Evil in Middle-Earth

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Netherlands=Holland
Eregion=Hollin

That's it. I'm moving across the border.

Then again, maybe not.

Originally Posted by inked

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)!

Hey now, hey now, I'm not a critic! Fourth generation or otherwise. And I certainly wouldn't be calling Tolkien's works simple! Still, I don't think evil in ME is equal to evil in our world. Neither do I see what euthanasia has to with Middle-earth.

[Elemmírë]

@ Wayfarer:

That could have been an English paper, Wayfarer.

I understand most of what you’re saying. At least, I think I do. I cannot debate with you on definitions 2-5 of evil, so I’m not going to try. Debating sense 1 would get us nowhere, so I’m not going to do too much of that.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

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?

I think I agree with you, Wayfarer. Despite their actions, I do not consider Maedhros and Maglor inherently evil. Anyone who does should read through the part of The Voyage of Eärendil with Elrond and Elros before debating that point…

It would be harder to defend Curufin and Celegorm, however (especially for me )

Perhaps, especially in situations like these, we should distinguish between the conscious intent to do evil (sense 2) and simply doing evil. I don’t believe that any of the sons of Fëanor went to ME with the express and conscious desire to lay waste to all the realms of Beleriand. Despite the harm that they caused, I do not believe that this ever changed (except perhaps for the C’s, though I know that some would choose and perhaps succeed at defending them). It is made clear that even during the kinslayings, it was not the destruction of other people that they desired. They always sent word demanding the Silmarils… before they attacked. Though the action of kinslaying was evil (sense 2, possibly sense 1), I do not believe that the sons of Feanor themselves were evil (sense 1).

Orcs, on the other hand, obviously had this desire to cause ruin. Perhaps this could be the criteria by which we judge evil (sense 1).

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

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?

Yes. It is. And btw, I’m beginning to hate your definitions.

By that token, we would probably say that H killing O preemptively is an Evil act, but done for a Good reason.

I understand your scenarios, for the most part, though it could be dangerous to go into potentiality for good, and speak about the evil that might have been caused. I am glad, however, that you didn’t fall into the trap of believing that because an Orc is supposedly evil (sense 1), it is therefore justified to kill it and automatically not evil.

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.

Anyone else want to argue on this statement? The “least evil possibility available” is “relatively… a kind of good.” Honestly, Wayfarer, I think I agree with you, if only because I find the whole concept relative. I’m sure they’ll be some people (if they haven’t already) prepared to debate this point.

@ Eärniel

Cute. Let's all move to Hollin... *ahem*
Holland.

[Wayfarer]

Holland... Hollin. Hmmm... Nordic... Noldor.

Yes. It is. And btw, I’m beginning to hate your definitions.

Precision and Clarity are the twin principles which underly comprehensible language, and are absolutely essential if communication is to occur on any meanigful level.

Perhaps, especially in situations like these, we should distinguish between the conscious intent to do evil (sense 2) and simply doing evil. I don’t believe that any of the sons of Fëanor went to ME with the express and conscious desire to lay waste to all the realms of Beleriand. Despite the harm that they caused, I do not believe that this ever changed (except perhaps for the C’s, though I know that some would choose and perhaps succeed at defending them). It is made clear that even during the kinslayings, it was not the destruction of other people that they desired. They always sent word demanding the Silmarils… before they attacked. Though the action of kinslaying was evil (sense 2, possibly sense 1), I do not believe that the sons of Feanor themselves were evil (sense 1).

Orcs, on the other hand, obviously had this desire to cause ruin. Perhaps this could be the criteria by which we judge evil (sense 1).

Perhaps that can be said... but I am inclined to argue that the 'Conscious intent to do Evil (In any sense)' is somewhat of an illusion. It is my experience that humans (of which Elves and Orcs are unique subsets) never consciously intend to do evil - when evil is done, it is always as a means to an end which the individual percieves as being 'good'. As you say, the Sons of Feanor wanted the Silmarils - they did evil acts in the course of pursuing that goal, which they percieved as a good thing (the return of a priceless treasure stolen from their family and wrongfully withheld).

I would even go so far as to say that the Orcs, while the majority of their actions were evil, were not simply pursuing evil for its own sake - they waged war out of fear of Morgoth and Sauron, they looted and pillaged in order to gain food and goods for themselves, and so forth.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

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.

What if O killed H becaus eit thought that if it didn't then H would kill more O's. Is that any more evil than H killing O so O doesn't kill anymore H's?

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Perhaps that can be said... but I am inclined to argue that the 'Conscious intent to do Evil (In any sense)' is somewhat of an illusion. It is my experience that humans (of which Elves and Orcs are unique subsets) never consciously intend to do evil - when evil is done, it is always as a means to an end which the individual percieves as being 'good'. As you say, the Sons of Feanor wanted the Silmarils - they did evil acts in the course of pursuing that goal, which they percieved as a good thing (the return of a priceless treasure stolen from their family and wrongfully withheld).

I would even go so far as to say that the Orcs, while the majority of their actions were evil, were not simply pursuing evil for its own sake - they waged war out of fear of Morgoth and Sauron, they looted and pillaged in order to gain food and goods for themselves, and so forth.

Wayfarer, I'm inclined to believe that morality, good and evil in and of themselves are illusions. I'm trying to find some way to justify the definition of evil (sense 1) so that I can accept it in the realm of the books.

I do not mind your argument at all, in fact, I agree with it, though it seems to me that it somewhat invalidates Evil (sense 1).

So, clarify this for me... are you now arguing that the Orcs were not evil (sense 1)?

Originally Posted by Telcontar Dunedain

What if O killed H becaus eit thought that if it didn't then H would kill more O's. Is that any more evil than H killing O so O doesn't kill anymore H's?

Teddy's got a point.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

That's it. I'm moving across the border.

Then again, maybe not.


Hey now, hey now, I'm not a critic! Fourth generation or otherwise. And I certainly wouldn't be calling Tolkien's works simple! Still, I don't think evil in ME is equal to evil in our world. Neither do I see what euthanasia has to with Middle-earth.

Earniel,

I didn't mean you were a critic in the sense of a published critic of Tolkien - I was making funny of his original critics who alleged the things I said - this back at the time of publication. CS Lewis and WH Auden took the opposite views and found Tolkien to be quite conducive to reflective thought - as it would appear do the persons on this thread, hence the 4th generation reading Tolkien "critically".

Was I just trying too hard?

[Wayfarer]

Teddy, eh? Well TD, I would tend to propose that O and H are simply variables - all other things being equal, it doesn't really matter whether you flip them around. So O killing H pre-emptively would, considering the act itself (in the short term) and not the ramifications, be no more or less evil than H killing O in the same manner.

Of course this is complicated once one expands the problem - O might be more inclined to kill, so in the long term O killing H, even out of fear, might cause more harm (as O goes on to kill others) than H killing O. Additionally, O might have different characteristics than H, which may lead O to kill in a different manner, which could be considered more of an evil act (slow death by torture as opposed to a quick execution, for example).

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Wayfarer, I'm inclined to believe that morality, good and evil in and of themselves are illusions. I'm trying to find some way to justify the definition of evil (sense 1) so that I can accept it in the realm of the books.

I do not mind your argument at all, in fact, I agree with it, though it seems to me that it somewhat invalidates Evil (sense 1).

So, clarify this for me... are you now arguing that the Orcs were not evil (sense 1)?

*blink*

In reverse order - I do maintain that the Orcs were 'wicked' (evil, def. 1). However, I draw a distinction in why they are evil.

Hmm... let me try and illustrate this better... When you refer to the destructive impulses of the Orcs, I think we can agree that the destructive acts were Evil, that the impulses to do those acts were also Evil, and that in doing those acts the orcs themselves were Evil. However, when you suggest that this could perhaps be a criteria for judging wickedness (Evil, sense 1), you seem to think that the Orcs desire to do evil for its own sake. Someone fictional put this far better than I could when they said:

Goodness is weakness, pleasantness is poisonous, serenity is mediocrity and kindness is for losers. The best reason for committing loathsome and detestable acts — and let's face it, I am considered something of an expert in this field — is purely for the their own sake. Monetary gain is all very well, but it dilutes the taste of wickedness to a lower level that is obtainable by almost anyone with an overdeveloped sense of avarice. True and baseless evil is as rare as the purest good.
- Acheron Hades, "Degeneracy for Pleasure and Profit"

What I am trying to say is that I am... somewhat uncomfortable with that viewpoint. Not, mind you, in the sense that the idea makes me uneasy, but in the sense that the thought-shapes are foriegn. I can't get my mind around the idea in a way that allows me to make sense of it.

If pure, baseless Evil involves the complete absence of good, than it is really, as has been brought up before, a state of nothingness. And so, to desire Evil for its own sake is to desire nothingness. A wholly evil creature would desire the complete annihilation of reality, not only destroying everything but itself (like that sword that the one drug-using wizard had ) but ultimately the nullification of its own existance, and reality itself. That's just not something I can imagine as being possible to desire.

So, what I suppose I am objecting to is the idea that evil is some concrete thing which can be desired in itself - the idea, as it were, that 'evil' is a kind of 'good' that some creatures seek after. Is that understandable?

I think we can say that, for example, Orcs are 'wicked' according to the definition, but I do not think that they would consider themselves wicked, or that they are attempting to be wicked - ultimately their desire to destroy might boil down to 'they enjoy it', in which their goal (pleasure for themselves) is something which is certainly not evil and possibly good.

It was CS Lewis who said 'Evil is what you get when you pursue good in the wrong way'. Melkor started out desiring something 'good' (Creative and Administrative Power). However, he attempted to achieve this in the wrong way - through violence and conquest, and the result was not the good he desired but further evil (since evil actions cannot have good consequences). Failing to achieve his original goal, he lowered his aim and attempted to take what he could get (Dominating power). Ultimately, when he could not dominate, he fell even further (seeking Destructive Power). You can see in this progression that Melkor starts out desiring something which is good, but moves steadily closer towards what would be considered pure evil - but at no point is pure evil his intended goal.

I shall require some time to allow my thoughts to coagulate, but that's as clear as I can make it right now. I'll leave the discussion of 'wickedness' (Evil, sense 1) for later, since that's going to involve (Yay! ) more definitions.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

In reverse order - I do maintain that the Orcs were 'wicked' (evil, def. 1). However, I draw a distinction in why they are evil.

Hmm... let me try and illustrate this better... When you refer to the destructive impulses of the Orcs, I think we can agree that the destructive acts were Evil, that the impulses to do those acts were also Evil, and that in doing those acts the orcs themselves were Evil. However, when you suggest that this could perhaps be a criteria for judging wickedness (Evil, sense 1), you seem to think that the Orcs desire to do evil for its own sake.

What I am trying to say is that I am... somewhat uncomfortable with that viewpoint. Not, mind you, in the sense that the idea makes me uneasy, but in the sense that the thought-shapes are foriegn. I can't get my mind around the idea in a way that allows me to make sense of it.

I did not say that Orcs desired to do evil for its own sake.

My exact statement was

We should distinguish between the conscious intent to do evil (sense 2) and simply doing evil.
Orcs, obviously had this desire to cause ruin. Perhaps this could be the criteria by which we judge evil (sense 1).

I could probably have stated it better, and will try again next.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

So, what I suppose I am objecting to is the idea that evil is some concrete thing which can be desired in itself - the idea, as it were, that 'evil' is a kind of 'good' that some creatures seek after. Is that understandable?

I think we can say that, for example, Orcs are 'wicked' according to the definition, but I do not think that they would consider themselves wicked, or that they are attempting to be wicked - ultimately their desire to destroy might boil down to 'they enjoy it', in which their goal (pleasure for themselves) is something which is certainly not evil and possibly good.

That is definitely understandable. I believe that even in ME, pure evil is as impossible as pure good. I cannot name a character (with the probable exception of Eru) without ulterior motives, whether their actions are ultimately good or evil.

I think this is what Haradrim was actually trying to express. That the idea, if not the popular definition, of wickedness is relative. Perhaps you disagreed with the manner in which he stated it, because it seems that in a way, you agree. Although Orcs, according to our definitions, Orcs are “wicked,” in their own eyes they are not.

Enough with that. At this point, I don’t want to argue the legitimacy of definition of “wicked.” We can debate that later and I’m sure we will.

Now to what I was saying before. I believe I was trying to say that by our standards at least, this “desire to destroy” because “they enjoy it” is what I was referring to as their “desire to cause ruin,” as I put it earlier, and the reason I could justify them as evil (sense 1). While they might not be seeking evil for its own sake, they are still consciously, willingly, and gleefully doing deeds we would usually consider evil (sense 1) and that are undoubtedly evil in several other senses. I do not believe the Orcs would repent of some of the evil they did, whereas several of the sons of Fëanor did repent.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

If pure, baseless Evil involves the complete absence of good, than it is really, as has been brought up before, a state of nothingness. And so, to desire Evil for its own sake is to desire nothingness. A wholly evil creature would desire the complete annihilation of reality, not only destroying everything but itself (like that sword that the one drug-using wizard had ) but ultimately the nullification of its own existance, and reality itself. That's just not something I can imagine as being possible to desire.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

It was CS Lewis who said 'Evil is what you get when you pursue good in the wrong way'. Melkor started out desiring something 'good' (Creative and Administrative Power). However, he attempted to achieve this in the wrong way - through violence and conquest, and the result was not the good he desired but further evil (since evil actions cannot have good consequences). Failing to achieve his original goal, he lowered his aim and attempted to take what he could get (Dominating power). Ultimately, when he could not dominate, he fell even further (seeking Destructive Power). You can see in this progression that Melkor starts out desiring something which is good, but moves steadily closer towards what would be considered pure evil - but at no point is pure evil his intended goal.

Okay.

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure that “pure evil” as the desire for “the complete annihilation of reality” is not something Morgoth wanted.

Alright, I can’t prove this one way or the other, since I don’t have the required books with me right now and won’t for several weeks, but I remember reading somewhere that Melkor was actually nihilistic, and did desire the destruction of everything, possibly including himself. The theory was that if he had destroyed Men and Elves and all the creations of the Valar, he would have eventually destroyed his own quasi-“Children” as well. Unfortunately, I can’t remember whether or not it was argued that he would eventually destroy himself as well.

While Sauron wanted mastery over everything and to dominate it, Morgoth, unable to create a world in his own image, simply wanted to destroy the one that Eru had created.

I wish I had the details on me, but I’m sure I’m not making this up…

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I'll leave the discussion of 'wickedness' (Evil, sense 1) for later, since that's going to involve (Yay! ) more definitions.

Ugh. Oh goody.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

In my story, I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think that there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before the Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the totally evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tryants in pride and the lust for domination, being in in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.* In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom,' though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other purpose an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants.

This is an interesting quote that attalus posted in the God in Middle-Earth thread and I think this is relavent here.

NOTE: This is my most succesful thread!

[Elemmírë]

Hey! You mean I just copied and linked that for no reason!

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

In reverse order - I do maintain that the Orcs were 'wicked' (evil, def. 1). However, I draw a distinction in why they are evil.

Hmm... let me try and illustrate this better... When you refer to the destructive impulses of the Orcs, I think we can agree that the destructive acts were Evil, that the impulses to do those acts were also Evil, and that in doing those acts the orcs themselves were Evil. However, when you suggest that this could perhaps be a criteria for judging wickedness (Evil, sense 1), you seem to think that the Orcs desire to do evil for its own sake. Someone fictional put this far better than I could when they said:

I have thought about this and come to the conclusion that according to JRRT, nobody, even Melkor, can be totally evil, "since that would be Zero." The Orcs, therefore, are not totally evil, but may be loosely described as evil since they do evil things (murder, robbery, torture, cannibalism). As for what they think they are doing, this is more difficult, but I believe they do not think about it at all. They have been brutalised and coarsened to the point that self-satisfaction and avoiding punishment are the only goals that matter to them. Now, these can be good things in themselves, but obviousl contain selfish motives which easily slide into activities that can justly be described as evil. Tolkien is silent about what happened to poor Celebrian "in the dens of the orcs," but I can imagine them quite well.

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Attalus

I have thought about this and come to the conclusion that according to JRRT, nobody, even Melkor, can be totally evil, "since that would be Zero."
Now, these can be good things in themselves, but obviousl contain selfish motives which easily slide into activities that can justly be described as evil.

O, almighty God! Finally you made a vehemently opposed Attalus to see the point which Haradrim and I are trying to bring across: that none of God's creations are born to be evil, but under certain circumstancial conditions they could "slide into activities that can justly be described as evil". "Described", but not evil in nature, because even the Dark Lord Sauron began " with fair motives : the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle -earth," in his POV "neglected by the gods"(Let.#131)., which lately had been considered as the evil-doing.
I think you would agree with me on Gandalf's words that he would use a power(which itself is not good nor evil by nature) with notion to do good, just like the 9 kings -nazguls thought, and probably they did a lot of good things for their people, but the power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely . Even being not evil person, eventually you are loosing this definition between "evil, harmful" for somebody and "good, beneficial" for you domain, your people, choosing options which sereves better your interests and your country. This options could be evil in definition but not always evil in intention. Good, under circumstances, can cause as much harm as evil, this why for God/Eru they are equal and unseparated.
It's our business to sort them out.

[Attalus]

It may have been your intent, but not Haradrim's, who posited that good and evil were basically local customs, and that nothing was really evil except by convention. I have posted over and over again that, as fallen creatures, there is evil in the best of us, but for One. I, au contraire argue that good and evil exist, that they are quantifiable and easily recognizable, though usually not at the same time, a la Heisenberg. Yes, there is some good in Orcs. Damned small, and hard to see, but it is there, just as there is evil in the greatest of saints. We know, because they have told us so. However, God (= Eru Iluvatar) is the source of all good and without stain, the humanly unattainable condition. Evil exists, but it parasitically must have some Good qualities to interact with humans, its intended prey. Ironic, no?

[Haradrim]

I wouls still cliam that good and evil are in a sense local customs. Evil is not universal and to identify it you hae to put yourself in the others shoes. As many of you have said, Sauron or Melkor did nto mean to do evil andprobably never thoguth they were doign evil. Hoever the free peoples of ME and the other Valar and Maiar found their actions to be evil. So they fought him. Now from Saurons POV he is trying to do something good and all these other people attack him for trying to do so. Now what do we call people who attack the act of good. Evil. SO in Melkor and Saurons eyes the other Valar Maiar and elves, men and dwarves, and halflings and others were evil. But if you reverse it. THese people thought Melkro and Sauron were doing evil. SO they attacked and what do we call something that attacks evil. Good. However since we hear the story from the side of the Valar, Maiar, Anar, humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, ents, and all others we see Melkor as good. But Tolkien could easily have switched the story around and made it from mlkors view and we would have seen the story completely differently.

[Attalus]

So you think enslavement of whole populations and torture and execution of innocent people are just a misunderstanding? Man, You are really far gone. Let me just say that if you ever run up against true evil, you will recognize it, and you won't think it is subject to misunderstanding.

[Haradrim]

well first of all lets make it clear as i have said so many tiomes I share your views of evil. I think Hitler was a wholly evil man, i think Suaron did unspeakable things I think the slaughter in Rwanda was terribel and I think that the twisting of humans or elves cant remember which into orcs was disgusting. Al these things bring a terrible taste into my mouth. I find therm evil and I dont think its do to misunderstanding. i think people need to be punished when they do evil. Howver not looking from the other persons pov is idiotic andd stupid. Sauron did terrible thingsbut did he think he ws doing evil? No did any of his followers think he was doing evil? No. DId Melkor think he was doing evil? No. Did they think the elves, men, dwarves, valar, maiar, and ents were evil? Yes. So from his POV he was good and they were evil. Did the elves, humans, dwarves, halflings, valar and mair think they were doing evil? No. Did they think what Melkor, Sauron, the Nazugl, the barrow-whights and the orcs were evil? Yes. However since everything is in Erus plan neither one is evil or good it just is. However I am on the side of the human, elves, dwarves, halfli9ngs, valar, maiar, and ents because I consider myself a good person and not an evil one. I however can understand why someone would do someing evil. The blind accusation of evil without any real thought or speculation as to why and did they think they were doing evil is plain stupid.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Haradrim

I wouls still cliam that good and evil are in a sense local customs. Evil is not universal and to identify it you hae to put yourself in the others shoes. As many of you have said, Sauron or Melkor did nto mean to do evil andprobably never thoguth they were doign evil. Hoever the free peoples of ME and the other Valar and Maiar found their actions to be evil. So they fought him. Now from Saurons POV he is trying to do something good and all these other people attack him for trying to do so. Now what do we call people who attack the act of good. Evil. SO in Melkor and Saurons eyes the other Valar Maiar and elves, men and dwarves, and halflings and others were evil. But if you reverse it. THese people thought Melkro and Sauron were doing evil. SO they attacked and what do we call something that attacks evil. Good. However since we hear the story from the side of the Valar, Maiar, Anar, humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, ents, and all others we see Melkor as good. But Tolkien could easily have switched the story around and made it from mlkors view and we would have seen the story completely differently.

Yet they are not wholly evil. Mostly. maybe but not wholly. It is just as with Gollum. There was a part of him that was unconquered and if he, on of the water-folk, could resist evil so he was not wholly conquered, then I'm sure a Vala and a Maia could. As for the matter on orcs they were bred thinking what they did was right and that it was the eles, men, dwarves etc. that were scum, not themselves. I do not thnik that this theory works for Morgoth and Sauron though. They were the Ainur and knew what they did was wrong. Read Sauron's reaction when Morgoth was overthrown after the War of the Wrath. He, for a time, repented but soon fell back into his old tracks. Morgoth's intentions started out as good and just wanting to be called lord and have his own people, yet his good intentions went wrong. I think it is entirely possible that in the jails of Mandos he repented, yet when he was free again, the jealousy overwhelmed him and he remember what the Valar had done to him for the sake of the elves. Yet when he sued for pardon he could have meant what he was saying, yet as Sauron did later, fell back into old habits.

Originally Posted by Haradrim

Saurons eyes

Sauron's eye!

Couldn't resist

[Pytt]

when looking to your post Aragorn, there is one thing I don't agree to . I think Sauron, Morgoth and their followers did know they were evil, and they did know they were acting evil. I ceartainly belive they thought they were doing the right, but I think also they were aware of the cruelty in their deeds. they knew it was not the way it should, razing, pillaging, and slaugthering. atleast Sauron and Morgoth did know they were acting against Eru.

[Elemmírë]

As far as my knowledge extends, everyone who we would consider "evil" in their own minds were doing the "right" thing.

As Pytt said, Sauron and Morgoth most likely realised that their actions were cruel (I cannot believe that anyone with plans for world domination/destruction would be so dense as to not see the obvious ), but in their own minds, they probably believed that they were in the "right."

Originally Posted by Attalus

So you think enslavement of whole populations and torture and execution of innocent people are just a misunderstanding? Man, You are really far gone. Let me just say that if you ever run up against true evil, you will recognize it, and you won't think it is subject to misunderstanding.

Most certainly such things are evil, but does that mean that the people perpetrating these deeds are evil themselves? I hope this example does not offend anyone, but while slavery was practiced in the South (US), was every Southerner or Southern slave owner evil?

In my mind, there is a difference between being misled, angry, confused, and/or desperate (a combination that could lead to any number of the things Attalus posted) and being evil.



...Haradrim, you seem to be switching sides more often than I do ... Can you explain your point of view more clearly?

[Attalus]

First of all, I think evil people are mostly in denial about the evil that they do. They mostly do what they want and what benefits them, and just don't think (or care) about the effects on others. As for the case of the South in the Civil War, Mark Twain (Samuel Clemons) grew up in the prewar South and knew very well that slavery was evil, as did many other Southerners, like Robert E. Lee. They just preferred not to think about it and accept the status quo. Many Southerners fought just becuse of loyalty to their state and region, as most were not slaveowners. This is misguided, but is not the result of evil so much as fuzzy or lazy thinking. Only after their culture was shattered by the Northern victory were they free to think about it clearly. Thus, the idea that "violence never settles anything" once again is shown to be false.