Evil in Middle-Earth

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Attalus

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.

Exactly.

To pull this back OT, does anyone believe, however, that the same argument could be used defending the orcs?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Well the orcs didn't know any other way of living. They were bred being taught to kill men and elves. Just as elves and men were bred being taught to kill orcs.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Well the rocs didn't know any other way of living. They were bred being taught to kill men and elves. Just as elves and men were bred being taught to kill orcs.

That's a really funny typo when you think about it.

[edited] You edited.

Is this about to return to the "who is really evil?" debate?

TD, were orcs bred to kill other orcs too, do you think? Because this happened a lot.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

No, but were elves bred to kill other elves, because this happend, and so did men vs men.

[Attalus]

The Orcs were bred to be the army of Morgoth and then Sauron. Men and Elves were not 'bred' to be anything but free with the imperative to defend themselves against Orcs, evil Men or Elves, or anything else that attacked them. The case of comparing Orcs against Southern Secessionists and even members of the Wehrmacht (the German army as opposed to the SS units) and the German navy is that there was chivalrous and civilised behavior by members of all those forces, and whoever has heard anything good done by Orcs? Or the SS?

[inked]

"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" "

Did anyone note besides myself ( and Attalus and Wayfarer, I am sure) the logical inconsistency revealed by this argument? While alleging not to enjoy evil for money and to pursue "the taste for wickedness", the true reality of the nature of evil as not-self-existent is revealed. AH seeks wickedness for pleasure. Pleasure is a good. In his case a much perverted good, a barely recognizable good, but a good. As Screwtape observed to Wormwood, the Enemy has never made one single pleasure, they all must be twisted before they are of any use!

What exactly is evil? Can it be summed up so simply as evil people do so and so and good people do so and so? I'll illustrate my point with an example...
If an elf left a microphone by his fortress and a goose walked towards it and honked into the microphone, the sound would be amplified. Now, let's say that another elf hears the sound and gos deaf, so loud the goose's honk would be... Now, is that goose evil?

[Elemmírë]

That is the saddest analogy I've ever heard, Finrod.

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.

I'm bored. Let's start.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I'm bored. Let's start.

Okay then. *rolls up his sleeves* Let's figure out what we're talking about here.

Evil

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

Hmm. 'Morally Bad'. Well, 'Bad' is, more or less, a state of being 'worse than'.

Bad

1. Not achieving an adequate standard; poor: a bad concert
2. Evil; sinful.
3. Vulgar or obscene: bad language.
4. Informal. Disobedient or naughty: bad children.
5. Disagreeable, unpleasant, or disturbing: a bad piece of news.
6. Unfavorable: bad reviews for the play.
7. Not fresh; rotten or spoiled: bad meat.
8. Injurious in effect; detrimental: bad habits.
9. Not working properly; defective: a bad telephone connection.
10. Full of or exhibiting faults or errors: bad grammar.
11. Having no validity; void: passed bad checks.
12. Being so far behind in repayment as to be considered a loss: bad loans.
13. Severe; intense: a bad cold.
14. Either:
15. 1. Being in poor health or in pain: I feel bad today.
    2. Being in poor condition; diseased: bad lungs
16. Sorry; regretful: She feels bad about how she treated you.

Well... Def 2 is redundant (We're trying to figure out what 'evil' means, so using a circular definition doesn't help), and Def 4 isn't strictly correct usage. Defs 7, 9, 13, and 14, and possibly 12, don't really apply to Evil, so those can be dropped. And 15 is right out of the running.

Okay... So

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Okay then. *rolls up his sleeves* Let's figure out what we're talking about here.

Evil

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

Mmm. Okay. I can play this game too. Now we're going to have to define "morally bad."

Morality

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Am I mistaken in that Morality (def. 2) is what we are mostly dealing with here?

[edited] hehe... we posted at the same time.

[Wayfarer]

Heh. Yeah... I was in the process of editing.

Anyway. You more or less sum up morality, but my dictionary has a few meanings that are slightly different, which I think bear looking at:

A) Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

Under this definition, Morality is defined as being exclusively in reference to human action and character, which means that things like geese and guns and heart attacks can never be considered immoral (and hence, can't be evil).

Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

B) Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
C) Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Both of these define morality based on what is felt. I bring these up because I think it's important to note that this doesn't cover what we're talking about. As I went over with the earlier discussion of Evil, definition based on feelings are... not so useful.

That said, I would say that you are right to assume that def 2 is the most commonly used - however, I hesitate at saying it is the most important. Really, I think that sense 2 almost grows out of definitions 1 and A, and is really a way of trying to categorize what is morally right under those definitions. A particular system of right conduct is nescessarily derived from ideas and judgements about the goodness and badness of particular actions.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Heh. Yeah... I was in the process of editing.

Anyway. You more or less sum up morality, but my dictionary has a few meanings that are slightly different, which I think bear looking at

Hm. Your dictionary is my dictionary. You looked up "moral" and I looked up "morality."

But we've come to our first dilemma: we need dictionary definitions to agree on what words mean sometimes, but are we not relying too heavily on them? As seen here, the definitions don't always add up correctly.

I will agree with you. Morality is only used in references to humans (outside of Disney films, of course )

The idea of something existing only for humans brings us to an interesting question (in my mind, at least):

Somewhat Off Topic compared to what we were doing before, but food for thought all the same: Does evil and morality exist because we name it? Or do we name it because it exists?

That sounds almost like a Nietzsche quote...

[Wayfarer]

Not Nietzsche... another famous author whose name and work I can't recall at the moment. Err... Was it Kant? In his Critiques of Pure Reason? Might have been.

I'll have more to say later. :P

[Elemmírë]

Nah. Nietzsche had something like that too... It was the sentence structure that reminded me of it: "Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or is God merely a mistake of man's?" Simply the idea of who created who... Interesting, I think.

My question still stands, though.

I'll be around....Not like I have homework....well, homework that I plan on doing before 2am...

[Wayfarer]

My question still stands, though.

I will consider the answer while I chew on your brain. *chew* *chew* *gnaw*

[Elemmírë]

Would you like fries with that?

mmm... sorry. Wrong thread.

[Attalus]

I agree with Wayfarer that morality is concerned solely with human (and by extension, Elves, Dwarves, Maia, etc.) since we are fallen creatures and geese and bears are not. We also are concerned with right action and animals are simply concerned with self-interest, except for the odd case of dogs. Anything that a Man does knowingly to another of the Children (remember, this is about evil in Middle-earth) who is innocent of aggression or dangerous behavior does evil behavior. Hence, war has always been known to have an evil component, regardless of the intent of the commanders or rulers.

[Wayfarer]

*cracks knuckles*

Allright then. Now appearing live on Entmoot, for only the three-thousand-seven-hundred-and-twenty-second time ever, showing for a limited time only, not available without a reservation, we present to you -drumroll please...

*drumroll*

Wayfarer Answers the Deep Questions of Life! This product not approved by the FDA. Truthfullness of Answers not guarateed under law. dissatisfaction not covered under warranty. Void where Prohibited.

Now, let's see what we have today, shall we? Ellemire, you sent in:

Does evil and morality exist because we name it? Or do we name it because it exists?

Allright, you, let's see what our panel of experts has to say to that, shall we?

*puts on a blue wizard hat*

Well now, Wayfarer, that really is a ticklish question. Kind of a 'chicken and the egg', problem, you see. Now, some people would say that, unless a human can give a name to a concept, they can't really understand it.

The answer I'd have to give is: Naming the concept doesn't cause it to exist, because humans lack true creative power. We just don't have the ability to bring something new into existance - the most we can ever manage is to shuffle around already existing things. Naming a concept does aid in understanding it, but there's no way to name a concept that doesn't exist.\

I think.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Now, let's see what we have today, shall we? Ellemere, you sent in:

Erm... You spelt my name wrong.

Besides that... wow...that made my day, Wayfarer. Thank you. My bad mood just evaporated completely.

I have to get over this laughing fit before I can respond... You can expect more... when I come back...

btw... That post was just saved on my hard drive.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Erm... You spelt my name wrong.

I did not.

Nyah!