Lord of the Rings and Philosophy (One Ring to Rule Them All) H-03

J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings has become a literary phenomenon since its publication in 1954-55. The series has sold more than one hundred and fifty million copies and the film version has won four hundred and seventy-five awards in total. The epic fantasy describes wizards, elves, and many other intriguing characters that struggle with not only the forces of evil but their moral choices as well. My report focuses on one of the main philosophical ideas in the book, The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy. This idea consists of the interplay between power and morality and how it can be related to Plato’s the Republic. 

In the second book of the Republic, the story of “The Ring of Gyges” is introduced through Plato’s brother, Glaucon. Similar to Sauron’s One Ring, it allows the wearer to become invisible. However, it is used by Gyges to enter the palace, seduce the queen, kill the king, and become the ruler of the land, himself. Through this story, Glaucon argues that the concept of morality is a social construct that controls everyone to behave in a way that is considered moral. Thus, he believes that if the punishment were to be removed, the true morality of an individual would be shown. Further, he gives an example that if there were two powerful rings, one possessed by a just man and one by an unjust man, they would both succumb to temptation. A character in the Lord of the Rings that would fit the model of Glaucon’s argument is Boromir. Boromir is depicted as a noble, good-hearted, and virtuous man who wants to use the One Ring to defeat the evil of Sauron. However, he later is unable to resist the temptation to act with impunity and tries to take the ring for himself.  

Plato seeks to refute the conclusion of immorality and argues that the immoral life is a worse life than a moral life because ultimately the immoral life corrupts the soul of the immoralist. While the immoral life is full of unhappiness, mental anguish, loss of friends and loved ones, and emotional emptiness; the moral life, however, is full of integrity and personal fulfillment. The story of the One Ring would actually augment Plato’s argument because the Ring explicitly corrupts the souls of its possessors. 

The character that would illustrate the argument that the unjust life leads to unhappiness would be Gollum, who is described as a miserable creature that is friendless, homeless, and constantly seeking his “precious” Ring. He was the being who possessed the Ring for the longest amount of time and every action he takes in the book is designed to regain the Ring. Thus, Gollum is a clear example of the corruption of the soul and loss of a meaningful life by the overwhelming desire for the Ring of Power. 

However, a character that would fit the argument that a moral person would be able to resist the temptation of power would be Sam. Sam, at one point, is in possession of the Ring and feels the temptation of power with impunity. However, he is able to reject the power of the Ring due to his love for Frodo and his sense of self. Through Sam, Plato would reason that a virtuous and strong-willed person can turn away from unlimited power and a life of evil by focusing on his true self. 

Questions: 

1. What story does Glaucon introduce to defend the life of immorality?
2. Which character in the Lord of the Rings would support Glaucon’s argument?
3. Why is an immoral life worse than a moral life? 
4. Which character would support the argument that a moral person would be able to resist the temptation of power?

Discussion Questions:

1. Should one still be a moral person even if they have the power to be immoral without punishment?
2. Do you think it’s possible to lead an unjust life and still find happiness?