• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is "The Lord of the Rings" Harmful for promoting a Good vs Pure Evil Narrative?

xMathFanx

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
345
Reaction score
85
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is "The Lord of the Rings" Harmful for promoting a Good vs Pure Evil Narrative?

"J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a genuine masterpiece. The most widely read and influential fantasy epic of all time, it is also quite simply one of the most memorable and beloved tales ever told. Originally published in 1954, The Lord of the Rings set the framework upon which all epic/quest fantasy since has been built. Through the urgings of the enigmatic wizard Gandalf, young hobbit Frodo Baggins embarks on an urgent, incredibly treacherous journey to destroy the One Ring. This ring -- created and then lost by the Dark Lord, Sauron, centuries earlier -- is a weapon of evil, one that Sauron desperately wants returned to him. With the power of the ring once again his own, the Dark Lord will unleash his wrath upon all of Middle-earth. The only way to prevent this horrible fate from becoming reality is to return the Ring to Mordor, the only place it can be destroyed. Unfortunately for our heroes, Mordor is also Sauron's lair. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is essential reading not only for fans of fantasy but for lovers of classic literature as well." -Goodreads.com
 
Is "The Lord of the Rings" Harmful for promoting a Good vs Pure Evil Narrative?

"J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a genuine masterpiece. The most widely read and influential fantasy epic of all time, it is also quite simply one of the most memorable and beloved tales ever told. Originally published in 1954, The Lord of the Rings set the framework upon which all epic/quest fantasy since has been built. Through the urgings of the enigmatic wizard Gandalf, young hobbit Frodo Baggins embarks on an urgent, incredibly treacherous journey to destroy the One Ring. This ring -- created and then lost by the Dark Lord, Sauron, centuries earlier -- is a weapon of evil, one that Sauron desperately wants returned to him. With the power of the ring once again his own, the Dark Lord will unleash his wrath upon all of Middle-earth. The only way to prevent this horrible fate from becoming reality is to return the Ring to Mordor, the only place it can be destroyed. Unfortunately for our heroes, Mordor is also Sauron's lair. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is essential reading not only for fans of fantasy but for lovers of classic literature as well." -Goodreads.com

Can you post a link and perhaps your own answer to the question ? The OP doesn't give us much to chew on.
 
Can you post a link and perhaps your own answer to the question ? The OP doesn't give us much to chew on.

Yes, point taken.

I originally posted this topic in a separate debate site. Here is a relevant argument posted from a member there (who I will keep anonymous) and then my response to them:

Anonymous: Yes. In fact it is important to note that Orcs are an extremely noble race throughout mythology, they live to truly allow every single being (Orc or not) thrive in its own way. They were possessed and misled by corrupt warlocks and somehow we think it's ok they get stomped on and slaughtered in the masses...
Meanwhile we think elves, the literal Illuminati of the LOTR world, are somehow the 'good guys' because they enforce order by brutalising any species that dares question their authority... Then again, the Bible was exactly the same story as was the Qur'an so this trend doesn't shock me.
People like to mistake anarchy for evil and tyranny for heroism so let them.

xMathFanx (in response to Anonymous): "Anonymous (Quoting): In fact it is important to note that Orcs are an extremely noble race throughout mythology, they live to truly allow every single being (Orc or not) thrive in its own way. They were possessed and misled by corrupt warlocks and somehow we think it's ok they get stomped on and slaughtered in the masses..."

xMathFanx: Exactly. Personally, I like LOTR as a story a lot, however when you stop, step back, and think about it, the way they (the "good guys") view the orcs and killing the orcs is psychopathic.
Here are a couple of links on the History of the Orcs:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVkWxura1Q
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbHF2yp844E
Furthermore, there was a novel published titled "The Last Ringbearer" that tells the story of Middle-Earth/LOTR from Mordor's perspective (the losers side). Here is a link to the book and a short article on it:
1. https://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/lastringbearer/
2. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10329770-the-last-ringbearer
 
Yes, point taken.

I originally posted this topic in a separate debate site. Here is a relevant argument posted from a member there (who I will keep anonymous) and then my response to them:

I chuckled. If you want to protect a pseudo, don't quote their text. I found the guys profile on CreateDebate in under 1 second.

Yes. In fact it is important to note that Orcs are an extremely noble race throughout mythology, they live to truly allow every single being (Orc or not) thrive in its own way. They were possessed and misled by corrupt warlocks and somehow we think it's ok they get stomped on and slaughtered in the masses...
Meanwhile we think elves, the literal Illuminati of the LOTR world, are somehow the 'good guys' because they enforce order by brutalising any species that dares question their authority... Then again, the Bible was exactly the same story as was the Qur'an so this trend doesn't shock me.
People like to mistake anarchy for evil and tyranny for heroism so let them.

I think in most fantasy stories, it's better to have an ultimate bad guy and an ultimate good guy. Light vs darkness is a model that suits well this genre. If the "bad guys" are actually kind of nice and the "good guys" are actually kind of bad (like real life), then it takes out the epic side of the final battle.

However, it's important to note that these are stories. Real life characters, political parties and cultures are far more nuanced.

I would gladly watch your videos, but I'm lazy and can not turn on the sound on my computer for the moment.
 
Is "The Lord of the Rings" Harmful for promoting a Good vs Pure Evil Narrative?

"J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a genuine masterpiece. The most widely read and influential fantasy epic of all time, it is also quite simply one of the most memorable and beloved tales ever told. Originally published in 1954, The Lord of the Rings set the framework upon which all epic/quest fantasy since has been built. Through the urgings of the enigmatic wizard Gandalf, young hobbit Frodo Baggins embarks on an urgent, incredibly treacherous journey to destroy the One Ring. This ring -- created and then lost by the Dark Lord, Sauron, centuries earlier -- is a weapon of evil, one that Sauron desperately wants returned to him. With the power of the ring once again his own, the Dark Lord will unleash his wrath upon all of Middle-earth. The only way to prevent this horrible fate from becoming reality is to return the Ring to Mordor, the only place it can be destroyed. Unfortunately for our heroes, Mordor is also Sauron's lair. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is essential reading not only for fans of fantasy but for lovers of classic literature as well." -Goodreads.com

Dwarves, no Blacks, hardly a woman in a leadership role.... it's obvious that the Inklings were not politically correct. I think the books must be rewritten to conform with decency.
 
Last edited:
Was Gollum pure evil? Where was Feanor on the morality scale, or Hurin, or Thorin, or Denethor, or Boromir? There's plenty of moral complexity in the LoTR universe that adds texture to the ultimate good v evil tale.
 
Was Gollum pure evil? Where was Feanor on the morality scale, or Hurin, or Thorin, or Denethor, or Boromir? There's plenty of moral complexity in the LoTR universe that adds texture to the ultimate good v evil tale.

However, Sauron was pure evil. The ultimate nemesis in fantasy tales must be pure evil. It makes them quite charming.
 
I chuckled. If you want to protect a pseudo, don't quote their text. I found the guys profile on CreateDebate in under 1 second.

Good point Lol
 
Was Gollum pure evil? Where was Feanor on the morality scale, or Hurin, or Thorin, or Denethor, or Boromir? There's plenty of moral complexity in the LoTR universe that adds texture to the ultimate good v evil tale.

The fundamental point is that there is (presented to be) no moral ambiguity when it comes to who is right and who is wrong in the Battle for Middle Earth (Mordor and Isangaurd are most definitely wrong) and essentially any tactics used by the "good" side against the "bad" are deemed appropriate without question (the Orcs and such are viewed as sub-humanoid creatures--demons, creatures of Hell essentially).
 
If the lord of the rings was about pure evil vs pure good, explain Golum.
 
The fundamental point is that there is (presented to be) no moral ambiguity when it comes to who is right and who is wrong in the Battle for Middle Earth (Mordor and Isangaurd are most definitely wrong) and essentially any tactics used by the "good" side against the "bad" are deemed appropriate without question (the Orcs and such are viewed as sub-humanoid creatures--demons, creatures of Hell essentially).

You're oversimplifying things. The orcs were bad because they were elves who'd had their spirits corrupted by Morgoth, they were literally "sub-elvish" and couldn't be good if they wanted to. The crux of Tolkien's work is the choices individuals make, orcs, like Balrogs and dragons, were creations of Morgoth and had that choice taken away from them. Those with choice, like Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf, Aragorn and the Elves, were divided into morality camps by whether they chose to harm or help. Morgoth sought power for himself, for his own ends, as did Sauron when he chose to join Morgoth. Saruman was morally good, until corrupted by the lure of the power of the One Ring. Gandalf could have made the same choice as Saruman, but chose not to. Aragorn lived most of his life chosing to not claim power, and instead protect the Shire, and only chose power to stand against Sauron. The Elves were granted power by Eru himself, and in general chose to use it to make Middle Earth grow, those that abused their power, like Feanor, were shunned.

The best demonstration of this was when Galadriel was tempted by the ring in Lothlorien, but chose not to take up the power. For making this choice, and rejecting great power over others, she was exempt from the Doom of Mandos.

Just to recap, because I'm clearly a ****ing nerd, the moral complexity of LoTR isn't in the depiction of races, but rather the choices of individuals. Orcs, and other creations of Morgoth, lack the free will to choose good, and so can't be considered evil in the same way those who chose to be evil are.
 
You're oversimplifying things. The orcs were bad because they were elves who'd had their spirits corrupted by Morgoth, they were literally "sub-elvish" and couldn't be good if they wanted to. The crux of Tolkien's work is the choices individuals make, orcs, like Balrogs and dragons, were creations of Morgoth and had that choice taken away from them. Those with choice, like Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf, Aragorn and the Elves, were divided into morality camps by whether they chose to harm or help. Morgoth sought power for himself, for his own ends, as did Sauron when he chose to join Morgoth. Saruman was morally good, until corrupted by the lure of the power of the One Ring. Gandalf could have made the same choice as Saruman, but chose not to. Aragorn lived most of his life chosing to not claim power, and instead protect the Shire, and only chose power to stand against Sauron. The Elves were granted power by Eru himself, and in general chose to use it to make Middle Earth grow, those that abused their power, like Feanor, were shunned.

The best demonstration of this was when Galadriel was tempted by the ring in Lothlorien, but chose not to take up the power. For making this choice, and rejecting great power over others, she was exempt from the Doom of Mandos.

Just to recap, because I'm clearly a ****ing nerd, the moral complexity of LoTR isn't in the depiction of races, but rather the choices of individuals. Orcs, and other creations of Morgoth, lack the free will to choose good, and so can't be considered evil in the same way those who chose to be evil are.

I just had a nerdgasm
 
Just to recap, because I'm clearly a ****ing nerd, the moral complexity of LoTR isn't in the depiction of races, but rather the choices of individuals. Orcs, and other creations of Morgoth, lack the free will to choose good, and so can't be considered evil in the same way those who chose to be evil are.

@spud_meister

You made a number of strong, insightful points in your post, however I have a few bones to pick.

Although you are correct in your analysis of Tolkien's moral framework (as he perceived it), there is much more going on here as well.

First, the Orcs (and such) who are newly created were born into sin, had no direct hand in the matter, and are being punished (severely) for the crime of being born. This moral structure is viewed as completely non-problematic by Tolkien's "good" characters to such an extent that genocide is deemed the obviously just course of action.

Second, I would encourage you to read the article I posted from "Salon" discussing the book "The Last Ringbearer" (if you have not read the book already) as it gives a very unique perspective on the dynamics at work in Middle-Earth (which is an entirely separate (though connected) point that we could discuss)

Edit: I just tried the link and noticed it was not working. Here:

A. https://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/last_ringbearer/
B. https://www.salon.com/2011/02/23/last_ringbearer_explanation/
C. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10329770-the-last-ringbearer
 
Last edited:
spud_meister: You made a number of strong, insightful points in your post, however I have a few bones to pick.

Although you are correct in your analysis of Tolkien's moral framework (as he perceived it), there is much more going on here as well.

First, the Orcs (and such) who are newly created were born into sin, had no direct hand in the matter, and are being punished (severely) for the crime of being born. This moral structure is viewed as completely non-problematic by Tolkien's "good" characters to such an extent that genocide is deemed the obviously just course of action.

Which characters advocated genocide, or even attacking orcs that had not attacked others? Even after the defeat of Morgoth, but prior to ascendancy of Sauron, the Orcs were driven back to their strongholds, but never rooted out or slaughtered. The "good" characters were content to leave them in peace if they did likewise.

Second, I would encourage you to read the article I posted from "Salon" discussing the book "The Last Ringbearer" (if you have not read the book already) as it gives a very unique perspective on the dynamics at work in Middle-Earth (which is an entirely separate (though connected) point that we could discuss)

I've downloaded it, and I'll give it a read in the next few days, however, from the article, it creates dynamics that don't exist.
 
@spud_mister

Which characters advocated genocide, or even attacking orcs that had not attacked others? Even after the defeat of Morgoth, but prior to ascendancy of Sauron, the Orcs were driven back to their strongholds, but never rooted out or slaughtered. The "good" characters were content to leave them in peace if they did likewise.

A. On Orcs and Cultural Genocide - New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science

I've downloaded it, and I'll give it a read in the next few days, however, from the article, it creates dynamics that don't exist.

Okay, I look forward to discussing it with you (if you wish to discuss it)
 
No...
It's pure entertainment.
 
J. R. R. Tolkien once described his epic masterpiece The Lord of the Rings as "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work." Yet nowhere in its pages is there any mention of religion, let alone of the Catholic Church, Christ, or even God. Tolkien’s hobbits have no religious practices or cult; of prayer, sacrifice, or corporate worship there is no sign.

To make matters more difficult, Tolkien was equally emphatic that The Lord of the Rings were not to be understood allegorically. In fact, Tolkien was famously hostile to allegory in general, disliking even the allegorical children’s stories of his friend and fellow Christian C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia. How then can The Lord of the Rings be in any sense described as a fundamentally Catholic work, or even a religious one?
Faith and Fantasy: Tolkien the Catholic, The Lord of the Rings, and Peter Jackson’s Film Trilogy - Decent Films
 
Yes, point taken.

I originally posted this topic in a separate debate site. Here is a relevant argument posted from a member there (who I will keep anonymous) and then my response to them:

Anonymous: Yes. In fact it is important to note that Orcs are an extremely noble race throughout mythology, they live to truly allow every single being (Orc or not) thrive in its own way. They were possessed and misled by corrupt warlocks and somehow we think it's ok they get stomped on and slaughtered in the masses...
Meanwhile we think elves, the literal Illuminati of the LOTR world, are somehow the 'good guys' because they enforce order by brutalising any species that dares question their authority... Then again, the Bible was exactly the same story as was the Qur'an so this trend doesn't shock me.
People like to mistake anarchy for evil and tyranny for heroism so let them.

xMathFanx (in response to Anonymous): "Anonymous (Quoting): In fact it is important to note that Orcs are an extremely noble race throughout mythology, they live to truly allow every single being (Orc or not) thrive in its own way. They were possessed and misled by corrupt warlocks and somehow we think it's ok they get stomped on and slaughtered in the masses..."


Warlocks? What? Read the Silmarillion. Morgoth done it. (And they weren't "possessed and misled" either).

Anyway, spud took care of that in more detail.

The fundamental point is that there is (presented to be) no moral ambiguity when it comes to who is right and who is wrong in the Battle for Middle Earth (Mordor and Isangaurd are most definitely wrong) and essentially any tactics used by the "good" side against the "bad" are deemed appropriate without question (the Orcs and such are viewed as sub-humanoid creatures--demons, creatures of Hell essentially).

Which tactics are these "any tactics"?

You seem to be insinuating are some kind of atrocity that is being wrongfully excused. But that never happened. And generally, when someone tries to take over the world, the people who don't want to be taken over fight back. That's not some kind of moral dilemma, it's self-defense.

As for moral ambiguity, um, there's tons of it, as others have explained.
 
First, the Orcs (and such) who are newly created were born into sin, had no direct hand in the matter, and are being punished (severely) for the crime of being born. This moral structure is viewed as completely non-problematic by Tolkien's "good" characters to such an extent that genocide is deemed the obviously just course of action.


No, they are not "being punished (severely) for the crime of being born". The orcs and Morgoth's, then Sauron's, other servants kept trying to conquer the world. So, the world fought back.

You're talking about this as if the people of Gondor sailed over to another continent, found orcs, and slaughtered them all for kicks.
 
You seem to be insinuating are some kind of atrocity that is being wrongfully excused. But that never happened. And generally, when someone tries to take over the world, the people who don't want to be taken over fight back. That's not some kind of moral dilemma, it's self-defense.

You missed the fundamental point that I have already addressed elsewhere (and for which the thread is about--which others have picked up on from the beginning).

That is, having a force from Hell attempting to take over the world that has essentially no redeeming qualities (aside from Sauramon) is not at all what the "real world" is like. Are there any potential issues with this?
 
No, they are not "being punished (severely) for the crime of being born". The orcs and Morgoth's, then Sauron's, other servants kept trying to conquer the world. So, the world fought back.

You're talking about this as if the people of Gondor sailed over to another continent, found orcs, and slaughtered them all for kicks.

They (largely) are being punished for the crime of being born with no remorse ever shown by the "good guys". The Orcs and such are born into slavery, conditioned, and are forced to do the bidding of Sauron/Sauramon.

I'm not talking like that actually, that is your perception of the situation due to my questions challenging your sacrosanct beliefs. Really, I have been raising relatively basic observations
 
That link specifically discusses the Ents attack on Isengard, however, the Ents were attacked first, with the Orcs chopping down trees in Fangorn Forest, which was the Ents home, and they regarded the trees killed by the Orcs as kin.


This point was addressed in the first few sentences of the article following the excerpt of the other text.

Again, I am not necessarily arguing that it is right or wrong (i.e. justified or not justified) . Rather, there is more that should be ethically considered in the story than is presented to the reader at face value
 
The only difference between that and the bible is that Tolkien admitted his work was fiction.

I agree, orcs born in slavery and raised that way is a pity, and should be mourned. But if they build an army to destroy the worlds of man, you gotta you know, **** or get off the pot. Black and white is a common theme resulting from competition...with us, or against us. It's also a great tool of those in power, or who seek power. It's why democratic styled governments came to be, to blunt the "all or nothing/scorched earth" of unbridled winner-takes all. But attacking this via LOTR seems misguided at best.

The Bible has far more influence around the world, and in politics, by some orders of magnitude...start there if you want to lead that crusade..but with freedom of religion, it won't end well.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom