Quote:
|
There are varying opinions on the morality of such characters as Feanor and his sons and Turin Turambar.
|
Good examples,
Lord of Angmar! It brings to my mind yet another point in the endless series of debates about the rightness or wrongness of the Oath of Fëanor and the doggedness of his sons in carrying it out. Certainly Fëanor desired his Silmarils; so did just about everyone else! But the uppermost in his mind was the villainy of Morgoth in the slaying of his father Finwë. Which was uppermost? Would his Oath be more justified if it were a simple act of avenging the death of his father? Did the Silmarils muddy the water too much? Did the Sons of Fëanor pursue the Oath out of an actual desire for the Silmarils or out of respect for their father's wishes? The moral battle seems to be fought most closely in the heart of Maedhros and Maglor, who were upstanding citizens of Middle Earth, until it came to those pesky Silmarils, and there we have a clear illustration of the doomed and unrighteous nature judged upon their Oath: neither can bear to handle the treasure they spent their last energies upon. Here there seems to be a moral judgement laid upon them by the very fabric and nature of the world itself, a clear illustration that they had strayed from the good and moral path, for their hands were literally burned! Does the burned hand teach best? Indeed! But this does seem to argue that in Tolkien's world there is an adjudicated morality, at least with respect to the Elves, and the punishment for the Sons of Fëanor is indeed perfectly fitted into this framework.
While I was ponderously writing and thinking,
Mister Underhill came out with a long post I had to stop and consider. I am not sure if you are accusing me of considering Tolkien's morality simplistic or to reducing Saruman's fall to a simple one to one incidence with the use of the palantir, but I do not believe such things can be reduced like that, and apologize if I gave that impression. I simply related that this was a clarifying point in the mind of Gandalf and he relates his deductions to Pippin during their flight to Minas Tirith and only then do certain pieces fall into place. Although, I wouldn't say that it is necessarily a bad thing to have a simplistic moral view. Saruman the White was much purer and simpler than Saruman of Many Colors. "I liked white better." I take Gandalf's admonition to Saruman, "He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom," to be an apt one and that the more one complicates an issue, the cloudier it can seem, when, in most cases, the path is "plain as a pikestaff," as Sam would put it.
I cannot blame you for seeking your best personal path without falling back on the need to rationalize it,
Underhill. That is admirable and is also something I hold to be a failing of certain philosophies that hold too closely to logic (although I am less qualified to enumerate them than just about anyone, as I haven't read philosophical works since the early 1980's and my memory is like a sieve.)
Well, I can't think of anything else right now, but I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion! My thanks to all involved!
Cheers,
Lyta
[ October 25, 2003: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]