Tolkien & killling?

[Nenya]

This one has interested me a while.
As we all know, Tolkien had seen two wars, and fought in the other one. He had seen almost all of his friends get killed, been in great danger himself, and feared for his son's life. All of this must've influenced his writings a great deal. Now, my question is, what were Tolkien's views on killing?

Let's try and find the answere from his books:
In LotR, there are lots of violence and battles. Most of them pretty straightforward, with "goodguys" and "badguys". Never is the enemy an equal human being (or hobbit, or whatever, you get the point),but an orc or something similar, making the killing far more ethically justified. But isn't that what you do in a war: make the enemy a faceless monster (an orc, if you will)? Killing isn't wrong, when the thing you kill is compleately evil, is it? Too bad this has nothing to do with real life.
But on the other hand, we have Frodo. The hobbit, who starts by saying that Gollum should've been killed right away. By the end of the book, he didn't even want to touch a sword, and believed that even Saruman had the right to live. Is this what Tolkien was really trying to tell us, that no-one has the right to decide whether somone should live or not? (Gandalf had it a bit more eloquentely phraised, but he had had a couple of more centuries to think about it than me... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) That Frodo's growth could somehow symbolize his own?
And how does that sum up with all those oh-so-necessary battles, without wich ME would've been destroyed?

Now then. I'll leave you to it , and please forgive me if this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it with the search-thingy.
And please don't be cruel to me, I'm only a little hobbit-girl trying to express my thoughts and failing miseraby. Ah well, I'll blame the time (2am). [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

~Elina

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Nenya ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I think Tolkien had many views about death, or at least his view on death was very complex. I think that it safe to say events in Tolkien's llife influenced him, especially WWI. Now I belive that one main point about death was this, as you said

no-one has the right to decide whether somone should live or not

I actually believe in that myself. I belive no one is truly evil and no one deserves to die. Maybe Tolkien wanted to show the many aspects of killing and death. And through two ways. The first being killing from a much wider point of view, through war. It's is not whether someone deserves to die or not, its just kill or be killed. You have orders to fight the enemy, and those orders do not care about your feelings. For soldiers (the experienced ones, not the green soldiers who haven't seen war or death like they will), it is just killing. You don't think about how the other person feels. You are just carrying out orders and staying alive.

The second aspect I think is that killing on a smaller scale. I think that killing on a smaller scale is a lot tougher. Like gollum and Frodo. Frodo had to look at gollum face to face and think about killing him before he actually did. Now when Frodo did this, he couldn't kill him. He has time to look into the eyes of the person he'll kill. And he saw pity. Have you ever seen the movie The Dirty Dozen? In one part, a soldier is ordered to kill the kitchen crew, cooks, maids, butlers, and other like that. The soldier has to look them in the face and shoot them. He just couldn't do it. It's just so much harder like that and they are two different scenarios so you will get two different reactions. Now there are a lot more reactions than those, but I find them to be the most common.

Killing isn't wrong, when the thing you kill is compleately evil, is it?

I have to say no on that, especially because I believe nothing is purely evil. Tolkien made it good vs. evil/bad. And of course the orcs are portrayed as evil. But that doesn't mean they are. They have feelings too. Who knows, they might even have an orc family back in Mordor and his orc son might be asking the orc mommy where daddy is. They might not be defending their country, but they are forced to fight, whether they want to or not. It relly is sad if you think about it. It almost makes me want to cry. In war you try not to think about the killing aspect of it. It doesn't really matter if your side is good or not. You don't think about that either. If you are drafted and have to fight, then you fight. All you try to think about it survival.

I think Tolkien wanted to show how creul and cold really can be. There are a lot of aspects about killing. I think that if Tolkien wanted to really show how creul it was, in one of his works, he could have had two friends fight for separate sides and end up facing each other in war, on opposing sides. That was one thing that often happened in the American civil war, and I'm sure in other civil wars as well.

I can sum up a lot of what I said (but not all) into this one sentence: Killing is wrong and no one deserves to die, however in war, all that matters is survival. I think that Tolkien wanted to show that killing is wrong and war is horrible. I strongly disagree with the death penalty. I think it's very hypocritical. You say it's wrong to kill, then you kill that person for killing. But didn't you just say killing is wrong? I just hate it so much. I think that killing is wrong but sometimes it's necessary for survival and in war, it doesn't matter if it's wrong or right.

Well that's how I feel about it and that's what I think Tolkien felt. Good thread Nenya.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Nenya]

Thankyou for replaying, Willie.

At the moment I won't comment anymore, but I'll just have to say that I too don't think that there are things purely bad. It was meant to be sarcastic, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There is a wonderful passage in 'The Steward and the King', RotK, that sums up the problem of killing in war very well. I think Tolkien is giving us his personal opinion when Éowyn answers the Warden of the Houses of Healing:

Warden: 'The world is full enough of hurts and mischances without wars to multiply them.'
'It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two, Master Warden,' answered Éowyn. 'And those who have not swords can still die upon them. Would you have the folk of Gondor gather you herbs only, when the Dark Lord gathers armies?'

[Rumil]

I think the passage where Sam sees the fight between the Rangers of Ithilien and the men of Harad may reveal some of Tolkien's views on the matter.

Sam sees the battle of men vs men, a Southron is kiled near him and he wonders where the man lived, whether he was really evil or if he was just an ordinary man recruited by threats and lies.

[Orual]

Willie, read Twain's "The War Prayer." It deals with the issues you were speaking of. It's very beautiful, and really makes you think, especially at times like these.

I think that Tolkien probably thought just what you said, Nenya, and that most of his thoughts on killing were summed up in Gandalf's "Pity" speech. But I also think that he probably believed that killing in self-defense was justifiable, as Eowyn was basically saying.

Frodo knew that he could keep Gollum under control without using violence, because he knew what the power of the Ring could do. Sam, on the other hand, was incredibly (and understandably) distrustful of Gollum, and didn't know what the fact that Frodo had the Ring could do to to keep Gollum in check. So for Frodo to kill Gollum would be unjustified, since it wasn't necessary and there were other methods that he could use in self-defense.

~*~Orual~*~

[doug*platypus]

Ah, a lovely thread full of virtue that rekindles my faith in human nature! Truly, some of Tolkien's characters inject profound truisms about the nature of war and of killing. But it is never thrown bluntly in our face, as done by so many cheesy Hollywood movies and countless millions of books. It is a rare, subtle treatment of the issue. I am constantly amazed at the depth of what on the surface appears a one dimensional work. I don't know whether to feel pity or anger towards people who don't bother to delve below the exterior.

I particularly like the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag, in what must be my second favourite chapter (next to The Shadow of the Past), The Choices of Master Samwise. They never appear noble or wise, or even kind, but nevertheless show their 'human' sides by revealing how badly they are treated by their masters, and how little they actually want to fight. They are caught between the Whips of Sauron and the Swords of the Elves/Edain. Evil they may seem, but even Orcs are living creatures. I don't think Tolkien believes that any killing is without regret or wrong, or, sorry I can't find the word I'm looking for!

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Well put Doug. Maybe the other word you were looking for would be 'guilt' or maybe 'justice'. Anyways, great post.

Orual- Is that a book you were talking about? Or can it be found with others in a book. I can't find it at any library. Anyways, good post, and everyone else for that matter (Rumil/Estelyn).

[Bill Ferny]

I don’t own the letters. That being said, in another thread, it is pointed out that Tolkien when he latter devised the origin of orcs (opposed to the corrupted elf theory) stated that orcs are living extensions of Melkor’s evil will. Even their rebellions and chaotic activities in the absence of their masters is an extension of Melkor’s original rebellious will.

Thus, orcs are the epitome of evil, which is demonstrated in the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag. While that conversation reveals that orcs have distinct personalities, you would be hard pressed to prove any virtue resided in their psyches. Just because they had hopes and ambitions doesn’t make them good folks, especially since their hopes and ambitions come from malicious and rebellious greed, rape and pillage that benefits themselves directly, and not their present masters.

No doubt Tolkien, like most educated Christians throughout history, struggled with the reality of war. Though I’m no theologian, I did have the privilege of picking up some Catholic social morality theory while I was a seminarian. Perhaps I can illumine a rather dark corner of Christian morality that obviously influenced Tolkien’s conception of war in Middle Earth.

There is an apparent biblical tension between utter pacifism on the one hand and the realities of a fallen human condition on the other. This is seen in the very subtle wording of Exodus, in the Ten Commandments, when the Hebrew word, usually translated as “kill”, is actually a legalistic term that is better translated as “murder”. Jesus commands in one Gospel that when one is struck on the cheek, to turn and offer the other, but in another Gospel one of His very disciples is carrying a sword. He speaks of there being no greater love than laying down your life for a friend, speaks no words in His own defense, and willingly gives Himself up to execution at the hands of Roman soldiers, but never does He disparage the life of soldiery. Even though he says of the Roman centurion that he has never seen such faith in all of Israel, he tells the soldier to only keep faith, not change his profession.

The early Church struggled with the realities of defending home from the inevitable aggressions of neighbors, but at the same time gave high distinction to passive martyrdom. Paul was blunt about his Roman citizenship. Early Church apologists like Justin Martyr, while critical of the Roman state religion, considered themselves just as Roman, just as Hellenistic, as those who offered pagan sacrifice. Indeed, Justin Martyr considered his Christianity the missing keystone completing all of former Greek thought. With the official recognition of Christianity in the 4th century, Christians had to deal with the political and social realities of a dangerous world on a much larger scale. Christians now found themselves in positions of political authority, not the least of which, was emperor. The chronicler, Eusebius of Caesarea, in the 4th century wrote that God was the author of Constantine’s military victories. Saint Augustine of Hippo saw the acceptance of Christianity as the evolution of a City of God on earth. The role and activity of the soldier was given a Christian interpretation by people such as Eusebius and Augustine who saw the secular, not just the spiritual, world as an integral part of the City of God. Since the economic and political structure of the empire existed for the welfare of the Church, in the same way that Plato saw the plebeians and soldiers existing for the welfare of the philosopher/statesman in his Republic, it was the principle duty of the Roman soldier to protect the empire (physical well being), which in consequence protects the Church (spiritual well being). Soldier/saints, such as George and Martin, found their way into devotional life, and became important figures in the latter chivalric model.

Modern just war theories have their roots in this 4th century mentality, even though Augustine’s vision of a City of God modeled on late antiquity is no longer realistic. It’s not based on determining whether or not someone or some government is evil, rendering discussions about “killing being wrong because no one is completely evil” irrelevant. This is an important point to bare in mind: just war theory does not depend on a judgement in regards to the good or evil of a person or people, but is determined solely on an evaluation of the actions, both present and past, of the parties involved and their responsibilities to others in their care.

A just combatant is someone or some government that protects both the spiritual and physical well being of his charges or a government’s populace in the face of a legitimate threat from an aggressor that does not, or attempts to ensure the spiritual and physical well being of a person or people under the tyranny of another that does not. This is a bit more complicated than the typical self-defense justification. Surprisingly, such a definition does not allow for self-defense unless another person, for whom the defendant is responsible, is threatened. Equally surprising for most people, it also allows for aggression if it can be determined that such aggression is intended to ensure the spiritual and physical well being of others. Take, for example, the person who attacks a rapist in order to stop the rapist from harming another person; it would be unjust, in fact, not to act.

The just war theory hinges on determining whether or not a person or government truly respects the spiritual and physical well being of those for whom it is responsible, or for others who by happenstance they become responsible. Such a determination is highly interpretative and extremely problematic given today’s social complexities. For example, does the United States respect a foreign populace to the degree that it can impose its own will on that populace in regards to both its spiritual and physical well being, regardless of their government’s hostile or aggressive intentions against the United States? Does the United States embody a set of universal social principles that can justly be imposed on another people? Should the spiritual well being of a people be determined by their native religion, or the standard of secularization espoused by the United States? Does the native religion, as it exists, promote the spiritual well being of the populace, and who has the authority to make this determination?

One can see why Pope John Paul II, basing his judgement on Christian social teaching, was able to decry the social injustices of the Baathists and their leadership, but at the same time was unable to promote the actions of the United States against them… in either Gulf War. When some members of the media lumped John Paul with Chirac, they were terribly unfair. The pope’s opposition to the actions of the United States, whether we agree or disagree with his conclusions, originated from an entirely different sphere of thought. At any rate, things were much easier in the days of Christian nations and empires. Secular nations muddy the water for a just war determination.

(Indeed, there are theologians who claim that the just war theory is antedated, and no longer reflects the realities of the modern world. They argue that the social, political and religious complexities of the modern world render the just war theory’s analysis impossible to determine, if not completely obsolete. Most of these theologians would rather we follow, in consideration of the uncertainties of a complex world, the path of utter pacifism, haling Gandhi’s non-violent/non-cooperation as the only legitimate means to combat injustices.)

This, however, is not the case in Tolkien’s Middle Earth. In fact, a just war analysis of the situation is incredibly elementary and explicit. Sauron and his minions represent the epitome of the aggressor nation that does not respect the spiritual or physical well being of their own populace, nor the populace which they wish to conquer. The defendants, the free peoples of Middle Earth, are clearly led by men and women that espouse the spiritual and physical well being of their peoples. They can march to war with the same utter certainty of justification that Mohammed believed he commanded when he and his cohorts raided merchant caravans on their way to and from Mecca. The notion of responsibility in the just war theory is demonstrated by the quotation provided by Estelyn. Éowyn argues rightly that her king has a responsibility to play the aggressor. It would be unjust, in fact, not to act.

[Nyneve]

We think the enemy is evil, and usually they think we are, which leads to both sides claiming to be fighting evil while, in a way, both sides are evil. It is discombobulating and I think the reason as to why it seems so complicated is because there are no Evil or Good unless one uses evil to describe yourself and good to describe the opposing force. It is all an issue of views and perspective and runs too deep to comprehend until one has died. Maybe that is what Tolkien is trying to say. Everyone wants to know answers toimpossible questions. Killing is cruel in some oppinions and fair in another. Like in the Bible. Followers of God fight wars sometimes in the name of God, but is not one of the commandments "though shall not kill?" God tests good people's faith with bad expereinces and horror and and seems not to punish the bad. But we know God is right and all will be just. Tolkien was very religious. Maybe he is trying to reflect these mysteries?

[ May 02, 2003: Message edited by: Nyneve ]

[aragornreborn]

Well if I understood you right. You're philosophy is you can't know what's what. If that's true, life is pointless. There must be a right. And there must be a wrong. And those must be discernible. Otherwise, what's the point? To relate that to the topic. War is justified if it is justified. If there is no standard or way of knowing justification, then there really is no point to war or anything else. All is futile.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

If that's true, life is pointless. There must be a right. And there must be a wrong.

I have to disagree. Just because no-one knows what the point of life is doesn't mean there isn't one. There might not be one, but I believe there is. And you might have to wait to find out what it is, or/and, it might be different for every person. But just because you don'[t know what it is, doesn't mean it isn't there.

And there always doesn't have to be a right and/or a wrong. Both sides can be wrong. They can both do wrong deeds. All that matters is which is worse, but does that really matter? And both sides can be right too, there might be just a misunderstanding. It does happen.

[Nyneve]

I am not a philosopher, plato was a philosopher. Can you see your brain when you look in the mirror? Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there! I meant that you should have faith and do whatever you believe is right. And life doesn't have a point if you say it doesn't to yourself.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Never is the enemy an equal human being (or hobbit, or whatever, you get the point),

The Scouring of the Shire. Some of the Hobbits had gone over to "the evil side".

We think the enemy is evil, and usually they think we are, which leads to both sides claiming to be fighting evil while, in a way, both sides are evil.

But one of the roots of fantasy is that there is a "somebody" who is really and truly evil. In real life, everybody has a good side. (Oh, how sweet... [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] ) But in Middle Earth... well, the closest to that that you can get is having once been good, and then gone bad (eg, Saruman.) You're not going to be able to tell us that Melkor had a peaceful side to his heart, that he spent his free time gardening and going to anti-war demonstrations.

Tolkien was very religious. Maybe he is trying to reflect these mysteries?

...but that would be allegory, which we know Tolkien very much denied.

There must be a right. And there must be a wrong. And those must be discernible.

If you're talking about fantasy, I agree. If you're talking about real life, I most certainly don't. Could you say which one you mean?

Killing isn't wrong, when the thing you kill is compleately evil, is it?

Once again, the fantasy vs. reality problem. If you're talking about fantasy, but of course, go ahead. But in real life, there isn't anybody who is really and truly evil, and doesn't have something good abut them. (I sound like a sappy Disney movie, don't I?)

I think it's very hypocritical. You say it's wrong to kill, then you kill that person for killing.

Well, my comment to that is a bit off-topic, but still: I, 'in general', disagree with the idea of a human bein able to decide whether another lives or not, whether in war or court. But sometimes I think that it's much worse to live your whole life in jail, because a life ended is a life snapped out, a life in jail is a life wasted. Wouldn't it be terrible waking up every morning knowing that you woudn't choose what you did that day, that it had all been planned out and you couldn't change it? I think I understand peole who go mad in jail.

Just because they had hopes and ambitions doesn’t make them good folks

Of course not! But it makes them human, which is something already, because being human means that there is a chance, however small, that you won't always be the way you are. Humanity allows for change.

This is seen in the very subtle wording of Exodus, in the Ten Commandments, when the Hebrew word, usually translated as “kill”, is actually a legalistic term that is better translated as “murder”.

If you mean the word "leharog", it is actually a word that is used for both, so we can't really know what it is supposed to mean in the Bible, I think.

~Menelien

Edit: I believe that was the longest post I have ever written. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ May 05, 2003: Message edited by: GaladrieloftheOlden ]

[Bill Ferny]

Menelien,

Of course not! But it makes them human

…in response to, “just because they had hopes and ambitions doesn’t make them good folks.”

Actually, I was referring to orcs. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I don’t know enough about biblical Hebrew to comment, but I e-mailed the question to a gal who would, our resident Hebrew hermeneutics expert.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I don't know much Hebrew either, but I can speak the basics, because our school has firmly decided to beat the language into our heads [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Actually, I was referring to orcs. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Alright, it makes them people [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] Not human people, but people nonetheless.

~Menelien

[aragornreborn]

What I was saying was that there is a right. There is a wrong. There is a point to it all. The point or the truth might not always be apparent, but that doesn't mean it isn't there or isn't knowable and shouldn't be sought. Also, yes there is right and wrong. In real life and in fantasy (that is in any way logical). That doesn't mean that if there are two opinions one must be right and one must be wrong. If someone thought that apples were oranges and if someone else thought that apples were grapes, they would both be completely wrong. But the fact that apples are apples remains. To relate that to this issue, there is a time and a place for everything including war. But to decide when the proper time is requires that there be an absolute, knowable truth that can be applied to present situations. Otherwise, there is no measurement. There is no standard. There is no definition and then all would be useless.

Also, a person or persons aren't completely, irrevocably good or completely, irrevocably evil.

[ May 06, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Also, yes there is right and wrong. In real life and in fantasy (that is in any way logical).

Sometimes it isn't like that. There is also opinion. Look, some people thought there should be war, some thought there shouldn't. There was. Now can we say that either side was wrong? That would be our opinion, not facts.

~Menelien

[aragornreborn]

Yes, there is such a thing as opinion. But opinions are either right or wrong. That doesn't mean that if someone is right in one thing that the rest of his opinion is correct. It just means that opinions and portions thereof are right or wrong as well. I could be of the opinion that apples are blue fruit (yes, I love those apples). I'd be right that apples are fruit, but wrong that they are blue. Likewise, all opinions, including ones about war, are either right or wrong. Otherwise, what are they? If there is such a thing as right, wrong, and opinion, who decides what opinion is? Anyone? Is murder opinion? Theft? Lying? Cheating? Gossiping? Some of those things might seem obviously wrong. Other people may view some as opinion. Unless there is a complete set of standards, then there is no right or wrong at all which, as I've said, leads to futilety.

P.S. Truth can not always be measured by facts. Science can not measure things it can not experiment with and physically measure like the human mind. For example. science (where we get facts) can study the brain, but not the mind - the feelings and motivations of people.

[ May 06, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[Trippo The Hippo]

First off I would like to say that I do not believe we should trun the downs into a arena for a big theological debate, but while the issue is being disscussed I will put in my 2 cents.

Unless there is a complete set of standards, then there is no right or wrong at all which, as I've said, leads to futilety.

I believe you are right on this we must have a set of standards to make decisions on. My personal set of standards is The Bible, and others have there own. They believe that people are right and wrong by their standards, and others believe differently by their own.

These are my feelings on the issue. I respect everyone elses though I might not take them as my own.

[Bill Ferny]

Menelien, aye, they are persons… persons with intrinsically evil wills. Humans don’t have intrinsically evil wills, in as much as all humans act according to a perceived good. Orcs act according to the will of their creator, Melkor… discord, destruction, etc.

Like my grandpappy always used to say: “Opinions are like ****holes, everybody’s got one, and they all stink.”

I think what grandpappy was trying to say was: “Hey, shut-up already! I’m trying to watch Lawrence Welk.” However, on an ontological level, you could take it as meaning the world is objectively real, no matter what you might think about it, and, in fact, what you think about it is probably wrong anyway.

In this you are right, aragornreborn. But the trick is coming up with an accurate standard by which one can gauge this objective world. How does the objective world work (natural science), what is the objective world and why does it exist (metaphysics), what is our place in the objective world (philosophical anthropology), and how do we relate to others in this objective world (ethics)? All of these studies have a dialectic history that can be boiled down to opinion and counter-opinion, even the scientific method.

All your playing with apples, there, is making me a little nervous, aragornreborn. *Carefully peeking over the hedge*

[Bill Ferny]

We parallel posted, Trippo. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

First off I would like to say that I do not believe we should trun the downs into a arena for a big theological debate

Too late… do a search of God, Catholic, creation, or free will. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I believe you are right on this we must have a set of standards to make decisions on. My personal set of standards is The Bible, and others have there own. They believe that people are right and wrong by their standards, and others believe differently by their own.

Are you saying that the standard I use to judge is no better or worse than yours?

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Wow! I am awed... Bill Ferny, that was a much more understandable description of Just War Theory than my Ethics prof (a rabid pacifist) gave, I think you just enabled me to raise my grades. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] And all while being extremely relevant.

And Menelien- insightful.

Willie:

And there always doesn't have to be a right and/or a wrong. Both sides can be wrong. They can both do wrong deeds. All that matters is which is worse, but does that really matter? And both sides can be right too, there might be just a misunderstanding. It does happen.

I don't think this is what aragornreborn meant. I think he was saying that even when both parties are wrong, there is something right and neither party happens to be doing it.

Menelien:

But one of the roots of fantasy is that there is a "somebody" who is really and truly evil. In real life, everybody has a good side. (Oh, how sweet... ) But in Middle Earth... well, the closest to that that you can get is having once been good, and then gone bad (eg, Saruman.) You're not going to be able to tell us that Melkor had a peaceful side to his heart, that he spent his free time gardening and going to anti-war demonstrations.

Aaah, but there are good sides to bad characters in ME! How could anyone forget Smeagol/Gollum? That scene where Tolkien describes him as looking like a very old hobbit with his hand on Frodo's knee makes me cry every time I read it (I believe it's in the Stairs of Cirith Ungol). But there is little doubt in my mind which way Gollum actually went.

This conflict is seen in "good" characters too, Boromir, Denethor, and even Galadriel have moments where they look very dark, I'm not even certain that I classify Denethor as a good character by the end of his life.

Bill Ferny- you pointed out Jesus' "turn the other cheek" passage, and then that one of his disciples (I'm assuming you mean Peter at the betrayal) had a sword on his person. I thought I'd point out that it isn't surprising that Peter had a sword, as in (I believe it's Luke??) Jesus instructed the disciples to buy swords.

As for Tolkien's view of War I think the two quotes, Sam's and Eowyn's sum it up nicely. Sam feels the horror of it, and Eowyn sees the necessity of it for defense. Both of them prove able to see the other side, Sam kills and Eowyn becomes a healer.

Sophia

Edit:

I think what grandpappy was trying to say was: “Hey, shut-up already! I’m trying to watch Lawrence Welk.”

LOL! Your grandpappy and mine would have liked each other... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

And as for Trippo's comment... I'm beginning to have flashbacks to some of my logic classes... principle of non-contradiction?

[ May 06, 2003: Message edited by: Sophia the Thunder Mistress ]

[Lobelia]

Er- just a question here? Bill Ferny seems to be the gent who could best answer it, as the expert on things religious. Do the Orcs have free will or not? If they do, they're evil. If not, then strictly speaking, should they be counted as evil, whether or not they have families at home and play football in their non-combat time? In THE HOBBIT, they had their own communities, cities, kings and there are mentions of head-honcho orcs in the Appendices, but within LOTR itself, they seem to be pretty much eternal henchmen, with no real choice to be anything else. (I may have missed something : - D) I can understand why you HAVE to kill them - and, let's face it, they don't even like each other! But are they *intrinsically* evil?

[DaughterofVana]

In the Sil, it says that Melkor could not create things of his own, only pervert and bend things to his will. I took it that Sauron, as a "disciple," per se, of Melkor, is the same. Therefore, there isn't *really* an either-or stance on the issue, because when you say that someone is for the "evil" side, they are in actuality for the side of the perverted good.

No, I'm not repeating myself. This is a drastic step away from the "Is it not only a dream? Is it not all relative?" philosophy that some might use to explain ethics. In the Christian stance, good was good and then part of it became bad; not that good and bad are two different things existing independently. That is dualism, and something that I tend to believe didn't exist in ME. For if it did, we would have a *good* Eru and a *bad* Eru, existing independently, who each created Their creations (Manwe, Melkor, etc.) independently from each other. If that happened, then ME would have been a very different place. But we didn't have that--we had Eru creating the Valar, and one of those going horribly wrong. We have the perversion of good into bad. (And just because he said he didn't use allegory, GaladrieloftheOlden, doesn't mean that Tolkien didn't express truth as he saw it in his books.)

The fact that we have a title for something "good" and a title for something "bad" expresses that there is indeed a difference between the two. When we call something "bad" (as aragornreborn alluded to), we *have* to have some sort of standard to apply it towards. Because if we didn't, then how would we know if good *was* good and bad *was* bad? I can only tell if this red is the same shade as that flower outside my window if I can see and compare. And, likewise, I know very well if something isn't red, because when I hold it up against something that is *already* red it looks blue instead. "Okay, so how do I know I'm calling "red" red and "blue" blue? How do I know that this flower is actually red in the first place?" Because that knowledge had to be there before the titles would make any sense. If I differentiate between red and blue, it *must* be because there are some inherent differences between the two, and not just a different way of looking at it. I would have called both red, then, to follow up with the metaphor, and not bothered calling something blue in the first place.

You can't just say that this is learned behavior, and that's why I think one thing good and another bad. Because from the same people I learned the definition of bad and good from are the same people I learned the pretty red thing outside my window is called "flower" (and that it is red). If you go *that* route--that maybe the people who taught me bad and good were mistaken--then you better not stop there. If good and bad is an illusion, then *everything* is an illusion. Therefore, life has no meaning. Not a very nice thought. "Excuse me, I'm going to go hide under the bed."

So. Good and bad *must* have some difference, then, because we have affixed titles to them that call them what they are. Okay, then what about the opinion that the titles affixed to "good" and "bad" can be interchangeable depending on the context? Well. Is there anyone here who genuinely believes, in his or her own heart of hearts, that war, murder, pillaging, etc. *isn't* bad in itself? Sure, we may say that in some *instances* it is okay, but that doesn't mean that it makes the actual *act* okay. It just means that, in that particular instance, the standards are dropped because something else is more important. The definition is not changed.

Yes. War is a terrible, horrible thing. Yet in some instances, it is the only way we can defend ourselves. To not do so, to not "kill," is to submit to a worse sin: that of suicide. To not stand up for oneself and the things he or she believes in, to be trampled an enemy that wishes only to kill and destroy, that is madness. The orcs didn't just want to take over Rohan--they wanted to kill every last man, woman, and child within it, and burn the bodies until the black smoke rose into the air and the sky turned foul. A vast difference from just varying beliefs. It's all well and good if you believe differently then me, but if you try and *kill me* because of it? You threaten my family and my home and my life and the lives of my children? Stand back. I'm drawing my sword.

Okay. So were the orcs "bad" in themselves? I tend to think no, because they were once good. Are they not created, but perverted? Melkor and Sauron are both perversions on what were once holy, Eru-created things. Orcs, too. But is that creation "bad" now? Sure is. If a piece of cheese has gone all moldy and sour, and little bugs are crawling in and out of it, it still is cheese. But it's "bad" cheese, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. Even though it once *was* good and then *became* bad, it doesn't mean that it still is bad now. A car rusts from the inside out. It is still a car? Yeah, you could call it that. But it ceases to be a "car" in the sense of the word. And how do I know it was a "car" once and now is not? Because I was told it was. Prove me wrong there, and you might as well prove me wrong everywhere else. If there is no bad and good, then why are we having this conversation in the first place? We wouldn't even know what "bad" and "good" was.

I hope I accomplished something in this post. If I said what everyone else was saying, well and good. But I tried; if that means anything.

-'Vana

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I don't quite get the religion question here. Could somebody elaborate?

Yes, there is such a thing as opinion. But opinions are either right or wrong.

If you're talking about things like the color of apples, what you're saying is right. Somebody who tells you apples are blue is either joking, wrong, severely color blind, mentally ill, or doesn't know their colors yet. But you can't say that somebody who disagrees with you on the war on Iraq is

either joking, wrong, severely color blind, mentally ill, or doesn't know their colors yet.

Can you?

~Menelien

[aragornreborn]

I don't think this is what aragornreborn meant. I think he was saying that even when both parties are wrong, there is something right and neither party happens to be doing it.

Yes. Very nicely put, Sophia the Thunder Mistress.

Well, Galadriel of the Olden, you may not like my answer. Because my answer can be rather inflamtory in today's politically correct society where apples may be apples to me, oranges to you, or grapes to someone else and everyone is OK with that. Everything could be relative or unknowable. If so, life is pointless. There is no real meaning or possibilities or life itself, really. On the other hand, there could be an absolute set of standards (good) and the deviation from those standards (as Daugther of Vana put it), bad. If that is true and there is only one set of standards (obviously there can't be more than one set of absolutes), then anything conforming to the set of standards is right and anything rebelling from the set is wrong. In the case of religion (as well as anything else), there is truth. There must be some religous truth and it must be knowable. If you believe that (if you don't I'll go right back to saying everything's pointless), then, yes, all but one religion is wrong. That isn't as harsh as it sounds. People aren't forced to believe things. It's their choice. And If they choose to believe that life has a point, they need to find that point, the truth. It's their responsibility.

In this you are right, aragornreborn. But the trick is coming up with an accurate standard by which one can gauge this objective world. How does the objective world work (natural science), what is the objective world and why does it exist (metaphysics), what is our place in the objective world (philosophical anthropology), and how do we relate to others in this objective world (ethics)? All of these studies have a dialectic history that can be boiled down to opinion and counter-opinion, even the scientific method.

Well, here I respectfully diagree. Yes, there must be a standard of measurement (which would be inherently accurate or it is not a standard). But if you say that that standard is based upon human opinion I beg to differ. The standard must be from beyond human "creation." Otherwise, all is relative. There is no reason why I should believe one person's standards over another's. Therefore, the standard must be present but not the creation of man. Man certainly discovers it, but the source must be outside of man. By discover, I mean that men discover, for example, the scientific laws. Man did not create them them, certainly. He gave them names, but didn't create them. Through logical study and experimentation of the natural world, men were able to discover somr truths. The only way you can "know" that something is true is through logical study and experimentation. In the past I've used know in a different way. When I said that all truth is knowable, I meant all truth is comprehendable. What we can know through science is absolute fact. We can discover truth as far as we can logically study and experiment. But science has its limits. It is limited to the natural, physical world. Philosophy, ethics, and religion can not be measured by science (synonymous to logical study and experimentation) because they can not be logically studied or experimented with. They are in what I'll call the super-natural. They are beyond the physical nature of things. They are of a different quality. As such, they can not be known by the only method that we can absolutely know anything by - science. That's where knowing as comprehending comes in. There certainly must be a truth in religion because religion spawns all super-natural ideas and super-natural things exist or everything is pointless. But, since we can not logically study or experiment with the super-natural, it can not be known as absolute fact. The truth does exist and is comprehendable, but it is not absolutely, factually, knowable because religion is faith. And faith is not based on fact. It can't be by definition. Faith is based on faith. You have to trust and believe that what you believe is right. That does not mean you just pick a religion and blindly hope it's right. While faith can not be proved by facts, facts point you to faith. Faith (a religion) can be trusted through inner conviction based on outward evidence. By outward evidence I mean that if the religion says that oranges are grapes then obviously it is wrong. If science can prove the religion wrong, the religion is wrong. If the religion says that oranges are oranges, then at least you know that it is correct scientifically. If a religion is completely correct scientifically, it has passed the first test. The test of outward evidence. It must also pass the inner conviction test. The supernatural rules over the inner conviction aspects of a religion - They "why's" and "how's." And, I can't tell you how to prove your inner convictions because they can't be proved. It's faith. Some general guidelines are does the religion makes sense? Does it contradict itself? Does it work? Do you have a purpose? Is your life changed? True religion must exist, and there must be only one true religion. Our job is to find it and have faith.

All your playing with apples, there, is making me a little nervous, aragornreborn. *Carefully peeking over the hedge*

LOL, sorry! That does have personal implications for you doesn't it! I might have to switch to oranges...

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I don't think this is what aragornreborn meant. I think he was saying that even when both parties are wrong, there is something right and neither party happens to be doing it.

Well, once again using the example of the war, there are three things we could have done and neither is perfectly "right". We could go to war (as we did) and kill a lot of innocent civilians, but overthrow a bad regime. We could ignore it, no American soliers would get killed, and Saddam would go on happily killing off his people, or we could attempt peace talks, which most likely wouldn't work as Saddam was not cooperating. Of course there are many 'ifs' here. We might go to war and not kill anyone. Saddam might have stopped killing his people. Peace talks might have worked. But probably not.
(I need to leave right now, so I'll edit more into this post later.)

~Menelien

[The X Phial]

Several points:
First of all, Tolkien vehemently denied that any of his characters were purely good or evil. The elves strayed from the will of Eru by living in a nostalgic never-never land of the past and by being far too in love with their own works. Even the valar and the maiar stray from original plans, sometimes resulting in good (Aule) sometimes not (Saruman). If there are no purely good characters then by corrollary there are no purely evil ones. In the letters Tolkien berates the public for refusing the see the enemy as human and humane with strengths as well as weaknesses. Anyone (society) can be fooled or coerced under the right circumstances (though he excluded the saints from this assessment). IIRC, he felt this was the result of living in a fallen world.

Secondly, on the position of facts versus opinions. Apples are not blue, unless you live in a place where blue means something else. Apples are absolute (being tangible objects) but language and culture are not. As for the need for things to be right and wrong, how do you ever know if it is? To answer the analogy: If one person calls what we know to be pears "apples" and another person calls what we know to be oranges "apples" neither are objectively right. You insist there is one religious truth, if this is so might not everyone be calling other fruits apples? Just because there is a standard doesn't mean anyone has hit upon it.

Edit: Typos suck

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

[aragornreborn]

Well, real quick. I'm not saying that any of those three options were perfect. I'm just saying there is a right and wrong. And we can make right decisions by using the standard of right and wrong. That doesn't mean that any of those three option are all completely right. Some have right points to them. And some of them would result in tragedy. But our job is to use the standards we have and then decide what we should do. We will mess up sometimes. And so will others. But there is always a right a thing to do. There still might be tragic side effects. But that doesn't make it wrong. Just sad. We need to seek to do what's right. Not the easiest or the happiest solution. And happiness will always be brought about by doing what's right. Maybe not right away but it will eventually.

[aragornreborn]

Well, X-phial, I would say that Eru is inherently and irrevocably good.

Also, yes, cultures and languages vary. But the properties that make something blue make it truly blue. Yes, blue is the name we have assigned to it, but it is still blue due to its properties that make us call it blue. The names may change, but not the properties. So it doesn't matter if other words are thought up for it. It's still blue.

Also, I never said that the religous truth was found. I may believe that it has been, but I only contend that it exists at the moment and must be sought.

[The X Phial]

Well, X-phial, I would say that Eru is inherently and irrevocably good.

Eru is demonstrably not a character nor a direct engager in the war of the ring.

The names may change, but not the properties. So it doesn't matter if other words are thought up for it. It's still blue.

Blue is a concept that can be physically demonstrated and tested, we can never KNOW those things which we cannot test. Regardless, this doesn't mean they aren't there, just that we can't know them. Many of the rules imposed as religious truths and rights and wrongs are there for practical reasons. Incest is WRONG according to almost every culture, but if a brother and sister grow up alone, without a social code to tell them that it is, are they wrong for acting on their instincts? Can you judge them as evil or bad? Strong taboos are put in place for our protection in most cases, that does not make them absolute.

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

[Trippo The Hippo]

I think all you people are just to smart for me namely argornreborn. So I think I will just keep by original statement, and draw out of the rest of this, and just nod my head in agreement.

[DaughterofVana]

But you can't say that somebody who disagrees with you on the war on Iraq...

Oh, goodness, I *do* hope we're not talking about *that*. I was talking about Tolkien. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Blue is a concept that can be physically demonstrated and tested, we can never KNOW those things which we cannot test.

But we really weren't talking about the color blue, or red, or green, or apples, or whatever. We were using metaphors, which is really the only way to talk about something that has no substantial, "real" (to use a cliche) value. Sure, the blue and red analogy may be faulty. But don't attack the analogy, because that's the only thing people can use to talk about things beyond our comprehension. You may not agree about my opinion that Jesus Christ was who He said He was (or the fact that I capitalize the "h" in "He" :grin : ) but He often would use metaphors to get His point across, because He was talking about things that we, as people in a 3D world with basically no knowledge of anything Above it, couldn't get otherwise. Talking about fruits and seeds and vines... he wasn't *actually* talking about plants. Do you get my meaning?

And just for the record--my red flower was once a red apple. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

-'Vana

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[The X Phial]

because He was talking about things that we, as people in a 3D world with basically no knowledge of anything Above it, couldn't get otherwise. Talking about fruits and seeds and vines... he wasn't *actually* talking about plants. Do you get my meaning?

I understand that, but my point is that such metaphors are, by nature, imprecise and inadequate. You hit the nail on the head when you said we can't understand the things otherwise. I think we can't truly understand them anyway. Who's to say we are getting the right meaning from parables and metaphors anyway? I have heard numerous interpretations of most, if not all, of the ones you allude to. If we translate the divine to the mundane we must lose something.

[DaughterofVana]

If we translate the divine to the mundane we must lose something.

Yet it's better than not trying to understand it at all. I didn't say that it is not understandable. It is. It is just not understandable outside of the human heart and mind. When we try and put it into words, to try and explain it, *then* that's where the trouble lies. I'm not really sure about gravity. I know that there are some complicated laws pertaining to it, but I don't need to know these laws inside and out to walk along the ground. But when I want to know more, to know the answer to the famous question "why," then I need to turn to the formulas. And, in the same way, the formulas can't really measure the force of gravity itself, only its effects on other things, so the formula in itself isn't giving me what I really need to know. But the truth of it is still there. I can feel it pulling me downwards, even though I'm not really sure why. But it's so much better than not knowing at all.

I think we can't truly understand them anyway. Who's to say we are getting the right meaning from parables and metaphors anyway? I have heard numerous interpretations of most, if not all, of the ones you allude to.

Actually, the interps of the "alluded" metaphors are all very similar, inside the sphere that it was meant to be interpreted. It is elsewhere that the "sects" who base their truth on these laws differ, and only in very, very, very superficial ways. The ultimate "truth" is still there, and the rest is just intellectual debate, and not really instrumental in the actual definition of the truth in the first place.

-'Vana

[The X Phial]

the sphere that it was meant to be interpreted.

Ahh, meant by whom? It's then that you get into the realms of belief and opinion. If you believe there is an absolute truth, fine, I can't disprove it. What I object to is the insistence that any one interpretation of that truth is the -right- one. As I was saying before, might we not all be calling the wrong fruit an apple? I'm not saying you have to believe it, just be open to the possibility that interpretation is in the eye of the interpreter

Edit: This will be my last post on this topic, not because I concede or find the argument unworthy, but because I feel we are grossly off topic.

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

[DaughterofVana]

What I object to is the insistence that any one interpretation of that truth is the -right- one.

And so we come full circle. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Iarwain said it better than me, and I can't make you believe. But let me clarify what I said about inside the sphere of interpretation. When Jesus said those parables, people *knew* he was talking about things they couldn't comprehend, and therefore was using metaphors to try and explain it. He was referring to things of the spirit, not just vines and trees and fruit. That was the "sphere." I was also talking about the Christian "sphere" of interp, not the Buddhist take on it or the Moslem or the rest. Yes, there *was* a specific meaning to His parables, and therefore He put forth an "assumption" that what He was talking about was Truth. Yet just because there might be other ways to look at it doesn't mean that those ways are the right ones. "Who is to say what is right and what is wrong?" Not logic. It is there that the human mind stops and the human heart takes over. A person will philosophize themselves into circles trying to make 5D subjects into 3D. Can't be done. All you can do is to seek truth as you find it. Yes, that still means that there is a certain one, and yes, you can figure out what that is. But it can only come from within.

I'm sure I left something out, or didn't clarify something enough. But I'm sure you guys will call me on it, so I think I'll stop editing now. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

-'Vana

Now we're completely off topic. :applause!:

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

Actually, just PM me.

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

And happiness will always be brought about by doing what's right.

Well, I think that might be an opinion too [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
Because I'm sure that there are times when no option is the right option. But I'm unreligious, so that might be part of my reason for saying that.

Oh, goodness, I *do* hope we're not talking about *that*.

I was only using it as an example, because it's something from the situation today. I didn't want this to become a war debate [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

~Menelien

[aragornreborn]

Well, I do believe that doing right will bring happiness. I don't mean smiley-laughy happiness always, but a sense of peace and joy.

And certainly, doing nothing can be right. It is possible that that can be the best option sometimes.