Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Raynor]

We aren't dealing with two identical things - we were talking about two similar things.

So, the names, figures, places, sounds, and everything one can imagine about that scene are identical, but still, the two imaginary processes are not identical? How do they differ, davem?

Again, they may not be looking for such elements, they may not even care about such elements.

Does that mean that nothing precludes "naturally identifying moral or religious elements" when a book is read merely as a fantasy novel?

Elves are not 'living beings'.

But they represent living beings. By your reasoning, no 'perfectly moral' person could hold any truth to be actually true, because all characters in a book are in fact fictional.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

So, the names, figures, places, sounds, and everything one can imagine about that scene are identical, but still, the two imaginary processes are not identical? How do they differ, davem?

If they were 'identical' they wouldn't be two imaginary processes but a single imaginary process duplcated. Thus it is not possible to 'compare or contrast' them.

Does that mean that nothing precludes "naturally identifying moral or religious elements" when a book is read merely as a fantasy novel?

It doesn't 'precude' it. It simply may not be part of the reader's response. Making a salad does not preclude using celery, but a salad does not require celery to be a salad.

But they represent living beings. By your reasoning, no 'perfectly moral' person could hold any truth to be actually true, because all characters in a book are in fact fictional.

And yet they are not 'living beings' therefore the reader is not responding to living beings - unless they choose to respond to them as living beings. You seem to be implying that the reader has no choice in the matter, & that if they think a dragon frying an Elf is cool, or exciting they should be judged as immoral. Again, if a viewer laughs when Kenny is killed is the viewer laughing at the death of a child or his he laughing at the dispatching of a cartoon character? Is there a 'qualitative' difference or are the thoughts 'identical'? The reader may respond to Tolkien's characters as living beings, but they are free not to. A 'perfectly moral' being can choose how they respond to characters (or truths) in a book. Because its fiction.

[Raynor]

If they were 'identical' they wouldn't be two imaginary processes but a single imaginary process duplcated. Thus it is not possible to 'compare or contrast' them.

So if there is no difference between them, then if the first imaginary process is immoral, then so it the second.

It doesn't 'precude' it.

Then you agree that anyone can pick up the moral and religious elements in the works.

You seem to be implying that the reader has no choice in the matter

No, you are missing my point. The question was what (general) moral or religious truths from M.E. cannot be hold true by a 'perfectly moral' reader - so far you have presented nothing that precludes this. The cartoons you are reffering to are a false analogy, since they are not trying to convey an immoral idea, but hilarity - if they do try to portray unncessary killings or suffering as acceptable values, then they are immoral.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

So if there is no difference between them, then if the first imaginary process is immoral, then so it the second.

If one chooses to judge it. However, I dispute that fanatasising about killing an Elf is the same as fantasising about killing a real human being, & that fantasising about killing a real human being is qualitatively different from actually killing them. All the rest is a side issue as far as I can see.

Then you agree that anyone can pick up the moral and religious elements in the works.

I also agree that anyone can pick up the spelling mistakes, typos & bad grammar. I'm arguing they may choose not to, that they may not be interested in them & that they may not correspond to the reader's own moral value system.

No, you are missing my point. The question was what (general) moral or religious truths from M.E. cannot be hold true by a 'perfectly moral' reader - so far you have presented nothing that precludes this. The cartoons you are reffering to are a false analogy, since they are not trying to convey an immoral idea, but hilarity - if they do try to portray unncessary killings or suffering as acceptable values, then they are immoral.

And I'm arguing that this may not be the reader's approach to the story. You seem to be elevating a 'moral' reading over any other. A work of fiction cannot be 'immoral' - only the intent of the maker & the interpretation of the reader can be judged moral or immoral. Therefore the whole thing is subjective.

What this comes down to is a simple question - are you prepared to judge a person's character based on whether they choose Morgoth over Eru, or think A Nazgul is cooler than an Elf? If a reader chooses to approach Tolkien's work as being no more 'serious' or 'deep' than South Park then, however 'moral' they are they may side with Morgoth, Eru or the Fox in the Shire & it will have absolutely no relevance at all in terms of understanding the reader's moral value system. Again, you are taking your own approach to the work as being the 'norm'.

[Raynor]

If one chooses to judge it.

But our moral person is supposed to do that about himself.

A work of fiction cannot be 'immoral' - only the intent of the maker & the interpretation of the reader can be judged moral or immoral.

A message cannot be immoral? How about a message promoting racism or fascism?

are you prepared to judge a person's character based on whether they choose Morgoth over Eru, or think A Nazgul is cooler than an Elf?

You keep throwing this argument at me. We were talking here strictly about your proposed 'perfectly moral' person and what it could or could not do.

If a reader chooses to approach Tolkien's work as being no more 'serious' or 'deep' than South Park then, however 'moral' they are they may side with Morgoth, Eru or the Fox in the Shire & it will have absolutely no relevance at all in terms of understanding the reader's moral value system.

I agree, since in this case there is no actual siding in either instance.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But our moral person is supposed to do that about himself.

No - he can do that. Supposed implies obligation

A message cannot be immoral? How about a message promoting racism or fascism?

A message is just words. The writer's intent may be immoral, The reader's reaction may be immoral but the words cannot be immoral as they either consist of sounds or letters

You keep throwing this argument at me. We were talking here strictly about your proposed 'perfectly moral' person and what it could or could not do.

And I say again, the 'moral person' may not choose to analyse the work in such a way. And there is no requirement for them to do so.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lal

If your life was ever threatened or that of someone close to you (and I sincerely hope it is not!) you may be driven to thinking about what you'd like to do to someone which may indeed involve killing them. I'm sure I don't have to spell out the kind of circumstance, you know what I mean! Of course few of those in such horrible circumstances ever act on their imaginations but nevertheless the potential is there in all of us. A difficult thing to acknowledge perhaps, but never say never until you are in their shoes...

I don’t deny that I might well experience those kinds of feelings in the situation that you describe, and I don‘t actually find it that difficult to acknowledge. It would, nevertheless represent a lapse from my own moral stance, however understandable, because I do not regard murdering someone in response to a crime that they have committed, whatever the crime, as morally acceptable. Nor do I regard torture as morally acceptable under any circumstances.

Just because a moral person may have a certain impulse, it does not make that impulse morally acceptable. Nor does having the immoral impulse make them an immoral person, particularly if they would never dream of acting on it.

Originally Posted by davem

Yes - because we recognise that person is a human being, not a literary creation.

Quite, and I was responding to your description of a hypothetical “real life” situation.

That said, I cannot, as I have said previously, agree that a reader’s response to a work of fiction cannot necessarily tell us anything about that reader. It depends what the work of fiction is. Your examples of Tom & Jerry and South Park are false analogies. One has to look at the context of the fictional world in which the events portrayed take place. Where violence takes place in a cartoon context, where it is understood by the viewer that its purpose is humour, that it is not intended to raise moral issues, and that no “real harm” ever comes to the protagonists, then I see no problem in that. But where evil, torture and suffering are portrayed in a world with a similar moral code to that of our own society and are portrayed as causing real harm in that fictional world, and where morality is necessarily implicated by the creation and portrayal of good beings and evil beings, then it seems to me that it does say something about the reader’s morality if they genuinely side with those who are portrayed as evil and who are responsible for the torture, murder and suffering, and regard those things as worthy (as opposed to simply finding them interesting, playing at sympathising with them, or admiring certain (admirable) qualities in them).

I note that you did not address my examples of 1984 and Silence of the Lambs. Would you draw no conclusions about a reader if they were genuinely to sympathise with the stated aims and actions of Big Brother and thought Winston Smith had it coming to him, or if they were genuinely to regard Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism as acceptable? If not, then we have no common ground here, because I most certainly would.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

No - he can do that. Supposed implies obligation

I see. So I suppose that you consider the idea of moral obligation as absurd - since we established, I hope, that certain imaginary processes are immoral. Are you arguing that one is free to do whatever one wants, imagination included, no matter how strong that contradicts one's own morality?

Originally Posted by davem

But they may take it 'seriously' as a work of fantasy with no relation to the real world, so I would still argue that their support of the 'evil' side cannot be used to judge their morality as far as the real world is concerned. Supporting 'evil' characters in a fantasy world so far detached from the everyday world they live in means such conclusions cannot be drawn.

Davem, do you argue that there is any qualitative difference between one's imagination and a book? If certain fantasies are immoral when one engages in them, as we explored previously, then these ideas are immoral too when one recognizes them in a book and adheres to them.
[QUOT=davemE] I cannot declare someone who thinks Orcs slaughtering Elves is cool (however 'seriously' they might take the slaughter) [/QUOTE]You are rather vague about this; what could they consider 'cool' about slaughtering elves?

Originally Posted by tgwbs

In the second quote, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that the "norm" - that is, the majority view

Are you kidding? You take a statement of mine which states one idea, then you take another general affirmation I make, and define its meaning in your own way, [one which contradicts my previous statement and my previous opposition to moral relativism], then you attribute its meaning to me and ask me why I contradict myself? When did I define norm as majority view? Please clarify. I simply view norm as a whatever rule, standard, model; your qualification of it as 'majority's view' in the context of my argument is unwarranted.

Originally Posted by tgwbs

Can't we just accept that if somebody likes orcs, then they are evil according to the 1000th reader, Raynor or Thenamir, and not evil according to Lalwende and Davem?

My argument was that siding with the evil actions of the orcs may contradict one's own morality [if one holds various moral values to be true], regardless what other view as moral or not.

Originally Posted by davem

Let's say someone who fully supports the evil side in LotR is 'immoral'. What should we do about them? Should they be watched? Should they be allowed to adopt children? Can they be trusted not to steal cars, rob houses or mug grannies?

As far as I know, all western societies prohibit any kind of discrimination based on beliefs.

It has often been remarked that Middle-earth lacks priests and churches, but interestingly it also lacks police and lawyers--at least until Sharkey gets his hands on The Shire.

The hobbits have the shirrifs; the king was a priest-king in Numenor, and Tolkien speculates in the letters that Aragorn would return to that function.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Raynor

When did I define norm as majority view?

That's what a norm is. Normal. Something widely accepted by most people.

Originally Posted by Raynor

My argument was that siding with the evil actions of the orcs may contradict one's own morality [if one holds various moral values to be true], regardless what other view as moral or not.

Surely there is no argument then? If one holds that it is immoral to side with orcs (as you do), and sides with orcs, then this is immoral to that person. If one holds that siding with orcs is not immoral, and sides with orcs, then this is not immoral to that person.

Originally Posted by Salacia

I find that debating the morality of characters in Lord of the Rings is hard to do, since, as a children's story the moral lesson was put in by the author himself. There's a reason why Frodo is endearing and Sauron is a fiery eyeball, and that's because beautiful is good and ugly is bad, end of story.

Strider looks foul, not to mention Ghan-buri-Ghan!