“Suppose you’re the prime minister of a parliamentary republic, and the neighboring country is ruled by hereditary nobility that mostly hate each other, and wars between the barons ruin a lot of the land and kill a lot of the peasants. You, being a genius engineer, have figured out a way to control people, but it requires they wear the device for an extended period of time, the effects are obvious, and they can take it off before the process is complete if they feel like it.”
Except that’s exactly what Sauron DIDN’T do. Mordor was not a parliamentary republic; more like a military dictatorship with semi-mindless orc drones enforcing Sauron’s commands over his human subjects. The monarchs who were given the rings—however just or unjust their rule might have been, and however flawed the notion of monarchy as a political system—were lied to about what the rings did, and the rings’ effects were very subtle at first.
Its also worth noting that the human kings didn’t become any kinder or more democratic in their sensibilities once they fell under Sauron’s influence. The Witch King was still a king, and a much more murderous one than he was in life. Unleashing barrow-wrights on a partially civilian population, torturing Gollum for information, and stabbing an innocent (if possibly misguided) hobbit when he didn’t have to are all things that the Witch King did in person.
“This hereditary nobility situation is obviously not going to fix itself- and you figure that the easiest way to fix it is to corrupt all the nobility, playing on their hatred of each other to get them to wear the devices long enough for them to work, and then have them give you power in a bloodless coup. As a bonus, you now have fanatically loyal assassins / spec ops forces, and an eternity of servitude seems like a fitting punishment for their misconduct as rulers.”
In other words, the only way to improve the world is to become just as bad as the people currently running it? The best solution to dictatorships is to make slaves of your own, and for all eternity no less?
I think you’re going out of your way to defend Brin’s essay rather than actually using your own moral judgement. You can easily say that the “good guys” in Lord of the Rings weren’t all that good, but Sauron was very obviously worse.
Right, and Brin’s premise is that Tolkien is a biased source.
In other words, the only way to improve the world is to become just as bad as the people currently running it? The best solution to dictatorships is to make slaves of your own, and for all eternity no less?
If those slaves were the dictators of the old era? Seems suitably karmic.
I think you’re going out of your way to defend Brin’s essay rather than actually using your own moral judgement.
“My own moral judgment” is a tricky thing in this situation, as it depends on which situation we’re describing.
If I have first-hand experience of the events of LotR, and everything is as Tolkien describes it, then yeah, it’s pretty obvious that Sauron is the bad guy.
If I have third-hand experience of the events of LotR, think that at most 90% of the description is accurate, and I think that the philosophies of the modern day are present in the LotR world, then it seems plausible that Sauron is the good guy, for the reasons Brin describes.
You might be interested in The Sword of Good, if you haven’t read it. [edit] It looks like you commented there today, but I’ll leave the recommendation here for any spectators to the conversation.
That is amusing, and what I get for jumping into conversations from the Recent Comments link and not thinking to check where the conversation is happening. I’m tempted to edit it out, but might as well leave it for posterity.
“Did you learn this from an unbiased source?”
I’m pretty sure it was in Tolkien’s notes.
“Suppose you’re the prime minister of a parliamentary republic, and the neighboring country is ruled by hereditary nobility that mostly hate each other, and wars between the barons ruin a lot of the land and kill a lot of the peasants. You, being a genius engineer, have figured out a way to control people, but it requires they wear the device for an extended period of time, the effects are obvious, and they can take it off before the process is complete if they feel like it.”
Except that’s exactly what Sauron DIDN’T do. Mordor was not a parliamentary republic; more like a military dictatorship with semi-mindless orc drones enforcing Sauron’s commands over his human subjects. The monarchs who were given the rings—however just or unjust their rule might have been, and however flawed the notion of monarchy as a political system—were lied to about what the rings did, and the rings’ effects were very subtle at first.
Its also worth noting that the human kings didn’t become any kinder or more democratic in their sensibilities once they fell under Sauron’s influence. The Witch King was still a king, and a much more murderous one than he was in life. Unleashing barrow-wrights on a partially civilian population, torturing Gollum for information, and stabbing an innocent (if possibly misguided) hobbit when he didn’t have to are all things that the Witch King did in person.
“This hereditary nobility situation is obviously not going to fix itself- and you figure that the easiest way to fix it is to corrupt all the nobility, playing on their hatred of each other to get them to wear the devices long enough for them to work, and then have them give you power in a bloodless coup. As a bonus, you now have fanatically loyal assassins / spec ops forces, and an eternity of servitude seems like a fitting punishment for their misconduct as rulers.”
In other words, the only way to improve the world is to become just as bad as the people currently running it? The best solution to dictatorships is to make slaves of your own, and for all eternity no less?
I think you’re going out of your way to defend Brin’s essay rather than actually using your own moral judgement. You can easily say that the “good guys” in Lord of the Rings weren’t all that good, but Sauron was very obviously worse.
Right, and Brin’s premise is that Tolkien is a biased source.
If those slaves were the dictators of the old era? Seems suitably karmic.
“My own moral judgment” is a tricky thing in this situation, as it depends on which situation we’re describing.
If I have first-hand experience of the events of LotR, and everything is as Tolkien describes it, then yeah, it’s pretty obvious that Sauron is the bad guy.
If I have third-hand experience of the events of LotR, think that at most 90% of the description is accurate, and I think that the philosophies of the modern day are present in the LotR world, then it seems plausible that Sauron is the good guy, for the reasons Brin describes.
You might be interested in The Sword of Good, if you haven’t read it. [edit] It looks like you commented there today, but I’ll leave the recommendation here for any spectators to the conversation.
Amusing because you linked to this very post.
That is amusing, and what I get for jumping into conversations from the Recent Comments link and not thinking to check where the conversation is happening. I’m tempted to edit it out, but might as well leave it for posterity.