Mindfire
Istar
One of the common criticisms of Tolkien I've seen is that his stories are too morally simplistic. (Whether this is true can be debated, but that's beside the point right now.) Meanwhile, authors like GRR Martin are praised for their "moral ambiguity." This puzzles me. Why is moral ambiguity praiseworthy? Why are we as a society so enamored of shades of grey? Why is it so popular to think that "everyone's equally right"/"everyone's equally wrong"/"there is no right or wrong"? It seems like a dangerous trend to me, because it fosters the idea that in a given situation it's impossible to know right from wrong rather than just really hard, which promotes a kind of moral nihilism. An attitude of "you may as well be an amoral prick, because that's what's going to get you ahead anyway." And anyone who even tries to cling to some semblance of a moral standard invariably gets screwed over because they weren't ruthless enough.
I reject moral ambiguity in favor of moral complexity. Rather than think that there's no real right or wrong, I prefer the idea that there is a right and wrong choice in a given situation, but you have to put in some effort to sort it out and be able to tell the difference. You have to wade into the quagmire and wrestle with the crocodiles rather than just wallow in it and let them eat you alive. Promoting moral ambiguity devalues human choice, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you choose so long as you "win" and the other guy "loses". With moral complexity, choices are difficult, but they have meaning and purpose. This makes victories all the more triumphant and losses or falls to corruption all the more tragic, because ultimately our choices make us who we are.
What do you guys think about this issue of moral simplicity, moral ambiguity, and moral complexity?
I reject moral ambiguity in favor of moral complexity. Rather than think that there's no real right or wrong, I prefer the idea that there is a right and wrong choice in a given situation, but you have to put in some effort to sort it out and be able to tell the difference. You have to wade into the quagmire and wrestle with the crocodiles rather than just wallow in it and let them eat you alive. Promoting moral ambiguity devalues human choice, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you choose so long as you "win" and the other guy "loses". With moral complexity, choices are difficult, but they have meaning and purpose. This makes victories all the more triumphant and losses or falls to corruption all the more tragic, because ultimately our choices make us who we are.
What do you guys think about this issue of moral simplicity, moral ambiguity, and moral complexity?