Maybe I made a mistake. Last week I said "Any principle is better than none, even a bad one." On further reflection, that's not enough. I've long said an ethical guide needs to be useful to have value. It's easy to say what is right in an unrealistic way. But these weekly deadlines are tireless, and I gotta to hit publish at some point.
Not that "Any principle is better than none, even a bad one" isn't true. But when writing that sentence I think I should have made the classic correlation/causation check. If there appears to be a relationship between X and Y, but X doesn't matter, the relationship to Y probably doesn't matter, either. So if the content of your principle doesn't matter, what is it about having a principle (even if its bad) that makes it worthwhile? That's what we'll look at today.
In this week's chapter, called "The Forbidden Pool," Faramir wakes Frodo up to show him Gollum, who has found their secret hideout. He cannot be allowed to leave on his own because he could tell orcs of what he has found.
‘Shall we shoot?’ said Faramir, turning quickly to Frodo. Frodo did not answer for a moment. Then ‘No!’ he said. ‘No! I beg you not to.’ If Sam had dared, he would have said ‘Yes,’ quicker and louder.
Frodo is thinking - what is he thinking about? I'd guess he is weighing the opportunity to be rid of Gollum against the Quest, and Gollum's necessary role in getting them into Mordor undetected. The Quest, he decides, must come first. Sam also makes a decision, and faster: Kill Gollum. However, he serves Frodo, whom he doesn't want to undermine. He holds his tongue.
Both principles (the Quest, or deference to another) require thought. As I said last time, principles rarely become instincts. In both cases, their instinct is to kill Gollum. But natural instinct is not necessarily the way to a higher calling.
Faramir again points out they can't let Gollum go. Frodo's protests that Gollum probably doesn't even know there's a secret hideout in the area (He's in the titular forbidden pool because he is fishing). Faramir insists Gollum must be reunited with Frodo, and only then will he allow him to leave him. Frodo goes down to fetch Gollum, and while they are talking Gollum is captured by the men. A series of misunderstandings make Gollum think Frodo tricked him for that purpose. As an aside, Gollum is also shocked to realize he's stumbled upon anything of note - it seems clear he really thought he had just found a nice fishing spot.
By the time Frodo and Sam leave with Gollum, what trust had been between them has been broken. Whatever part of Smeagol would resist Gollum's plan to turn Frodo over to Shelob is now thoroughly demoralized. They both agree: Frodo is not to be trusted.
All this happens because Faramir is afraid. For him, the whole conversation there is a clock ticking - if they let Gollum get away, then there is a danger they have so far avoided. He doesn't give himself the opportunity to think clearly - because thinking is time spent not acting, and acting is what prevents that danger.
Ethics is doing the harder thing, and that harder thing is waiting. It is harder to double-check, to take a few breaths, to delay for more evidence, to consider the possibility you are wrong. It's easy to see why it's harder: We're almost always up against something. If not a lidless, all-seeing Eye then the assumptions of other people, or our financials, or an emotional pull, or hunger, or any other source of urgency. Acting fast looks to be a virtue. It absolutely has some value. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough," is true. But also don't let yourself be pushed by fear into action. Don't believe any action is better than none. Had Faramir been persuaded to do nothing then Gollum would never have known how close he was to their secret hideout and simply left the area when he was done fishing.
Any principle (even a bad one) is better than none because any principle requires you to pause and consider the implications of your actions.
Ethics, therefore, requires patience. Fear - while also the mind-killer and a step towards the Dark Side - undermines our capacity to do good. If you see someone pushing another to make a quick decision, they aren't being ethical. If you see someone use danger to demand immediate action, they aren't being ethical. A company following a credo of "
move fast and break things" won't lead to ethical outcomes.
When we feel pressed - when urgent need pushes us to make a fast decision - it is imperative we grab control of the situation as soon as possible and resist the temptation to follow our gut. Sure, jump out of the way of the train or defend yourself from an attack or flee from that tsunami - but as soon as you are able to take a moment to think about your actions. Where will they lead? Are they building the kind of world you want to live in? Are they reflective of the kind of person you want to be?
In our lives those life-and-death examples above are less likely. But we've all felt urgency in other ways: The oncoming train of social pressure to take a stand; A crude remark from a stranger online or in the street; The tsunami of stress that makes us feel overwhelmed. An quick response in the moment may feel good but it's probably not the one you'd choose if you had more time. It's not the one you'd recommend to a friend.
Thoughtfulness, not immediacy, is the ethical way. Think of your ethical role models. Whoever they are, they probably spent a lot of time thinking and planning, and less time doing. Their actions were the result of careful consideration so that their broader goals were met.
Acting on instinct, on fear, is going to lead you astray. All those examples, whether the train or the stress, make us afraid. If we don't act fast, our secret hideout may be revealed! But that fear may be entirely unfounded. It certainly will not be a helpful guide.
The world's a scary place. There's no shame in being afraid. Feeling fear is too natural for me to say
"Stop it!" However, ethics gives us something to lean on when the fear comes. It gives us something more important than fitting in with friends or than having the perfect comeback. It certainly gives us a concrete alternative, versus advice to simply ignore those things.
So here's the thing - and apologies for the abrupt ending, but it's now TUESDAY MORNING and, well, these deadlines are tireless y'all. Ethics is doing the harder thing, which is resisting fear.
This was supposed to go up May 4th, when this connection would have been a bit more natural. If I ever did a crossover post, it would be interesting to see how not only fear can pull us from ethics, but also hate and anger and suffering. But we will have to wait for another time for that.
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.
