The Motives of Frodo and Sam

[Jnyusa]

How do we define an absolute standard of right and wrong if we first posit a world without absolutes? Is there some middle ground between total moral relativism and a divinely imposed, or logically constructed, moral code?

I definitely think that there is, and I believe that Tolkien thought so as well.

I see morality as a human endeavor ... and that as we expand our moral considerations outward, from the selfish desires that originate in self-reference to notions of absolute right and wrong, what we are doing is including more and more human frames of reference, in both space and time, into our ultimate determination.

Jn

eta: Faramond, sorry that we cross-posted and I did not see your answer on the previous page. Thanks for explaining.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Faramond, don't worry about it. If you need to back away from the discussion for a while, then by all means do so. Just remember that we all have different ways of trying to get to the truth, and most importantly that we all care about you.

[MithLuin]

It is not the effect of the act which is different in these two cases but rather the effect on the agent.

An agent acting out of purely selfish motives is acting within a social vacuum. Their referent universe has only one person in it. We can't attribute objective 'rightness' to their action, no matter what its effect, if 'rightness' requires a broader reference.

So why does 'rightness' in particular require a broader reference. Why can't we judge right and wrong simply by their immediate effect?

Just to focus on this for a moment....

A good illustration of this issue would be Gollum's actions at the end. He does the right thing (take the Ring into the fire), but for the wrong reasons. In fact, he didn't even intend to destroy it!

Many people have speculated on what would have happend, had Gollum not been there. While not entirely satisfactory, one option is that Sam would have tackled Frodo, taken the Ring, and then jumped in. Tolkien himself suggests that a 'redeemed' Gollum could have done that, or that Frodo could have done that (after realizing what a collosal mistake claiming the Ring was). In all of these cases, they would have gotten 'credit' for fulfilling the Quest in the only way possible.

But Tolkien clearly points out that Gollum shouldn't get any 'credit' for saving the Quest as it actually happened...he was just trying to steal the Ring, and destroyed it by accident.

I think that intention plays a rather important role in determining the morality of an action. Outcome is nearly meaningless. Tolkien often has his characters do something because it is 'right', even if it doesn't seem wise.

Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli pursue a hundred orcs (with a significant head start) on foot, in the vague hope of rescuing Merry and Pippin.... while Frodo and Sam walk off alone with the Ring and the fate of Middle Earth.

Clearly, it would be more prudent to try to save the Ring(bearer), and mourn the loss of Merry and Pippin as unfortunate, but that is not the decision Aragorn makes. And for once, he is firm and confident in his decision! The rescuing needed to be done, and so they did it. Gandalf tells them it was the right thing, even when it turns out to have been (nearly) pointless. (Pippin's brooch is saved )

We cannot see the ends...we have to make our choices without counting on particular ends. Hmmm, what do I mean.... Doing evil to achieve good is wrong, not only because it is evil, but also because we have no guarantee that good will come of it!

I am on a lifeboat. There's only a little food and water. I kick somebody off, so there's more for me. Maybe that action will save me, and everyone else on the boat. But maybe we'll all die anyway. And maybe we would be rescued the next day, so I killed someone needlessly. Since I can't be sure of what will happen, I have to decide whether that action is good or evil...is it good to kick someone off the boat? Of course not! (Will people take into consideration that I was thirst-crazed when I did it, at my trial? Yes.)

I'm not saying we should be idiots about the results of our actions. But the intention and action itself really does outway the outcome (mostly) in moral considerations. Funny, because we usually judge based on outcome. Drinking and driving may be bad, but it's only really bad if you get into a wreck and kill someone.... so "nobody got hurt" is a justifcation?

You may now return to the discussion of the big picture and moral absolutes....

Faramond, we aren't all in the mood to have conversations at the same time - it's good of you to tell us that you need a break from this one. Hopefully, we'll hear from you again on this topic sometime (if not in this thread, then elsewhere).

[Jnyusa]

Prim: Couldn't Gandalf's statement about even the Wise not seeing all ends be based on his own experience? ... We certainly see him surprised in LotR.

This is what I was thinking, too. That such a statement would have to be based on experience. Gandalf has seen the wise 'surprised' and so he knows the limits of prognistication and is able to give this advice to Frodo.

Mith: am on a lifeboat. There's only a little food and water. I kick somebody off, so there's more for me. Maybe that action will save me, and everyone else on the boat. But maybe we'll all die anyway. And maybe we would be rescued the next day, so I killed someone needlessly. Since I can't be sure of what will happen, I have to decide whether that action is good or evil...is it good to kick someone off the boat? Of course not! (Will people take into consideration that I was thirst-crazed when I did it, at my trial? Yes.)

Good example, Mith!

You are able to anticipate a whole range of potential consequences, and know better than to think you can predict with certainty which one will occur. Your knowledge of consequences and uncertainty comes from experience.

I would say that your resulting choice not to kill also comes from experience - not just personal experience, but all the experiences, knowledge, and wisdom you have access to. One of the most compelling and oft repeated pieces of wisdom is: If you would not like to be the one who has their life taken from them by force, then don't do it to someone else.

This is the wisdom of our ancestors, if you will. All the knowledge that has been gathered since we began gathering knowledge. This is, I think, what the Hobbits access in the House of Tom Bombadil. He is the one there since the beginning, and what he gives them (among other things) is a perspective on the Ring that they could not have arrived at on their own.

It's not accidental, I think, that on the last leg of their journey while looking up at the stars Sam realizes that the tale he has landed in is the same tale that set Eärendil traversing the heavens. He makes that connection to the long story, and obtains in this way a transcendent view that gives him strength.

I think that the more transcendent the view we are able to obtain, the closer our choices are likely to come to being 'right' in some absolute sense. Self-referent expedience is a kind of shrinking, it's a denial of our connection to what came before us and what comes after us and what is all around us. As such, choices made on this basis are extremely likely to be 'wrong' in some absolute sense.

Jn

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I like Jn's concept of ripples of responsibility and morality expanding out from the self. I vaguely remember from one of Tolkien's letters he said that the cupboard love of children, dependent on gratitude, was merely the starting point or first step for higher things. Is a getaway driver's responsiblity for good to his community of robbers or to a wider community who suffer for what he does?
I'm not sure if I started this off in the Hell thread when I said that one should do right for its own sake not relying on reward or punishment. I understand that good and evil cannot be separated from the relationship to your wider community but what I felt that if one does a wrong, as one is able to comprehend it, either big or small then in some way one's wholeness is diminished. It is too simple to say that you do good in order to selfishly feel good but it is an internal matter not an external one. Frodo and Sam couldn't have killed Gollum in the Emyn Muill without feeling diminished. Frodo was forced into deceit for Faramir at the Window to the West and felt diminished for doing so.

[axordil]

I was actually responding to Jny, not you, Faramond. I don't always go back to see if posts have intervened if it takes a while for me to think something through, especially if I'm at work or I have to put my son to bed or the like.

I also can't promise I will get back to threads I've commented in on a timely basis, day in, day out. That may lead to gaps, which I must ask people not interpret as anything more than, well, gaps. Today I had more pressing things on my mind, to be honest, and wasn't near a computer anyway.