This past week in my classes, I engaged the students in a discussion of the ethics around Bilbo’s actions in the latter half of the novel. I offered the question: What is the difference between a burglar and a thief?
On one level, this is a bit of a vocabulary check, and many of the students pointed out that despite the fact that burglars are thieves, Tolkien is using the word in a peculiar way. In other words, it turned into a discussion of connotation…which only then got to the question of ethics.
Needless to say, I was a pleased English teacher when students repeatedly pointed out that, regardless of the actual meaning, burglar is being used positively and thief negatively. Gloin, way back in Chapter One, says that if Bilbo has a problem with the word Burglar then Expert Treasure Hunter will do just as well, and it is pretty clear that this is, at least, part of what is intended by Tolkien’s use of the word burglar here.
The real question under discussion in the class was: Is Bilbo a crook?
Of course, most of the responses fell precisely into the troubling space I expected them to: well, he is only stealing from the bad guys and it is to help his friends.
And herein lies the ethical problem about which I hoped to engage my students in discussion: is there really any difference in stealing from someone good versus someone bad? And, is there any justifiable reason to steal?
The classic challenge to something like a categorical imperative to not steal is the child who must steal bread to survive. Clearly in this case we are dealing with a case of injustice being done that a child is in a position where he needs to steal to survive. But it is not wrong, either, for the shop-owner to feel robbed even in such a case, for very few are the shop-owners who are responsible for children on the streets. This is a wider societal injustice.
In this sense, Bilbo steals food at several points because he has to survive. Still a crime, I would submit, but a more understandable (if not justifiable) crime.
When Bilbo finds the One Ring, Gollum calls him a thief. It’s pretty clear from this context that Bilbo has, in fact, stolen nothing, but it is the first time that he is labeled a thief nonetheless.
Again, keeping this in the context of the discussion we actually had in my classes, the most troubling responses came from those students who said that Bilbo’s stealing on behalf of his friends was justified because it was from bad guys. Now, on the one hand, the Wood-elves certainly are antagonists, but can they really be called “bad guys”? I don’t think so, because it is clear that they are holding the dwarves on the very legitimate grounds of trespassing and will let them go (presumably) if only Thorin explains their presence in Mirkwood.
But the idea that it is OK to steal from the bad is indicative of our culture’s moral failing. Aside from the question of what’s actually happening in the story, this blanket statement from many of my students is, quite frankly, horrifying, but we see this same thinking playing out daily in our world.
You are a bad person, so it is OK—even good—for me to take from you, this is the morality that our culture is teaching the youth. It’s beyond Retributive Justice. This is kind of thinking allows me to judge you guilty in the court of my own opinion—which is, I suppose fine in and of itself—and then mete out the justice I think is deserving.
We are all always judging one another; it’s part and parcel of our fallen nature. But the step from that to You don’t have rights because I think you’re bad is a disastrous one for society.
Again, this is all a bit divorced from what is actually happening in The Hobbit, but these details came from a class discussion about the actions Bilbo takes in the book. As a children’s story, there is a lot that Tolkien is glossing over here to make things entertaining. And the symbolism of dragons is such that they are essentially demons in Middle-earth—and I don’t think there is a theological argument that could support the idea that demons have rights.
The worrying thing is when we start seeing other people as dragons, that this then becomes the justification to ignore their basic rights.
Perhaps worse even than this, though, is the fact that several students suggested Bilbo’s actions were justifiable because his actions were not selfishly motivated but were done to help his friends. Of course, one can go all the way to “Do you lie to a Nazi to save a Jew?” to argue that sometimes doing the wrong thing (lying) is right in service to a great good (saving a life). But, again, I’m worried that for my students there is no such depth to their consideration, that for them the simple fact that Bilbo did a crime to benefit his friends makes it OK. Once more, the problem is that someone is still losing their rights, whether it is for the perpetrator’s benefits or someone else’s (and remember, the discussion is one of general applied ethics—simply put, I am afraid I am teaching moral monsters).
This issue (as a reminder) is not whether Smaug or Gollum or the Wood-elves deserve to be stolen from—if indeed that is what Bilbo is doing. The issue is how my students generalised from the interpretation of the story to something that reflects real-world morality.
Anyhow, these are just some reflections from a classroom discussion more so than a direct reflection on the book, but I thought that they were worth sharing nonetheless.
I’m curious if you think there is much difference between Bilbo’s “burglary” and “stealing”.
Something Tookish 
Leave a comment