Virtue in The Lord of the Rings: Part I
Seventy years after its initial publication, The Lord of the Rings remains a hugely popular series, and for good reason. However, with new Lord of the Rings content being published, conversations about Tolkien’s work and characters have me convinced that there is an ever widening chasm between most fans’ admiration of the story and their understanding of what it was that made it so great.
I am anything but an expert, but the more I study philosophy, the more I see the depth of riches hidden in the pages of Tolkien’s work. I’d like to share a little of that here with you.
My thesis is this: The Lord of the Rings is bursting with virtue ethics. Maybe this is not news to most of you. I think most of us would agree, if asked, that the main characters in LOTR are virtuous. But that is not exactly what I mean. While Western society has maintained an idea of what virtue is, in many ways it is such a very different idea from what virtue used to mean. For example, today virtue and vice are most commonly associated with abstinence and dissipation, when the original conception of virtue was relevant to every aspect of life, but particularly in how you behave and relate to other people. The reasons for this are complicated, but absolutely worth digging into. A large part of it has to do with the emergence of the modern self, individualism, and the disintegration of traditional communities.
In his landmark work After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre explains that in modern society “the dominant lists of the virtues have changed, the conception of the individual virtues has changed and the concept of a virtue itself has become other than what it was (226).” In our day, morality has become more closely associated with rules than with character. (MacIntyre, 232) “[T]he tradition of the virtues is at variance with central features of the modern economic order and more especially its individualism (MacIntyre, 254).”
According to MacIntyre, community is absolutely essential for the practice of the virtues: “For if the conception of a good has to be expounded in terms of such notions as those of a practice, of the narrative of a human life and of a moral tradition, then goods, and with them the only grounds for the authority of laws and virtues, can only be discovered by entering into those relationships which constitute communities whose central bond is a shared vision of and understanding of goods (258).” There is a lot to unpack there, and I do not have time to address it all. The key point I want to focus on is that, according to MacIntyre, virtues are practiced in relationships as part of a greater community seeking a shared vision of what is good. This is why MacIntyre pinpoints the virtues of a given society as closely associated to roles and responsibilities in that society (123-126). (I happen to also believe the virtues need to be grounded in objective morality) But in elevating the individual above the community, our modern society celebrates the undermining of roles and the casting off of responsibilities.
Furthermore, our modern world is obsessed with product and outcome. I fear too many of us admire the characters in LOTR because their decisions lead to good outcomes, not because we recognize the virtue of them owning up to their responsibilities and fulfilling the duties of their roles in society.
This might be a little bit shocking to our modern sensibilities, but Tolkien is not interested in controlling outcomes, not even to ensure the good over the bad, but in acting rightly. (This is most clearly demonstrated in the characters of Elrond and Aragorn, who we will examine in Part 2 and Part 3 of this series). In fact, the characters most preoccupied with calculating decisions to try to produce a certain outcome are Denethor and Saruman. Not exactly models to be emulated. The heroic characters make decisions based on what is right, what is just, and the roles and positions that they play in their communities and societies, regardless of outcomes.
“[A]lthough the virtues are just those qualities which tend to lead to the achievement of a certain class of goods, nonetheless unless we practice them irrespective of whether in any particular set of contingent circumstances they will produce those goods or not, we cannot possess them at all (MacIntyre, 198).”
But isn’t it our duty to try to minimize evil and destruction and maximize good? I think this question shows how deeply utilitarianism has taken root in our society (which I will explore further in Part 3).
In contrast…
• Sam follows Frodo and sticks with him, because he loves him, but also because he considers him his master (a relationship we do not understand today).
• Eomer remains completely loyal to Theoden, even when his king is being led astray by Wormtongue, and even to the point of imprisonment. His first act, when released, is to lay his sword at Theoden’s feet.
• Faramir returns to fight for Osgiliath out of respect and loyalty for his father and commander.
After the battle for Minas Tirith, when Gandalf advises a doomed attack on Mordor, Aragorn says he will go with Gandalf but cannot command the other captains to do so. Their responses are incredibly telling:
“‘As for myself,’ said Eomer, ‘I have little knowledge of these deep matters, but I need it not. This I know, and it is enough, that as my friend Aragorn succored me and my people, so I will aid him when he calls. I will go.’
‘As for me,’ said Imrahil, ‘the Lord Aragorn I hold to be my liege-lord, whether he claim it or no. His wish is to me a command. I will go also (Tolkien, 162).’”
The deciding factor for both of these men was not what they thought of the plan, but what they felt was due to Aragorn.
What we see over and over in LOTR, is characters fulfilling their roles and obligations with honor in the midst of darkness and uncertainty. These roles include the role of king, the role of captain, the role of warrior, but perhaps most importantly, the role of friend.
In fact, ultimately, what wins the day over and over is not strategy, wisdom, or numbers, but friendship, which Aristotle believed to be a crucial virtue (MacIntyre, 155-156).
The friendship of the members of the Fellowship is a deciding factor, again and again, throughout the story. It is a deeply sacrificial friendship, and is a perfect example of a tight-knit community seeking the good together. It is remarkably Aristotelian, as well, in that it was not affection that first drew them together (aside from the hobbits), but commitment to the same good. (Affection followed, of course.)
So much for a general overview of Tolkien’s virtue ethics. The following pieces will focus on particular characters, what drives their decisions, and what we can learn from them. In Part 2 I will take a closer look at Elrond (who often goes unappreciated), bringing in a little bit of Kant and Eleonore Stump. In Part 3 I will examine Aragorn, comparing him to the protagonist of another hugely popular work, contemporaneous with Tolkien, and discussing utilitarianism. We will see where we go from there.
I hope you’ll stick around, because it’s going to be a great deal of fun!
Sources:
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Return of the King. Random House, 1994.
About the Author
Elisabeth Dawson is an award-winning author of science fiction and fantasy. Raised in the remote mountains of New Guinea, she has lived in California, Florida, the Bahamas, and Brasil. She currently lives in Idaho with her best friend and roommate, drinking lots of tea and learning crochet. She holds a B.A. in Biblical Studies and is currently pursuing a Master’s of Philosophy at Biola University.
To join the Mythic Mind Fellowship, head over to patreon.com/mythicmind
You can also specifically support this Substack with a paid subscription.