|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Mar 19 2009, 3:13pm
Post #26 of 73
(436 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Can a wraith commit suicide?//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Mar 19 2009, 3:16pm
Post #27 of 73
(475 views)
Shortcut
|
|
what does sin have to do with moral dilemmas?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But it's not moral dilemma, because it is not a sin to die for a worthy cause, even if you know there is a 100% chance of death
Just asking about the connection between sin and moral dilemmas, as I don't understand the connection.
Not changing my mind about my stand on Frodo's dilemma, on which you should note that I have asked you to agree to disagree with me. You disagree with me, I see that. I respect your opinion, and it is well stated and well thought out, and you have excellent points. And I still disagree, and I am not desiring to discuss that particular topic any farther (or further, that always confuses me) with you, and do not desire to have my mind changed, and so this is a "heads up" on my getting a bit testy on that subject, 'k?
Of course, someone else may like to take up this particular gauntlet, and I will read with pleasure.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
Call Her Emily
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Mar 19 2009, 3:18pm
Post #28 of 73
(468 views)
Shortcut
|
Saints Ambrose and Jerome cite the exception of suicide to preserve chastity, as indeed was the case of some female martyrs.
However later Saint Augustine took exception to the exception, citing the duty of "patient endurance". Saint Aquinas agreed, but added in the one exception of suicide commanded directly and personally by God. (Which probably ain't going to happen.)
However, suicide by virgins in order to perserve their virginity still remains a grey area.
In the Bible you have Saul's suicide to avoid torture (I Samuel 31: 4-5) and Samson's suicide that also destroyed his torturers (Judges 16: 30).
Then there's the mass suicide of the Jewish men, women, and children at Masada (Josephus, Jewish War 7. 8-9) in order to avoid enslavement by the Romans.
Jews also committed suicide in the Middle Ages to avoid forcible baptism by Christian authorities.
Today the consensus seems to be that the judgement of a suicide should be left to God.
Of course that doesn't say what Tolkien's view would be. But Tolkien served in the trenches in WWI, and mercy killings of horrifically wounded soldiers were not unknown.
I had not thought of Denethor committing suicide because of capture. Nice idea. I had always thought he chose to be burned to avoid having his corpse defiled, carried as a trophy at the head of Mordor's army, and finally used as catapult ammunition during the seige of Edoras.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Mar 19 2009, 3:23pm)
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Mar 19 2009, 3:31pm
Post #29 of 73
(463 views)
Shortcut
|
It's suicide if you die by your own hand. It is not suicide when circumstances that you don't create kill you, even if you walk into them willingly, if walking into these circumstances involve your duty.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Mar 19 2009, 3:41pm
Post #30 of 73
(474 views)
Shortcut
|
Just about all religions tell us that without religion morality is impossible.
However, modern ethics have divorced morality from religion (and sin). And ironically that goes back to classic ethics where the the bad thing about violating morality was not sin before the gods, but shame before one's fellow citizens.
Since there is no overt religion in LOTR, we might argue that there are no choices of sin, only choices of morality.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Mar 19 2009, 3:55pm
Post #31 of 73
(451 views)
Shortcut
|
As I've read, the final verdict on suicide to preserve virginity was that it was false pride. The church fathers applied the teaching of Jesus about how it's not what goes into you (as in ritually impure food) that makes you unclean, but what goes out from your heart, to rule that raped women were still spiritual virgins, that their chastiy rests in their choices, not the overt state of their bodies, and that therefore defense of mere physical chastity or external reputation did not justify suicide.
Denethor and Eowyn both despaired. But Eowyn was redeemable from despair because she did her best to direct it usefully--to die bravely on the battlefield, defending what she valued to the end. Denethor, in the end, did not do his best. His attempt to die with dignity in the end robbed him of all of the dignity of a hitherto courageous and dedicated life. He could have ridden out to battle--the means to end well was right there pounding at his gate! He could have died nobly like Theoden, who had a worse history yet left a better legacy. Eowyn wanted to die to protect that which went out from herself--her love for Aragorn, Theoden, and Eomer. Denethor wanted only to protect his external reputation; after years dedicated to Gondor, he abandoned his own people, when he could have, if all else failed, led them into a heroic last stand.
Because it wasn't really about Gondor, and the fear of the triumph of Sauron, although that's what he mostly told himself. Look at his final words: "I would have things as sthey were in all the days of my life, and in the days of my long-fathers before me: to be the Lord of this City in peace, and leave my chair to a son after me, who would be his own master and no wizard's pupil. But if doom denies this to me, then I will have naught: neither life diminished, nor love halved, nor honor abated." See, he's not so much worried about Sauron's triumph, really, as Aragorn's. He has failed Galadriel's test; he will not diminish and remain Denethor. And so, ironically, he destroyed what would have been a glorious legacy.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Mar 19 2009, 4:02pm
Post #32 of 73
(471 views)
Shortcut
|
|
a choice between two or more MORAL CHOICES is a dilemma
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
there is no overt religion in LOTR, we might argue that there are no choices of sin, only choices of morality.
Unless I am grossly misunderstanding the term "moral dilemma", always possible, since I mostly deal (when I deal at all with any knowledge) with applied ethics and not abstract definitions.
I thought a moral dilemma was when someone is faced with two (or more) moral choices, both (or all) of which--if not chosen--involve harm based on the unchosen, and of which one cannot do both (or all).
Sophie's Choice, for instance: save the boy, or save the girl. Both morally correct, but choosing one involves harm to the other.
That is the MORAL dilemma Sophie faces.
Of course, in life, few things are that black and white. Few moral dilemmas one would ever be faced with would be that blatant or that unwinnable.
So I don't think it is necessary to have any belief whatsoever in any religious teaching and specifically not in the concept of "sin" to understand that a moral dilemma potentially faces anyone, as long as that person has moral understanding of whatever basis, for whatever reason. "Both things I am asked to choose are morally defensible. If I choose A, harm comes, and if I choose B, harm comes, Harm comes no matter what I choose. That is my dilemma. How to decide between two morally defensible positions"
Like that.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
Call Her Emily
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Mar 19 2009, 4:03pm
Post #33 of 73
(478 views)
Shortcut
|
It is my understanding that the Catholic Church condemns indirect suicide, that is, when someone, commits an act which will result in their death.
The exception is when there is sufficient reason, which will turn it into an act of exalted virtue.
So the question is, did Frodo have sufficient reason to risk his life? We know the hoped for result was worth it. But did the extremely low possibility of "a fool's hope" make Frodo's mission one of sinful pride?
Then again:
"The message of the cross is foolishness..."
-1 Corinthians 1:18
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Mar 19 2009, 4:31pm
Post #34 of 73
(468 views)
Shortcut
|
Sort of like Gandalf's dilemma in the Long Winter--save Helm in Helm's Deep, letting hobbits become extinct, or save the Shire, allowing much death and destruction in strategically important Rohan, and letting Helm himself die?
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Mar 19 2009, 5:15pm
Post #35 of 73
(454 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for letting me know. But you are asking me to discuss the connection I see between sin and moral dilemmas, right? 
For me, a moral dilemma involves picking the least sinful or most virtuous choice. It has nothing to do with personal danger or practical difficulties.
So if one choice is morally right but impractical and the other is sinful but practical, there's no moral dilemma, although there may be a dilemma between the moral choice and the practical choice. On the other hand, if both choices involve innocent people other than yourself getting hurt, that's a moral dilemma.
(This post was edited by Curious on Mar 19 2009, 5:16pm)
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Mar 19 2009, 5:22pm
Post #36 of 73
(465 views)
Shortcut
|
I think. You are making a distinction between sin and morality, right? I didn't think Tolkien made that distinction, at least not in his fantasy world, which is why I used the religious word "sin" and not the secular word "morality."
Or am I missing something?
I must say, I have a hard time discussing this in the abstract, and without reference to Frodo's actual choice. But I'm trying!
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Mar 19 2009, 7:43pm
Post #37 of 73
(451 views)
Shortcut
|
|
no, I'm trying to understand how you are using the term "moral dilemma"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Also
I thought a moral DILEMMA was not the choice between to sin or not to sin. That is not a dilemma. That is choice for good or bad.
A moral DILEMMA is when both choices are good, but you cannot choose to do both, and no matter which one you choose, there is a bad outcome for the other choice.
You know, like the stuff so many TV medical dramas are made of: save the mom or save the baby, but can't save both, and no matter what the choice you make, someone dies.
Both of the choices (ie: to save a life) are moral choices, and both result in harm, harm is inescapable and part of the dilemma.
There are all kinds of moral decisions that are difficult to make, VERY VERY difficult to make, that don't involve a dilemma per se, aren't there? At least, as I understand a moral dilemma. A moral dilemma involves equally moral choices that have equal harm attached as a consequence of choice.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
Call Her Emily
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Mar 19 2009, 7:51pm
Post #38 of 73
(442 views)
Shortcut
|
|
all right: I was forced to do a Google search
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
how scientific of me (not!). However, I thought maybe I was totally off base, so went to a philosophy encycolpedia (I'm at work posting illegally, so this was a really REALLY cursory search, I'll be happy to be corrected) and what is says is:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
In each case, an agent regards herself as having moral reasons to do each of two actions, but doing both actions is not possible. Ethicists have called situations like these moral dilemmas. The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do).
So I think at least I got the classic definition right!
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
Call Her Emily
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Mar 19 2009, 8:20pm
Post #39 of 73
(461 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The classic standard Ethics 101 textbook moral dilemma
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You are up in a train switch tower and see a train unexpectedly coming. On the main track are five people working. On the side track is one person working.
If you do nothing the train will continue down the main track and kill five people.
If you pull the switch the train will divert to the side track, but one person will be killed.
Do you pull the switch?
Most people will say yes, because obviously you save the most people that way.
But according to most ethicists, the right answer is no, because by pulling the switch you are killing by action, which is morally worse than killing by inaction.
Needless to say this example engenders a lot of class discussion.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Mar 19 2009, 8:24pm)
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Mar 19 2009, 8:33pm
Post #40 of 73
(453 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not ever dilemma is a moral dilemma.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree that a moral dilemma usually involves two choices, each of which seems to have bad or potentially bad moral consequences.
A dilemma, on the other hand, could be between a moral choice on the one hand, and a practical choice on the other. Save your soul, or save your life? Or to make it really difficult, save one soul, or save a million lives? Is there any cause for which is it okay to lose your soul? Most religions say no, but as a practical matter, it's hard to make that moral decision.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Mar 19 2009, 9:50pm
Post #41 of 73
(430 views)
Shortcut
|
why you seem to think we are calling you wrong.
Taking one of the examples from LotR which I think is a moral dilemma, Frodo is required to go to Mordor, Aragorn has a choice of going with him or going to Minas Tirith instead. There are moral reasons for going with Frodo, and moral reasons for going to defend Minas Tirith. Aragorn is a powerful man -- in either situation, it seems likely that his presence will matter a great deal. Yet he cannot do both.
Looked at in a different way, however, perhaps this should not be a dilemma. If Aragorn realized that by leaving Frodo he could create a distraction of major proportions, diverting Sauron's attention away from Mordor, perhaps he would also realize that is the best way to help Frodo. But Aragorn does not realize that, and so he is torn between the apparently-moral choice of sticking with Frodo and the apparently-moral choice of defending Minas Tirith. Furthermore, Aragorn does not realize that Gandalf came back from the dead. That, too, would change his perspective.
Similarly, Frodo is required to go to Mordor, and other than Boromir anyone he asks will surely go with him. But he also knows that the mission means certain death, and risks worse than death. There are moral reasons for going alone, and moral reasons for asking for help. Frodo cannot do both.
Again, if Frodo realized how much help his companions could provide by not accompanying him, he might not really be in a dilemma at all. He could ask his friends to provide a distraction while he slips off alone. If he had Sam's faith in happy endings, he might also be more at peace with asking Sam to go with him.
So often what appears to be a moral dilemma would not be a dilemma at all if we had more knowledge or more faith; but nevertheless it presents itself as a moral dilemma to the person who has to make the choice.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Mar 19 2009, 10:22pm
Post #42 of 73
(423 views)
Shortcut
|
Not ever dilemma is a moral dilemma
I know what a dilemma is. Sheesh. Of COURSE every dilemma is not a "moral dilemma".
I agree that a moral dilemma usually involves two choices, each of which seems to have bad or potentially bad moral consequences
I am glad to see you agree that my definition is correct, as I no longer understand what this conversation is about. I said (or think I said, and don't want to go back to check) that Frodo faced a "moral dilemma" at the Council, because AS I SEE IT he had two choices, both were moral, he could not do both, and both involved harm and THAT IS THE DEFINITION of a "moral dilemma".
You (and apparently most others) do not see Frodo's choice as a "moral dilemma", simply a weighted ethical (or moral) choice and YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ME.
That's fine. I agree to disagree with you. I see your point, it's a valid point as far as I can tell, it amounts to your interpretation of Frodo's actions the same as my point amounts to my interpretation, which is just as valid, and at this point immutable.
I need a time out. Back tomorrow.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
Call Her Emily
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Mar 19 2009, 10:44pm
Post #43 of 73
(489 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Since you and a.s. seem to agree on definitions
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...the remaining question appears to be: is there a moral dilemma in deciding whether or not to volunteer for a suicide mission? She says yes, you say no. Do I have that right?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Mar. 16-22 for a free discussion on the entire book.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Mar 20 2009, 12:08am
Post #44 of 73
(427 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I apologize for my snit fit, but I must be hopelessly unable to make my point
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am not arguing that there is any kind of moral dilemma in "volunteering for a suicide mission". Someone misunderstood me, if they thought that's what I said or meant. Or I did not make my self clear.
I said Frodo's choices at the Council represent a "moral dilemma", which is what the subject line of the thread header says: "Are there any moral dilemmas in ME?"
Yes, Frodo faces a moral dilemma at the Council IN MY OPINION.
This is not because he is "volunteering for a suicide mission".
It is because he must choose between two things that are morally right: to live or to take the ring to Mordor. BOTH THOSE CHOICES (in my interpretation of Frodo's actions, as I see Frodo as being firmly convinced beyond ANY shadow of a doubt that taking the Ring will result in his death) are moral ones. There is nothing wrong with choosing to live. Please stop thinking about "suicide" here. I am not saying anything about the ethical choice of suicide or whether or not suicide is ever justifiable or whether it's a sin or a moral choice given XYZ.
I am saying it is MORALLY DEFENSIBLE AND PROPER to choose to live.
And it is MORALLY DEFENSIBLE AND PROPER to decide to take the Ring to Mordor.
And he cannot do both, and no matter what he chooses someone (or "ones") will be harmed. If he chooses to live, it appears ME will suffer as they have just shown him that at the Council: he is the only logical choice to take the Ring.
If he chooses to take the Ring, he will suffer.
THAT IS A MORAL DILEMMA.
That is my entire point, I have no other point, none.
Curious does not agree that Frodo knows he is choosing to live or to die at the Council. He apparently thinks (judging by his first answer to me) that Frodo is simply "placing his life in danger". He does not agree with me that Frodo is "firmly convinced beyond ANY shadow of a doubt that taking the Ring will result in his death". Therefore, there is no "moral dilemma" for Frodo, according to Curious, simply a decision to be made.
I should not be so snippy. I apologize to all and sundry.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
Call Her Emily
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Mar 20 2009, 12:20am
Post #45 of 73
(399 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Mar. 16-22 for a free discussion on the entire book.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Mar 20 2009, 12:52am
Post #46 of 73
(459 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think I see it differently from both of you, then
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I see Frodo's choice between taking the Ring and choosing almost certain death, but with the faint possibility that he may succeed and eliminate a great evil from Middle-earth, OR not taking the Ring and facing almost certain death or at least enslavement, but no possibility that he can rid Middle-earth of the great evil.
I think Frodo came to believe that he was the only person who could possibly succeed, however faint that possibility. So he is the ONLY hope for Middle-earth. The alternative, in Frodo's eyes, is certain death or enslavement, and there will be no one to avert that.
So that's why I don't see a moral dilemma but a very clear choice. Frodo has to take the Ring or Middle-earth falls. His only hesitation is his fear of setting out on the quest.
That's how I see it, anyway. I understand your point - I just see Frodo's choices differently. Maybe that's why I was so bothered by Frodo sending Sam away in the movie. To me, a Frodo who can make such a brave choice to take the Ring would never betray a friend. But that's another discussion!
Each cloak was fastened about the neck with a brooch like a green leaf veined with silver.
`Are these magic cloaks?' asked Pippin, looking at them with wonder.
`I do not know what you mean by that,' answered the leader of the Elves.
NARF since 1974.
Balin Bows
|
|
|
Jerene
Registered User
Mar 20 2009, 1:51am
Post #47 of 73
(419 views)
Shortcut
|
|
moral dilemma thoughts from a board newbie
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have just joined the TORn forums, but have been lurking on the Reading Room for some time. I have enjoyed the in-depth chapter-by-chapter discussions of the book. In over 30 years of reading The Lord of the Rings, I always find something new or get a new perspective. I think that The Lord of the Rings has always been special to me because it "spoke" to me when I was 13, and continued to do so in all my many rereads as I matured, although in different ways. I have not had that experience with a great many books.
I have been following the moral dilemma posts with interest. I think my own perspective on Frodo's choice to take the ring to be more in line with Entmaiden. I read it as Frodo coming to the same conclusion as Gandalf and Elrond - either the ring is destroyed (i.e., it cannot be hidden, dropped in the Sea, or safely used as a weapon) or all Middle Earth falls, including Frodo. I don't read it as Frodo believing that he could save himself if he refuses the quest, at least not in the end, because all will fall to Sauron. Frodo agrees to take the ring because all signs seem to be saying he is the only one who has even a small chance of completing the quest. I read it in that way primarily because Sam tell the company, while they are waiting by the Anduin for Frodo to make his decision, that Frodo isn't trying to decide which way to go, that going to Minas Tirith is not a consideration for Frodo, and that Frodo is just afraid of the danger (as anyone would be), but is "screwing himself" up to go anyway. I think Frodo also tells Boromir that he knows what he should do, but is afraid of doing it. I don't think Frodo believes he could save himself by refusing the quest. I think he knows he would fall with the rest of Middle Earth if the quest fails. Of course, that doesn't make Frodo's decision any less brave or his choice less terrifying. He knows that if he is caught in Mordor or by servants of Sauron with the ring in his possession, he will face worse than mere death.
Which all goes to the original question on the thread - are there any moral dilemmas in Middle Earth (at least as far as the main story is concerned). I would have said "yes" before reading the discussion, but now I think I'm leaning towards "no." I like the definition of both choices needing to be morally defensible. In Middle Earth terms, any suggestion that Aragorn, or Gandalf, or Elrond, or anyone could or should have stopped Frodo from continuing on the quest does not appear to be morally defensible, because free will is such a central theme. They can only advise or support another's decision, but cannot override it, if acting "morally".
Maybe Gandalf at the Gates qualifies. He had to decide to either stay in the battle or go with Pippin to save Faramir. Staying in the battle would be a moral choice, as would saving Faramir, but he could not do both. That does seem to qualify, so maybe I am back to "yes." (This may be why I haven't signed up to post before this - I have already contradicted myself in my first post).
|
|
|
batik
Tol Eressea
Mar 20 2009, 1:57am
Post #48 of 73
(396 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Mar 20 2009, 3:28am
Post #49 of 73
(399 views)
Shortcut
|
That sounds a lot like Gandalf's dilemma. Fight the Witch-King and save many lives on the battlefield (including perhaps Theoden's) or run back and try to save Faramir and/or Denethor.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Mar 20 2009, 3:41am
Post #50 of 73
(461 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that a selfish choice would be morally defensible. If people can be saved by my sacrifice, and no other person can do the job better, and I don't have some pressing function to serve by living, then I no longer really have the right to live. If Frodo chose not to take the Ring, that would have been excusable and understandable, but not right. It would be cowardice. This is what got Radagast kicked off the boat home.
It might have been a moral dilemma if Frodo had been a father. Or if Bilbo needed him to take care of him. Or if he had the greatest strategic mind in Middle-Earth. Or if he was on the threshhold of a cure for the Angmar Plague. But not just because he threw the best parties in Hobbiton.
There is, in this instance, a moral versus a practical choice. But there is only one moral choice.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
