The Burden Of Principle: The True Meaning Of The Lord Of The Rings

Every timeless story has a call to adventure, hero’s journey, moral dilemma, and most importantly, a realization. Without a realization, the story doesn’t linger in your mind and soul.

Few stories have made an impact on our collective unconscious as that of The Lord of the Rings. But, what was the realization and moral of that epic story? What do we learn from it?

I believe that Tolkien, whether consciously or subconsciously, used allegory to communicate a moral dilemma: deontology versus utilitarianism, freedom versus authority.

Here’s what I think The Lord of the Rings is all about:

The Shire represents a true voluntaryist society. There is no centralized perceived authority. Its inhabitants live in harmony because a critical mass of them understand that they have more to gain by incentivizing good behaviour instead of enforcing it through the threat of violence. Freedom maximizes prosperity.

The Shire is heavily dependant upon offering value to your neighbour, and incentivizing them to be civil. Reputation is everything. Without it, one becomes ostracized, like Smeagol was when he murdered a fellow hobbit. There wasn’t any tribunal or perceived authority to enforce punishment; other hobbits just declined to interact with him in any meaningful way, unless he decided to make amends. But he didn’t, so he was forced to live like an animal alone in his guilt and madness, worse than any prison.

Such a society is peaceful, which allows it to be abundant, since it is free from wasteful enforcements or statist parasitism and inefficiencies. All areas in a free society are superior to those in a threat-based statist society, all except one: violence. No free community can beat the centralized monopoly of violence that the state can muster. Even though Rohan, Gondor, Isendard and Mordor cannot compare to the Shire with regards to quality of life, they do however hold one thing that is superior to the Shire: centralized force. If they each decided to attack the Shire, the Shire would lose. This is the price of freedom: the threat from the willingly unfree.

And this is what The Lord of the Rings is all about: Freedom is amazing when everyone is free; but what happens when a society of unfree authoritarians decide to use the power of the state against the peaceful free? What do you do? Do you remain peaceful and voluntary, or do you also use the state to counter the threat of the state?

The Ring represents the concept of centralized government; the state. It promises you power and perceived safety, as long as you sell your integrity, freedom, compassion, and self-ownership. It is a story as old as time: selling your soul to the devil for immediate gains at the expense of long-term peace, dignity, and self-respect.

Boromir, the one protagonist most obsessed with whom holds power, portrays the dilemma of the state. He wants to use the Ring, meaning, state authoritarianism, to build up centralized power to match the threat of Sauron. Remember that both Rohan and Gondor, although monarchies, are weak states. They could seize more power by forcibly recruiting unwilling people from all over Middle Earth, and make them fight against Sauron.

It is a regretful measure, but it is for the greater good, right? A utilitarian “small evil” against unwilling innocent people is OK, as long as it gives us a chance to counter a greater evil… right? It’s not like this utilitarian “justification” hasn’t been used by every single democidal dictator in history, right? It’s not like every single authoritarian willingly gave up such power when the initial “justification” for it evaporated… right?

Frodo was the only one who could resist the temptation of statism because he was innocent, and therefore, incorruptible. He was so carefree and secure in himself, that he needed no sense of power as a coping mechanism for insecurities. And he didn’t have insecurities because he was true to his values and principles. No one else could resist the delights of power of statism, especially not humans who were too accustomed to monarchy, and the power that comes with it. Frodo loved the values of the Shire, and understood the principles that made it great. He knew that, if he had to sell out to save the Shire, then there would be nothing left to save anyway. What made the Shire great was the set of values it held dear. Betraying those values to save those values would destroy the Shire before Sauron could ever reach it. Destroying it to “save it” would defeat the purpose.

The whole hero’s journey of The Lord of the Rings is about a call to adventure to face the true antagonist of the story: yourself. It is about challenging your values when the chips are down (when it really matters), and facing the dilemma of betraying your principles for a desperately needed benefit... and then arriving at the realization that principles are worth holding regardless.

The moral teaching is that holding your principles is hard, and throwing them away for immediate benefit is a tempting choice. If you deny your principles to save them, then you are left with nothing to save. If you kill one person to save five people, then you cheapen the value of human life, and your efforts become meaningless; especially when murdering is far worse than letting someone die without your intervention.

And you never know… If there’s a miniscule chance that you might win by not selling out your principles, then you owe it to your entire being to consider that choice. This is because you never know for a fact that you will win even if you do sell your soul to the devil of authoritarianism. You may even end up losing the fight as well as your principles.

And even if you do win through power, then power will inevitable corrupt you, and you will then become the evil you once fought. Your way of life is then guaranteed to be destroyed. And we know that power will corrupt you because you chose power over principle. Power corrupts all who choose it.

The Lord of the Rings teaches us deontology over utilitarianism. The Fellowship of the Ring chose to risk the destruction of their entire world, as long as they didn’t fall for the temptation of the Ring of Power (the state). They understood that, even if selling out would mean their victory, it would be a defeat nonetheless. They knew that a supposed “good” that relies on evil is not a good worth having.

This is why they chose to destroy the Ring instead, the concept of the state, and with it, Sauron, to perfect dictator. They knew that countering evil with evil was still evil. Even if evil was the only solution to countering the evil of total statism; they’d rather die.

They also understood that by denying their own love of power, they would disempower their enemy too. Who would want to conquer people who deny power over others even when they have it in their hands? How can you bribe and control such incorruptible people? What is the benefit in conquering them? Why would an authoritarian leader stretch thin his brainwashed pawns, when that would expose them to practical freedom, and that idea of freedom would erode his hold over them?

Holding true to principles isn’t easy. Holding your values when it matters involves sacrifice. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. If your values and principles involved no sacrifice, then they would hold no meaning.

Staying true to your principles matters only when your principles go against your immediate interests. However, your broader interest in maintaining your principles even when they don’t serve you is identity, purpose and meaning through those principles. It is no wonder that humans are willing to die for their principles; because betraying them would be a moral death worse than physical death.

The Lord of the Rings taught me that superior strength can take your freedom and your life. But it cannot take your sense of principle, the thing that truly makes you who you are.

Thank you J. R. R. Tolkien for this masterpiece.