Evil in Middle-Earth

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

If this applies to ME aswell does that make it wrong for a man of Gondor or Rohan to kill a Haradrim. Even though there acts are evil and wrong and could be harmful to you or your kinsman/woman?

All killing is not murder, as I was at pains to explain. Killing an enemy in war or in self-defense is not murder. See my definition. It has to be unlawful. Malice is usually implied but is not requisite.

[Elemmírë]

To me, all killing is the same. But I'm not going to get into that here or now.

btw, Attalus, do you think that war is evil?

[Haradrim]

In the world of ME. When the Gondorian soldiers killed the Haradrim they were doing what was just and right from the perspective of the Gondorians. And when the Haradrim were to say kill a Gondorian that was an evil act and it was completely unjust because we are the ones who are just from the Gondorians perspective. But from the Haradrim's perspective when I kill a gondorian it is good and just because they do not follow Melkor and his ideas are correct. and when a Gondorian kills a Haradrim that is an unspeakably evil task which was uncalled for because we are the just ones and you are unjust. So in this instance evil is not the same thing and in fact depends on the POV and the majority of the people on either side. If a majority of Haradrim for some odd reason thought to themselves it is not evil for them to kill us then its not an evil act.

Also did Eru not say to Melkor when he was doing his bad stuff that while he thoguth he was being deviant he was in fact following the plan of Eru and that everyones has a part in the plan. So if in fact Eru allowed Melkor to exist he was allowing evil. So if he was allowing it then wasn't it in his will and if it was in his will then it wasn't evil. So there was no evil in middle Earth. Everyone was just following a greater plan.

Also wayfarer if we are comparing evil to say temperature. I am from Minnesota. I wear shorts at 45 degrees and I feel nice. Lets say you are from florida to you 45 degrees is fricking cold. Now lets use evil. I am say an orc. I dont find murder evil in fact it is quite enjoyable and everyone of my bretheren like doing it. So now lets say I am a gondorian. I think murder is evil and everyone of my bretheren find it evil. So in that instance evil is not the same thing the meaning itself changes. The word remains the same but the meaning is different. and in the situation of the cold. A majority of people iN minnesota find 45 degrees enjoyable so therefore its enjoyable weather. In florida a majority of people find 45 degrees extreemnley unenjoyable. Also as a n orc most orcs dont think of murder as evil so to them it is not evil. And to most gondorians murder is evil so to them it is evil.
Evil is defined by the majority and your POV.

oh and t.d.



bring it! jk

[Elemmírë]

Haradrim, you're getting into questions of morality.

If Wayfarer wants to define Evil as something "Morally wrong and harmful" then we have to get into morality and start to ask what is right and what is wrong.

So technically, I think you're questioning both definitions.

Philosophy, anyone?


btw, careful, Morgoth... TD is dangerous, and I think he's working with Elssear (my nickname for Aragorn )

[Haradrim]

Its not a question of morals. Morals have nothing to do with it. Its POV and majority not morals. That is my statement. Morals are the same thing as evil. Decided by the majority and the POV so morals are not in question in my opinion however I think that also is the difference in the two arguments. One side is arguiong morals while my side is arguing that morals are subjective and therefore decided based on majority and POV so this will probably never resolve. But its fun anyway.

[Elemmírë]

I'm trying to clear up this misunderstanding.

I think (though I'm not sure) that Wayfarer was annoyed that you would change the meaning of the word "Evil" without changing what it stood for.

Its not a question of morals. Morals have nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Haradrim

Morals are the same thing as evil.

Well... you either just contradicted yourself, Morgoth, or the rest of us are just terribly misinterpretting you.

btw... morals are not the same thing as evil. But I think you meant that being morally wrong and being evil are the same thing. Wayfarer was arguing (I think) that you were changing one without changing the other.

(Wayfarer... if I have it wrong, can you come later and explain again what you were saying?)

See... if you don't change your view on morality, and think that killing is morally wrong no matter what, then even if you say it isn't evil in some cases, and are still saying that it is morally wrong, you have a paradox, and a ridiculous one at that.

Look at it this way. Evil is a word, nothing more. It is a concept that is tied in with morality. You can't attack the word itself, but the meaning behind the word, which would be the morality issues behind it.

I personally think that the whole issue of morality is very fluid... as is the idea of hot and cold.

[Haradrim]

What I meant is that (I was typing fast as I had to hand it over to my mother quickly so the contradiction was because I wasnt thinking about what I ws writing for that post and that post alone.) Morals in my opinion are not at debate. This is hard for em to phrase. I do not disagree with anything Wayfarer and Attalus are saying. I just think that they are not looking at it from another culture like the orcs in which the view of evil is different. Evil is not in my opinion about morals. Evil is about what your view point is. The exact oppostie is evil. So evil is a matter of POV. Then you have to think okay thats for one person. now lets look at a society. If the majority of the viewpoints believe something then the opposite of that is evil. So evil defined by the majority and the POV.


and just to clear up I dont think evil is the same as morals it was a typo.

[Elemmírë]

Morgoth, I'd love to continue this debate with you, but could we move it someplace else... so that we don't clutter this thread up.

For me, talking about morality and evil is easier when I can take it outside of ME, since in ME I feel bound to argue something I don't personally believe in, because for me, ME is based partly on Christian ideas, so I feel bound to honour them and to look at everything from a suitable point of view, but I divorce Christian theology entirely from my true perceptions of good and evil.

Teacup Cafe, or is there someplace we can actually go?

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I'm trying to clear up this misunderstanding. I think (though I'm not sure) that Wayfarer was annoyed that you would change the meaning of the word "Evil" without changing what it stood for.

Well... you either just contradicted yourself, Morgoth, or the rest of us are just terribly misinterpretting you.

btw... morals are not the same thing as evil. But I think you meant that being morally wrong and being evil are the same thing. Wayfarer was arguing (I think) that you were changing one without changing the other. See... if you don't change your view on morality, and think that killing is morally wrong no matter what, then even if you say it isn't evil in some cases, and are still saying that it is morally wrong, you have a paradox, and a ridiculous one at that.

Look at it this way. Evil is a word, nothing more. It is a concept that is tied in with morality. You can't attack the word itself, but the meaning behind the word, which would be the morality issues behind it.

Yes, yes, yes! Exactly right. <3

Haradrim, you're getting into questions of morality.

If Wayfarer wants to define Evil as something "Morally wrong and harmful" then we have to get into morality and start to ask what is right and what is wrong.

Here's the definition I came up with (from earlier in the thread):

Evil

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
6. The quality of being Wayfarer?

Evil can be any or all of those things. So, in further consideration it would be possible (under sense 4) to define something as evil based on opinion.

I do not disagree with anything Wayfarer and Attalus are saying. I just think that they are not looking at it from another culture like the orcs in which the view of evil is different. Evil is not in my opinion about morals. Evil is about what your view point is. The exact oppostie is evil. So evil is a matter of POV.

See, here's the inherent problem. I agree with you that Orcs most likely did not consider what they did to be evil. They certainly don't walk around talking about how evil they are and how great it is to be evil. The essential question is whether that makes a difference - does believing something is evil (or not-evil) make it fit the definition of Evil? Does the failure of the Orcs to consider themselves Evil make them good? Clearly not! Orcs are wicked, harmful, infamous, and malicious - they meet just about every definition of Evil there is. Whether they think that they're evil is inconsequential.

It's not the suggestion that Orcs may not be as evil as everyone thinks that's wrong. I've argued on that point more than once myself. Nor is it the idea that certain actions may be more or less evil depending on the situation - I think the whole concept of morality is, not fluid perhaps, but certainly complex.

Haradrim, I fail to understand the point of continually explaining your opinion. The long and drawn out explanations don't serve any purpose. You see, the problem isn't that the rest of us don't understand what you're trying to say, it's that what you're trying to say is incorrect.

There is an essential difference between whether someone thinks something is Evil and whether it is evil. Equating the two is hopeless, because it completely invalidates the meaning of the word and renders it conceptually impossible.

In effect, what you're saying is "Anything that is called Evil is Evil." And, by corolarry "Evil is anything that is called Evil." It's a recursive definition that fails to provide any meanigful idea of the concept which the word is meant to relate.

Furthermore, there is already a word for what you are trying to describe - Unpopular. This, like every other word, means something, but whether a given act fits the definition of Unpopular has practically effect on whether it fits the definition of Evil.

By all means, talk about morality, talk about good and evil, talk about what does or does not fall under any of the above categories. But let's have no more of this nonsense of trying to force an arbitrary redefinition of the word so that it supports your fallacious (but not evil) ideas.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Yes, yes, yes! Exactly right. <3

Here's the definition I came up with (from earlier in the thread):

Evil

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
6. The quality of being Wayfarer?

Evil can be any or all of those things. So, in further consideration it would be possible (under sense 4) to define something as evil based on opinion.

Glad I got it right, Wayfarer.

Alright, when I say I don't believe in good and evil (have I said that yet?), I mean in the sense of #1 on your list, Wayfarer. I don't think the others can be debated, especially #6.

See, here's the inherent problem. I agree with you that Orcs most likely did not consider what they did to be evil. They certainly don't walk around talking about how evil they are and how great it is to be evil. The essential question is whether that makes a difference - does believing something is evil (or not-evil) make it fit the definition of Evil? Does the failure of the Orcs to consider themselves Evil make them good? Clearly not! Orcs are wicked, harmful, infamous, and malicious - they meet just about every definition of Evil there is. Whether they think that they're evil is inconsequential.

Okay.

Orcs = Evil
Feanor and Sons after kinslayings = Evil

Or is this true? By your definitions, they both did evil deeds, but does this inevitably make the doer evil?



And how about this one:
orcs killing elves/humans = evil
elves/humans killing other elves/humans = evil

how would you define Elves or humans killing orcs? This obviously causes harm (to the orc, at least), but can you consider it evil?

By all means, talk about morality, talk about good and evil, talk about what does or does not fall under any of the above categories.

Oh, let's. Just not here.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

TD: btw, are you planning on murdering Haradrim or something?

No!

But the principle of a man of Gondor killing a Haradrim is surely just as bad as a man of Gondor killing a man of Rohan.

EDIT: Haradrim, Haradrim are following what hey viewed as correct, and so they didn't need to be killed, but pitied on and taught what was right. Look what the Rohirrim did to the Men of Dunland, they taught them that there ways were evil.

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

To me, all killing is the same. But I'm not going to get into that here or now.

btw, Attalus, do you think that war is evil?

All killing is not evil. KIlling in self-defense can be a positive good. War contains evil, but is not inherently evil. A Haradim killing a Gondorian on the field of battle commits an act which has evil in it, but is not inherently evil, depending on his motivations, beliefs, and the laws of his state. All actions by mortal Men (and women) contain an evil component, because we are fallen creatures.

[inked]

Haradrim,

You think you believe in relative morality in Middle Earth and you state that it is the same in our world. So, instead of Tolkein's world which is a subcreation of ours, take your view to the Second World War and explain why what Hitler and the German's did to the Jews/Gypsies/mentally retarded Germans/resistors was NOT evil.

And when you are done with that please assess the actions of Osama ben Laden and his followers on 9/11/01.

Then, the beheaders in Iraq and elsewhere and the school-killers in Beslan.

Oh, and you might consider Sadaam Hussein and America in Iraq.

Finally, what answers to correctness between moral views that are relative and opposed in general? How is the decison made?

[inked]

Haradrim, I found this hot off the press to throw into the mix. Any evil here?


Nov 30, 4:24 PM (ET)

By TOBY STERLING

(AP) Ten thousands protesters demonstrate outside Dutch government buildings as the Upper House of...


AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of dec


iding for themselves whether they want to end their lives - a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.

The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said.

Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.

Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.

The hospital revealed last month it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital or the doctors.

Roman Catholic organizations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to the announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.

"The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into a vertical cliff," said Wesley J. Smith, a prominent California-based critic, in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.

"As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting."

According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen, but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals.

Groningen estimated the protocol would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country of 16 million people.

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge.

However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.

"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."

More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said.
**************************************

I submit that there is a vast difference between the prolongation of viability to no discernable end and discontinuing the "heroic" in that regard versus the active "putting down" of those determined to be incapable of decision making. Anyone for the absence of the slippery slope?

[Olmer]

All of this is about HUMAN'S decisions based on morality and THEIR OWN definition of "evil-doing" mostly delineated by the Church. This is a RELATIVE MORALITY. And I agree it's a very slippery slope, so we should't go farther than that.

We were talking about a definition of the evil and possibility of existance on its own, away from the Grand Plan of God, in correlation with Tolkien's Middle-earth. And even in his point of view as a devoited catholic he says that any creations or doings, which in ours view considered as being "evil" , would become a part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good. (Letter#151)
So in the mighty God's/Eru's view it is no evil, just a mere discords which had have a benign nature in the first place.
Ever heard an expression "The road to hell paved by good notions"?
This is a thik "grey area" between definition of "good" and "evil", because sometimes they interchange.

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Olmer

All of this is about HUMAN'S decisions based on morality and THEIR OWN definition of "evil-doing" mostly delineated by the Church. This is a RELATIVE MORALITY. And I agree it's a very slippery slope, so we should't go farther than that.

We were talking about a definition of the evil and possibility of existance on its own, away from the Grand Plan of God, in correlation with Tolkien's Middle-earth. And even in his point of view as a devoited catholic he says that any creations or doings, which in ours view considered as being "evil" , would become a part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good. (Letter#151)
So in the mighty God's/Eru's view it is no evil, just a mere discords which had have a benign nature in the first place.
Ever heard an expression "The road to hell paved by good notions"?
This is a thik "grey area" between definition of "good" and "evil", because sometimes they interchange.

Morality is for humans, not for animals or "the universe". Humans are created, fallen beings, to whom Evil is a constant threat. Your second to last sentence ("So i..." is an unwarranted leap in logic. Just because good can arise from evil does not make it any less evil, just that the Almighty has the power to make it so. Also, nobody denied that there were gray areas, since fallen human beings always have some evil in them and what they do. Our contention is that Evil exists, and is not a relative term. Murder is evil, and no human society has condoned it.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Alright, when I say I don't believe in good and evil (have I said that yet?), I mean in the sense of #1 on your list, Wayfarer. I don't think the others can be debated, especially #6.

I'm actually okay with that. Sense #1 is very (very) complicated, as you have to take the term 'Morally Wrong' and determine what exactly is meant by 'moral' and 'wrong', and each of those words requires further explanation... so, I'm satisfied to let it lie, at least for now, and concentrate on the others as a working definition.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Orcs = Evil
Feanor and Sons after kinslayings = Evil

Or is this true? By your definitions, they both did evil deeds, but does this inevitably make the doer evil?

Yeeee....no? Maybe.

In some ways, whether a person does an evil deed is an indicator of whether they can or should be considered to be an 'evil' person. I think, however, that perhaps it would be most informative to say that an evil person should be judged in the same way as an evil act - they can be considered evil if their character fits the definition of Evil.

Take the orcs, for example - it is beyond reasonable doubt that they did Evil acts, and it is generally agreed that they are evil (though the degree to which they are evil is speculative). It could reasonably be said that they were evil not just because they did evil things but because they had an evil character - As I said, the orcs were wicked (sense 1), harmful (sense 2), infamous (sense 4), and malicious (sense 5). There is some overlap, naturally, but I would say that perhaps the orcs should be considered evil not for what they did but for what they were. Thoughts?

Of the sons of Feanor, we can agree that they did evil things, and we could probably agree that overall they caused ruin, injury, or pain to much of Beleriand (Sense 2). However, I'm not sure that alone would be enough to categorize the individuals (rather than their actions) as Evil. On th other hand, they certainly gained some very bad reputations (sense 4), and some of them were certainly characterized by anger or spite (sense 5). So it might be said while all of the Sons of Feanor did evil acts, only some of them were really evil individuals. Agree? Disagree?

Originally Posted by Elemmire

And how about this one:
orcs killing elves/humans = evil
elves/humans killing other elves/humans = evil

how would you define Elves or humans killing orcs? This obviously causes harm (to the orc, at least), but can you consider it evil?

The question is, in what sense (if any), is that killing Evil, and in what circumstances is it taking place?

All killing, we can agree, causes harm to the person being killed, and probably to others. So any killing at all is evil according to def. 2.

Skirting around def. 1, we can say that an orc killing a human or elf is most likely going to be evil under def. 5 (Orcs are generally Malicious). A human or elf killing another human or elf will also sometimes (in the case of murder) fit under that category as well. I would be inclined to say that... oh, my. This is tricky, isn't it?

Allright. Say we have three individuals - O (an orc), H (a human), and E (an elf).

* If O attacks and kills H without provocation, we would generally say that is an evil act because O is causing harm to H, and is doing so maliciously. O kills H - Evil.
* If H attacks and kills E without provocation, we would likewise call this an evil act for the same reasons. H kills E - Evil.
However, if O attacks H without provocation, and H kills in self defense, then * H is causing harm, but not maliciously, so is not evil in that sense. It could also be argued that the amount of harm caused by H killing O (the loss of a life), is equal to the harm prevented (O killing H would be no less harmful than H killing O). We would be inclined to say, I think, that these would cancel out - the total amount of harm done is no greater than it would have been if H had allowed himself to be slain, and may very well be less (since O might have gone on to slay E afterwards. In that case it would almost be a good thing.). So, H kills O in self defense - Not Evil, and possibly Good.
* If E likewise kills H in self defense, the act would likewise not be malicious, and E isn't causing more harm than he would by allowing H to kill him. However, H is probably less likely than O to go on to kill more people, so the chance of this being a good act are lessened. E kills H in self defense - Not Evil, but probably not Good.
* Now, say H seeks out and attacks O. In this case, O would not really be acting maliciously were he to kill H, and in the short term would be doing no more harm by killing H than he would by allowing H to kill him. In that, it is not an evil act. On the other hand, H might rightly fear that O intends to kill both himself and H, so in that case O allowing himself to be killed would cause less harm (the loss of one life versus the loss of two) than killing H in self defense. So, O kills H in self defense - Possibly Evil, Possibly Not.
* On the other hand, if H seeks out O and succeeds in killing him, H is still acting maliciously, and is causes harm to O. So, it is probably evil act. However, if H kills O because he fears O is dangerous, it could be argued that H is attempting to do good by preventing O from killing others. By that token, we would probably say that H killing O preemptively is an Evil act, but done for a Good reason.

I think it is fair to say that killing, in any situation, can be defined as an evil act. But what of situations where that killing might prevent far worse things from happening? I do think it is fair to say that killing might be the lesser of two evils - in some cases, it might even be the least evil possibility available, in which case it would relatively be a kind of good.

And yes, I did say 'relatively'. Even an absolute system of morality does not nescessarily have to be simple. What is good or evil in any situation depends on that situation, and in that it is relative. This is a quite different kind of 'relativity' from the sort that claims good and evil are relative to what people think of them.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

Haradrim, I found this hot off the press to throw into the mix. Any evil here?

Last time I checked the Netherlands weren't located in Middle-earth. Euthanasia is a whole different discussion all together.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Earniel

Last time I checked the Netherlands weren't located in Middle-earth.

Netherlands=Holland
Eregion=Hollin




btw, Wayfarer...I'm still trying to decipher your response, don't worry, I will respond )...

[inked]

Alas and alack! But good and evil are in Holland as elsewhere in the primary world. And, regardless of semantics or recursive thinking or tautologies, it is from the primary world that we take our good and evil and see them worked out in the subcreation of ME. It is in the light of the subcreation that we can sometimes develop clearer concepts about the primary world (paraphrasing Tolkein from ON FAIRY STORIES).

And, what makes Tolkein appealing, according to critics who may or may not have read his work, is his "simplicity" which appeals to "puerile imaginations" and is not at all controversial and is inapplicable to the "real world" - such as we are finding in this thread! Just goes to prove the critics wrong in that regard (yours would be the fourth generation to do so if you are college age,
Earniel)!