[my_first_acct]

Coincidentally, I'm re-reading Lord of the Rings at the moment. Not sure if a work of fiction is the best source of moral lessons, but the whole point of the book is that the Ring of Power would corrupt even the most incorruptible. And somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

[GunboatDiplomat]

Well, sure, but that is a work of fiction.

[knownothing]

Why is a moral lesson in a story any less of a moral lesson?

[GunboatDiplomat]

Why is a moral lesson in a story a moral lesson? I can invent any moral lesson and put it in a story. That a supposed moral lesson is featured in a work of fiction does not lend credence to it.

[knownothing]

So you acknowledge morals can be told through stories. And they are. Like, you know, in the Bible or fables. You just don't believe they have "credence". Which I never asked about. Good debate.

[GunboatDiplomat]

You seem to be extremely confused. Of course moral lessons can be taught through stories. That a moral lesson is taught through story does not make the moral taught true in any sense. Which makes bringing up the One Ring and Tolkien extremely strange.

[knownothing]

I am not confused at all. Perhaps you're projecting your own confusion onto me. You simply have an unbelievably naive viewpoint with no coherent argument.

My point is that exploring and conveying "morals" is actually one of the primary functions of literature. I can't tell if you agree or disagree with this. But if you believe that something being "fiction" means it's not worth paying attention to or that it cannot offer valid moral instruction, well, you are a tremendous fool.

Whether you agree or disagree with the moral or ethical argument being made is a completely separate point.

> That a moral lesson is taught through story does not make the moral taught true in any sense.

I never said that a moral lesson appearing in a story makes it "true". That's a stupid thing to even suggest. You are, however, suggesting that any moral lesson in any narrative that isn't "true" (would you mind sharing your definition of true so we can determine how we can come to that conclusion?) cannot contain a valid moral. Which is absurd.