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

[Jessica Jade]

What would you do?...
As we all know in LOTR...
at the Cracks of Doom in the final moment of truth, where the Shadow raises itself to its most horribly gruesome evil height, Frodo's heart and will falter for one moment and are devoured by the Shadow. His desire to destroy the ring is conquered. The entire quest hangs on a single thread of doom.

Then, from beyond the circles of the world, blown in on wings of mercy, grace comes to pull you back from the pits of Mordor, a grace which was possible only because you had shown pity towards a hideous and miserable creature. --Child of the 7th Age

(note: This quote is from something that Child of 7th Age wrote a previous thread that happens to fit perfectly with this discussion i'm starting.)
I'm sure you all recall from the beginning of LOTR, Gandalf and Frodo's conversation about the pity of Bilbo:
I do not feel any pity for Gollum. He deserves death.
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.

Indeed, one of the most important and poignant themes in LOTR is the meaning of pity and mercy. Gandalf tells Frodo to show mercy to the ones around him, because he has neither the wisdom nor right to determine who should live and who should die on earth. Frodo takes Gandalf’s advice to heart and makes them part of his actions, and by the end of the story, he has undeniably reached a higher level of understanding. At the end, he knows that it is right to be merciful toward others (seeing that his quest would have been all been in vain if he hadn’t), and, being a perfect example of his acquired maturity, he shows pity to Saruman in the Shire, even though Saruman had every intention to kill him.

And all of that brings me to my point: 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?
If YOU were in a situation where someone were about to kill you in cold blood out of sheer malice, and you had NO way to escape, what’s the RIGHT thing to do?

Is it right to kill a treacherous, murderous creature, because it would seem safe, just, and many times deserved? OR…Is it right to show them mercy, even if it, as far as you know, leads undoubtedly to your own death, doom, or destruction?
(Mind you, I’m not only talking about murder here. I mean pretty much any situation where you can either be merciful or risk being seriously hurt-that is, hurt physically, mentally, emotionally, etc…)

Should we take Gandalf’s advice to Frodo into our hearts as well? What’s the right thing to do? What would you do?

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jessica Jade ]

[ElanorGamgee]

Wow. That is a very good question. I have always believed in the Golden Rule and that I should love my enemies, but it is harder when it's my life that is in danger. I would like to think that I would show mercy to my enemy no matter what the consequences, but it is hard to say that when I've never been in such a serious situation. So, I guess my answer is that I believe that showing mercy is the right thing to do. Vengeance belongs to God, not me. I just hope that if I ever am put in a situation where I am in that kind of danger I will have the strength and self-control to do what is right.

[The Half-Hobbit]

This is a good topic. I'm covering ethics right now in philosophy, and I often find myself thinking of Gandalf while we discuss the moral implications of different situations. I can't say I know for sure how I would react, but I think a WWGD? (what would Gandalf do?) attiude is a step in the right direction. Would i spare the wicked at the cost of my own life? I doubt it, I have a right to defend my existence. I'd like to think that I wouldn't needlessly take a life though, even if the life was less than deserving.

[Arwen Imladris]

Good question Jessica Jade. Hmm. I'm not really sure either. I tend to agree with ElanorGamgee. I would like to think that I would never try and hurt anyone, but I have never been in a place where I need to make that choice. I feel bad when my library books are overdue, so I don't think that if I thought about my actions ahead of time, I wouldn't be able to hurt anybody, but if it was a split second decision, I don't know.

Great topic!

[Kuruharan]

I can't say I know for sure how I would react, but I think a WWGD? (what would Gandalf do?) attiude is a step in the right direction.

It bears remembering that Gandalf had no objection to hacking orcs to pieces if the situation called for it.

If it were a fight I would defend myself to the best of my ability (human instinct being what it is).
It the individual in question were at my mercy, that would be a different matter. I would hope that I would show mercy. But, never having been in that situation I don't know for sure.

[Birdland]

Interesting question Jessica. I would like to think that I would "defend my existence" (good quote, somebody. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) if it was threatened. But that I would not shoot someone who was taking my car.

Obviously Frodo's instincts were "right" when it came to Gollum. He would not kill the wretch just because of what he "might" do to them. Suspicion warrants caution, but not killing.

Now at the very end of the quest, when Frodo was attacked by Gollum, I think it's obvious that Frodo would have killed Gollum. It was both a fight for the Ring and a fight to the death. The Ring controlling Frodo would demand nothing less, just to preserve its own existance. It's just lucky that neither of the combatants had weapons.

Now if such a fight had happened earlier in the story, would Frodo have strived to kill Gollum to preserve his own life?

[Kalessin]

It's worth considering that both pity and mercy are the prerogative of those with some kind of power over the potential recipient. They are ethical considerations that guide one's action in a situation where one has choices.

In that context, pity is perhaps a rather unfashionable (or old-fashioned) ethic. In Tolkien's world, where races and characters are pretty clearly defined (certainly by comparison to the shades of grey we see in reality), pity is seen as virtuous - a kind of gentle, tolerant accommodating of that (or those) less fortunate.

These days, 'pity' is not something that, for example, third world or disabled charities will attempt to elicit when raising funds. Precisely because it signifies an inequality and inferiority, and is seen as patronising and disempowering. Imagine being 'pitied' by someone (anyone) and you will see what I mean. The notion of pity as a virtue is something that was typical of Tolkien's age - he was steeped in British imperial culture - and has generally been superseded by a more subtle and humanist (yet equally problematic) view.

Mercy again implies a power - this time, the power of both judgement and sentence. To be simplistic, the acceptance of mercy as a guiding principle would lead one to disapprove of the death penalty. If a killer is caught and convicted, a death sentence might be just - but not merciful. To be merciful implies exercising both judgement and power to reduce the suffering of another. It is not the same as fairness or justice. If mercy is a virtue, it is always therefore appropriate, however galling. In an advanced society, perhaps, "institutionalised mercifulness" represents the moral power (or superiority) of its citizens.

A do-or-die confrontation where life is in danger is not an occasion where either mercy or pity come into play, because of the balance of power in such situations. In Tolkien's work also, killing that takes place outside of war and self-defence is seen as brutal and barbaric, and to be avoided wherever possible.

At the risk of sounding pompous (what, moi?), I do not recommend the WWGD or WWAHD approach to ethical decisions. One, for the obvious reason that these are fictional creations (and not even human), and two, because the whole point of ethics and morality is that you must make your own decision and take responsibility for it. You can't say later "I only did that 'cuz I thought it wuz what Treebeard would do" [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

That's why real life can be difficult. In the end, it's up to you - and down to you.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I can only speak from my own experience.

Simply having a belief or wish or philosophy is not enough, no matter how strongly you believe it. When confronted with the hard decisions, if you have not lived day-by-day in the small ways by your ethics, you'll find you will not have the strength. You'll act in accordance with what you have lived, and not in accordance with what you believe, because that is what you've habituated yourself to.

The reverse is true, if you have worked to live your principles, you will be astounded at what you will accomplish when they're challenged.

[dragongirlG]

I believe that in do-or-die situations you don't act by reason. You act by instinct. If someone is about to kill you, then instinctive self defense will come into play. You'll hurt him or her, if not kill for your protection. You wouldn't act by what you believe, as mentioned before, you'd act by what you've been taught, which is (in most cases) self defense. Do-or-die situation? Then kill, or at least hurt as much as possible. Would you show pity and mercy to a serial killer just because someone you loved and trusted told you that he would save the world? To Timothy McVeigh (if he was still living) or Jack the Ripper? Though Middle Earth reflects many of the same values and morals of our world, it's not the same world. Frodo knew and trusted Gandalf, and knew that Gandalf could foretell what would happen, and why he should not kill Gollum. Unfortunately, in this world, there are not many Gandalfs we can trust in this world, probably none at all.

As Kalessin mentioned before, these are fictional characters. It's not real life. Many here say they would have showed others pity because of the Gollum example. However, we knew Gollum had an important part to play because of Gandalf. But that was in a book. We knew Gandalf was a good character. But how do you know, in our world, if someone is telling the complete truth about why you should not kill someone, even if he or she is someone you deeply trust? How do you know that he or she is simply in league with the serial killer or criminal that he or she is telling you not to kill, sort of like Saruman was with Sauron? In Middle Earth, we could trust Gandalf. But in real life, there are no Gandalfs. We are men and women, after all, and temptation still lives in our blood.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: dragongirlG ]

[Kalessin]

dragongirlG, there's a certain resonance in your words - "In Middle Earth, we could trust Gandalf. But in real life, there are no Gandalfs." - and that in effect summarises the in-applicability of LotR as an ethical guidebook.

You also pose the question -

"Would you show pity and mercy to a serial killer just because someone you loved and trusted told you that he would save the world? To Timothy McVeigh (if he was still living) or Jack the Ripper?"

Good question. And it comes back to the apparent conflict between mercy and justice. "An eye for an eye" is not mercy. Revenge is not mercy. And, sometimes, justice is not mercy. Mercy is more than just "doing the right thing". It is about consciously and deliberately acting to reduce the suffering of another.

And, importantly, mercy should not depend on 'knowing that that he/she would save the world'. As you say, in real life, we rarely have that luxury of knowing. And a genuine act of mercy (or altruism, or heroism), doesn't have that ego-payoff ... "I let him go, and he saved the world, so in a way I saved the world!". An old axiom that Tolkien might have approved of holds sway here - 'virtue is its own reward'.

Can we always find it within ourselves to be merciful? Like Maril says, the small things that only you know about are important too. It's no use fantasizing about heroically sacrificing yourself to save the world. This stuff starts at home - and unlike Galadriel, we all 'fail the test' from time to time ... sometimes you have be merciful to yourself too (just don't do it again - or get caught [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). End of sermon.

Peace

PS. Thanks for sharing your writing, dgG - very impressive, keep it up! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Lomelinde]

Showing mercy is not something that comes instinctively to humans; we must think about it and make a conscious decision to act on our particular sets of morals and ethics. When it comes down to life or death (and I, fortunately, have never been faced with such a situation), one is not going to not defend himself out of mercy or altruism; he is going to obey his natural impulses first and fight for his life to the death.
However, when it comes down to whether I would kill someone in cold blood simply because he is a potential hazard to society or myself, I cannot answer that, and I don't believe anyone can. Each scenario is unique, each quandary different, with consequences and choices particular to the situation. This is just my opinion, but this question is an incredibly good, albeit ultimately unanswerable one. I don't believe there is anyone who can definitely say "yes" or "no" for any and all possible future dilemmas.
Also, with regards to what Kalessin mentioned earlier, yes, LOTR is chock-full of wisdom and thought-provoking quotes, but using it as a "ethical guidebook", to quote Kalessin, is misleading and potentially harmful. Once again, these are fictional characters, in a fictional work, and heavy, real-world decisions should never be based off of fictional stories, aka the "What Would Gandalf Do?" mindset.
Great thread, and very thought-provoking. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Jessica--This is sharon, the 7th age hobbit, whom you quoted at the beginning in your question. I've been tied up with the "real world" a number of days, and haven't been able to find computer time. So I'm glad to read this thread now as it is very interesting.

Yes, on one level I certainly agree that it is no good to look simplistically at LOTR or any other of Tolkien's writings as a guidebook for our ethical life in the 7th age. Things are just too different in many respects. We do not have to fight evil incarnate but a strange mixture of the good and bad, where it's sometimes difficult to even discern one from the other. And then there are the seductive voices of Saruman. I believe we have plenty of those.

And yet, there are messages in this book which would be applicable in any time and place--the realization that we have moral choices to make and these choices will have consequences that go far beyond our little selves. In that sense, whether we actually use terms like "pity" or "mercy" in our age, the phenomenon of forgiveness and forbearance couched in whatever terms we care to dress them up in does have relevance today.

As far as the question whether Frodo would have struck back and killed someone if he had been in a life threatening situation, the answer is absolutely yes. Why was he wearing Sting at his side, unless he acknowledged this as a real possibility? Only near the end of the book, does he remove it and state that he thinks it is his fate not to strike again. But this is in the very special situation of Mount Doom and the realization that using a sword to strike out against evil will have absolutely no effect.

But there is another question that bears raising. Why is it Frodo (and not Sam or Faramir) who advocates restraint with Gollum? Frodo argues with Faramir that Gollum is not wholly wicked. It is as if Frodo can see things in others' souls most characters can not see. He can somehow look deep into Gollum's small, shriveled heart and see there light, still hidden, almost extinguished, but still the possibility of goodness.

Perhaps it's not surprising that Frodo would be able to see this light. Just listen to Sam's comments as he watched Frodo sleep in the depths of Mordor. Sam comments that a light shining from Frodo's face was even brighter than when he had last seen it: "Now the light was even clearer and stronger....Frodo's face was peaceful, the marks of fear and care had left it; but it looked old, old and beautiful, as if the chiselling of the shaping years was now revealed in many fine lines that had before been hidden, though the identity of the face was not changed" (II, 269) Only a being who had this kind of light within himself can sense the presence of it, though hidden and dilluted, even in Gollum. Since I do not have this level of insight or light, I am afraid my own response would be more like Faramir's or even Sam's, cautioning and suspicious.

But I have no doubt that it was Frodo's ability to sense that light, his ability to show caring to Smeagol (the little part of Smeagol that was still left under Gollum) which permitted Frodo to succeed with the Ring, even in the limited sense that he did. And even Gollum could love and identify with the specialness that was in Frodo--the scene where he cautiously touched the sleeping Frodo's knee with almost a caress. Frodo's generosity and love were so unlikely that even Gollum could not help but respond. If only Sam had managed to stay asleep, what might have happened? In a sense, this is Frodo's finest moment, more profound than what happened on Mount Doom itself.

In the end, Frodo withstood evil because he bound himself not to the power of the Ring, but to others. It is in this context that Frodo's pity and mercy must be considered. Frodo finds himself in his love for Sam and in his compassion for Smeagol. Without this dependence, a dependence based on humility, he would have fallen victim to the Ring as many others had done. No, I don't think I have the heart or moral insight to respond like this and so my attempts at pity and mercy are necessarly more limited and halting. sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Jessica Jade]

Wow- i'm really glad i started this thread!Thank you everyone for your posts, and keep it up! Your comments are very very much appreciated- [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

++Disclaimer++ (before i begin)
I am sort of playing devil's advocate here, for the sake of being thorough and considering every possible aspect of this discussion. So, just know that I don't necessarily agree with ALL of the following arguments. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I believe that in do-or-die situations you don't act by reason. You act by instinct. If someone is about to kill you, then instinctive self defense will come into play.

So, are you saying that in moments of ultimate emotional turmoil, such as intense fear, humans are not to be held accountable for their actions? Say you hurt someone, but "It doesn't count, because i couldn't help it, i did it on impulse." Should you still be held accountable for what you did?People are supposedly responsible for what they do at all times, right? Also, consider this...does the end justify the means? Say that you kill someone either to save yourself, or to prevent them from hurting others in the future. Does the fact that you killed for a good cause justify the fact that you have taken away a human life? Furthermore, if you kill someone to save yourself, are you not implying that your life is worth more than theirs is, because you should live and they should die? And that brings me back to my first question...do we, as humans who are inherently flawed, do we have the right to judge that? Or does only God posess the right to decide who should have life?

Of course, as it has been mentioned before, in situations like these, you will act not by what you believe but by what you have lived in your everyday life. (This was Aristotle's belief too- that virtue can only be acquired if practiced and lived.) Since we have been taught to defend ourselves when attacked, or even kill if necessary, it would be impossible for us to do otherwise, right? So...are we teaching the wrong things? Or does it not make a difference anyway, since humans will always have the instinct to defend themselves at all costs? And does the fact that you did something bad due to instinct make your actions excusable? After all, there are still people who are convicted, tried, and go to jail for second-degree murder.

As for the What Would Gandalf Do--it's not so much of what would he actually do...yes, he IS fictional, and we shouln't use LOTR as an ethical guidebook. But maybe the WWGD means, what would a being so virtuous as Gandalf do? Gandalf is like a paragon of virtue, like Jesus. In a sticky situation, by asking ourselves what a creature of ultimate virtue would do, might help us make a decision and decide what is right However, we must be realistic and know that we, as humans cannot hope to acquire the level of compassion/virtue/wisdom that (people) like Gandalf and Jesus posessed.

It [pity] signifies an inequality and inferiority, and is seen as patronising and disempowering.

Very true--when you pity someone, you are implying that their circumstances must be worse than yours. Pity was seen as virtuous in Tolkien's age, whereas Mercy means reducing the suffering of another (as Kalessin said), and now i realize that pity is not the same as mercy.

Is mercy a virtue? If it is, that means that it is always right to show mercy. I suppose it does represent moral power (like Kalessin said before)...and doing the right thing is not always easy. Say you were in a heated argument with someone, and you were both very angry, and that person hit you...which would be harder, to hit them back, or to be mature and tell yourself, "I will not stoop to their level. I have more self-control and temperance. I will not let my wrath get the better of me. I will simply walk away."? The answer of course, is obvious- walking away from the situation and resiting the urge to sink to their level would be right, but not easy. Perhaps the same applies for killing or hurting someone...it's harder to show mercy and spare them when you believe that they deserve death or pain than it is just to strike.

Child of 7th Age--interesting post. IS it possible for we humans to show the kind of mercy like Frodo did? Does anybody have that ability to "sense that light", or posess that level of insight?

[Kuruharan]

He can somehow look deep into Gollum's small, shriveled heart and see there light, still hidden, almost extinguished, but still the possibility of goodness.

I realize that it is not particularly relevant to this thread, but Gollum did not do what he did to save the world out of goodness.

does the end justify the means? Say that you kill someone either to save yourself, or to prevent them from hurting others in the future. Does the fact that you killed for a good cause justify the fact that you have taken away a human life? Furthermore, if you kill someone to save yourself, are you not implying that your life is worth more than theirs is, because you should live and they should die?

Now you come to an interesting problem of the human condition. We don't know everything, we are not everywhere, we don't understand all that is going on, but we still have to live and act and make difficult choices and then live with the consequences of those actions.
I suppose that is really an unanswerable question.

It's worth considering that both pity and mercy are the prerogative of those with some kind of power over the potential recipient.

But what exactly do you think that Bilbo's and Frodo's position in relation to Gollum was? (Sticking strictly to the context of the story in this case.)
In one case, Bilbo was invisible with a sword and was in a position to kill Gollum. In the other Frodo and Sam were holding Gollum down and they had a sword to Gollum's throat. If they did not have power over Gollum, they were at least in a VERY advantageous position and I think that in that case pity would be a fitting thing for Bilbo and Frodo, given the situation. The same thing is true with Saruman. Frodo could have had him killed. If that is not power over a person, it is at least an advantageous position.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Is it possible for we humans to show that kind of mercy like Frodo did? Does anybody have that ablity to "sense the light" or possess that level of insight?

Ultimately, any answer to this question probably depends on your view of the human situation and of human nature. I would say "yes", but in a tentative and halting way.

I remember Tolkien saying--I read it somewhere, perhaps in the Letters--that in the LOTR he was not writing about the average member of the hobbit community but certain unusually gifted and talented individuals who stood out from the community at large and who had, in effect, been selected for their tasks. While I might not use the same language that Tolkien does, I do think that, in the course of human history, such individuals do exist, but they are certainly rare.

Such individuals have the ability to look beyond surface reality and see things that, for others, remain unseen. I will mention one example of such a person I have personally seen in my own lifetime, that of Martin Luther King, Jr. At a time when evil was directed to him, he showed the ultimate mercy by not responding or advocating violence. Instead he pointed to a gentler road because he could see some light in society as a whole and believed in the possibility of change. I do think that in order to grant mercy on a personal level, it is absolutely essential that the individual be able to see the light in that other person's heart or soul. If we peer into someone's heart and only see evil, we would be true fools to offer complete mercy or kindness. Martin Luther King, for example, could never have advocated a gentle way in Hitler's Germany. It would be like giving Sauron a pardon so he could continue torturing people, instead of doing to him what needed to be done. At the very least, we would need to be able to restrain that evil creature from doing further harm.

The real question perhaps is not whether there are people who can see the light in other people's souls, but whether there are people on this earth who have absolutely no goodness inside them. The history of the 20th century suggests such individuals do exist, but this too is a difficult question which rests on your view of the human situation.

In any case, the scene where Gollum gently touches Frodo's knee suggests that the latter was correct in seeing deep down in Gollum some capability for repentence. I don't think Frodo was intending to change the world or even generate goodness by a simple act like this, but, taken cumulatively in our world, such acts of mercy or forgiveness could have an effect.

As for how I would act, that is another question. In theory, for example, I might argue that the death penalty is unjust, that the state doesn't have the right to take life in this premeditated manner. Yet, if faced with a concrete personal situation in which someone I loved had been hurt or injured, my response would perhaps and sadly be different. I would have a hard time seeing that light, even if there was evidence that it existed.

All this, of course, assumes a relaivly safe situation where it is possible to think and ponder alternatives. If faced with immediate threat to life, our own or especially that of our families, I think very few of us would respond in a gentle manner. And here, I think, we would be justified on some level. I know there are philosophies which say otherwise but I am too tied to the West to think differently. Even here, though, there may be choices. There is a difference between shooting someone in the leg and someone in the head, for example. Goodness, this is a long and rambling discourse, but a question such as this has so many sides to look at and is not easy to untangle! sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

I will start out by quoting Kalessin:

Mercy again implies a power - this time, the power of both judgement and sentence

One must be in a position of power to show mercy. The question of self-defense is not a mercy question simply because one is not in a position to show mercy. The definition of mercy (oxford desk dictionary) is "compassion or forbearance shown to enemies or offenders in one's power."
This aspect of a position of power needed to show mercy is reflected in the phrase "at the mercy of"...as in to be wholly in the power of someone or something.

Mercy is appropriate in all situations because is it from a position of power to someone who is incapable of defending themselves. But showing mercy does not imply letting the perpetrator of evil go free to continue to do evil, nor is mercy the same thing as pardon. The state may show a murderer mercy by not imposing the death sentence, but still imprison the murderer (and not show pardon).

Look at the self-defense issue from a slightly different angle. The perpetrator/attacker is not attacking you, but is attacking a 3 year old child. Would it be mercy to let him harm the child rather than stopping him? Would you tell the child's mother that you had let her child be harmed/molested/whatever because you were being merciful? One has a right to self-defense.

[Naaramare]

are you saying that in moments of ultimate emotional turmoil, such as intense fear, humans are not to be held accountable for their actions?

In some such situations, I would say absolutely, and the self-defense clauses in most nations laws agree with me. Biologically, if your life and safety is sufficiently threatened, your conscious mind switches off. Your body wants to survive, and if it has to make you stop thinking to do so, it will.

In regards to the original question, it's an extremely slippery slope. My answer is, if I could be sure the person I was showing mercy to could only hurt me as result of my letting them free/whatever, then yes, I would.

In the case of murderers and other such beings, however, my allowing them to walk free, to walk away, to continue to have access to things they could use to hurt people . . .that choice on my part is not only affecting me, but others. In essence, by allowing that person to walk free, I could be flat out dooming another person to pain and death.

[Kalla]

Very interesting topic!! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] As for me, if you want to know if you can see the light within someone's soul, look at your own life. Are there people you feel upon meeting them are warm and open and truthful and others the opposite? I think this is something that humans possess, but few use anymore, giving way to value logic more than intuition. Also, look at a young child...never have I seen better judges of character. As for pity and mercy...I do not feel there IS justice in this world. To me, what would be justice for a murderer is not the death penatly, but to make him/her understand and feel what was done. To understand and feel the pain of the life that was taken and to be truly remorseful thereafter. From personal experience, I can honestly say that there are times that I have forgiven in circumstances that I did not think I could forgive. There are also those times when I anger for something much less. (the more human side of me I suppose as the personalities are divided up in the book) If someone came to attack me...I don't know how I'd react, but in moments where I have been attacked in ways nonphysically...I do or say something to get out of the situation, or I just go on and let go, even if it takes some time to do so. Lol, I hope this all makes sense...it's getting late, so I appologize if any of this post becomes incoherent. :P

Also, I believe there really are Gandalf's and Frodo's and Aragorn's and Boromir's, etc in this world. It's true that we each have our moments of similarity, but I think there truly are people who are similar to them. Great wise people, like gandalf...hmm...ghandi? mother teresa? pick whichever character you see fit the best, and I can find someone who is exactly like them in life. Personally, I've had to take several personality tests, which I concede are not the end all be all of personalities but can be quite interesting, over the years for various classes I took. Every time I came out with the same personality description, no matter my mood or what type of test. It is very very similar to one of the characters in this book and in fact with information I've read on them, is what this character has been classified as. (which i found out only last week) I've also had comments from people which support this. I'm not saying we have to worry about getting the one ring destroyed, but there is dark just as there is light. Perhaps I'm going off on a side note, but I feel things are not so different as there were so long ago, just different surroundings and things, but life, our souls, our dilemmas are still the same. *shrug* Anyway, I think pity and mercy ARE part of human nature...it just depends on the person. There are some children who are very very gentle and merciful and would share all their food and never think a thing of it, while others will greedily take whatever they can from others. I've seen the same with adults.

I also don't think pity or mercy is a sign of power or inferiority. I think it is a way of understanding and forgiveness. When I forgive someone, I forgive the action they did, but I do not feel them dimished as a person...I do not feel they are less having erred. If you are merciful, you understand they may see things differently because they've had different experiences, not that those experiences are less than yours or they are less of a person. At least this is what I believe. I dunno, I guess I"m more of a hobbit in things like this because I feel people often make it harder than it is. We all have an inner light and we can all see it in others, we just have to look...but to truely see others, we must know ourselves and I think therein lies the problem for many people. *shrug* As I said before...excellent topic. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Kalla]

Ok, so Kalla's a dork and remembers things just after she posts...lol. Told you it was late. I also wanted to say, just as I don't think pity and mercy is judgemental, I don't think there is a right or wrong to it...just different. I feel we make personal decisions and learn from them, but one cannot judge another's reactions or actions because they have not been in that person's position and in their head. Frodo had an understanding of Gollum, but he also knew he did not know all that Gollum had been through and thus did not judge him on that. He saw that Gollum had helped him and could recognize that there was light still within him because Frodo was himself tormented and felt that light within (consciously or no). I didn't interpret it as a judgment of mercy or pity, but that he saw the light, and thus felt hope and that allowed the light to have a chance. But I digress...ok, I shall leave this board for tonight...lol, I've probably muddied the waters up enough by now anyway. Thanks for reading my ramblings. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Lush]

I think that to show mercy is one of the greatest things a human (or Hobbit) can do. And like all great things, it's not exactly as easy as buttering a piece of toast. I can't tell you what I would do in Frodo's place. But what I can tell is that for me, killing Gollum (and remember, Kuruharan, Gollum is no Orc, he is a creature very much separate from their whole race, and I think Tolkien made that clear; no one would show mercy to an Orc, because they wouldn't be in a position to do so) would be like killing a part of myself.
And while Gandalf is a product of fiction, his wisdom is certainly applicable to the world we live in today.

[Kuruharan]

and remember, Kuruharan, Gollum is no Orc, he is a creature very much separate from their whole race, and I think Tolkien made that clear; no one would show mercy to an Orc, because they wouldn't be in a position to do so

That wasn't the point. The point was that Gandalf never held his hand from killing things in a fight. That statement related more to what The Half-Hobbit was saying about having the right to defend yourself.

As for never being in a position to have mercy on an orc, I think that just by looking at the nature of warfare one would have to assume that this very situation did come up at some point.

Say for instance, you are standing triumphant on a really gory battlefield and you start prowling around "looking for souvenirs" and trying to find wounded friends. In the course of your exploring you come across an orc that has been knocked unconscious but is clearly still alive. (I picked knocked unconscious because it makes the moral quandry more complex. If he were badly wounded it could be considered more merciful to kill him.)

So you have this orc. He's not dead. He's not badly wounded. He is helpless, and cannot prevent you killing him. What do you do?

This is a creature with just as much malice as Gollum (if not more). Do you kill him? Do you tie him up and take him prisoner? Do you leave him lying there? If you do he will wake up eventually. Best case scenario you (or somebody) will have to fight him again. Worst case scenario, he hangs around your camp that night and cuts your throat in your sleep.

So what do you do?

[Technical note: Full scale battles tend to produce far higher numbers of wounded than killed. Looking at it realistically you would have to assume that multiple variations of the above scenario were played out everytime the forces of good defeated orcs. There is never any reference to orcs being taken prisoner so you have to assume that they were all "disposed of" without mercy.]

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Let's keep in mind that Tolkien was a Christian and therefore necessarily knew Jesus Christ and, while it is not conscious, there can be identified many examples of Christian allegory in his work.

The Bible tells us to refrain from taking revenge because God/Providence will take revenge on those who have wronged us. This is similar to the "what goes around, comes around" principle. As Gandalf says, it is not our place to deal out retribution. When Frodo spares Saruman, Wormtongue is driven to finish him. If you show pity, pity will be shown to you, though not necessarily by the fallible mortal. Worry about your own deeds, and not about whether or not your enemy is receiving his dues.

[Losthuniel]

Hobbits stop and smell the roses, they notice little things and are quite content.They are gentle, and do not like violence. perhaps that state of mind, the simpler state of mind, loving Creation for its beauty, enables one to see the light in people's souls.

Yet we as humans, cannot see all of people's souls. Only God, who can see the depths and heights of our souls and minds, or past and our potential, has the wisdom and the right to deal out final judgement.

Mercy does not come as easily to humans. I think People with a more 'hobbitlike' state of mind (like Martin Luther King) have mercy come more easily to them.

as to criminals, to make them see their errors, and feel the pain of the people that they had wronged, would bring it full circle. 'what goes around comes around' philosophy. they would see that they were wrong, and perhaps try and better their lives.

Today, you don't find people who are evil with no going back (like sauron). Humanity is a mix of Good and Evil. Its sometimes bringing out the Good in us that can be challenge.

We have to count on the light in people, otherwise, we shall be swallowed in darkness

[NyteSky]

Great topic! Many fascinating posts already. Fortunately I've never been in a situation requiring me to make that choice. But from what I know about myself, I would have little trouble killing someone in self defence though I would try to avoid it. I would worry less about killing them if it was a friend or family member threatened though. I believe in mercy, but not at the expense of others. Justice too must play a part. It's difficult to balance the two. There's no such thing as a 100% evil person and, like someone in here already said, we never know other people's reasons. But all actions have consequences and evil is evil. A murderer is not evil and should be given chances to see the error of his ways but he should not be set free either. People have to be responsible for their actions. I have to disagree with Naaramare on that, even extreme fear or other emotions can't justify some things.
One thing that everyone seems to agree on is Frodo. His inner light letting him see the good in even Gollum. Well, debating's more fun than agreeing so: what if Frodo had mercy on Gollum because he saw some of himself in Gollum! Seeing Gollum was like being shown what he could've become. Frodo saw this and so showing mercy to Gollum was the same as showing it to himself, in a way.
In many, many books and movies the bad guy accuses the good guy of being weak because he/she continually shows mercy (which usually ends up helping them a lot). I saw a really good quote about that a while ago. It was something like, Only the strong can afford to be merciful. I'm sure I messed that up some, but you get the idea. Anyone know who said it?
Well I've written at least enough for one night. I hope this topic continues for a while, it's the most interesting I've seen in a while.

[mark12_30]

Hi and greetings (*bows* <-- for Gandalf)

Frodo knew that Gollum was a threat to one primary person-- The RIngbearer, himself-- and whoever was with him-- Sam. Frodo could make his choice based on that information. Could he protect and defend himself and San against Gollum? Frodo thought so. He brought the ring into play for that purpose.

Gollum was not particularly a threat to anybody else. Gollum ate whoever he could get his hands on, true, but preferred fish... Point being, Gollum was not a serial killer in the sense that we think of the term in the 7th age.

To me the argument here is, do I know who this agressive person will kill? If the answer is, just me, then I simply have a right to self-defense, which I can exercise or not as i choose.

However, let's say I have a serial killer in my custody. Let's say somebody who's passtimes is knifing homeless old men. If I release this person, another homeless old man will die. It's that simple. I've either got to imprison him forever or execute him, or I will be guilty by association (I feel) when the next homeless old man dies.

So I think Frodo's mercy towards Gollum was a very special case. Frodo knew what was driving Gollum to kill, and eventually Sam did too. And they knew that it was all about the Ring, not some generic bloodlust or murderous attitude or sickness.

Saruman's case, however, was not focused only on Frodo. Many more people than Frodo were killed under Sharky's authority. I think that's a much better place to focus the discussion on mercy. Saruman was dangerous for everybody.

In Frodo's position, would I have let Gollum go? I like to think so. Would I have let Saruman go? Now that's a much tougher question. Maybe not. Does he qualify as a serial killer? And where is my debt to society, to protect the rest of society against the sickness of one twisted dangerous individual?

Thankfully, in the 7th age, that's why we have judges, juries, police, and a justice system, hopefully to deal with cases like that.

--Helen

[Lush]

Kuruharan said:

So what do you do?

While this is a bit off topic, and Orcs have little to do with Gollum, in my opinion, I still think that this is a valid question, and the situation you've presented is interesting (though very specific).
I can't tell you what I "would" do, because I have yet to find myself in such a situation. I will tell you what I would "want" to do, though:
Once again, to kill a defenseless creature is not only dishonorable, but it also means that I will be killing a part of myself.
To imprison an enemy warrior would be reasonable, but to imprison an Orc would be useless.
If I let the Orc be, there is a chance that he may slit my throat, yes. But you know what would be worse than that? If he killed somebody else.
My throat is my throat, and if by showing mercy I am letting that throat be slit, then let it be so. My philosophy is: we're all going to die someday anyway, and I would rather die an untimely death, than live to a ripe old age knowing that I survived only due to my own cruelty. I don't believe that survival is worth it if we must turn into animals and savages in order to live.
But, however, why should the Orc, if he wakes up and survives, necessarily kill me? He'll murder whoever gets in his way. And that, I think, is much more horrible that the Orc killing me.
However, by Middle Earth standards, an Orc is not likely to attack someone after his side of the battle has lost. Orcs are cowards when they're alone. He would most likely high-tail it back to Mordor.
Therefore, I would probably take that chance and let the poor sod live. Not because I am a courageous warrior (I'm a skinny little girl, Ok?), but because in that particular situation, I wouldn't be able to handle the thought of stabbing someone in their sleep. I am no Macbeth.
I have the same philosophy toward Gollum. "Philosophy", mind you, because I have never been stuck in Frodo's place. I have never been in a situation remotely related to that of Frodo's. But sitting here, in my safe, warm, cozy home right now, I can only hope that in the time of danger, I will not lose myself just for the sake of saving my skin.

[Kuruharan]

But you know what would be worse than that? If he killed somebody else.

I would probably take that chance and let the poor sod live.

I don't understand. By allowing him to escape you are virtually ensuring that he will kill somebody else someday. Probably in a horridly grotesque fashion.

If I were in that situation I would be thinking that, knowing my luck, if I didn't kill him then, this would be the orc that would kill my familiy at some later point in time.

(And I had to be specific, otherwise I was afraid that you'd wriggle out of the situation too easiliy. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] )

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[Bêthberry]

Hail and well met, Jessica Jade,

I am thinking back more to your original question than to some of the very interesting later posts.

Traditionally, in ethics, a distinction has been drawn between the right to defend one's self against attack--to stop the attack--and the error of wishing to destroy or kill those who attack. I think this distinction gives form and shape to both Gandalf's and Frodo's actions. One has the right to repel attack, but not to kill out of vengeance.

And, if we look at Tolkien's concept of sub-creation, we see a sense that there in sub-creation a clarity can exist which, if we grasp it, we can take back to the muddied realm of primary existence in order to see it more clearly.

Have orcs been given this choice? Is the correct response to them dependent on the possibility that they might come one day to understand moral behaviour?

Bethberry

[Kuruharan]

Have orcs been given this choice? Is the correct response to them dependent on the possibility that they might come one day to understand moral behaviour?

Uh-oh! It's the old, "Do orcs have souls?" question in disguise.

Uhh, unclear...

I think that it would be pretty safe to say that they were not going to have a moral epiphany anytime in their life on Middle earth.

[Lush]

Kuruharan, sweets, I'm not wriggling out of anything. You asked me a question, an unfair question, since such forms of pure evil as Orcs do not exist here on earth (If you had asked me if I could kill a sleeping human being, or a Gollum, I would say NO, without hesitation, and without becoming confused over the nature of the Orcs, and how to enterpret Tolkien's descriptions of them, etc.) and I answered it to the best of my ability, using a real-life view on the situation. In real life, of course there are no Orcs, and maybe I was being presumptuous.
I just don't think I am capable of killing someone in their sleep. Is an Orc really a "someone"? I don't know. But I sure as hell know that Gollum is. Tolkien's portait of him is complete enough for me to be able to make such serious conclusions. And when I answered Jessica Jade's original question, it was Gollum that I was referring to. And it's Gollum that we're discussing here in general. Gollum and mercy.
I believe that mercy is one of the greatest things a human can show, and if you don't agree with that, you can just post that, and save me and yourself the trouble of confusing ourselves with Orcs, and what they're all about.

[Kalla]

Just as Gandalf suggested to Frodo to not be to quick to judge if one should live or die...don't be so quick to judge a person, orc, or gollum's heart. I think Frodo not only saw in Gollum what he could become, but he also started to UNDERSTAND Gollum. With understanding comes acceptance and once that bridge is crossed, it opens certain doors, such as mercy. I think Frodo saw that burried deep within, Gollum still had a piece of himself inside, but could not totally trust him because it had become so small. But because it was there...he could not be the one to strike down that possibility for good to grow again. (if that makes sense) The other thing that I think Tolkien illustrated here was the consequence of choice and its responsibility. "Many live that deserve death and many die that deserve life...can you give it to them?" It's very valid question...is it our PLACE to decide that? Can you destroy a life because you do not know what another will do with his? If you do, you will carry that with you until you die and that responsibility for that action will always weigh you down. Once Frodo began to understand Gollum he saw his humanity...and thus could not kill Gollum. Because to cast down that possibility for goodness, even at the cost of his own life, would be to cast aside the whole reason he would want to destroy the ring. Why save middle earth from evil if you will not give goodness the chance to grow again?

[Kalla]

Just as Gandalf suggested to Frodo to not be to quick to judge if one should live or die...don't be so quick to judge a person, orc, or gollum's heart. I think Frodo not only saw in Gollum what he could become, but he also started to UNDERSTAND Gollum. With understanding comes acceptance and once that bridge is crossed, it opens certain doors, such as mercy. I think Frodo saw that burried deep within, Gollum still had a piece of himself inside, but could not totally trust him because it had become so small. But because it was there...he could not be the one to strike down that possibility for good to grow again. (if that makes sense) The other thing that I think Tolkien illustrated here was the consequence of choice and its responsibility. "Many live that deserve death and many die that deserve life...can you give it to them?" It's very valid question...is it our PLACE to decide that? Can you destroy a life because you do not know what another will do with his? If you do, you will carry that with you until you die and that responsibility for that action will always weigh you down. Once Frodo began to understand Gollum he saw his humanity...and thus could not kill Gollum. Because to cast down that possibility for goodness, even at the cost of his own life, would be to cast aside the whole reason he would want to destroy the ring. Why save middle earth from evil if you will not give goodness the chance to grow again? Also, the truth is, no matter how much you THINK you know what someone, or Gollum, will do...you don't know until they do it. When Sam and Frodo were asleep Gollum reached out as if to touch an embodiment of love he had long forgotten, but that is not what you would have thought if you had just met him. YOu would not think him capabale of such a thing. But as Tolkien took the time to write in the book...it was in fact a gentle side of Gollum coming out and longing for that love. Do not be too anxious to divy out death or life until you truly understand what you are taking or giving.

[Kalla]

lol, ok, sorry about the double post thing...I'm not really sure what happened as my computer decided to boot itself off the internet. :P

[Jessica Jade]

I agree that Frodo's case with Gollum was indeed a special one. Frodo, with the Ring on his finger, is able to comprehend the nature of Gollum's damnation, because his own fate is very nearly the same. With this insight into Gollum's soul, he is able to see him for what he really is- a ruined hobbit, and is better able to show pity and mercy toward the wretched creature. I also agree that Gollum was no serial killer, and it was all about the ring. When they're in Mordor, Frodo says to Sam,
No tast of food, no feel of water, no memory of tree or grass of flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark Sam, and there is nothing between me and the great Wheel of Fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.
Frodo speaks for himself, Gollum, and even the Ringwraiths when he makes this chilling statement. So...Frodo's case with Gollum was very unique. In ordinary situations here on earth, we as humans would not be able to possess Frodo's understanding about our enemy.

I would personally have a very hard time killing someone, even in self-defense. The thought of murder just sickens me. I guess you could look at it this way-- the goal is to make better, not to make worse. I believe that revenge is useless, because it would only perpetuate evil, hatred, and anger. In the scenario of the serial killer...would letting a serial killer go make anything better? Perhaps so. Perhaps witnessing such compassion and forbearance shown to him will change him and make him want to repent and maybe he will not kill you or anyone else again, seeing that he is in your debt. It is also very likely that he will continue murdering more innocent victims. If you kill the serial killer, then you put an end to the possibility that he will hurt anyone again. But would you be able to live with yourself after that, knowing that you are alive because you killed someone else? I think that eventually, one might come to terms with it because it would not be a cruel thing to do, to kill someone who nearly killed you and would have killed many had you not stopped him.

I do believe that nobody is completely evil, and that all humans do have chance do make themselves better. However, most people who have strayed too far from the "light" need serious help to find themselves again. Whether or not they seek that help is up to them. Even if you let someone go in mercy, giving their good side a chance to re-grow, they have to really want to get better in order to really do so. Somewhere in the Arthurian legend, King Arthur says something to the effect of, "One cannot be evil and have happiness." I agree one hundred percent. Humans have a tendency toward the good. I don't think anyone could say that a serial killer is happy. Theoretically, even serial killers, deep down, desire to make themselves better in order to be happy, right?

I'm sure you all remember that scene in Cirith Ungol, when Gollum, seeing Frodo and Sam asleep, gently touches Frodo's knee. The way Frodo treated him-with such kindness and compassion, was so unexpected that Gollum regrets the path he has taken in life and nearly repents. I wonder: if one were to show mercy to an evil person, do you think that mercy would make a big impression on someone evil? Do you think that it would make them want to repent, sensing such unexpected compassion and forbearance?

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Jessica Jade ]

[Kalla]

Interesting questions Jessica. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] At that same point, Sam wakes and accuses Gollum of being what he always has been and what was left of Gollum's humanity at that moment flies back into hiding. This is something that I've talked a lot about with my friends, the self fulfilling prophecy. If others expect us to always be evil...we are more likely to continue to be so, but if we are surrounded by love and forgiveness, we are much more likely to strive to better ourselves. As for the serial killer going free...I think most people could come to terms with that eventually because they would focus on the lives they saved. There is no right or wrong answer in that situation and there is definately no good answer. I personally do not think I could live with myself, at least not live and be happy. Personally, I have seen mercy or just a simple gesture of kindness completely change a person, so yes, I believe that that is possible. It is up to each person to decide what they do with their lives from that point, but it is up to each person to decide wether they continue on their paths of good or change for better or worse. You cannot know, because we cannot see the future that clearly. After you see enough death and torment, I don't think you can really bring yourself to take a life except in the heat of a mortal battle. I just wish there was justice in this world to truly help those deemed evil...perhaps one day. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I will say this however, I think it IS possible for us on earth to understand a creature like Gollum...firstly, that's what we're discussing. Second, all it takes is a similar experience, not necessarily the same one. We may not have a ring and dark lord, but there are wars and evil enough that exist for us to understand how difficult it is to resist the easy way out of a situation or to resist the temptation to get what we want. I do feel some people are more open and adept at seeing people than others, but that I think is a matter of observation more than anything. If it's not a priority for you or you don't notice people's reactions, you probably will have trouble understanding them. I dunno, I guess I'm a hobbit in the sense that I think we often make things more complicated than it is and in coming to understand others I feel this is often the case. *shrug* Just my opinion though, so...lol, please let me know what you think. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Between work and school I have no life, so don't usually get to talk about the "deeper" things..hehe.

[Naaramare]

But would you be able to live with yourself after that, knowing that you are alive because you killed someone else?

An equally relevant question, though . . .say you were to let that serial killer out. Granted, you've saved yourself the guilt of killing him directly, but how many people have you just killed by proxy by letting him out?

Because if you release someone and they kill/maim/rape/destroy/whatever, that is partly your responsibility. You let them go; you put them in a situation where it was possible to kill again.

I've been described as a cold-hearted [radio edit] more than once, but I personally would rather carry the guilt of confining/killing a killer, rather than the guilt of innocent lives.

That being said, I'm entirely for the rehabilitation of criminals--so long as it can be done where the rest of the world won't be harmed.

In the case of Gollum, I'll agree with what's been said before, and add a new twist: they did need a guide. So long as Gollum could be controlled--with threat of elven rope, of steel--he could be useful. It was a moment of pity that saved him, perhaps, but one could say that the later pity was definitely mixed with a strong element of self-interest.

But in that situation, the worst Gollum could have done (in the immediacy) would have been to kill Sam and Frodo. Considering that they were walking open-eyed into Mordor, this wasn't really a frightening thought.

The serial killer, however . . . liken that more to allowing Saruman will all his powers to walk free. Liken it to Gandalf nodding at the gates of Orthanc and simply walking away; not locking Saruman in, not breaking his staff and stripping his powers, simply leaving him in possession of his tower, his arts and the remains of his army.

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

I must first say that I feel there can never be one right answer. There are many, many millions of scenarios in which this question will arise (if you are in possession of your wits, and are able to think, that is), and in all of them there may be a different answer. For example: if someone is attacking you, and they have the upper hand and are about to kill you, I am never going to tell you to show mercy to them; simply because that is impossible. You cannot show mercy unless you have a certain amount of power over that person. On the other hand, if you have the upper hand, by all means do not kill them. Take them to the police, get them a sentence, imprison them so that they cannot harm anyone else; but I feel that it would be wrong to kill them. Personally I feel that it would be wrong to kill out of suspicion, in cold blood, or to kill someone who is at your mercy.

The question here seems that it is killing against setting that person free; there is another option. Jails may seem cruel, but it is more cruel to let a dangerous someone free to kill/maim/rape/whatever again.

Having a What Would Gandalf Do? mindset is somewhat dangerous, simply because Gandalf would probably never be faced with some of the choices we have in the 7th age. The philosophy his words show are for all the ages; but I think WWGD is impractical. While it is good to remember his quotes while we sit in our comfy houses in front of our computer screens, to act like him in our everyday world doesn't seem practical. This isn't the Third Age and we are not battling forces of 100% evil. There are grey areas in this age that were not apparent in the Third. This mentality is applicable in philosophy discussions, and hypothetical situations, but I think I'll stay away from letting a character of fiction influence my choices that much.

As for the Orc question, given that I see an Orc more as a 'something' than a 'someone', it is like having a dangerous animal knocked unconcious on the battlefield. I don't think I would kill it, but I would be more wary (posting more guards on my camp and such), despite the fact that, (like Lush said), Orcs are cowards on their own.

I have never been faced with a do-or-die situation, and I hope I never will. I do not believe that I have the right to take away another life, and thus I do not think I would be able to condemn someone to the death sentence (if I were on a jury, for instance). But I would also not condemn another to die by setting that person free. Since the people in question are 'grey areas' in that we can never be sure if they are 100% evil, (just as we can never claim to be 100% good), I think a 'grey area' punishment is suitable. Gandalf's treatment of Saruman - sacking of Isengard, removal of staff - is an example. He did not kill him and he did not set him free.

In this discussion we must decide which, according to our beliefs and behaviour, is more important to us: self-preservation and defence, or virtue and mercy? Of course our bodies and instincts will tell us to kill, but how much control do we have over those instincts?

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Aosama, the Wandering Star ]

[Voronwen Amatiriel Cuile]

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear...it is a man's part to discern them."
there is a lesson in that- the concepts of right and wrong do not change over the years. i think, Jessica, that the answer to your question depends not only on one's principles and beliefs but more on what you are willing to sacrifice for them. in such situations as you mentioned, we need to ask ourselves, are we willing to die for mercy and grace. are we willing to sacrifice our friends, family, and possibly many others for them. (eek- my question mark key is stuck!) i believe that we would react out of instinct in those spots, sure, but i also think that insticts come from the depths of our hearts. for example- a parent would most likely kill or hurt rather than let whatever force that they are entangled with harm their children. many beliefs (including mine) would tell us that that would not be the right thing to do, but nevertheless humans are imperfect and would often times rather obey their inner emotions than what they know to be right.
anyway, just some thoughts. they'll probably just get lost in the clutter, and i'm sorry if anyone else had these ideas before- i only sorta skimmed most of the responses toward the end.

[dragongirlG]

lol, ok, sorry about the double post thing

Kalla, hon, there's an edit post button above everyone's post. It looks like a key. (Don't be embarrassed; everyone was a newbie once.)

Getting back on topic...

These are all very good questions, and it's natural to go by your values and philosophies on answering. But I don't believe anyone can truly know what he or she would do until the person was faced with this situation. As is said in the movie Minority Report:

There's only one flaw. It's human.

Everything one knows, believes, and lives by can be lost in the instant that he or she is faced with this situation. One cannot live by philosophy alone. It is highly probable that, if faced with this situation with a serial killer, a person would change his/her mind. Many times a person believes "Oh, I'll never kill anyone!" but at that moment the person might say, "This person has killed tons of innocent people. Must I be the one to let him hurt again? Must I be the one responsible for many other innocent deaths, while this person is guilty for crime?" In a do-or-die situation, it all depends on you. Your choices, your decisions, your results. This killer could kill your friends, your family, and you. And you have no help from the police or anyone. It all depends on you. The serial killer argument is best summed up in Naaramare's response.

The serial killer, however . . . liken that more to allowing Saruman will all his powers to walk free. Liken it to Gandalf nodding at the gates of Orthanc and simply walking away; not locking Saruman in, not breaking his staff and stripping his powers, simply leaving him in possession of his tower, his arts and the remains of his army.

Excellent!

Jessica's original post asked what we would do if we were in a do-or-die situation with a treacherous creature. I believe that this depends on who is about to kill you. If you can realize the past, the murderer's past that led up to all this, and see that he/she is miserable and is not content being evil and killing, then perhaps you would spare this person a chance. But if you were with someone you hardly knew about, and was just about to kill you out of sheer malice, random violence, would you let this person go free? Would you let this person go commit more crimes, go hurt other innocent people?

It is said that we have an obligation to spare all life, to save all life. To spare would mean to let a murderer go free with his weapon; to save would mean to kill this murderer and let innocent lives go free of harm. The issue is complex.

Gollum was a very special situation, in which Frodo could see his future, the creature that he could potentially become. Therefore, he spared Gollum's life. But do you believe there are truly people like Gollum? Or that in this instant one would realize that, in a do-or-die situation? Frodo had an advantage; he knew about Gollum's past and the reason for Gollum's assault. But we go to the same question: how do we know? How would we know if this was a Gollum or a Saruman?

To sum up my point, I believe that the answer can only depend on what you do do when you are faced with the situation. What would you do, many can answer: I would save his life. I would show mercy. But, when you were faced with the actual situation, what did you do?

[Kalla]

I agree that something should be done if someone is a serial killer or whatever. I just don't agree that death or prison is the best solution and as I've said before this world does not have the best solution. That said, I will say two things...first, there are those of us who see things as we must let the light have a chance and there are those of us who see things as we cannot let the dark continue to wander. Niether is entierly all good and I see both as being equal, just different. One is not the better view. Second, there are such horrible things like unto what goes on in middle earth because it is a reflection of ourselves. I will leave you with this thought...there have been those who have chosen not to use force/fear/anger/death/whatever to solve the world's problems. They were not entirely successful and in fact some of them died at the hands of those they let free and opened their love to. When in their dying moments they forgave that person this world and many of it's people's lives were changed forever. From every experience, no matter how dark, there will come a ray of light and without these experiences, we could not grow and learn...we would just simply exist. Not that I'm saying go out and set all the people on death row free, but just some food for thought about how you (me) see the world around you.