Morality in the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, Research Paper Example

Commonality in difference

It happened to be so that every generation in each human society aims at passing its wisdom to the next generation in order to preserve common and universal human values. The ways of passing this wisdom might have been entirely different from civilization to civilization, yet the message was usually the same – moral, ethical and humanistic values should prevail. Although it can be argued what is considered to be moral in one time might be immoral in another, but looking on the matter from the contemporary perspective, all one can do is judge from the point one stands. The aim of this paper is not to judge what is considered to be moral in one time and what is immoral in another. The aim of this paper is to show how two influential (popular culture) literary works represent morality in different shades but still send the same message. In this regard, the absolute morality of “the Lord of the Rings” (LOTR) novel is compared to the relativist morality of Harry Potter (HP) novels. The central thesis of this research is that although LOTR morality aims at universal human values in respect to belief of higher power like God and HP concentrates on relativist approach to morality and person-centered perception, both novels show the importance of freedom of choice, personal responsibility for one’s deeds and importance of inter-human relations as means to achieving posed goal.

The meaning of power.

Before explaining how two different approaches to morality aim at the same outcome, it is essential to understand how different they are and what is meant by each of them. First of all, the very story of the LOTR is about two universal powers fighting one another – there is goodness and there is evil. Although it is up to each person to decide on which side they want to fight, not all races of Middle Earth are capable to judgment and thus are not capable of free will. They are initially evil and cannot change. This refers mainly to orcs and evil creations like nazguls. On the other hand, elves, mankind and dwarfs have an opportunity to choose a side and thus belong to good or evil. Although Tolkien shows different degree of virtue and morality in each race, he still fits them in the reality of two options good or evil, not third way is possible. Aragorn answered this question to Eomer as follows:

“‘How shall a man judge what to do in such times?’ – ‘As he has ever judged… Good

and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and

Dwarves and another among Men’” (Tolkien, Two Towers, 173)

Thus, common values of right and wrong are universal, and races of Middle Earth are opposed to the greater evil, which is embodied in Sauron and his supporters. On the other hand, the relativism of HP can be viewed already from the description of the evil itself and its ways of corrupting one’s mind and world perception. In this regard, the evil in HP is in finding one’s weaknesses and using them to turn an individual from the good side to the dark one. In this regard, it is not an individual who is evil by nature or by birth but what he chooses and what he becomes afterwards. In this regard, the good-evil dilemma is resolved through the power:

“A foolish young man I was then, full of ridiculous ideas about good and evil. Lord

Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. There is no good and evil, there is only

power, and those too weak to seek it” (Rowling 1998, p. 291).

Although this passage is narrated by an evil character, it shows an important overview to morality itself, suggesting that power is beyond good or evil. Although it is a view from the dark side of the story, in further development of events and growth of Harry’s power to oppose Voldemort, this description turns to be relevant because it shows that the nature of power largely depends on intentions of its bearer. Thus, the universal power can be good or evil depending on intentions. On the other hand, in case of LOTR, the main moral about possessing universal power is that it is evil in its very nature. In this or that way, the universal power, embodied in the ring, would corrupt its owner.

From the comparative perspective of two approaches of morality, it can be argued that LOTR aims at the description of universal struggle between forces of goodness and evil, which can be easily identified even by color of robes and general appearance. On the other hand, HP moral approach argues for the individualism of morality in each of personal choices in terms of goodness of intentions and subsequent consequences. In other words, the first approach argues for absolutes, while the second argues for situational context of decision-making and their consequences. On the other hand, irrespective of this conceptual difference, two novels argue for the same values. Although their approaches to universal power are different, use of power and deserving of power are the same. Both authors argue that power corrupt the least those who deserve and seek it the least. Dumbledore tells Harry:

“It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those

who have never sought it. Those who, like you, have leadership thrust upon them, and

take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it

well“. (Rowling, 2007 p. 179).

This passage argues for the virtue of the leader to be of the greatest importance for its success and preservation of righteous nature of leadership instead of dictatorship which is a result when power is given held in the wrong hands. In this regard, Tolkien argues that other rings of power were created for the good intentions of their bearers since their creator intended prosperity of the harmonious world of Valar: “Those who made them did not desire strength or domination or hoarded wealth, but understanding, making, and healing, to preserve all things unstained” (Tolkien, Fellowship, p. 352). In this regard, although the Ring of Power was offered to three bearers of the rings – Galadriel, Elrond and Gandalf, they disregarded it realizing consequences of their acceptance of universal power. In this context, they suited to the power they had but mainly because they suited to that amount of power they realized their limitations, and just as Harry gave up the most powerful wound in the world, they disregarded the Ring of Power as means to their ends.

In this context, both authors meant to teach a moral lesson about the importance of personal virtues in decision-making. Both of them did not deny that human hearts were the places where good and evil were fighting their battles. It is only that Tolkien embodied supreme evil and higher goodness within divine world while Rowling remained on the individual level of human beings, although with magical powers. In other words, although consequences of one’s decision-making ad choices are viewed on different scales, the moral message remains the same. Every person is given an opportunity to choose between goodness and evil. The choice might be conditioned by various complex situations, but people with true virtues of goodness will always make the right choice irrespective of temptations of the dark side and good intentions of the wrong decision. Thus, in respect of those who deserve power and who are less corrupted by the power, both authors give the same answer.

The meaning of war.

Looking on the theme of war in two novels, from the first glance, it may seem that while Rowling describes individual struggle for one’s way of life, Tolkien argues for necessity of war as the only means to resolve the existing problem. On the other hand, the reality is a bit different. The issue of war should be viewed from the point of struggle rather than call for arms. In this context, war in LOTR is the same struggle as in HP but on entirely different scale. In both cases, war is about fighting for one’s life and one’s way of life. In this context, one can also see that Tolkien, as a former soldier, was more acquainted with a necessity of war as means for freedom achievement, but until no extent, it can be argued that he promoted war as the only path of an individual to take. Struggle might have different forms. In any case, through eyes of Sam he condemned war and showed its disgusting face:

“It was Sam’s first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much.

He was glad he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man’s name was

and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had

led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather stayed

there in peace” (Tolkien, Two Towers, 261).

Thus, Tolkien immediately argues that peace is the greatest value of all and its preservation should be the main aim of the moral and pure-hearted person. Until certain extent, it can be argued that in order to show the simple beauty of peace, Tolkien has written so much on war and its destructive consequences. On the other hand, Rowling pays more attention to struggle and its final outcome – necessity to survive and save one’s friends if not the family. In this regard, she pays more attention to personal struggle in battles rather than war itself. As Snape teaches Harry, he says: “Fools who wear hearts on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily – weak people, in other words – they stand no chance against his power!” (Rowling 2003, p. 537). Again, the scale she works on is entirely different from Tolkien; thus, the lessons of struggle are different. While Sam views human war as misunderstanding and useless act, Harry needs to learn how to withstand the future battle. Nevertheless, it does not mean that Sam has remained a pacifist or that Harry did not crave for peace. This example only shows the diversity of perspectives in which the theme of war and struggle are perceived.

In the end, for both authors, the war and struggle are not for themselves but for the higher purposes. In both cases, the main characters are fighting for the right cause – general human values and their life style, which would be simply impossible under the conditions of dictatorship of this or that kind. In this context, both authors moralize a struggle as means for achievement of the posed goal – survival of their worlds. Although, in case of the LOTR, the survival is more global since the extinction of the whole mankind in the Middle Earth is at stake, Harry fights not in order to avenge his parents and lost friends. He fights for the world where magic, being different and having an opportunity to evolve, irrespective of one’s perception of your limitations:

“You place too much importance… on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to

 recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!”

(Rowling 2000, p. 148).

Thus, Harry is fighting for the system of values he and his friends cherish – goodness, diversity and freedom. The moral message here is that it is not worth fighting for the sake of fight or one’s valor in the battle; the moral fighting is in choosing the battle for the right cause, and what can be more righteous than freedom and humanism. The same is the lesson that Tolkien teaches his audience. It is best summarized in Faramir’s perception of war:

“War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all;

but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness,

now the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend”

(Tolkien, Two Towers, 274).

In both cases, war and struggle are viewed as means to a single end – protection of freedom and one’s life style. Following this direction of thought, it can be argued that both Harry and heroes of LOTR fight for peace, for their home and the right to have one and family. Through both novels, the audience can see what the world is like without moral values such as friendship, family ties, love, devotion and self-sacrifice. If the main characters did not commit themselves into the struggle in this or that form, these values would have been lost. From the strictly moral perspective, it can be argued that, although, in general terms, moral approaches of two authors are different, their ways of achieving common moral values are the same. They equally justify and call for struggle and action in order to preserve peace. In other words, the common message of both novels is that freedom and human values are worth fighting for whether you fight against the Dark Lord or Lord Voldemort.

Another crucial aspect in the context of struggle is self-estimation and self-building through struggle. In this regard, both authors do not suggest to simply relying on destiny and providence, but to take responsibility for one’s decisions and, in fact, act. In this regard, it is also a necessity of a hero/character to fight inner demons and fears. Thus, both authors also teach the audience about personal growth and self-estimation. Although Rowling pays attention to the process of adolescence of a young person and Tolkien pays attention to the growth of greatness of one’s spirit, they both show that, in order to achieve victory and deserve it, individual needs to fight himself first and understand one’s weaknesses and strengths and only then go further. It took lots of courage and personal strength for Aragorn to walk the path of Isildur’s heir and to prove Denethor wrong, that he (Aragorn) was not only “last of a ragged house long bereft of lordship and dignity” but that he was the heart and soul of that house, he was the Aniron (The Hope) for his people (Tolkien, Return, 146).

In the same way, Harry Potter proved everyone wrong, showing that a small boy left on its own was capable of incredible deeds and was worth to carry the burden of responsibility and power in order to protect the world he knew and loved. Just as Aragorn, he was predestined to great deeds, but took lost of personal struggle, strength and sacrifices in order to fulfill that destiny. In this regard, both Aragorn and Harry fulfill the moral lesson of Rowling: “It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities” (Rowling, 1999, p. 83). In this context, the morality would be in the statement that human abilities are constant for a certain period of time, but one’s spirit grows all the time if it is given the freedom to do so. In order to give it freedom, one needs to have the courage to set it free and trust oneself. Again, both Tolkien and Rowling argue for the same moral lesson and subsequent outcome.

Overall, from all mentioned above, it can be concluded that two different approaches to morality introduction does not necessarily mean the difference in moral lessons both novels teach the audience. Although Tolkien’s approach is more universal and straightforward in cause-effect perception of the decision-making process, he still uses the same system of values and moral code of actions as Rowling. In this context, irrespective of the existence of more grey shades in-between good and evil forces in HP, Rowling still proclaims the same ways to achievement of the common values. Just as Tolkien she argues that power can corrupt everyone and absolute power corrupts absolutes. Both authors claim for the importance of peace, but also argue that in order to achieve peace sometimes one needs to fight for it. None of the authors argued for war or struggle for their own sakes, but rather as means of extreme necessity in order to achieve mutually beneficial system of values. In both cases, freedom and preservation of one’s diversity and life style are the main values which the main characters are fighting for.

Looking on the moral approaches from the author’s perspective, it can be also concluded that their perceptions of morality were largely conditioned by timeframes they lived in. The absolute morality of Tolkien is mainly conditioned by the time of World Wars when two systems of values were opposed one another – free world against dictatorship of Nazi Germany. Under those conditions, finding shades would have been quite difficult – there was a pure evil which aimed at enslaving the free world as it was known then. On the other hand, Rowling lives in a post-Cold War world full of diversity and globalization, where individualism became the main feature of contemporary reality. That is why she follows the contemporary tendency in paying attention to the inner world of an individual and personal struggle in the global world. What remains the same are human values and morality.

Works Cited

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets. New York: Scholastic Books. 1999. Print.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the deathly hollows. New York: Scholastic Books. 2007. Print.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the goblet of fire. New York: Scholastic Books. 2000. Print.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix. New York: Scholastic Books. 2003. Print.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the sorcerer’s stone. New York: Scholastic Books. 1998. Print.

Tolkien J.R.R. The Fellowship of the Ring. London: Harper Collins Publishers. 2001. Print.

Tolkien J.R.R. The Return of the King. London: Harper Collins Publishers. 2001. Print.

Tolkien J.R.R. The Two Towers. London: Harper Collins Publishers. 2001. Print.