The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
LotR Free Discussion: Are there any moral dilemmas in Middle-earth?



Curious
Half-elven


Mar 18 2009, 12:20pm


Views: 3727
LotR Free Discussion: Are there any moral dilemmas in Middle-earth?
Are there any moral quandries, any difficulty determining the moral choice? Or is it always a choice between the hard moral answer and the easier but wrong moral answer? For example, when Frodo is choosing between Minas Tirith and Gondor, is there any question which is the moral choice?

Come to think of it, maybe that is an example of a moral dilemma, but not for Frodo. Maybe that's a moral dilemma for Frodo's friends, and particularly for Aragorn; whether to send Frodo to Mordor, or to accompany him there. Maybe that's why fate had to intervene. And maybe Merry and Pippin, who argued that Frodo shouldn't be allowed to cross the River and head to Mordor, also faced a moral dilemma; whether to rescue their friend from a horrible fate, or to allow him to accomplish his mission.

Do you agree that Frodo's friends faced a moral dilemma at the end of FotR? Can you think of other possible examples?


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 18 2009, 1:40pm


Views: 3141
I'm wondering if
Gandalf and Elrond allowing Frodo to take the Ring is also a moral dilemma. They know he is not equipped for the task, yet they let him go to what they think is certain death. I think Gandalf's motivation is he's letting Fate make the decision for him - he believes that Frodo was meant to have the Ring. I'm less certain of Elrond's reasons for allowing it to happen, because we don't know Elrond well.

The moral dilemma here is that Gandalf and Elrond are weighing the fate of one person against the fate of the entire world. If the Ring is not destroyed, Sauron will undoubtedly get it back and Middle-earth will be enslaved. The dilemma is somewhat mitigated because Frodo makes the choice, but his is choosing without all the facts, and Gandalf and Elrond withhold some of those facts.
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


Darkstone
Immortal


Mar 18 2009, 2:18pm


Views: 3138
Many.
Are there any moral quandries, any difficulty determining the moral choice?

Aragorn's anguish at Amon Hen is an excellent example.


Or is it always a choice between the hard moral answer and the easier but wrong moral answer?

I think it depends on how much you get into the story. If Tolkien does his job and the reader is *in* Middle-earth then the moral dilemmas of the characters become much more harder to resolve. If however the reader is comfortable, distant, and totally aware that this is just a story then the correct moral choices become obvious. It's like how everyone else's problems are easy to fix while the solution to one's own is difficult.


Do you agree that Frodo's friends faced a moral dilemma at the end of FotR?

There was the ultimate moral choice of intervention against someone's free will. M&P felt obligated to forcibly restrain Frodo for his own good.


Can you think of other possible examples?

Quite a few:


Bilbo:

Adopting Frodo.
Learning Sam his letters.


Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin:

Going on adventures.


Merry:

Obey Theoden.


Pippin:

Obey Denethor.


Merry and Pippin:

The Conspiracy.


Sam:

Spying on his master.
Abandoning Bill.
Continuing on with Frodo after Galadriel’s Mirror.
Continue on after Frodo’s death.
Suicide.


Frodo and Aragorn:

Adopting false personas.


Aragorn:

Wait for the right time to claim the throne.
Oppose his foster father.
Court Arwen.


Gandalf:

Oppose his superior.
Intervention in sovereign states.
Sacrifice the few for the many.


The Council of Elrond:

How to get Frodo to think it’s his idea to take the ring.


Gimli:

Cooperate with an Elf.
Recognize worth in an Enemy.


Legolas:

Cooperate with a Dwarf.
Recognize worth in an Enemy.

Boromir:

Cooperate with folly.


Elrond:

Appointing Merry and Pippin as the last two Walkers.


Elrond and Gimli:

Whether to bond the Fellowship with an oath.


Faramir:

Letting Frodo go.
Wasting lives doing his father’s bidding regarding the defense of the river.


Theoden and Eowyn:

Riding to Gondor.


Treebeard:

Fight evil and become extinct.


Galadriel:

Take the ring.


Celeborn:

Assist folly.


The Dunedain:

Ride to Rohan and abandon the Shire.
******************************************
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.”



Curious
Half-elven


Mar 18 2009, 2:35pm


Views: 3124
Yes, I can see that.
In particular, Gandalf, like Aragorn, may have faced a moral dilemma when he was deciding whether to accompany Frodo to Mordor. And, as with Aragorn, Fate intervened. Elrond seems to have foreseen these moral dilemmas in his discussion with Gimli, when Elrond refused to burden anyone but Frodo with the mission to go to Mount Doom.

And perhaps, as you say, Elrond himself faced a moral dilemma, not only about how best to help Frodo but also about how best to help the Shire, which he realized would be vulnerable. And perhaps Gandalf faced a moral dilemma when he urged Elrond to send Merry and Pippin with Frodo and Sam, instead of sending them back to the Shire to protect their homeland. Speaking of which, I wonder if the Rangers faced a moral dilemma when Galadriel sent word that they were needed in Gondor, or if Galadriel faced a moral dilemma when she sent word, knowing that would make the Shire and Bree vulnerable to ruffians.

Theoden may have faced a moral dilemma when asked to come to Gondor's rescue, knowing that Rohan was also likely to be attacked. Eowyn may have faced a moral dilemma when she decided to go with Theoden against his orders and despite the fact that she really was needed at home.

Aragorn may have faced a moral dilemma when he contemplated whether to use the palantir. Gandalf may have faced a moral dilemma when he contemplated whether to lead the Fellowship into Mordor. Denethor may have faced a moral dilemma when he send Faramir to the front lines even though he was sick -- after all, it may have been the wrong decision, but I think Denethor had the interests of Gondor in mind.

For me, the moral dilemmas in LotR don't involve personal risk, they involve putting others at risk. And now that I think it through, there are decisions that put others at risk. Some of those decisions proved so difficult that Fate intervened.

But the hobbits rarely made such decisions themselves, because they rarely think of themselves as protectors of the weak and innocent -- until the Scouring, when they are in charge of a rebellion, and face the moral dilemma of how much violence is acceptable. Frodo is very conscious of that dilemma, although most of the other hobbits are oblivious.


sador
Half-elven

Mar 18 2009, 2:38pm


Views: 3142
Yes
Well, I agree Aragorn's dilemma and the end of FotR is a moral dilemma.
And so is Sam's, at the end of TTT.

But any others? Of course there are:
Was Boromir so clearly wrong in resisting the madness of Frodo going to Mount Doom?
What possessed Frodo to offer the Ring to Galadriel?
Was Theoden right in letting Grima go free? I agree, there was no harm done. But was Treebeard right in letting Saruman and Grima?
Was Eowyn morally right to desert, even if she went to battlefield? Remember what Aragorn told her!
Even Faramir's applauded choice - did you notice that Denethor upbraids him mainly on moral grounds, in sacrificing his family and people for the sake of an inflated self-image?
And there is also Gandalf's choice whether to pursue the Witch-king to the Pelennor fields, or to go up to the Citadel and try rescue Faramir (remember, he did not know Beregond is going to betray his duty).

And of course - all our heroes struggle against the greatest moral canker: despair, giving up trying and just falling asleep.
"Half a sticky mile from here to the gate!" - Pippin


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 18 2009, 6:09pm


Views: 3154
I know we've discussed Eowyn before
and I'm still in the camp that she made the wrong decision and left her people. That's one of the few examples where a character faced a moral decision and (in my opinion, anyway) made the wrong choice. Most of the rest of the decisions were the right ones.

I'm not so sure the Rangers had a moral decision. We don't know how many were left behind to protect the Shire, so it might not have been vulnerable to attack.

I think Theoden did face a moral dilemma, but he tried to mitigate it by leaving his daughter behind. He considered her to be a leader equivalent to her brother, so it was less of a dilemma for him.

Good point about the hobbits - they were largely passive through the story (with the possible exception of Frodo) until they returned home. Interestingly, Frodo reverts to passivity during the Scouring.
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


(This post was edited by entmaiden on Mar 18 2009, 6:10pm)


Curious
Half-elven


Mar 18 2009, 6:49pm


Views: 3132
Not exactly.
Quote
Interestingly, Frodo reverts to passivity during the Scouring.
I see Frodo as very actively attempting to reduce violence -- not active in the sense that the other hobbits would appreciate, but not passively standing by, either.

Indeed, one could argue that in certain situations fighting is a form of passivity, if you are doing it because everyone else is and contrary to personal convictions, i.e. "just following orders." Pacifism, on the other hand, can be quite active, and not at all passive, especially when everyone else is up in arms and you are not only refusing to bear arms but attempting to protect prisoners and calm a mob.


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Mar 18 2009, 8:20pm


Views: 3107
Choices of Master Samwise
Before I realized that you would post another thread, I set forth that Sam agonized over moral choices over Frodo's seemingly dead body. Leave Frodo behind or stay to defend his body? Take the Ring or not? Take charge or stay in his place? Avenge Frodo or complete the mission? Seek permission or move forward? None of these came easily to him, and ultimately he didn't stick with his original decision.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Mar 18 2009, 8:24pm


Views: 3119
It gets even worse than that.
Elrond and Gandalf knowingly expose an innocent hobbit to the most addictive thing in Middle Earth. They gamble on hobbits maybe being more resistent, but ultimately they know that Frodo cannot resist forever. They don't merely send him to likely death (which he ultimately evades by the providence of Manwe's eagles) but to certain corruption--which destroys his ability to ever return to his happy life in the Shire, no matter how hard he tries.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Mar 18 2009, 8:31pm


Views: 3105
Rangers and Frodo
Evidently the Rangers did not have enough men to both protect the north and aid Aragorn in the south, because the Shire did get invaded, and Bree saw people murdered.

As for Frodo, he did not exactly become passive. He became pacifistic. He actively spoke up for doing right by everyone, even villains.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


Darkstone
Immortal


Mar 18 2009, 8:40pm


Views: 3106
A true pacifist.
Most of the supposed pacifists I've met are pretty violent verbally. And it's well established that words can harm just as much as fists.

The very few true pacifists I've met I admire greatly. They have far more courage than I could ever dream of having. I am in awe of them.

Frodo is a true pacifist.
******************************************
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.”



Menelwyn
Rohan


Mar 18 2009, 8:41pm


Views: 3093
another one
for some minor characters, namely Denethor's men, who have the choice whether to obey Denethor and thus assist in his suicide and in his intention to burn Faramir, or to disobey their duty (their oaths?) and oppose Denethor. Note that for all Aragorn's mercy Beregond still got exiled from the city for his choice, which means that there is something still wrong about what he did despite him making what in retrospect was the right choice.


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Mar 18 2009, 8:43pm


Views: 3153
Actually
I'm not so sure the Rangers had a moral decision. We don't know how many were left behind to protect the Shire, so it might not have been vulnerable to attack.


Well, yes we do know.....

Barliman Butterbur specifically tells the Hobbits & Gandalf "You see, we're not used to such troubles. The Rangers have all gone away, folks tell me. I don't think we've rightly understood what they did for us. There's been worse than robbers around..."

The Rangers didn't just stand around & let the Ruffians take over when they were supposed to be watching the borders either.


I'm not so sure Eowyn was making any moral right or wrong choice either - it wasn't a decision based on her desire to fight versus her legal responibility to lead the reminant of the Rohirrim. That would be easy - the moral thing is to follow your orders. Tolkien in no way presents Eowyn as being in a moral delemma.
He clearly paints her as being being a love stricken, feeling rejected, 'There's no point in my living' suicidal person wrapped in their own pity, full of despair, simply seeking death.



a.s.
Valinor


Mar 18 2009, 10:59pm


Views: 3129
Frodo faces a moral dilemma!
He must choose between self-preservation and saving other lives. Self-preservation is a moral decision, is it not--it is surely moral to decide not to kill oneself? And so is the saving of another life, or lives in this case.

Isn't that a moral dilemma by definition? Being faced with two moral decisions but not able to do both? In this case, Frodo does not feel he can do both, anyway. He fully expects that taking the Ring to Mordor means he will die. At least that's my interpretation of his action. So he cannot both preserve his own life and save other lives, and that is his dilemma.

Isn't it?

a.s.
"an seileachan"

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana


Call Her Emily


Mmatmuor
Registered User

Mar 19 2009, 3:25am


Views: 3092
Gollum anybody?
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Frodo refusing to kill Gollum. Yes there was a practical reason (use him as a guide) but he had to have suspected how the ring would affect Gollum and that he would eventually be betrayed. The choice presented to Frodo seems to have both good and bad points to each side. Kill Gollum or not to kill Gollum. That is the question and the central moral dilemma of the book IMHO

(Hoody Hoo, First post).


Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal


Mar 19 2009, 3:51am


Views: 3086
Welcome, Mmatmuor!
Excellent first post! I don't have any answers, but it certainly is a moral dilemma.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories

leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Curious
Half-elven


Mar 19 2009, 6:09am


Views: 3065
Yes, and Frodo binding Gollum
to his service also presented a moral dilemma, as some (notably NZ Strider on this board) have suggested it was an act of domination that opened Frodo up to the Ring. Also, Frodo lying to Gollum at the Forbidden Pool presented a moral dilemma. The whole relationship with Gollum was filled with moral pitfalls, for Bilbo, Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas and the elves, Frodo, and Sam. Gollum did not always act like an orc and could not be treated like an orc, yet he could not be trusted, either. For Frodo, Gollum was also the rare creature weaker than himself who came under his protection, and for whom he became responsible, something that did not happen again until he returned to the Shire, and became responsible for his fellow hobbits during the Scouring.

Great point! And welcome!


Curious
Half-elven


Mar 19 2009, 6:20am


Views: 3078
Placing your life in danger
for a worthy cause is not the same as suicide. I don't think there was any question in Frodo's mind about whether it was moral to put his life in danger -- just the question of whether he had the strength to see it through. Most of the characters are quite willing to place their own lives in danger -- it becomes trickier, though, when the moral choice seems to require placing other people's lives in danger, such as sending Frodo off to Mordor, or, for Frodo, bringing anyone with him to Mordor.


(This post was edited by Curious on Mar 19 2009, 6:21am)


a.s.
Valinor


Mar 19 2009, 10:10am


Views: 3072
we'll have to agree to disagree, because
I interpret the story to mean that Frodo knew exactly that he was volunteering to die (even if he was spared by grace), and that he was choosing certain death over saving his own skin--and not just death but torment. His decisions involved more than placing his life in danger. He was more than brave. They were all brave.

a.s.
"an seileachan"

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana


Call Her Emily


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 19 2009, 12:53pm


Views: 3050
I think I'm with Curious on this one, a.s.
I don't think Frodo saw the choice between voluntary death and the opportunity to save himself. I think his choice was to offer himself so that others could survive over the destruction of Middle-earth. He knew he was the best person to take the Ring, but he was afraid of what that would mean. I don't think Frodo would ever consider that his alternative was to save himself - his life was bound up with what would happen to Middle-earth - and he felt there was no alternative. In order for there to be a dilemma, there has to be an alternative, but for Frodo the alternative never was to save himself.
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


a.s.
Valinor


Mar 19 2009, 2:21pm


Views: 3029
that's all right, I won't hold it against you! :-) //
 
"an seileachan"

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana


Call Her Emily


Curious
Half-elven


Mar 19 2009, 2:27pm


Views: 3044
Martyrdom is not suicide either.
It's a dilemma, to be sure, and no one would blame Frodo if he weakened at the prospect (just as no one blamed him for weakening at Mount Doom). 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. And, as Sam told the rest of the Fellowship, Frodo had no doubt about what he should do, he just got weak at the knees when he thought about doing it -- and he did question whether it was right to bring anyone with him. That I see as a moral dilemma.


Darkstone
Immortal


Mar 19 2009, 2:36pm


Views: 3122
A fate worse than death.
"If they had succeeded, you would have become like they are, only weaker and under their command. You would have became a wraith under the dominion of the Dark Lord; and he would have tormented you for trying to keep his Ring, if any greater torment were possible than being robbed of it and seeing it on his hand."

It is one thing to risk death fighting Evil. It is quite another to risk eternal damnation in servitude to Evil.

Yes, Frodo's choice was indeed a moral dilemma!
******************************************
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, 2:38pm)


sador
Half-elven

Mar 19 2009, 2:40pm


Views: 3070
Could that justify suicide?
Even in a Catholic frame?

It seems that this is what Denethor was actually fearing.
"Half a sticky mile from here to the gate!" - Pippin


Curious
Half-elven


Mar 19 2009, 3:11pm


Views: 3068
Now that's an interesting argument,
and a different one. But did Frodo really have any choice about keeping the Ring, and thus risking damnation? Gandalf and Galadriel wouldn't take it from him, nor would anyone at Elrond's council. Only Boromir is willing, and Frodo knows that would be wrong. I'm not sure Frodo puts himself at any more risk of damnation by accepting the mission to Mordor. Look at Gollum. Hiding with the Ring certainly did him no good.


Curious
Half-elven


Mar 19 2009, 3:13pm


Views: 437
Can a wraith commit suicide?//
 


a.s.
Valinor


Mar 19 2009, 3:16pm


Views: 476
what does sin have to do with moral dilemmas?
Quote
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?

Heart

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


Views: 469
Dunno
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


Views: 464
To be or not to be
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


Views: 475
Nothing, or everything.
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


Views: 452
The Virgin Suicides
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


Views: 472
a choice between two or more MORAL CHOICES is a dilemma
Quote
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


Views: 479
Indirect suicide.
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


Views: 469
Helm's Deep or the Shire?
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


Views: 455
Okay.
Thanks for letting me know. But you are asking me to discuss the connection I see between sin and moral dilemmas, right? Smile

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


Views: 466
I understand now.
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! Smile


a.s.
Valinor


Mar 19 2009, 7:43pm


Views: 452
no, I'm trying to understand how you are using the term "moral dilemma"
Also Smile

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


Views: 443
all right: I was forced to do a Google search
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


Views: 462
The classic standard Ethics 101 textbook moral dilemma
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


Views: 454
Not ever dilemma is 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.

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


Views: 431
I don't understand
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


Views: 424
yes, EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY
Quote
Not ever dilemma is a moral dilemma


I know what a dilemma is. Sheesh. Of COURSE every dilemma is not a "moral dilemma".


Quote
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


Views: 490
Since you and a.s. seem to agree on definitions
...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


Views: 428
I apologize for my snit fit, but I must be hopelessly unable to make my point
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


Views: 400
Thanks for the clarification. //
 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
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


Views: 460
I think I see it differently from both of you, then
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


Views: 420
moral dilemma thoughts from a board newbie
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


Views: 397
Welcome, Jerene!//
 


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Mar 20 2009, 3:28am


Views: 400
Gandalf's Dilemma
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


Views: 462
Selfish vs. Selfless
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!


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 20 2009, 4:09am


Views: 570
Oh, no. It's a Reading Room
tradition to contradict yourself. So you're fitting right in -- Welcome!

And your point about Elrond and Gandalf not facing a moral dilemma at the Council of Elrond is very interesting. Since the only possible solution was to let Frodo destroy the Ring, maybe they didn't face a moral dilemma!
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


Radhruin
Rohan


Mar 20 2009, 7:38am


Views: 576
I wonder
what you mean by having no "pressing function to serve by living". After everything is confusion, and the people 'you might have saved' are gone, might you not be the best person to lead a remnant to salvage what is left? Or maybe support the leader who remains? (I'm speaking as a single person who has none of the ties you speak of (spouse, children, parent, etc...) I don't find my life to be more expendable than any one other person's life in that circumstance.

Was Frodo seeing Middle Earth as ceasing to exist if he didn't complete the task, literally, as opposed to being corrupted by Sauron? If the former, than I can see his not taking the charge of the ring as cowardice. If the latter it most certainly is not. Since he would (or could) have the hope of attempting to correct it.

I see Frodo's choice as a moral dilemma, precisely because he was free. His life is as valuable (in the future perhaps) as any family member's, intellectual or political worth might be at the moment.

I don't see it as a moral versus practical choice at all. Frodo could morally have chosen to decline to take the Ring. To save himself if nothing else.
"Too many times we've been postally pipped
We've loaded the saddles, the mickeys are slipped
We're swapping the turf for the sand and the surf and the sin
'Cause the fix, the fix is in..."
~Elbow


sador
Half-elven

Mar 20 2009, 9:10am


Views: 545
Welcome!
Just one clarifying question:
How did Frodo "come to the same conclusion as Gandalf and Elrond"?
Once he got there, sure. For him, it was not a moral decision as much as a question of strength. That is what Sam said; and you might argue that offering Galadriel the Ring was more of a moral failure than Mount Doom!

But I am more interested in Gandalf and Elrond at this point. We seem to accept too readily their position that sending Frodo to Mordor was the only option.
And even if they are sure beyond doubt (a certanity which should terrify any modern reader, living in a world with no direct communication with God) - didn't they manipulate him into taking the Quest?
Was it right to place that burden on him - sacrifice him, in effect, for the desperate gamble that they cannot see any way out of?
I think these two faced the greatest moral dilemma in the book. And it is a very fine line they are trading on.

In the Council, Erestor calls this choice the way of despair, and nearly calls it folly. Oddly enough, Gandalf accepts the tag "folly", but rejects "despair" - because he sees a single way out: the madness which Boromir speaks of, identifying it quite correctly as sending a witless halfling into Mordor, and giving the Enemy every chance of recovering that which he had once lost.
It is interesting that despair is worse than folly (see how Denethor is condemned), and also that Tolkien manages to sell a modern audience this idea. But is it morally defensible to sacrfice an innocent hobbit for the sake of your folly?
"Half a sticky mile from here to the gate!" - Pippin


Jerene
Registered User

Mar 20 2009, 4:25pm


Views: 534
Thanks for the welcome
These are interesting questions. I think that Frodo came to the same conclusion as Gandalf and Elrond in two ways - one of which you could say was through "manipulation" or at least through listening to the well-planned arguments laid out at the council by Gandalf and Elrond, the other, not. In my reading, Tolkien often proposes two (or more) motivations or reasons, etc.

First, I view Frodo as not quite the "innocent" small, hobbit he may have been before leaving the Shire. The following are just my interpretations, but I find it distracting to qualify with "I think" or "I believe" in every sentence, so please just consider it implied. Smile He has been told by Gandalf in the Shire that the ring is evil, it turns everything to evil, a mortal wearing it will fade eventually, and live as a wraith. Then, he has experienced the barrowwight incident, and the wounding at Weathertop. Wearing the ring, he has seen the Ringwraiths, and heard them say they intend to take him to Sauron. Gandalf told him in their conversation upon wakening in Rivendell that the Ringwraiths were trying to turn him into a wraith, and that he would have been taken to Sauron to be tortured, not least of which by seeing the ring on Sauron's finger. Gandalf is not sugar-coating the quest at all or talking to Frodo like a small, insignificant hobbit to be used in his plans. Gandalf does not make the mistake of viewing Frodo, or the other hobbits, as lesser beings because of size. He sees Frodo has changed, he recognizes that he will continue to change, but doesn't think he will end up evil. The scene of the Council could be read as one big manipulation by Gandalf and Elrond, but it can also be read as both Gandalf and Elrond viewing Frodo as intelligent and capable of making an independent decision based on the information presented. As to the question of whether the ring should be destroyed or used or hidden, Frodo has actually more insight and knowledge than anyone at the Council. Only he has worn the ring, carried the ring, faced the most dreadful servants of Sauron while wearing the ring. He concludes independently that it must be destroyed, certainly not used as a weapon. At some point (I think to Faramir) he even says he would have nothing to do with such a plan.


I agree though, that Frodo probably has to take at face-value Gandalf and Elrond's assertions about the other options of either hiding the ring at Rivendell or Lorien, or sending the Ring to across the sea or just dropping it in the sea, but I don't see any reason to doubt their assertions that those options would not work. Elrond states that he is not strong enough at Rivendell to resist a direct attack by Sauron, and that Lorien is not, either. I can't see anything in the text to support an argument that he is wrong on this point. The elves at the Council state that the Valar would not accept the ring, that it is a problem of Middle Earth. Considering that the Valar sent the wizards to Middle Earth, and make no other attempt to join directly in the fight against Sauron, I think this seems to be accurate, thus, sending the Ring over the sea is not a true option.

Elrond argues that dropping it in the sea would at best delay the problem. Even if dropping it in the sea would work, I think the same question as to who would take it has to be answered, and I think the same result - Frodo - would have to be reached. Frodo has the ring. All the talk of "we could send it" or "we could drop it in the sea" aside, "we" really means "one person to carry the ring" because only one person can carry the ring. Handing the ring to Gandalf or Elrond or Glorfindel or Aragorn or any other powerful person in Rivendell so that person can take the ring to drop in the sea surely carries the same problem as having them take it to use, or hide, or carry to Mordor. They know that they are incapable of carrying the ring for any purpose without succumbing to the power and becoming just another Sauron. That fact, though, is one that I think has to be accepted for the storyline to work - any powerful person carrying the ring will become a dark lord; only a less powerful person who still has strength enough to resist the power for at least long enough for the journey can carry the ring. Elrond (I think) states that the journey to the sea would still be dangerous, and does not address the problem of Sauron remaining in existance in Middle Earth. Sauron, even without the ring, can eventually destroy Gondor, Rohan, the Shire, and eventually even Rivendell and Lorien, since they have admitted they could not resist a direct attack forever. It will take him longer without the ring, but he can still accomplish it with his armies. Which is why this option is rejected. As long as this is true, then I don't think that stating so to Frodo is manipulation, it is just the truth. Frodo appears wise enough to understand this.

Which is why I don't see Gandalf and Elrond as having a true "moral dilemma" using the criteria that both options (or all options) must be morally defensible. It cannot be morally defensible to choose a bearer who will become another dark lord, just as dangerous to Middle Earth as Sauron. Although certainly Gandalf and Elrond do not want to become a dark lord for their own good, it is also for the good of Middle Earth. So, what is the other morally defensible option? Another bearer? It can't be one of the strong, powerful persons at Rivendel (i.e., not morally defensible because it would set up another Sauron), it can't be Bilbo - he is too old and weak now, and bore the ring too long to be able to withstand the power for the long trek to Mordor. Could it be one of the dwarfs? The implication is no, but that may be Elvish prejudice. Smile In any case, if it can't be one of the powerful, then I think the facts presented do lead to Frodo as the only option. He has experience, he has resisted putting on the ring while facing the Ringwraiths (at least at the ford), and he actually currently has the Ring, which is another plus. Even if Gandalf and Elrond chose someone else, it is Frodo who must give it up. Can he even do that at this point? The only other possible option of sending the ring to the Sea is not morally defensible, because Sauron has been able to grow in strength, and can now pose a terrible threat to all Middle Earth, even without the ring. Thus, destroying the ring is the only option which holds the promise of destroying Sauron and resulting in at least some of the free peoples surviving.

If Frodo is wise enough to understand the task, then understanding these arguments should not be beyond his abilities. I think he is shown to be wise enough. I think Gandalf and Elrond (and Aragorn and Galadriel, and probably others) realize that Frodo is more than an innocent hobbit now, and they treat him with respect and as a wise individual, albeit not as powerful as they are.

The second reason that I see for Frodo accepting the quest is that Frodo (like Sam) "knew" he was "meant" to carry the ring to Mordor. It was his task, just as Sam knew, even back in the Shire, that he had a job to do that was outside the Shire, and that was going all the way with Mr. Frodo. Frodo knew it all along, even though he didn't want it to be true, which is why at the Council, just before he says he will take the ring, he feels he is waiting for some doom that he long has foreseen and hoped in vain would not happen (or something close to that). Was it the "manipulative" arguments by Elrond and Gandalf, or just Frodo's "fate," "destiny," the plan of the Valar or Illuvatar, the plan of the one who meant Bilbo to find the ring, and meant the ring to come to Frodo, and who was not the ring's maker? Tolkien offers the long (really, really, really long - when I was 13, I thought the Council of Elrond chapter would never end), well-reasoned, practical arguments of why the ringbearer should be Frodo, and then tosses in, off-handedly, the spiritual truth that it is meant to be by the off-scene "One". I just love it!


Jerene
Registered User

Mar 20 2009, 4:31pm


Views: 546
Thank you for the welcome
I am glad it is Reading Room tradition to self-contradict. I hope I do fit in!

I posted (in an overly long post) more about my thoughts on Elrond and Gandalf. I do believe that the only real option was the destruction of the ring, which negates a true moral dilemma.

Of course, another example of moral dilemma that I overlooked before was Aragorn after the breaking of the fellowship. To follow Frodo and Sam or to try to save Merry and Pippin. Both morally correct, and he obviously struggles with the fact that he cannot do both.


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Mar 20 2009, 6:09pm


Views: 528
You may have a point
If Frodo thought that he could also serve by mounting a resistance to the spread of Sauron into the Shire, that might give the question a moral spin. And in fact, in his absence, Lotho's takeover of Bag End proved disastrous. Did Frodo, perchance, forsee that outcome? Did he know just how far his cousin could sink without other members of the family to take him in hand? I personally don't think he could have foreseen the consequences of his departure, but there's enough ambiguity where I could see someone else considering it.

I was looking at the dilemma as carry the Ring, or do nothing of any near equivalent significance. But if he knew that leaving his cousin in charge of the family estate was like leaving a candle unattended in a pile of tinder, then yes, he did have a moral dilemma.

Which brings to mind another moral dilemma in the book: Sam looking into the Mirror of Galadriel. He saw the Shire ruined and his Gaffer made homeless in his absence. He had to decide whether it was more moral to go home and defend his family and his native land, or go on and help Frodo complete his quest. He made his decision, but not easily, and not without consequences.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Mar 20 2009, 6:20pm


Views: 557
Brilliant argument!
You have changed my perspective on several points, not least on the dignity and maturity of hobbits.

I have one small disagreement. I still think that Elrond and Gandalf faced a moral dilemma, because although Frodo turned out to be the best candidate for the job, it took a lot of reasoning and questioning of alternatives to get there--they resolved the dilemma, but that does not make it any less of a dilemma to begin with. And no matter which way you look at it, they had to expose somebody to irresistable corruption, for the greater good. That's a moral dilemma no matter who goes forth.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 20 2009, 7:24pm


Views: 541
I see it more as gaining consensus
instead of resolving the dilemma. Elrond and Gandalf may have had a good understanding that Frodo needed to be the person to volunter to take the Ring, but they had to bring everyone else along without seeming to impose their will. If they had started out by saying that Frodo was the best answer, they would have met with universal opposition, including from Frodo himself. Instead, they had to bring everyone up to speed on what had happened to the Ring, to the dwarves, to Gollum and to Gandalf, then they had to examine the various alternatives available to them. It was the process of the discussion that generated the outcome, not the actual information put before the Council.
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, 7:35pm


Views: 547
dilemmas
Well, thanks! I like the hobbits. I think that one of Gandalf's real strengths was his ability to look beyond the size and food-and-pipe lovingness of the hobbits and see real potential and worth. The hobbits have their own set of faults, like all the Middle Earth races, but they are just as strong as any in their own way.

I think we actually agree on the point about Elrond and Gandalf more than disagree; the only difference seems to be in what is considered a morally defensible alternative. I think they definitely had a difficult choice, or rather, that accepting that only one choice was possible was difficult, because that choice was so dangerous to Frodo and the Company. But viewing it from the moral dilemma definition I was working from - that you have two (or more) options that both (or all) are morally defensible (i.e., could result in the saving of some people or in some good result), but cannot both be taken. In this situation, not choosing a bearer (not exposing somebody to irresistible corruption) is not a morally defensible option, in my view, because the ring doesn't get destroyed or have a chance of being destroyed, Sauron still exists, and eventually all free peoples will be destroyed or overcome by Sauron. So, basically, it is a terrible choice to have to make to send someone, which is why they took the time to reason and question and discuss at great length, yes, but one without any true, helpful, alternatives. So no real moral dilemma, as in the train example - you can stop the train from killing one or stop the train from killing five, but you will definitely save one or five, and can be morally defensible. Here, they had one chance, although a slim one, of saving Middle Earth. No other option would result in the saving of anyone in the long run. So, in my view, the choice wasn't for the 'greater good' but for the 'only chance of any good' coming out of it.

I also slightly disagree with the idea that Elrond and Gandalf exposed Frodo to the ring's corruption. Bilbo found the ring when he was alone. Gandalf was not present. Once Bilbo had it, even after he told Gandalf about it, it was not for Gandalf to take it from him. He could advise about it, but not take it. At the time of Bilbo's party, Gandalf had begun to suspect (if I have any problems accepting the story-verse, this is the big one. Really? Gandalf knew Bilbo had found a golden ring that could make him disappear, and it took, what, over 60 years before he considered whether could this be the missing "one ring" and followed up on it? Did he never mention it to Elrond, who maybe would have said, hey, that ring Isildur cut from Sauron's hand at the Last Alliance battle was a plain gold ring) about the ring, but didn't know for certain at the time he encouraged Bilbo to leave the ring to Frodo. Was it Gandalf's idea or Bilbo's? It seems to have been first Bilbo's idea, because part of him wanted to get away from the ring, even though he found it hard to do. Certainly Gandalf agreed. I don't know if you can say Gandalf exposed Frodo to the ring's corruption or Bilbo did, but either way, not Elrond. By the time Frodo gets to Rivendell, the ring is in his possession. Unless there is another feasible alternative bearer, which is not the case, in my view, what can they do? It was not by Elrond or Gandalf's actions that the ring was found, and only indirectly did Gandalf influence the ring coming to Frodo. In my view, neither Elrond or Gandalf exposed anybody to the irresistible corruption of the ring. That was just the unfortunate result of it having been found. Now that it has been found, a decision has to be made about what to do with it.

Also, I strongly feel that a major reason the bearer had to be Frodo was that Frodo had it already. Could he have handed it over, at that point? Bilbo was the only one who was able to give up the ring to another voluntarily. Even if Frodo could have maybe done so, would it have been a huge risk to ask him? What if he couldn't do it and starts to give in to the corruption of the ring at the mere threat of someone else taking it? He saw Bilbo as a orc-like creature when Bilbo just wanted to see it. Can you then say, okay, never mind, you be the bearer, Frodo. You wouldn't want to risk starting the quest with a fight in Rivendell over the ring.

I think Gandalf does feel the strain of having Frodo, one of his beloved hobbits, taking on the horrible quest. I think it is why he chooses to be one of the Fellowship, to help him with the burden for as long as he can. But I don't think any of it is a moral dilemma in the sense that there was another morally defensible option.


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Mar 21 2009, 12:35am


Views: 592
Another good point!
I hadn't thought of it that way, but yes, you're right. Frodo had already come into the Ring's influence without any help from the Wise.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


Nerdanel
Rivendell


Mar 21 2009, 6:33am


Views: 591
Throw Frodo from the Train
A thing that bothers me about the onrushing train dilemma is that the (I guess) generally accepted "right" answer is to divert the train from the five so it kills the one. What this really amounts to is deliberately killing the one. The explanation, that doing so would save five, relies on something approaching hubris--it assumes the actor is able to know for certain what the future holds. Otherwise the choice must be seen as kill the one or not kill the one. Which may be, morally, the only way to look at it.

To the extent that Gandalf and Elrond "know" that sending Frodo to Mordor with the Ring is the only solution, they should also "know" that Frodo will be unable to throw the Ring into the Fire--Gandalf had already seen that he was unable to throw the ring into the fireplace at Bag End. For the scheme to even appear to be a solution, at least one other member of the Fellowship--or maybe all of them--should have had instructions to divert the train--to toss Frodo, Ring and all, into the Crack of Doom. But that would be affirmatively causing evil, not just failing to prevent it. In Tolkien's world, there would be no last minute gift of grace to save that plan.
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Jerene
Registered User

Mar 21 2009, 11:51am


Views: 532
Hang on Frodo
Darkstone wrote that most ethicists would say the correct answer is to not divert the train, because in that case you are actively causing the death of one, instead of passively allowing the death of five. I also remember a similar example about an overcrowded lifeboat.

That is the problem - how to destroy something that has the quality of making its bearer not want to let go of it without destroying the bearer as well. It does make you wonder if a conversation like that between Gandalf and Elrond may have taken place. I think, though, that neither of them would actively divert the train, and would not counsel any other member of the company to do it, either. It seems to be more of a "this is the plan that all signs point to, and so a way will be found" attitude.

I suppose another way of considering it is that, affirmatively, Frodo is more akin to the five in the path of the train, rather than the one you could save by diverting it. He already has the ring. The best you can do without actively giving another the worst present in the history of Middle Earth is to coach Frodo to keep running until it can hopefully be derailed at Mount Doom.

Which leads back to the original thought about moral dilemma. I don't think that I believe there is a moral dilemma in choosing what to do because no other plan (story internally) has a chance of saving ultimately anyone in Middle Earth. But the dilemma about choosing a bearer could be one. In which case Frodo chose to stay on the train without allowing it to be diverting to another, because that would actively put that person in danger. He already had it, it was not his fault that he had it, but could he give it to another, even one who had the same goal of going to the Cracks, without acting unethically? I still do not believe that it was just Gandalf and Elrond's choice. They could advise, but not forcibly take it from Frodo. But even if they were the ones who could make the ultimate decision, then I suppose the ethical decision would be to leave it with Frodo and counsel him the best they could, rather than actively diverting the ring to another.


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 21 2009, 1:41pm


Views: 513
The process of discussion
It seems that way to me, also. Bring all the facts forward, discuss the options, eliminate the obvious failures, and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the solution (to borrow from Sherlock Holmes).

And there's one other thing. Gandalf - and Elrond - knew that Frodo had already been "sacrificed" by the wound received at Weathertop: "He is not half through yet, and to what he will come in the end not even Elrond can foretell. Not to evil, I think. He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see that can."

Was putting Frodo on this Quest their way of ensuring his "redemption"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 21 2009, 2:17pm


Views: 517
Oooh! Interesting thought
What would happen to Frodo if he didn't go? Would the wound from Weathertop (lots of alliteration there!) eventually consume him?
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


Darkstone
Immortal


Mar 21 2009, 3:04pm


Views: 561
Why Frodo?
After 17 years of possession of the ring, the weakening stabbing at Weathertop, and the pyschological submission to the Nazgul at the ford ("Here I am! I've stopped running! Come and get me!") it would seem more appropriate to pass along the ring to a fresh hobbit. Say, Merry. After all, that's why M&P, and even Sam were really brought along: spare hobbits.
******************************************
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.”



entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 21 2009, 6:09pm


Views: 546
You could ask that of anyone at the Council
and that was partially discussed in the consideration of alternatives. Clearly Frodo had the best mix of characteristics that made him the best choice, even though he wasn't ideal. The other members of the Fellowship were sent along as spares, even though some of them had a different task that happened to be in the same direction as Mordor.

Despite Frodo's hardships, it appears that Elrond and Gandalf still considered him the best choice, or at least the least bad of the choices available.
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


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Mar 22 2009, 12:14am


Views: 486
Thank you for a terrific discussion, Curious!
 
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


sador
Half-elven

Mar 22 2009, 6:46am


Views: 494
I like that thought!
Was putting Frodo on this Quest their way of ensuring his "redemption"?

But I think we should notice, that on October 6th Frodo seems to be after in great pain, so perhaps he wasn't redeemed completely? And on March 1420 he is really taken by the dark.
So your idea depends on how we see his sailing to the West, and in a way on how we read his words to Farmer Cotton when he was ill that March. We discussed that here.

{Despite Darkstone's brilliant post, I still think my answer on that thread was right; also, I misremembered that discussion, and thought nobody mentioned The Sea Bell in that context - but it turns out that a.s. did. Kudos to her!}
"Half a sticky mile from here to the gate!" - Pippin


Entwife Wandlimb
Lorien


Mar 22 2009, 10:37pm


Views: 502
The price of mercy
In Reply To
Was Theoden right in letting Grima go free? I agree, there was no harm done. But was Treebeard right in letting Saruman and Grima?
I think this is an example of a theme throughout LotR of the tension between justice and mercy. It is most clearly stated when Gandalf advises Frodo in TT "be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice" (book IV, p 221). It concludes when Sharkey/Saruman tries to kill Frodo in the Shire. Frodo, now fully aware of his own need for mercy and the personal benefits of bestowing it, is determined in his pity. Surrounded by the ruined Shire and the freshly spilled blood of Hobbits, Sam and the others want justice but Frodo is confident.

"No, Sam!" said Frodo, "Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me, And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it."


He does not find it. Saruman is soon murdered and we see that there is justice that does not rely upon us to mete it out. Still, mercy has it's price, too.


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 23 2009, 12:22am


Views: 521
I suspect that if he didn't
go West, he could never have been fully healed from it.

I wonder, if he had stayed in Middle-earth, if he would have died before fading to wraith-form? But it would have become a more and more miserable life...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 23 2009, 12:38am


Views: 482
The quest would not have
given him redemption, but instead, I think, put him on the path to it, and ensured his passage West, the only place where full healing could happen.

Arwen's "relinquishing" of her seat on the ship to him was, to me, said more to reassure him than as an actual exchange of places; he had already "earned" the right to go, as had Sam!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915


a.s.
Valinor


Mar 23 2009, 10:25am


Views: 467
Wanda!! Good to see you in the RR. //
 
"an seileachan"

Madeleine L'Engle's A WRINKLE IN TIME was rejected 29 times. Just a thought, when feeling discouraged.


Call Her Emily


Entwife Wandlimb
Lorien


Mar 24 2009, 8:11pm


Views: 568
Thanks!
I've missed the place and you all. NE Brigand made me think someone was impersonating me when I saw replies to my posts emails the other day. Maybe I can have some self-control and participate in moderation rather than quitting cold turkey.

Nice to find you all are just starting The Hobbit. Glad to see you are still here, a.s.