Stat Challenge: Gollum

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That makes my point then. That it was the overpowering control of the ring that made him do it not any innate act of inherent evil. One can't be evil if there is no ability to choose.

The Ring can't (as a general thing) make you do anything, or at least not until you're so totally corrupted and under its control that your will is gone anyway. Smeagol didn't have to have done anything in particular (yet) to have been harboring a lot of evil thoughts and impulses and hidden nastiness inside him. Actions matter, and so do thoughts.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

The fact that a couple of heroes could resist the unresistable means very little.

The problem is that everyone who wsa exposed to it resisted it longer, and more, than Smeagol did, as far as know. Some people were significantly affected immediately, but other than Smeagol, nobody appears to have immediately moved to 'murderer' level on a single momentary exposure.

Now, I grant that if you were in a watering hole full of thieves and low-life, a glimpse of the Ring might well set off violence rapidly, but even then there would still be choice.

The fact that Smeagol was affected so extremely, and so quickly, implies that there was already a lot of corruption there before he ever saw the Ring. Sure, the RIng would eventually make a murderer of anyone, but in under 60 seconds?!

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

The Ring can't (as a general thing) make you do anything, or at least not until you're so totally corrupted and under its control that your will is gone anyway. Smeagol didn't have to have done anything in particular (yet) to have been harboring a lot of evil thoughts and impulses and hidden nastiness inside him. Actions matter, and so do thoughts.

Thoughts matter as much as action in the LoTR universe, I guess. It's just such an odd concept to me.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

The fact that a couple of heroes could resist the unresistable means very little.
Evil requires choice, otherwise you're calling attacking wild animals, the violent mentally ill, and tornadoes evil.
That good intentioned road leads somewhere unpleasant.

Wild animals have just as much claim as humans to be making "choices" so no. I do think evil requires a comprehending mind. But let's face it, modern psychiatry defines every severely unacceptable behaviour pattern as being the product of some mental illness.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Thoughts matter as much as action in the LoTR universe, I guess. It's just such an odd concept to me.

Without the context given to actions by motive and intent, actions have no moral value.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Wild animals have just as much claim as humans to be making "choices" so no. I do think evil requires a comprehending mind. But let's face it, modern psychiatry defines every severely unacceptable behaviour pattern as being the product of some mental illness.




Without the context given to actions by motive and intent, actions have no moral value.

Modern psychiatry does not do that. That is a gross hyperbole due to your desire to label many destructive behaviors as moral choices... or at least the loudest that make your claims do.

Thoughts by themselves are not crimes or immoral. I can fantasize about all sorts of destructive acts without being bad at all. Everyone thinks things that would be horrible if physically reproduced.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Modern psychiatry does not do that. That is a gross hyperbole due to your desire to label many destructive behaviors as moral choices...

Bear in mind that I'm arguing that choice is not in fact the determinant. So which destructive behaviour patterns do psychiatrists look at say "There's nothing wrong with that guy. He just happens to be evil."?

Thoughts by themselves are not crimes or immoral.

While of course Christian theology like that which formed J.R.R. Tolkien's worldview disagrees as a nonchristian, I'll just say that actions by themselves are not immoral. If they were, you could call storms evil.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Bear in mind that I'm arguing that choice is not in fact the determinant. So which destructive behaviour patterns do psychiatrists look at say "There's nothing wrong with that guy. He just happens to be evil."?




While of course Christian theology like that which formed J.R.R. Tolkien's worldview disagrees as a nonchristian, I'll just say that actions by themselves are not immoral. If they were, you could call storms evil.

Evil and immoral are philosophical words, not observable states of nature. It doesn't belong in medical talk any way.
I guess I kept translating evil into criminally sane. I'm sorry for that.
Involuntary manslaughter exists for those that kill people but didn't mean to. If actions alone weren't criminal, then there would be no concept as that.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

E
Involuntary manslaughter exists for those that kill people but didn't mean to. If actions alone weren't criminal, then there would be no concept as that.

Sure there would. Involuntary manslaughter covers situations where you intended to do something criminal or were being reckless and it caused a death. And note that the only difference in action between manslaughter and murder is the accused's ability to convince the court system that they had no intent. (Apparent) thought makes the difference between the two crimes. By contrast, if actions alone were criminal there would be no such concept as justifiable homicide much less unfortunate accidents with nobody to blame.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Sure there would. Involuntary manslaughter covers situations where you intended to do something criminal or were being reckless and it caused a death. And note that the only difference in action between manslaughter and murder is the accused's ability to convince the court system that they had no intent. (Apparent) thought makes the difference between the two crimes. By contrast, if actions alone were criminal there would be no such concept as justifiable homicide much less unfortunate accidents with nobody to blame.

This is really getting muddy with semantics.

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Thoughts matter as much as action in the LoTR universe, I guess. It's just such an odd concept to me.

It's a traditional Catholic concept, and remember that Tolkien was a Catholic. Part of the doctrine is that sin is a matter of intent; the Gospels have the example of how thinking lustful thoughts about a woman is the same as committing adultery in your heart.

Modern American law actually recognizes a similar concept: a crime typically requires both a "guilty mind" and a "guilty act." Without the mental intent (mens rea), you don't have criminal liability.