Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

even possible or permissible to say someone is immoral just from whether they like x, y or z character in a book, given that morality cannot be determined at some static point anyway.

Ah, the moral relativism defence.

I have little reason to worry about it; logically, moral relativism is twice contradicting: it allows for two opposite propositions, p and non-p, to be true (it defeats the very foundation of logic); and second: if there is no single standard to judge the value of a proposition, then even moral relativism has its limits and it naturally implies that other standards, contradicting moral relativism, are true as well. Frankly, moral relativism has no logical standing in a debate.

I have no problem drawing a line between concepts which lie upon a continua in the conceptual space - and matters are not as shady in Middle Earth as in the primary world. There, the very essence of Melkor and Sauron is nihilism. I am really curious who would argue that nihilism, utter destruction of everything, could be construed in a moral way. Nihilism itself excludes morality, since it allows for nothing to exist and therefore no distinctions to be made.

[Thenamir]

Bravo, Raynor, well said indeed.

Can I interject one more thought here (implying that you could say "no" ) -- that just as many here have said, there is far less gray and more black-and-white in Middle-Earth. I can understand someone being intrigued by Saruman or Gollum, who appear to have had struggles with their choices, the spark of good fighting, albeit unsuccessfully, their selfish bent. Such was the case in the end with Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker, a wonderful study into the dynamics of an evil character who repents in the end. I don't think anyone here would object to that.

What I believe is causing so much heated verbaige here is the existence of those who don't just appreciate a well-written literary exploration of a character who turns out to be evil (as most of us here do) -- they would BE Sauron or Morgoth if they could -- or, to put it in more real-world terms, they would BE Hitler or Stalin or Hannibal if it was within their ability. The ones who who don't care about others, being supremely consumed with self.

In other words, they're not just fascinated by evil -- they embrace it, they emulate it, they take it as a role model. It's that kind of person we don't understand.

[the guy who be short]

First, a defence of moral relativism:

1) Raynor, you don't explain your contradictions. However, I presume the first works as follows. The statements "no moral system is better than another" and "moral relativism is the only logical moral system" contradict one another.

In reponse to this, moral relativism is not a moral system, it is amoral. It does not say "this is good, this is bad, live your life by these rules." It says "good and bad do not exist, they are unnatural fabrications of the human mind enforced by society."

2)

if there is no single standard to judge the value of a proposition, then even moral relativism has its limits and it naturally implies that other standards, contradicting moral relativism, are true as well.

Again, moral relativism is not a morality system.

To relate this to Tolkien:

Viewed from a morally relative, or amoral, perspective, I see no objective evil in supporting evil characters. It's all in the minds of those who are offended.

[Thenamir]

Viewed from a morally relative, or amoral, perspective, I see no objective evil in supporting evil characters. It's all in the minds of those who are offended.

A genuinely curious question -- since you use the phrase in your explanation, would you mind defining "objective evil" from an amoral perspective?

[Lalwendë]

An observation: I'm chucking to myself how the debate seems to have subtly shifted away from people criticising those who just get some fun out of supporting the bad guys into criticising those who take the bad guys as an inspiration for sociopathy. Quite a different thing, and I'd venture to say you're as likely to find someone inspired to acts of sociopathy inspired by Tolkien's bad guys as you are to find a Leprechaun. And nobody would disagree that sociopathic behaviour is bad. Of course, saying that someone who is just into the bad guys and gets some fun out of it is evil or immoral, is actually quite rude to a lot of Downs members, who we know are decent people.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Frankly, moral relativism has no logical standing in a debate.

On the contrary. It takes centre stage in such a debate as this where we are criticising our fellow Downers for liking the bad guys and finding them entertaining (or that's the way it started anyway before the U turn!). Standing back and asking What Is Morality is vital where we are throwing around insults at decent people and casting aspersions on their moral fibre and character.

I aint going to judge others by anyone else's standards, only by my own. I won't be told who to like and who to mark down as 'immoral'.

Sorry but the thought just occurred to me that the point of this whole thread is supremely dodgy! The cheek of it! Why should anyone tell me or anyone else which characters we should like and which we should dislike?!

Can we not get on to looking at the much more fruitful question of why people like bad guys rather than offending people any further?

[Thenamir]

Lal, I truly mean no offense, but either you are missing our points entirely, or you are deliberately ignoring our patient attempts to explain ourselves, twisting our efforts into straw men easier to knock down.

Nowhere have I said nor implied that Tolkien's bad guys inspire people to sociopathy, and I don't think that's the point of the other posters here. The reverse is our real point, that there are sociopaths and near-sociopaths (by far the tiny minority of readers) who empathize with Tolkien's bad guys because those characters are evil.

If you are going to debate these matters, please do us the kindness of actually reading what we're saying.

[Lalwendë]

Here's the thing though. It's not being said that "there are loads of people who like the bad guys and get some fun from them, and tiny, ridiculously small percentage of those might be borderline sociopaths". That would be OK. It's being said that "if you like the bad guys then that suggests you're bit fishy to me".

That's just plain not nice. Nor is it fair.

Aside from anything else, is there any balance provided by looking at the equally tiny number of loons who are into Hobbits or Elves? Not all of them will be 100% nice either. Being into the bad guys is not a 'marker' of someone to avoid.

So anyway...you agree that just because Johnny or Susan think Orcs are fun and likes to write evil characters in RPGs or maybe habitually goes to conventions dressed as the Witch King or has a Balrog theme on their profile or likes to wind up Elf-heads by acting the minion, it does not mean they are immoral or evil?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

moral relativism is not a moral system, it is amoral. It does not say "this is good, this is bad, live your life by these rules." It says "good and bad do not exist, they are unnatural fabrications of the human mind enforced by society."

Moral relativism is all fine and dandy, until we get to the hard stuff. There are certain horrors and degradations of human behaviour that simply cross cultural boundaries. And this is even more true in Tolkien's world, where evil acts with a mythological-level power.

If the only people who disagree that <<delighting in evil is immoral>> are the same people who consider that <<there is nothing wrong, evil, or immoral about rape, or unnecessary harm, or Melkorian-style nihilism>>, then, frankly, I will happily rest my case.

If it is only all the other people [the ones who consider that <<rape, or unnecessary harm, or Melkorian-style nihilism are wrong, evil, immoral, in and of themselvs>>] agree that delighting in evil is immoral, then I am satisfied. I need not go any further than that.

Originally Posted by Lal

Standing back and asking What Is Morality is vital where we are throwing around insults at decent people and casting aspersions on their moral fibre and character.

Why are you trying so hard to twist arguments about ideas into arguments about persons? No single person has been targeted, only ideas. If a general moral judgement is true, then uttering it is not an insult, so please don't make it look so.

This whole discussion has started when you claimed that there is nothing wrong with liking bad guys because they are fictional. If you make this statement in an open debate, then you must be ready to have it challenged.

The curiosity of this is that, as pointed previously, you implied the existence of an absolute moral value: "it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice." and "We don't fail to see that at all [that "good" is good for all"], but when confronted, you resort to an argument that "there isn't in fact an absolute moral scale", which denies the previous "ok". Unless you qualify your statement as a purely personal position, then it can only be naturally read as presuming an absolute morality. I hope you see the contradiction.

Originally Posted by Lal

you agree that just because Johnny or Susan think Orcs are fun and likes to write evil characters in RPGs or maybe habitually goes to conventions dressed as the Witch King or has a Balrog theme on their profile or likes to wind up Elf-heads by acting the minion, it does not mean they are immoral or evil?

Please qualify your statements. Do they think that orcs can sometimes make jokes or do they think destruction done by the orcs is fun? Do they dress as the witch-king because such clothes are trendy (or whatever adjective, or whatever reason) or because they believe that (almost) irredeemable allegiance to evil is acceptable? I don't understand your last refference to make a comment on it.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why are you trying so hard to twist arguments about ideas into arguments about persons? No single person has been targeted, only ideas. If a general moral judgement is true, then uttering it is not an insult, so please don't make it look so.

A person's ideas are very personal to them. What you fail to take in is that by saying if a person likes the bad guys in a book that they are immoral you are INSULTING them. And I personally thought that kind of thing was not allowed on here. All I want to do is to defend those Downers who I personally know are decent people and are anything BUT immoral who happen to like one or two of the bad guys. There is NOTHING wrong in what they do.



I'm afraid I want no more part of this. It's offensive, frankly. I will not 'justify', 'prove', 'qualify' or otherwise anything I have said because I am simply defending the right of people not to be insulted for the things in Tolkien which they personally find entertaining.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

I will not 'justify', 'prove', 'qualify' or otherwise anything I have said because I am simply defending the right of people not to be insulted for the things in Tolkien which they personally find entertaining.

Simply because a person has a choice does not make that particular choice moral. If that choice is not moral, then simply stating the truth is not in itself an insult.

If you refuse to qualify your statements and clarify contradictions between your posts, then I guess discussion is indeed impossible.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm afraid I want no more part of this. It's offensive, frankly. I will not 'justify', 'prove', 'qualify' or otherwise anything I have said because I am simply defending the right of people not to be insulted for the things in Tolkien which they personally find entertaining.

Oooh, umbrage and high dudgeon. Isn't that the last resort of those left without a leg to stand on?

I still think it would be valuable to consider where Tolkien put the dramatic action, whose decisions he described, how he presented the choices available in Middle-earth.

We don't have to accept his moral vision, but far more interesting than saying anything goes or you're bad if you like orcs is the aesthetic question of what he choose to highlight.

In giving the main focus to the choices and travails of the heroes, without developing the baddies to any large extent, without making them as attractive, as, say, the Byronic heroes were attractive, was Tolkien in fact creating a situation in which the very unwritten parts, the unstated possibilities, in fact create a situation which, likely, Tolkien wished to avoid, that is, an imaginative and dramatic interest in the baddies.

Would we all be as interested in balrog wings if Tolkien had been more direct? I don't think so. So, all this interest in Sauron and Melkor and orcs and Saruman, is it in fact created by Tolkien's avoidance of extensive description of evil. Is this a pursuable line of discussion?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

In giving the main focus to the choices and travails of the heroes, without developing the baddies to any large extent, without making them as attractive, as, say, the Byronic heroes were attractive, was Tolkien in fact creating a situation in which the very unwritten parts, the unstated possibilities, in fact create a situation which, likely, Tolkien wished to avoid, that is, an imaginative and dramatic interest in the baddies.

Would we all be as interested in balrog wings if Tolkien had been more direct? I don't think so. So, all this interest in Sauron and Melkor and orcs and Saruman, is it in fact created by Tolkien's avoidance of extensive description of evil. Is this a pursuable line of discussion?

I agree; I previously answered to one of davem's post that we can hardly be impressed by the might and splendour of Melkor, since Tolkien dedicates very little space to that.

I would say that Tolkien definitely saw displaying of majesty/power as morally wrong; it was an error for the valar to manifest themselves in majesty fully revealed to bring the elves to Aman; fully revealed power was also forbidden to the Istari; Melkor himself has shown himself in a most majestic form to corrupt Men. I believe there is a theme at play.

[Lalwendë]

Not at all Bb. I am genuinely offended by what Raynor is implying about many good people on here and see no value in continuing such unpleasant discussion while it will be insulting other people. It isn't nice, is it, to be associated with rapists, Stalin, Hitler and other nasties? It brings to mind the similar offence caused by ANOther thread we all know about. One of my good pals here, who I can personally vouch for as being a great guy (and he knows who he is if he reads this) keeps telling us about his replica of Angband in his cellar. Yeah, he's evil he is. Riiiiiiiiiight.

But that's my last word on that. And I will not be drawn on it, thank you very much.

And anyway I shall let you off Bb because you're trying to do what I've tried to do more'n a few times which is draw this thread out of the poison and into more interesting light.

I shall see if it goes on that way before deciding whether to bother any more.