Evil without Melkor

[Aden]

Originally posted by Ruinel
The point I was trying to make is that North and South on a pole define each other, as Good and Evil do. You say the Evil is an absence of Good. What is South without North? What is Good without Evil? How would we define one without the other?

Exactly! One cannot define evil without good and vice versa. And isn't "absence of good" another name for evil?
I'm not talking about pure and absolute evil I agree that such thing might not exist.

[Wayfarer]

I've always had problems with the Manichean view of evil that you're espousing. Good and Evil do not have the sort of symmetrical relationship that it supposes- certainly not in Tolkien's Middle Earth.

Impossible for a being to be wholly evil in the same way that one can be wholly good, making the existance of evil something that is /not/ nescessary, for balance or any other reason.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I've always had problems with the Manichean view of evil that you're espousing. Good and Evil do not have the sort of symmetrical relationship that it supposes- certainly not in Tolkien's Middle Earth.

Impossible for a being to be wholly evil in the same way that one can be wholly good, making the existance of evil something that is /not/ nescessary, for balance or any other reason.

Are you talking to me? Or Aden?

If you are talking to me, my view isn't Manichean, I'm only saying that you can't define one without the other and you can't observe one without knowledge of the other. I also believe that there are variations between Good and Evil, like a scale. Certainly we can point to what Hitler did to the Jews as place it on a scale of Good being a 10 and Evil being a zero and say that it was pretty damn close to a zero.

[Wayfarer]

I'm only saying that you can't define one without the other and you can't observe one without knowledge of the other.

Indeed. Which is why a perfectly good society is one in which people have no concept of 'good' because they have never known anything else.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Indeed. Which is why a perfectly good society is one in which people have no concept of 'good' because they have never known anything else.

How truely boring it would be... no good, no evil.

[Wayfarer]

No, no. You completely miss my point.

In a society that was wholly good, there would be no clear concept of good, because as you say something cannot be defined without a knowledge of it's opposite. This doesn't mean good wouldn't exist- but the concept would be one that does not require definition.

[brownjenkins]

i think it's completely subjective... i don't think melkor says to himself "i'm evil so i'm gonna do evil stuff, muhahaaa!", i think he did what he believed was good for him... as did manwe

the difference, melkor had a very short-term closed minded way of looking at it "what is good for myself is what i want right now"... manwe had the more realistic "what is good for myself and the beings i live with is best for my own well-being in the long run"

you only have to look at how each of them turned out to see who had the better long-term view

i think saying things like there can be no good with out evil is correct, but maybe not phrased in the best way... i think a better way to put it, is that if everyone acted exactly the same way in a given situation, there would be no need to have concepts that differentiate actions... so if there was a world where absolutely everyone acted in ways that most see as "good", the concept of evil would not exist... this does not mean however, that an outside observer, like us, who experience both good and evil could not look at this society and say "their way of life is something we would consider 'good'"

[Falagar]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i think it's completely subjective... i don't think melkor says to himself "i'm evil so i'm gonna do evil stuff, muhahaaa!", i think he did what he believed was good for him... as did manwe

the difference, melkor had a very short-term closed minded way of looking at it "what is good for myself is what i want right now"... manwe had the more realistic "what is good for myself and the beings i live with is best for my own well-being in the long run"

you only have to look at how each of them turned out to see who had the better long-term view

I think you're right in some of that, but not all. Manwë acted more on the basis of what Eru wanted him to do (rather than what he himself wanted).

[Aden]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I've always had problems with the Manichean view of evil that you're espousing. Good and Evil do not have the sort of symmetrical relationship that it supposes- certainly not in Tolkien's Middle Earth.

Impossible for a being to be wholly evil in the same way that one can be wholly good, making the existance of evil something that is /not/ nescessary, for balance or any other reason.

I really don't think my view is Manichean either and I didn't imply the existance of wholly evil (or good) creatures as far as I can remember.
Evil and good are subjective (one could think that Feanaro was evil). I just indicated the existance of evil (the way I perceive it) in Tolkien's world and the fact that IMO that's pretty normal (in any society).

i think it's completely subjective... i don't think melkor says to himself "i'm evil so i'm gonna do evil stuff, muhahaaa!", i think he did what he believed was good for him... as did manwe
the difference, melkor had a very short-term closed minded way of looking at it "what is good for myself is what i want right now"... manwe had the more realistic "what is good for myself and the beings i live with is best for my own well-being in the long run"

you only have to look at how each of them turned out to see who had the better long-term view

i think saying things like there can be no good with out evil is correct, but maybe not phrased in the best way... i think a better way to put it, is that if everyone acted exactly the same way in a given situation, there would be no need to have concepts that differentiate actions... so if there was a world where absolutely everyone acted in ways that most see as "good", the concept of evil would not exist... this does not mean however, that an outside observer, like us, who experience both good and evil could not look at this society and say "their way of life is something we would consider 'good'"

I tend to agree with the above

[Ulmo]

because as you say something cannot be defined without a knowledge of it's opposite.

'Without alteration of it' - not necessarily the opposite, though that is the case here.

The difference was ultimately not "I want to do evil" vs. "I want to do good"...Melkor's evil (like much evil) was the result of over-confidence in his ability to act as God instead of with God or for God. With all of his power, he thought that he would make a good creator of the universe himself while Manwe and all of the other Ainur (that did not follow Melkor) realize that such train of thought only leads to destruction. In Osanwe-kenta, Tolkien notes that *any* of the Valar could've gone down the path Melkor did, but he was most likely because of his strength and knowledge - knowledge of so many things (unlike the others who were more or less concentrated on one thing). Aule tried it once, if you remember, in attempting his own children, but found the impossibilities associated with it.

[Artanis]

I have to agree with Ulmo. Melkor wanted to create things of being of his own (act as God), but became filled with envy and hatred because he also, like Aule, found he couldn't do it.

So it seems like the most gifted beings are most likely to be overconfident and prideful, and therefore tempted to not act in line with Eru's intent. Obvious examples apart from Melkor are Fëanor and Saruman. I would perhaps include Denethor too.

[Wayfarer]

I really don't think my view is Manichean either and I didn't imply the existance of wholly evil (or good) creatures as far as I can remember.
Evil and good are subjective...

*rolls eyes* No. The concept of good cannot be subjective, or else it is worthless. Individual actions can be subjective in relation to perfection (perfect goodness) but even that is a useless measurement without an absolute baseline.

[Lord Boromir]

Melkor was the origin of all evil, so I think Middle-earth would have been a much better place to live if he had not gone evil. Yet the peoples of ME got free wills, and I'm sure that if Melkor did not go bad, others would(although not as capable of great harm).

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
________________________________
Originally posted by Aden:
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don't think my view is Manichean either and I didn't imply the existance of wholly evil (or good) creatures as far as I can remember.
Evil and good are subjective...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Wayfarer:
*rolls eyes* No. The concept of good cannot be subjective, or else it is worthless. Individual actions can be subjective in relation to perfection (perfect goodness) but even that is a useless measurement without an absolute baseline.
_________________________________

I tend to agree with Wayfarer. It rather reminds you of the original Columbo detective TV movie (where Gene Barry is the law abiding psychologist who decides to kill his wife). At one point he says something to Columbo like "All morals are subjective." Hence he has no problem or qualms with switching efortlessly from law- and ethics- abiding model citizen to murderer without any worries or doubts.

[Thorin II]

Originally posted by Ruinel
The point I was trying to make is that North and South on a pole define each other, as Good and Evil do. You say the Evil is an absence of Good. What is South without North? What is Good without Evil? How would we define one without the other?

I get where you're coming from. It's all a matter of perspective. To the Valar themselves, defining good and evil without Melkor (or without Melkor's fall) would've been difficult unless someone else tried to rise above the group. As a reader, we can recognize good or evil without seeing the opposite within the same world because we can compare that world to another world (such as our own). The sense in which I intended the question is what we as readers recognize as evil.