of Gandalf and Ghandi than Gordon Gecko (“Greed is good. Greed works.”). I would also submit that the most extreme acts of morality do not have their bases in logic and rationality, but in emotion. I can only hope that when I am in need of someone to do the right thing, they won’t stop to consider whether or not there’s a bulletproof rational reason for them to help me.
Bêthberry: I think that people sometimes get overly caught up in the principle of “show not tell”. Exposition has its place. Theorists and critics rant that artists should always show and never tell, while storytellers do what they have to do to get the story out.
Following on Lyta’s excellent post regarding Saruman, I don’t have much to add. Is it really a flaw of LotR that we don’t see each step in Saruman’s fall? I don’t think so. Sometimes, indeed most often, evil presents itself to us without any explanation of how it became that way – as Hitler suddenly appeared on the world stage in the thirties. Is it really important to know how and why he fell? I’m also disappointed to see you fall back on the old critical saw that Tolkien is morally simplistic. There are whole threads devoted to disputing that idea kicking around in the archives of the Downs. Need we pull out Boromir, Denethor, Gollum, yes, even Saruman and his refusal to accept redemption again? Most of Tolkien’s characters struggle with fear, doubt, and temptation to one degree or another. Some are redeemed (Boromir), some are not (Denethor, Gollum).
[ October 26, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]
|