Before I add my two cents I should say that most often philosophical discussions travel quite a few feet over my head, but I’ve made it through all these posts in one piece so I will try to state what I’m thinking as clearly as possible (and, just for Sharkû, I will see if I can pull everything back to Tolkien [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]). Apologies if I’m impossible to understand or say something really stupid. Onward:
I think that, by and large, the idea that morality is worthwhile because it makes us feel better misses the point of morality to begin with. As evidenced by this discussion, it is impossible to define what happiness means to other people, or rate what is fulfilling, if we are trying to determine it on a strictly personal level. I do not believe that “right” and “wrong” is something developed by human society. Even though in the movie Gandalf tells Frodo to listen to what his heart tells him (FotR EE just before they come to the gates of Moria), I do not believe Tolkien would ever have adhered to such a statement. The heart lies, people lie, society lies. The characters in Tolkien who do right do not do it because their heart tells them to.
Aiwendill writes:
Quote:
It seems to me (and it seems natural to me) that the right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of how the doer feels about it and regardless of how it will make the doer feel.
…
An implicit question here is whether morality actually exists (that is, whether there is really some rational justification for ideas of right and wrong) or whether it is merely a human invention. I hold out some hope for the former, but the more I think about things the more I am inclined toward the latter. And in this case, it makes no sense to talk about something actually being right or wrong; we can only talk about things being called right and wrong by humans.
|
This conclusion, I think, indicates why it is important to first understand the basis for morality. If it is, indeed, merely a result of people learning how to co-exist, there is, in fact, no such thing as right and wrong. Because of all the arguments that can be made about ends justifying means, and all the arguments that can be made for relativism and subjectivism, anything which begins with people determining what is best can never reach an answer about the nature or existence of morality itself. This is why, if we are to make an argument
for morality, we have to lay aside all the logic and reasoning stemming from its effect on humans, and look at morality as something that was, is, and always will be regardless of the humans who follow it (or not). In order for it to be worth following, it has to be bigger than us.
Since Tolkien was Catholic, a Christian denomination, I think there is reason here to bring up the Christian philosophy (which is most certainly not the same as Plato). The reason for the morality in Tolkien’s works all ultimately goes back to Eru—Morgoth and Sauron are evil because they defy/try to supplant Eru. That is the root of their evil, the reason they are the head bad guys. All the evil works they commit are undeniably evil because they go against Eru. And Eru has the right to be The One because he existed before anything else, and nothing else could even exist without him. Therefore, anyone besides Eru cannot create truth, because Eru
is Truth. So the concept of personal truth (i.e. this is what’s right ‘for me’) is bunk. Rightness, morality, and truth come from Eru/God and no other source. Evil and immorality come from opposing The One, therefore evil and immorality are not even things in and of themselves, they are merely “the opposite” of good. Eru cannot be evil, because evil cannot create, only twist. (I read an excellent explanation of this in a book about Tolkien, I believe by Kocher. It purported that all the evil in Tolkien’s work begins with or leads to nothingness.)
I don’t believe that you can justify morality without acknowledging that it all stems from one thing, one being, one ultimate truth. Is this simplistic? Yes. If you take away “The One” (Eru in Tolkien’s works, and Jesus in Christianity) you are left with humans as the ultimate beings. So therefore, yes, morality would have to come from humanity if it exists at all. This would make human selfishness not only justifiable, but an actual virtue. Plato’s philosophy (and any other that discounts God as the ultimate reason) seems to be rooted in selfishness, the belief that right and wrong can be defined by how it comes back around to the doer.
Plato’s statement that people are moral because it makes us feel good, falls short simply because people are not moral. Morality does not come from human thought or human emotions or human rationale. I believe that yes, evil can and does make individual people feel “good”, and evil can be justified on the level of human thought, because of our finite and selfish nature. But this should mean nothing, because if what you consider right and wrong is determined by what makes you feel good or bad, you believe that you are the most important being in the universe. You might not think this in those words, but isn’t that what it boils down to? If what makes you feel good is the answer, even if doing good for others makes you feel good, you’re still viewing your own self as the end to the question. The One. Morgoth wanted to be the most important being in the universe. That’s what made him the bad guy. And in different ways, whenever a character in Tolkien’s work acted in a way that seemed to be the best for his/herself personally at that moment, bad things happened. This follows the Christian philosophy that the self should not and is not the reason behind morality.
Also, simply saying that even if evildoers don’t seem to suffer in this life, they’ll be punished in afterlife, fails to touch on
why they’ll be punished and why it is
right for them to be punished. Being good just to avoid punishment doesn’t amount to much if you don’t acknowledge why good is good.
Even though this is really long, note that I’m only trying to touch on the origin of morality. Actions and thoughts that are considered moral can only be so, if morality can first be defined separate from those things. Actions and thoughts are only the results. The way I see the root (and I know the non-Christians and the moderators here are going to hate this, but remember, Christianity
was Tolkien’s philosophy!) is that morality starts with acknowledging that God is the only One who has any right to define morality because He
is true Morality, the First and Last reason for being, for doing, for thinking and feeling. Even though Tolkien did not make LotR blatantly Christian, all the “morality” and “immorality” upheld in his works can be traced back to the issue of Eru’s sanctity.