The Meaning of Pity and Mercy...what is the RIGHT thing to do?

[Kalla]

Thanks for the tip dragongirlG!!! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Elendur]

I think that Orcs should be left out of this conversation altogether. They are spawn of Sauron driven by his evil spirit. Because Sauron is complete evil that cannot be persuaded to think any other way, orcs should be treated the same. If you see an unconcious orc you should kill it. It is nothing but another part of the evil of Sauron. There is no moral question about it. When you are facing pure evil the only way to deal with it is to stop it somehow. If that means death that is what you have to do.

I think this is a very good conversation. I hope there are more thoughtful posts to come.

[Lush]

Thank you, Elendur.

[littlemanpoet]

"Deserves death? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends" ... Do Gandalf’s words ring true in our lives and in our world? Do you believe that humans have not the right to judge who should live and die?

I probably cannot argue as persuasively and logically as Kalessin and others, but I cannot agree that Gandalf's words do not ring true in our lives. Moreover, mercy and pity are not absent from 21st century life. As a deacon in my church, I'm constantly confronted with situations in which someone is confronted with circumstances beyond their control, whether they brought it on themselves or not. It's my job to show mercy to such people, and maybe pity is not in vogue these days, but surely compassion is, and is related to pity. My colleagues and I are constantly faced with the question of whether someone deserves to be given help, and I detest the whole question, yet it helps neither the people in difficult circumstances or us if we give them aid that only helps them stay in the middle of the trouble they're in. I realize this is a different kind of application than what JessicaJade first brought out, but it's my experience. More personally, I've been tempted to ask my supervisor to fire my coworker because she makes so, so many mistakes - and then she turns around and treats me with far more consideration than I do her, and I find myself humbled and reminded that people are far more important than accurate inventories and all that. Mercy, pity, compassion, and consideration of others are the things that enrich one's life far more than survival, achievement, success, intellectual prowess, and all the rest. I just wish I didn't have to remind myself of that time and time again.

[HerenIstarion]

up

[ninlaith]

Ooo....it hurts. Such a tough question. I agree, human nature does say that it is natiral to have mercy for those who are weaker. Which also brings me back to the Code of Chivalry, but we won't get into that. But none of us have truly been in Frodos place. We honestly do not know how we would feel in that exact situation. We can guess but we do not know. We would all like to think that we would let our mercy hand take hold, but that natural rage and frustration is such a powerful evil feeling. That's why I believe Frodo was chosen to carry the ring. Man could never comtain that rage unless they were "pure of heart" which we all know is next to non-existent. Frodo was the only one who could stand being merciful because he was not human. I think some of us forget this fact. Frodo was not human. More like a sub-human I suppose. He was not ridden with the evil flaws of man but had flaws of his own. Less concerning flaws. A man could never have handled it.

[littlemanpoet]

My dear Ninlaith, I could not disagree more strongly with both the general gist of what you say, as well as quite a few specifics.

But none of us have truly been in Frodos place.

Frodo's place, in all of its specifity, of course, is unique to him; but aspects of his place are familiar to many of us, such as having to persevere in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds; or near certainty that no-one can help me through my particular difficulties, only to discover that help is to be had in the most unlikely places (such as Faramir). Those are just two examples.

Man could never comtain that rage unless they were "pure of heart" which we all know is next to non-existent.

Humans of all sorts constantly contain their rage every day; it's part of human nature. It's called dealing with life.

Frodo was the only one who could stand being merciful because he was not human.

I'm sorry, but I am quite confident that this is one instance in which Tolkien himself would have said something akin to "balderdash". Sub-human? What is that? Less than human? Other than? Tolkien states that Hobbits are akin to humans. Frodo is drawn to be a character the reader can relate to.

Seeing Frodo exhibit pity has made it possible for me to be more quick to do the same. That's one of the most powerful positive by-products of reading stories.

You may be right in one thing, that a man could never have done what Frodo did. Whereas Hobbits are a kind of human, Hobbits have traits that give them advantages over the Big People: quiet feet and hearty constitutions being two of the most obvious. Their very diminutiveness, of course, makes it more likely that they would be overlooked. In those senses alone, though, I think, was Frodo able to do what a human could not.

The biggest problem I have with the general gist of what you say, is that you seem to remove Frodo so far from yourself that it becomes impossible for you to emulate Frodo, much less relate to him. I find that sad.