On carrying

Switching back to the old format because I'm already a day late and the idea of this post has been bouncing around in my head in my voice for the past few days and I don't want to translate it into dialogue form.

This week is our first double portion and we read two chapters, "Three's Company" and "A Shortcut to Mushrooms."  In it we follow Frodo and Sam - now joined by Pippin - as they begin the journey to Frodo's new home in Crickhollow, in the east of the Shire.  We, as well as Frodo and Sam, know this is just a cover story.

The journey is a few days, and the three hobbits make it with packs on their back.  As they begin, Frodo complains about the weight.  He says,

"I pity snails, and all that carry their homes on their back."

Usually when discussing ethics it's best to focus on treatment of other people.  There's an argument that we, as autonomous human beings, can treat ourselves however we like.  No one should force me to go on a 5 mile run, but if someone else wants to push themselves to do that then who are we to judge?  Everyone should do what works for them.

On the other hand, just because someone does something doesn't mean it works for them; addiction is the most obvious example.  When can we intervene, even to the detriment of their autonomy?  When should we say "It is a greater good to stop you than it is to let you be free?"  After all, for ourselves, we'd say the bar is extremely high.  We wouldn't want to be stopped.

So while genereally these write-ups are meant as ethics for how we treat others, this one wll be about ourselves.  I think it will branch out to how we treat others, but I'm not certain.  Well, let's go!

I've been very busy the past few months.  I've been wedding planning (along with my fiancee and our parents) and we've bought a condo.  I've also been promoted to management at my job, a position which requires a lot more energy than my previous position.  A lot of people depend on me and I don't want to let them down.  As always, I worry I've Peter Principled myself, though that's not the point here.

All of the above involves a lot of work.  At work I've been so busy that most of the condo/wedding stuff gets pushed out of my mind.  At first that worried me - I wanted to be thinking about these things all the time.  But my job is so busy that it was unavoidable and I accepted it.  Eventually I began to see it as a good thing.  At work I focus on work.  Nothing about the condo or wedding is on fire - It can all wait until at least the afternoon.  After work, I can work on those other things.  I am fortunate in this regard that my job is quite strict about not working after hours.  Wedding/condo doesn't creep into my work and work doesn't creep into wedding/condo time.

In this way I am not like a snail, carrying everything around with me all at once.  I mean, I am, but I compartmentalize.  Compartmentalizing allows me to focus on certain things at certain times, and that seems to work pretty well for me.  It's certainly less overwhelming.

And when I am less overwhelmed I can both be more productive on each thing and will be more patient with others (and myself).  If I think of all I have to do at once it will be hard to prioritize and difficult to keep my cool when someone asks something of me that I'm not already thinking about - who are they to add to my stress?!  But if I keep work at work and these personal responsibilities at home - and even schedule separate time for wedding planning and condo stuff, to keep THOSE separate - then it's easier for people to know when to approach me about each thing.  And it means when I make time to relax I'm able to focus on that.

So I think compartmentalizing is an important stress-reducing (or at least stress management) strategy, which helps us be kinder to ourself and others.  Being kinder to others is obviously ethical, but being kinder to ourself should not be underestimated.  If being ethical were easy we wouldn't need to write guides for it.  There are few guides for breathing.  And if we need a guide, you need attention and focus to read and remember it - which are difficult to come by if we're stressed.  Kindness to ourselves is necessary if we are to be kind to others.

But also there are those who have a harder compartmentalizing.  Rather than telling them how they should do things, we should try not to take what we may see as overreactions personally, or as failings on their part.  Other people are always fighting a battle we know nothing about.  We can and should advise them about whether they are on the right side, or whether they are fighting the right way, or whether they should be involved at all.  But we don't need to tell them in that moment.  If they are carrying it all on their back at once they may believe all of their responsibilities are tied together.  They may not know how to separate them, or believe it impossible, or they may have forgotten they're carrying it at all and think whatever it is has become part of them, as if they themselves are snails, always destined to carry.  In that moment, kindness and patience is the best we can offer them.

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 5% to this post's final version, but only because I was too lazy to use a regular thesaurus.

On contempt

This week we read "The Shadow of the Past," in which Gandalf tells Frodo a lot about the Ring and it's history and how it came to him.  As part of this history Gandalf tells Frodo Gollum is "hobbit-kind" (in the Creative Wizard's style, this to say Gollum's race is related to hobbits, not that he is a kind of hobbit).  The text tells us Frodo's reaction, 

"Gollum!" cried Frodo.  "Gollum?  Do you mean that this is the very
Gollum-creature that Bilbo met?  How loathsome!"

"I think it is a sad story," said the wizard, "and it might
have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known."
"I can't believe that Gollum was connected with hobbits,
however distantly," said Frodo with some heat.  "What an abominable notion!"

"Why does Frodo exclaim Gollum's name and then ask it?"
"Because Frodo is familiar with Gollum, but not in this context.  Gollum has been some far-away evil of otherkind.  But now he has become something closer.  He shouts at the horror, and then he asks at the closeness."
"But he is not yet sure - his next sentence is to ask Gandalf to confirm he has understood."
"It is not a true question.  His next sentence conveys disgust.  He already knows the answer."
"Why is Frodo disgusted?"
"Frodo has always seen the Shire as something apart.  Bilbo went into the world and found evil, and he brought it back with him in the form of the Ring, but still it remained separate.  Bilbo and the Shire remained good.  To know Gollum, an important villain in Bilbo's story, is of the Shire - or at least related to it - demonstrates the Shire may not be as apart as he believed."
"But why should that matter?  Gandalf tells Frodo of Isildur and of Sauron and of the Rings of Power.  Why is Gollum what disgusts him?  What about that drives him to at last respond "with some heat"?"
"We expect the world to disappoint us, at least in some way.  But our world, whatever that means, is safe.  Isildur is a man, not a hobbit.  The Rings of Power are from ages ago.  Sauron is a distant enemy.  These are all others.  Of course they will fall."
"So Frodo is disgusted at Gollum because he shows the Shire may fall?"
"Exactly."
"Is Frodo right to have such a response?"
"Right and wrong are not the correct frame.  Rather, he cares more because Gollum is closer to him.  Men, powerful rings and Sauron are all the other.  Frodo can ignore them when he wants - as the rest of the Shire often does.  He has contempt for them because they are not like him.  He doesn't bother to understand - they are too different.  Consider the bar talk in the Shire.  No one is worried the outside world is going to crush them - they just complain when the outside ecroaches on their plans. They should be more worried, but they are not.  But an evil within?  That's not possible to ignore.  So Frodo responds more strongly."
"Frodo exclaims Gollum's name first, then asks it?  Why not ask, then exclaim?"
"Because Gollum is not the answer.  All consideration of Gollum leads only to more questions.  As should be the case.  When we find a selfkind which disgusts us it should elicit curiosity, not exclaimed dismissal.  It is disturbing to see someone like us has fallen short because it means we could fall short.  But it is an opportunity to learn.  It is also, perhaps, an opportunity to help.  Gollum, we know, will have moments of growth.  Even though his life ends with evil, he is given opportunities to be less evil in the text and he takes some of them.  Good is not a purity to be protected against all encroachment, but a road we strive to remain on, or return to when we stray."
"Gandalf says it is a sad story, but Frodo disagrees.  Who is right?"
"Gandalf, obviously.  His response is more empathetic, which we should assume is correct."
"But they know the same story.  Why does Gandalf have more empathy?"
"Gandalf has been around longer and has seen and knows more of good people falling short.  He knows it is not fair to pin the blame on Gollum for what was ultimately the Ring's corruption of him."
"So empathy is gained through age?"
"Not exclusively, but there are some perspectives we would not expect children to have."
"What perspective is that?"
"Frodo seems to believe the Shire is distinct from the rest of the world in its capacity to withstand evil.  To learn it is just as susceptible is a hard lesson, and requires to a radical new understanding of the world.  Frodo could, and initially does, hold Gollum in the same contempt as the rest of the world.  Actually in worse contempt, as Gollum's fall chips away at the Shire's separateness.  But Frodo later learns everyone is vulnerable to the Ring.  The Ring does not seek out only the weak, avoiding those it could not corrupt.  The Ring seeks out the weakness of everyone it encounters, and everyone has a weakness, so it can corrupt everyone (maybe not).  But at this moment Frodo seems to believe the Shire, and thus him by extension. has some innate ability to withstand the Ring.  The Shire would have to be defeated by evil - but everyone else can only fail to withstand it.  Notice the subtle shift in responsibility.  But that is wrong.  Similarly, it is childish to believe they would fall for evil but I and my community would never!
"We are all vulnerable."
"And because we are all vulnerable it's better to ask why they fell to evil, and take the opportunity to gird that weakness in oneself.  Gandalf's response is better because he does not blame those for falling to the power of the Ring, just as it would be silly to blame someone for falling to the power of fear.  Even if we believe someone is too easily scared the ultimate fault lies with the thing which scared them.  Even if we can say we would have withstood that fright, there is some level of fright which would overcome us, and it would be extremely arbitrary to say anything below our threshold is to be dismissed, anything above is to be cowered at."
"Gandalf knows we should judge people based on their own threshold."
"No - that leads us to say "Of course they failed, how could we expect them not to?" or "Of course they resisted - why would you worry they wouldn't?"'
"So then what?"
"Gandalf knows that everybody has a threshold, and we should not judge the differences.  Rather when someone falls to evil (or anything which they had tried to resist) we should respond not as if they have failed, but instead that they have been defeated.  Not to wonder how we could have done better but to step into their fray and help them rise back up.  It is never too late."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 5% to this post's final version.

On reputation

We begin our adventure all over again with A Long-Expected Party.  The party in question is Bilbo's 111th as well as Frodo's 33rd, which is the hobbit age of adulthood.  This chapter is very much about Frodo's entry into adulthood, a transition he is ready for in Shire terms.  Bilbo is leaving and Frodo inherits a great deal of his things.  But some things Bilbo is leaving behind come with much more baggage than Frodo is prepared to deal with.  Namely, the One Ring.  I want to highlight two quotes before moving into our Talmudic-style dialgoue.

The first is when Gandalf is telling Bilbo to leave the One Ring, something Bilbo apparently had already agreed to but is now resisting.  Bilbo responds:  "It is mine, I tell you.  My own.  My Precious.  Yes, my Precious."

The second quote is when Frodo comes home and finds Bilbo has indeed left.  

"You'll find his will and all the other documents in there, I

think," said the wizard.  "You are the master of Bag End now.

And also, I fancy, you'll find a golden ring."

"The ring!" exclaimed Frodo.  Has he left me that? 

I wonder why.  Still, it may be useful."

"Why is the word ring, which refers to The One Ring, not capitalized?"
"Because Frodo does not know it is that particular ring."
"But it is also not capitalized when Gandalf says it."
"Gandalf does not know either, though he suspects."
"Why does the Creative Wizard* not capitalize it anyway?  The written conversation is for the audience, not the characters."
"But the audience may not yet know and could see the capitalization as an error and thus be distracted."
"And why should this not be the case with Precious?"
"Precious is repeated and capitalized both times, so a new reader would be less likely to conclude it's just an error.  Further, Gandalf remarks it "has been called that before," thus demonstrating it has special import. One could say it is distracting enough even for the characters notice. 
"Does The One Ring lose power if merely called a ring?"
"No - the Ring is powerful nonetheless. Bilbo and Frodo both become invisible with it without knowing its full story.  That, alone, shows its power is inherent."

"As true as that is, throughout our studies we know knowledge of the Ring's power has a power of its own. If knowledge of its power makes it more dangerous, then ignorance of its power must make it less dangerous."
"Why not differently dangerous?"
"Because Gollum hangs onto it for hundreds of years and is quite unaware of its connection to Sauron, who in turn is unable to find it during that time.  If Gollum was constantly worried about Sauron, Sauron may have been more clued into its whereabouts."
"But Sauron was also weak during that time, and we know the Ring conspired to escape Gollum."
"Bilbo holds onto the ring for many years, unaware of its power."
"Not completely unaware - the text says he often carried it with him and wanted to know where it was at all times, or else his thoughts became obsessed with it.  And note the priority.  The Ring insists on being on the person or on the mind."

"Had it remained in the riverbed before Deagol and Smeagol found it, could this all have been averted?"

"Delayed.  Differently done, likely.  But as long as it remained, its power would have endured."

"So it has some power nonetheless, but its power is magnified by acknowledgement it is The One Ring."

"Well, even while missing it's existence was known.  No one believed it had been destroyed."

"So what does all this tell us?"
"In our world reputation magnifies power. Many people will find it difficult to have a normal conversation with a celebrity they like. But if that person were not recognized it would be easier to have a normal conversation."
"Or if a different person saw a celebrity and simply didn't recognize them in the first place."
"Exactly. Whatever charisma this person has is still theirs but the lack of reputation will mean they must depend purely on their own displays."
"This conversation is supposed to be about ethics."
"And yet we began about capitalizaitions!  OK, listen, we're discussing two types of power. Let us call them displayed power and reputational power. Displayed is what someone brings to the table. Charisma or cunning or intelligence or experience or kindness or sternness, etc."
"But if people believe you are cunning, they're going to be more easily cunned. (Cunned?  Anyway:) Even if you're not on your A-game people are very likely to get into their own heads and read triple entendres into every sentence you say. And God help them if you're actually trying. Reputation matters."
"Reputations can be used for good or ill."
"Aah, ethics, FINALLY!"
"If you develop a reputation..."
"How is that done, anyway?"
"By consistently displaying the same power. The One Ring has a well-known history in Middle Earth, as does Sauron, with whom it is closely connected. If you consistently show a strength or virtue (or weakness or vice), then you will not need to show it as much because people will know you have it. Thus, developing a good reputation allows you to get to work faster because you don't need to prove yourself to be X or Y.  Or it could be bad, as people could use knowledge of your weakness to undermine you."
"Are there benefits to not having a reputation you should deserve?"
"Yes, because this means you can keep your strengths (or weaknesses) hidden, the benefits of which are varied but obvious.  But there are other cases where keeping your strengths hidden are a hinderance, and you only feed your ego by suddenly announcing your strength."
"And are there benefits to having a reputation you do not deserve?"
"Rarely, because you will one day be revealed.  When that happens it'll cause people to then question every part of your reputation because how could they know when to stop doubting? You should establish a reputation you can maintain."

"Are there benefits to not having a reputation you do not deserve?"
"Yes, people will not expect you to be something you are not. That is one less pedastal from which you may fall."

"But what if one develops a reputation they did not intend to establish and have no interest in maintaining?"

"Then they must go out of their way to display the powers they wish to be reputed to have, and they must do so consistently and often - perhaps even performatively in some cases.  It is difficult to change a reputation.  Plus, reputations we do not intend to establish, in some way, are the most true."

"And how should we deal with the reputations of others, false or true?"
"If we see a friend with a reputation we don't think they can maintain we should tell them.  They may disagree, or see too much advantage in the deception, but as friends we should be willing to speak up."
"And of true reputations?"
"Reputations which our friends wish to have, which we can attest to truly, we should speak up for. In public we should extol their virtue or strength, perhaps also with a ready story to demonstrate. This increases their power, a core currency in our world."
"Didn't we just share a link about how power is the real villain?"
"Yes, but that post itself was inconclusive.  In Middle Earth power, at least as represented by the Ring, is a real source of evil that must be destroyed. Unfortunately, power doesn't have such physical manifestations in our world."
"Are you so sure?"
"Aah. Good point. All those have immense reputational power, which can increase the displayed power potential of anyone associated with them. But we are not such movers and shakers of the world. Our ethics is of a personal nature and to affect change we need power."
"And what if one accrues power and uses it for evil?"
"Then one isn't being ethical, you nit! But at least at this stage we should say build your reputation on something you can maintain, and beware of those whose reputations are built on fabrications, and know others will beware those whose reputations are built on fabrications, thus don't build your reputations on fabrications. It is a good unto itself to make your reputation based on truth."
"Throughout this conversation sometimes we have said ring and sometimes we have said Ring. Why?"
"Because this is all being written down and a choice of some kind had to be made."


*Throughout this project I have decided to refer to Tolkien in this way.  It's fun!

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 15% to this post's final version.

The third go-around!

Welcome back!  It seems I return to this idea every 4-5 years, and I'm glad to say we're getting back at it!  It's particularly interesting to see how what I find in the text changes at different stages in my life.  My first go-around on this was during a pretty tumultous period in my life when I suddenly my job suddenly got "restructured" out of existence.  The second year was during Trump's presidency, when ethical demands seemed to overwhelm many of the people I knew, including myself.  And now I own some property, am about to be married, and in a job that isn't going anywhere.  The politics of the moment feel less overwhelming, though as we're entering an election year it'll be interesting to see how that impacts this year's read.

I'm also eager to try some new approaches, so a few announcements first:

1.  I'm taking guest authors!  If you want to write about a chapter, let me know!
2.  I'm getting married late Oct and then we have a honeymoon the first half of Nov.  So the first few posts of this cycle will be shorter because I won't have the time and, for now, have no guest author dates set up.  I've decided to try a Talmudic format which will hopefully allow for insights even in a short amount of words.
3.  I'll be using ChatGPT quite a bit, partly due to reason #2 and partly cause I want to try to see how useful it can be.  I'll be putting rough estimates about how much of the final product was generated.

OK - see you all Sept 23rd, just a day after Bilbo and Frodo's big day!

Seeing Everyone - Redux

This week we read "The Grey Havens" and finally come to the end of our text. Middle Earth is saved, and the Shire is restored. But there's one thing left to deal with...

Frodo no longer really fits into the Shire. Unlike Bilbo, he did not return from his adventure with riches, nor does he enjoy the celebrity he has gained.  He gets ill every October 6th and March 25th,  dates corresponding to his getting stabbed by the Nazgûl and the Ring getting destroyed respectively.  Coincidentally, Sam's firstborn is born on March 25th.  Frodo is stuck in the past, even as the future rolls on.

The One Ring is destroyed.  The lesser rings of power that still exist, the ones possessed by the Elves and Gandalf, are diminished, essentially dormant relics of a bygone age.  Indeed, the Third Age of Middle Earth is ending, and the time of the rings is over.  Gandalf and the remaining Elves will leave Middle Earth, along with two other Ringbearers - Bilbo and Frodo.  They will go to the titular "Grey Havens."

But life goes on for those remaining. Sam marries Rosie Cotton and has more children while Merry and Pippin enjoy their celebrity status, throwing parties and wearing their war-gear for fun.  We are told:

Altogether 1420 in the Shire was a marvelous year. Not only was there wonderful
sunshine and delicious rain, in due times and perfect measure, but there seemed something more:
an air of richness and growth, and a gleam of a beauty beyond that of mortal summers
that flicker and pass upon this Middle-earth. All the children born or begotten in that year,
and there were many, were fair to see and strong, and most of them had a rich golden hair that
had before been rare among hobbits. The fruit was so plentiful that young hobbits very
nearly bathed in strawberries and cream; and later they sat on the lawns under the plum-trees
and ate, until they had made piles of stones like small pyramids or the heaped
skulls of a conqueror, and then they moved on. And no one was ill,
and everyone was pleased, except those who had to mow the grass.

How hard is it to mow the grass?  Not very.  But if life is idyllic, any work probably feels worse than it is.  But if it isn't done, would life still be idyllic?  And given the rural nature of the Shire, cut grass is of particular importance!

When we consider utopias we tend to assume they are somehow self-sufficient.  Everyone is happy and comfortable and no one really has "jobs".  But of course that's a bridge too far for the real world.  Jobs will always need to be done.  A good world requires maintenance.  How important is it, then, to appreciate those who allow the rest of us live so well?

I find a parallel between this passage and what we discussed in the first chapter, and it is fitting to end revisiting the important concept of seeing everyone.  The modern world works because of so much behind-the-scenes maintenance.  We see this best when that maintenance breaks down.  Unfixed potholes, food and product recalls, NAZIs and other hatemongers being given space in the metaphorical public square, blackouts, cell coverage dead zones, empty Wikipedia pages.  So much of our world works well - until it doesn't - and the underlying fragility becomes all too obvious.

It is important to notice and show kindness to those who upkeep our society.  Learn the names of the facility workers of the places you frequent, or wave to the trash collectors and street cleaners, or call out people and businesses on Twitter for doing the right thing, not just the wrong thing.

It is also important to remember our own role in that upkeep.  While some people's actual jobs directly support our society, that doesn't excuse the rest of us from having a part.  And if, as our text suggests, the work required to maintain a modern society is at least mildly unpleasant, then the work should be shared as much as possible.  Our society is not built on the backs of an unlucky underclass, but is created by the people, for the people.  This work is all of ours, and that's the real lesson of seeing everyone.  Beyond seeing them for who they are, try to see yourself in them.

This was a Patreon project, but it's done now, so there's no need to contribute anything.  Thanks for reading!

Elevating Others

"Always make the other person feel important."
-Dale Carnegie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This week we read "The Scouring of the Shire."  The Hobbits return finally to their Shire... only to find the gate locked and guarded.  To their shock, the whole Shire has become occupied by 'ruffians', men who steal the wealth of the land, enforce unfair rules on the hobbits, and beat up any who resist.  It's unclear how long this has been happening, but one thing is clear: It's been long enough.

While Frodo hopes for a peaceful resolution, battle seems inevitable.  The hobbits rouse the countryside and there is a battle in which some Hobbits are killed.  While the Shirefolk are elated at their victory, Frodo takes on the task of preventing needless destruction.  He protects those men who surrender during the fighting.

Let's back up a bit:

When the hobbits first return to the Shire, they find their people to be downtrodden and frustrated.  We are told they are welcomed into Farmer Cotton's house, where:

They sat with the family in the warm kitchen, and the Cottons

asked a few polite questions about their travels, but hardly listened to the

answers: they were far more concerned with events in the Shire.

Escapism requires some sort of comfort.  People want escapism when their life is too boring or too stressful.  But people whose livelihoods are directly in danger rarely want an escape - they want a solution.  If you're able to be, even briefly, comfortable, you can enjoy an escape from your life.  But if your personal or family's safety is in immediate danger, you're unlikely to enjoy a distraction.

While the Cotton's are doing what is polite (asking visitors about themselves), the hobbits are not.  The hobbits already know what happened in Moria and Mordor and Rohan and Gondor.  They don't gain much by telling what happened - especially if their audience is barely listening.  And it is always clear when your audience is ignoring you.

The Cotton's, like most people, are most interested in themselves.  If you want to persuade others to listen to you, you must find a way to get them invested.  To circle back to the quote we opened with:  "Always make the other person feel important."  

Now, how does persuasion fit into an ethical life?  We live in a democracy, and at least we live in communities.  Things rarely change because one person decides it.  They must get a group of people to support them.  Having a good idea, by which I mean capital "G" good, is not enough.  You must get others to buy-in.

Maybe it's easier for bad actors to make their case because the benefit is more obvious.  Robbing a bank, or a country, enriches.  Cheating means winning with less effort.  But doing good is less clearly beneficial for individuals.  We must learn how to make the case.

Giving them "the wrong side of history" shpiel, or telling privileged people to "make room" for others is not a winning argument.  What people think of us in the future is not terribly motivating, and willingly sacrificing what little influence individuals feel they have is an incredibly hard sell (It also makes power appear to be a zero-sum game, which increases social friction, and plays into some of the very worst ideas)  To persuade people, you must show them how they benefit.

Let's take diversity, which is one of those things most of my friends take for granted as good, but have a hard time explaining why it is.  When challenged, then, they are unable to respond other than to repeatedly insist - which isn't persuasion at all.  So when they encounter arguments like "People should stick with their own kind because the races have different strengths and weaknesses, and mixing causes those strengths to dilute and the weaknesses to multiply," they don't know what to say besides the very simple truth of "That's a monstrous opinion and also genetically wrong."  But calling something monstrous and scientifically unsound isn't a compelling or informative argument.  Even if it were, it only denies diversity is bad.  One still ought to show why diversity is good.

Here's what I've learned to say:  "Diversity of people means a diversity of experience.  The more varied experience a group has the better equipped they are to overcome different challenges."  It's no longer a moral issue, but a practical one.  You show the benefit in a tangible way.  This may not convince everyone.  Some will require more reasons, and some have their pride tied up in their opinion, and we need not worry about them.  Social isolation as we convince those around them will do the trick.  By elevating others and showing them the value of diversity, we simultaneously reduce the standing of racists.

It can be strange to argue such a moral issue as diversity in practical terms, but if our goal is to promote diversity, I don't think we should be committed to an ineffective tactic.

Later on, Frodo runs into this problem, too. The hobbits, now roused, are out for blood. But Frodo, tamed by his close relationship with evil, implores them to avoid any killing. The hobbits begrudgingly agree. When the battle comes Frodo's "chief part had been to prevent the hobbits in their wrath at their losses, from slaying those of their enemies who threw down their weapons. ".

Interpreted generously, Frodo is enforcing basic ethics where they are needed most: In battle. Wrath is immoral.  Those who surrender should be spared.  Otherwise, all battle becomes a bloodbath till the end, for why would anyone surrender if they'll be killed anyway?  Frodo is doing his part to create a foundation for peace after the battle is over.

But Frodo's tactics are certainly ineffective. His journey has granted him serious wisdom, but what good is it if he enforces it without teaching it.  Granted, the Shirefolk are in dire need and their certainly isn't a lot of time for education.  But Frodo does not understand the anger of his fellows, and he does not try to.  If you won't try to understand someone's point of view, if you won't validate the valid concerns they have, what hope will you have of persuasion?  Why should they listen when you don't?

Creating a groundswell of support is difficult.  It takes time and effort.  You need grit to endure the barriers you will encounter.  It is easy, at a certain point, to see the people you're convincing as targets.  After all, you're giving the same basic pitch to everyone.  But to create sustainable change, you must keep in mind the individual.  People are more likely to cling to ideas, and the people who promote those ideas, that make them feel important and seen.

The Lord of the Rings: An Ethical Guide is a Patreon-supported project.  Thank you to all those who have contributed.

Like this project?  Want to learn more?  Want exclusive access to behind-the-scenes content?  Go to my Patreon site and see how you can become a part of the action!

Information, Outrage, and Drama

This week we read "Many Partings" and "Homeward Bound".  In these chapters the hobbits begin their journey back to the Shire, stopping at Edoras to bury Theoden, Isengard to see Treebeard, and finally Bree to see Barliman.  While at Isengard, Gandalf asks Treebeard about Saruman, who has been held captive in his tower, Orthanc.  Treebeard says he's been updating Saruman on world events, and that Saruman was never happy with the news.

‘Then why did he stay to listen? Did you go into Orthanc?’ asked Gandalf.

‘Hoom, no, not into Orthanc!’ said Treebeard. ‘But he came to his
window and listened, because he could not get news in any other way, and though
he hated the news, he was greedy to have it; and I saw that he heard it all. But I added
a great many things to the news that it was good for him to think of.

He grew very weary. He always was hasty. That was his ruin.’

I was thinking earlier this week about "drama".  A lot of people pride themselves on "not getting involved in drama," but what does that really mean?  Who's dating whom, tensions between friends, who's feeling stressed out, etc.  In that case, drama is just information.  What's so bad about that?

Saruman is defeated and trapped.  There's nothing really for him to do but gather information, so he does.  That's understandable.  The problem, actually, stems from Treebeard.  He says he 'added' things 'it was good for [Saruman] to think of'.  Treebeard here is not just giving him information, but using the opportunity to teach him a lesson.

Maybe that's where information becomes "drama."  Sharing information about your friends to teach people a lesson, or some other agenda.  Sharing information on its own is fine, but when you 'add' your own editorializing, that crosses a line.  It's important to know what's happening in your friend group, but you perhaps don't need to know why.

I host a regular game night that has sought to bridge my different friend groups together.  As a result, my friends now have connections that exist primarily through me.  By coincidence two attendees of this game night, from two entirely different friend groups, have now gone through divorces.  When people started asking why they no longer came, I was transparent - they're busy dealing with their divorce.  When pressed for more details, I was less open.  I knew the details, but it didn't serve a purpose to share them, and would just be gossip and "drama".

Of course, Saruman holds some of the responsibility.  Saruman doesn't notice Treebeard is leading him astray.  His greed for any information blinds him to such reflection.  Treebeard exploits Saruman's hunger, and so causes his ruin.  And while we shouldn't blame the victim, how can we expect the assailant to do better?  Moreover, what kind of ethical life can we pursue if we also say ethics is only possible for the powerful?  There are so many instances in our life when we don't have power - but powerlessness does not exempt us from our ethical duties.

I think social media companies are the "Treebeards"of our time.  They give us what they think we should have - what they think best benefits them.  If we spend more time on their platforms arguing than agreeing, then it is in their interest to outrage us as often as possible.  But endless outrage is not healthy, for us nor society.

It would be nice if Facebook and other social media sites stopped working to get us addicted to their platforms.  But that seems unlikely.  It is therefore incumbent on us to learn to resist their tricks, or at least be aware when we fall for them, so we might resist them in the future.

That's drama.  Knowing there are concentration camps in America is important information to know.  Knowing your friend's uncle supports them and loudly says so online is drama.  He doesn't have any power to close them.  Arguing with him, even if you succeed, has no impact.  It would be better to let him be and focus your energies on other methods to close the camps.

Your outrage must be aimed against people in power in ways they will feel it.  Otherwise, you will "grow very weary", and it will "be your ruin."  Don't be hasty with your outrage.  Wanting information only to satiate your hunger or spreading it to teach a lesson or blow off steam, is drama.  Take a breath and use your outrage, political or personal, with intention.  If we don't, we will be at the mercy of the Treebeards, which paternalistically give us only what they think we should get, while we stand at the window and listen, greedily updating our news feeds for the latest outrage, but too burnt out to address anything.

The Lord of the Rings: An Ethical Guide is a Patreon-supported project.  Thank you to all those who have contributed.

Like this project?  Want to learn more?  Want exclusive access to behind-the-scenes content?  Go to my Patreon site and see how you can become a part of the action!