Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Salacia Deloresista

, and because at that point in the story he's denying his heritage.

I think that that is a concept only of the films ... in the book he may not flaunt his status amongst the people of Bree who have no appreciation of the Rangers (until they go), but he is not in denial..... otherwise he would hardly lug the broken sword around with him at all times in a somewhat impractical fashion

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Raynor

That was not my argument. I argued that if one believes that deligthing in evil deeds is immoral, then if siding with the orcs, or 'cheering them' as one debater has put it, means derriving pleasure from their deeds, then this is an immoral instance.

Hmm. I think the real problem here is the word evil, which I have conveniently emboldened. What constitutes an "evil act" is very difficult to decide, as the adjective "evil" can be applied to more or less any act or thought.

I suppose you are right in that, if "support of antagonists," "support of those who deny the existence of a Higher Power," "support of quarrelsome beings" or support of some other characteristic of orcs is defined as an "evil act," then supporting an orc is indeed immoral.

Which means more or less that, if you define evil as support of orcs, then supporting orcs is immoral!

Originally Posted by Salacia

He's dirty, yes, but not foul and disfigured like an orc or goblin.

I suppose so. But to take the opposite argument, Sauron, for example, was meant to take a fair form.

Originally Posted by Raynor

The intent of 99.999% of pornography in the movie is clear; they want to promote pornography, it is an end, not a means to an end.

I just found this and, although it's not relevant, I thought I'd mention that the Catalonian government is offering grants to local pornographers to create pornography in the Catalan language to "promote Catalan in every medium." This made me laugh.

[Raynor]

I suppose you are right in that, if "support of antagonists," "support of those who deny the existence of a Higher Power," "support of quarrelsome beings" or support of some other characteristic of orcs is defined as an "evil act," then supporting an orc is indeed immoral.

No, I was thinking of plunder, rape, torture, unnecessary killings.

[the guy who be short]

No, I was thinking of plunder, rape, torture, unnecessary killings.

Hmm, I see. If you think the above is evil, then supporting orcs is immoral.

I don't think orc-rape is mentioned anywhere (though Celegorm tried to force Luthien to be his wife). The Elves also seem susceptible to unnecessary killings - the Kinslayings, for example. The Elves like to plunder - the Noldo rebellion was partly out of yearning for new kingdoms, not to mention the lust for silmarils and other precious things. So I suppose we should also oppose the Noldor.

You've got me on torture though! Interesting that this seems to be something that fallen Elves do not partake in, though they're all too happy to murder. I wonder if that means anything.

[Raynor]

If you think the above is evil, then supporting orcs is immoral.

I was only interested in this argument about the case when supporting evil characters is related to delighting in these evil acts.

I don't think orc-rape is mentioned anywhere

I am not specifically interested in orcs, although Tolkien reffers to orcs raping in the Lay of Luthien (although some may equate that with plunder). More to the point, Tolkien speculated Melkor forced humans to mate with animals.

The Elves also seem susceptible to unnecessary killings - the Kinslayings, for example.

I don't think we can extend that to the "elves". We don't know who started the actual fighting, and it was all down to Feanor, who drove his men on. Anyway, I was thinking of killing for the sake of killing when I said "unnecessary".

Faramir describes the rohirrim as:

Originally Posted by The Window on the West, TTT

For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end

however, I am not aware that the rohirrim or the gondorians went out to kill just for the sake of it. But if they did, the same standard I have been arguing throughout this thread would apply to them too.

The Elves like to plunder - the Noldo rebellion was partly out of yearning for new kingdoms, not to mention the lust for silmarils and other precious things.

The elves love to plunder? How so? Yearning for new kingdoms does not amount to that. I am not aware that they took any land by force from anyone, or that they dispossesed. Also the silmarils were theoretically theirs. As for other things, I don't know what you mean.

Interesting that this seems to be something that fallen Elves do not partake in, though they're all too happy to murder.

All too happy to murder? Where is this particular trait described? If anything, at least their healers avoid this, since it reduces their abilities.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not aware that they took any land by force from anyone

Even though there where no established kingdom I belive that they took the land of the petty-dwarves and killed where they found them, but my memorie can be failing me.

Of course elves are not portraied as evil as the orcs, but they too seem to be intolerant of other races and sometimes other elves.

I actually don't see the orcs as pure evil, maybe because I don't belive in any such thing, but especially the conversation between Shagrat and Grishnákh convinces me that the orcs have other longings than just slaying. Maybe I mis-read the conversation (very likely), but they don't seem to be all that keen on war.

[Salacia Deloresista]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

But to take the opposite argument, Sauron, for example, was meant to take a fair form.

Sauron was originally beautiful, but when he fell, he was corrupted in body and spirit. It's a very Paradise Lost moment, actually. Satan was beautiful, too, when he was an angel.

[Raynor]

Even though there where no established kingdom I belive that they took the land of the petty-dwarves and killed where they found them, but my memorie can be failing me.

For all intents and purposes, the petty dwarves appeared to the elves as beasts who attacked them. They stopped as soon as they recognized they were sentient beings - that is, after meeting the 'greater' dwarves I am looking foward to anyone putting any argument that someone could have behaved better than the elves.

Of course elves are not portraied as evil as the orcs, but they too seem to be intolerant of other races and sometimes other elves.

To what cases of intolerance are you reffering?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Raynor

For all intents and purposes, the petty dwarves appeared to the elves as beasts who attacked them. They stopped as soon as they recognized they were sentient beings - that is, after meeting the 'greater' dwarves I am looking foward to anyone putting any argument that someone could have behaved better than the elves.

That is just silly as you ask people argue something that no one could actually know. . .We can only look at what the elves did and draw conclutions from that, well I guess we could do some speculation, but that is likely to be on very thin grounds. Just like I could not know if France would have done better than the US as the worlds only super-power. . .they would be in a completely different situation and therefore they would probably act differently.

What is interesting is that people seem to classify evil and good when clearly there is no true good beings. . .

You say that the elves only killed the petty-dwarves because they where beasts. .. Does that mean that you think ignorance is a good excuse for doing immoral things? If so I belive that most of the evil deeds of men could be excused.

I actually do not think it matters one bit wether someone could have acted better than the elves, at least not when you talk morality and such. One should be judged by ones own actions and not the ones of others.

Originally Posted by Raynor

To what cases of intolerance are you reffering?

If you will not accept "the creatures of Morgoth" as an answer then what about towards dwarves. . .I do realise that this was mutual and due the whole war buisness.

[Raynor]

Does that mean that you think ignorance is a good excuse for doing immoral things?

No, but at least spiritually, intention counts. And in this context the elves too were victimes, when they were ambushed by night and the likes.

I actually do not think it matters one bit wether someone could have acted better than the elves, at least not when you talk morality and such. One should be judged by ones own actions and not the ones of others.

I fail to see the relevance of a morality standard that no one could ever achieve. Tolkien too rejected criticism of Frodo, that he could have done better, saying such a thing could have happened only in stories unconcorned with "real moral and mental probability". I hold that the same applies here.

then what about towards dwarves. . .I do realise that this was mutual and due the whole war buisness.

Can you be more specific about this particular intolerance?

[Boromir88]

Forgive me for only skimming through this thread (at least I don't have my old signature up anymore). Some points I wanted to remark upon...

I think Lal speaks quite well for me, the bad guys are just far more fascinating. Saruman is the 2nd most fascinating character in Lord of the Rings to me...can anyone guess the first? (And no it's not Gothmog )

As a huge Sean Bean fanguy; he remarks that the good roles get a little boring and he prefers to play the rough 'n tough, conflicted, or downright evil character. As he said about his concerned father role in Silent Hill...it just got too boring and he loves playing characters with far more depth and even a touch of 'evil.'

I'd also like to point out, what Tolkien does excel at is not really defining good and evil as this black and white concept (all these good guys over here are pure, righteous and good...and they're facing all these dirty, rotten, evil people)....but there are 'areas of gray:'

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right…In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.~Letter dated 25 September 1954

There are a few characters that I would say are nearly and completely evil (afterall Tolkien does say Sauron and Morgoth were in 'absolute satanic rebellion'). But, I don't think the 'nature of evil' is so rigid...at least Tolkien felt like he didn't make it so easily defined as 'good vs. evil.'

I've never really been happy with the summary of the Lord of the Rings as a battle of 'good vs. evil' I mean sure there are good characters and there are bad...however good and evil exist on both sides. As Tolkien remarks about WW2:

For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed.But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn men and elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are so clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side...~Letter 66

Let's say if we look at the 'good' side in The Lord of the Rings...Denethor comes to mind as one that's a bit confused about good and evil. Sure he is completely and fully against Sauron...but that does not make him a 'good person.' Denethor was a capable and strong ruler; however he was filled with pride and despair...as Tolkien puts it he became 'corrupted by politics,' he became obsessed with his power as Steward and if he had still lived after the War of the Ring he would have 'ruled as a tyrant.' No one believes a Tyrant is good do they?

On the 'evil' side, we have some examples...Grima, Saruman, and Gollum. All of these characters are fighting against the destruction of the Ring and the 'free peoples' yet they are not on Sauron's side. They have their own objectives or were just led astray and decieved. How about the Haradrim warriors through Sam's point of view:

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace - all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind.~Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit

What it all comes down to when the boundaries between good and evil are not so rigid...there is a lot of 'jumbled' and 'gray' areas; I think we see that others (certainly myself) pity people on the 'evil side' (Gollum and Grima)...or find them fascinating as characters (like Saruman). Then we look at the 'good side' and see characters that have become corrupted and controlling (Denethor) or who are struggling with good and evil (Boromir). Boromir wants to do the right thing, he wants to be 'noble' and 'honourable' but he doesn't always succeed (and that being due to the pull of the Ring and Boromir's attraction to it).