Evil in Middle-Earth

[Elemmírë]

I'm back! Did you miss me?

OK. In my mind, there is one hole in your logic. Your basic claim *ahem*... The blue hatted wizard's basic claim was that lacking true creative ability, humans did not bring evil into existence.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

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).

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

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.\

By your own definitons, your first quote seems to indicate that "morality" and "evil" are things that are not present outside of humanity. They are not found in the "animal world" or in "nature."

In which case, without falling back on religion, where does evil come from? There was most certainly a world before humans came into it. Without humans, was there no evil? How did it suddenly come into being?

Without falling back on religion. This goes for everyone.

You claim that humans could never have created evil, and yet also seem to claim that evil did not exist before humans. I'm sure you see the dilemma.

This is, of course, getting Off Topic and real world related...

However, bringing it back to ME, it is made obvious that Morgoth too had no "creative power." Therefore he also could not have brought "evil" into existence. In which case, where does it come from?

This is a random and not yet thought out idea, but considering that Morgoth simply corrupts... could evil be considered a perversion of good?

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

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.I think.

What would BoP say? Pamsy-wamsy?


btw, you wrote my name in twice... so it's still spelt wrong.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I'm back! Did you miss me?

No.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Your basic claim *ahem*... The blue hatted wizard's basic claim...

You know, that makes me a little dissapointed I didn't go with my original plan of switching between a half-dozen differently colored hats and arguing with myself about it before giving that answer. Ah, well. Missed opportunities.

Back to you, Wayfarer.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

...that lacking true creative ability, humans did not bring evil into existence... blah blah blah... talkity talkity... where does it come from?

Well... yes and no. Somewhere.

The best model I can come up with would require an elementary understanding of string theory mathematics, temporal pocketing, and the manipulation of zero-point energies to understand, over and above the flowcharts and copious amounts of sticky-notes needed to make any sense of it. Nevertheless, I shall give it my valiant best effort to explain.

Humans lack true creative power - a lack which I suspect we are all acutely aware at one point or another. The most basic level of creation, the Making (capital M) of Something from Nothing, we are entirely unable to produce. Even those creations, or more rightly subcreations, which we pride ourselves on are almost always reiterations of previous themes. I am inclined to believe that even the creation of a wholly new and original thought is unfortunately beyond our capablities.

On the other hand, we are remarkably adept at making (lowercase m) Something from Something Else, working within the framework our reality offers with the various forms and substances we find therein. This kind of subcreation is limited, unable to produce any new object or concept, but able to rearrange and alter pre-existing things to bring about a new state of affairs.

Evil exists, I think, in two entirely different ways. At least two. The kind we almost always think of is the active, or actual state of Evil - the realization of evil, as it were. But for that to occur we need something to create it from - being only subcreative creatures, we first require that there exist the potential for Evil.

This is where there is a dichtomy. This concept of evil - potential, possibility, essence, whatever you want to call it - is something which simply is. We do not create it, though we are aware of it, and we attempt to understand it. This potential for evil is one inherent component of human existance. Evil exists because we exist, but we did not make it - it came into existance with us, and is derived from our nature. On the other hand, actual evil, the realization of this potential, is something which we 'create'. Evil is - in a way - a kind of subcreation, a rearrangement of certain objects into a form which is allowed by the system, but which is undesirable.

I'm really working at having this all make sense... is what I'm saying understandable?

Attempt at Summary:

Evil is something that can only come about in certain conditions - it can only happen if allowed by The Rules. One of the conditions which is required is the existance of creatures like us - so in order for us to exist there must be the possibility for evil (which isn't, strictly speaking, evil in itself). Bringing this about by creating a system in which Evil is possible is so far beyond the human condition as to be mind-boggling, and so the concept of or potential for evil couldn't be a human creation.

On the other hand, in order for that potential to be actualized (I can't believe I actually used that phrase in a topical sentance), a human (or another creature with subcreative powers) has to act to bring it about. This is possible given our natures, and hence can be a human (or elvish, or dwarvish, or ainu) creation when it occurs.

*stops for breath*

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

No.

Aw... But who else are you going to argue with right now?

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

The best model I can come up with would require an elementary understanding of string theory mathematics, temporal pocketing, and the manipulation of zero-point energies to understand, over and above the flowcharts and copious amounts of sticky-notes needed to make any sense of it.

Try me.

That being said, there is no way I'm going to quote the rest of your argument. I understand what you're trying to say, especially about the Making (capital M). Sort of sounds like the Laws of Thermodynamics...
I would agree with you as far as this idea goes, perhaps even further...

Actually, at present, I don't think that I want to try to refute it.

How about this for an analogy, though. Tell me if this is basically what you are saying:

In nature, trees and wood exist. They would have existed even if humans had never come into existence. However, without humans, a chair would never have existed.

Humans do not carve a chair out of thin air, but use the raw materials already provided. These materials exist independent from humans, although the chair does not.

The same with evil, according to your argument. As we would have carved a chair out of wood, we "created" (though created is in no way the correct word) evil out of something that was originally there. This "something" would exist without us, but "evil" would not.

If I have it right, I think that argument makes a lot of sense... and no religion involved!

Though I would have to wonder at what exactly that "something" was.

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

In which case, without falling back on religion, where does evil come from? There was most certainly a world before humans came into it. Without humans, was there no evil? How did it suddenly come into being?

Without falling back on religion. This goes for everyone.

*Shrugs* I'm not at all interested in discussing the existence of evil "without falling back on religion," since as far as I'm concerned, religion is the only thing that makes a discussion of evil at all comprehensible.

[inked]

Elemmire,

Your argument is correct as to the derivative nature of evil. It fails, as naturalism ultimately must philosophically, for it cannot explain the concept of morality or good as the consequences of the movement and interacton of physical agents as sole cause. Morality is objectively present.

See Socrates, Plato, et alia. An excellent discussion is in CS Lewis' MERE CHRISTIANITY on the subject.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Attalus

*Shrugs* I'm not at all interested in discussing the existence of evil "without falling back on religion," since as far as I'm concerned, religion is the only thing that makes a discussion of evil at all comprehensible.

And yet inevitably makes contraversial. There are so many different religious beliefs concerning evil, it is almost impossible to make an argument that works for everyone. That's my only problem with using religion. Of course, considering that this is Middle Earth we're technically supposed to be talking about, using the theology of ME is obviously acceptable, even for me.

And I think that WF did a fairly good job explaining it... though I'm going to still be looking for holes in his argument.

Originally Posted by inked

Your argument is correct as to the derivative nature of evil. It fails, as naturalism ultimately must philosophically, for it cannot explain the concept of morality or good as the consequences of the movement and interacton of physical agents as sole cause. Morality is objectively present.

Could you explain that a bit? I don't know if I understand what you're trying to say.

Thanks for the advice, though, inked. I'll probably be looking at some of that (certainly Socrates and Plato) in my classes next semester.

[Attalus]

The problem that inked refers to, and which C.S. Lewis addressed, is not the origin of evil but of good. Whence does good come? Where does the idea that the good of all is more important than the good of the individual? Altruism is not found outside man except roughly in packs. Plato, I believe (it's been years) posited that Good had to come from outside the human race, and that it emanated from God. That is why naturism never succeeds, philosophically.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Attalus

The problem that inked refers to, and which C.S. Lewis addressed, is not the origin of evil but of good. Whence does good come? Where does the idea that the good of all is more important than the good of the individual? Altruism is not found outside man except roughly in packs. Plato, I believe (it's been years) posited that Good had to come from outside the human race, and that it emanated from God. That is why naturism never succeeds, philosophically.

Not sure if I agree, but I think I understand.

You mention that altruism is not found outside of man, except roughly in packs. However, doesn't this mean that it is found outside of man? One could argue that outside of humans, other animals perform acts that seem "altruistic" simply for biological reasons, to further their own species (I don't remember exactly how the theory goes, my high school biology class was a horror story... ). Can't one argue then that at least in its origin, human altruism and the essence of "good" could be somewhat biological as well?

This is getting really Off Topic; it is the sort of thing I could and would argue in a RL debate, where I personally don't have to take into account the presence of a God, so to speak (I am not atheist, but am wary of ideas of morality), but I don't know how legitimate it actually is given the context, Evil in Middle Earth, where I can't exactly claim that Eru does not exist...

[edited] Almost forgot! WF, I have another idea for you. In a debate over whether or not humans created evil, I believe you may be correct in that it is impossible to create something out of nothing.

However, I do not believe we addressed the issue of whether evil actually exists. Humans might not be able to bring into existence something that did not exist before, but we can easily believe that something that still doesn't exist actually does. If I show you the door to a closed room, and tell you that the chair I made out of wood lies within it, this doesn't mean necessarily that the chair is actually there.

[inked]

Elemmire,

You might be amused to read a synopsis of the argument in Plato and its application to LOTR in THE LORD OF THE RINGS AND PHILOSOPHY: One Book to Rule Them All edited by Gregory Bassham and Eric Bronson in the Popular Culture and Philosophy Series edited by William Irwin and published by Open Court. It is a look at this problem of morality and its relation to life.

a sample: "Plato's long dialogue, the REPUBLIC, is concerned with one central issue: the justification of the morally good life. "Why be moral?' is the crucial question that must be answered. Books II - X."

Beren3000 if you are lurking or passing by, have you read this one yet? and care to contribute to the thread here?

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

If I have it right, I think that argument makes a lot of sense... and no religion involved!
Though I would have to wonder at what exactly that "something" was.

And there's the rub.

It's not at all difficult to show that morality exists - anyone who believes otherwise is deceiving themselves. With a little more effort, you can figure out what is good, and what is evil. With signaficantly more effort, it is possible to reason out something of the nature of morality, and how it is derived from the fact that humans exist.

Now you want to know 'Where does it come from?'. I think the obvious (and correct) assumption is that it has to come from somewhere, and that since morality is tied to the human condition it might have its origin in the same thing that created humanity. But whatever that is it's almost beyond our capabilities to reason out - our attempts to do that seem to inevitably leave us with irrational scenarios centered around the hatching of cosmic eggs, the cutting up of enormous giants, and unexplained explosions of space and time.

And here there's a catch-22. We can get to this point by ourselves - there's a great deal which we can learn through sheer stubbornness if we're willing to slog it out. We can use reason to understand the nature of our existance, as you said, without 'falling back on religion'. But you see, there comes a point where you're not falling back on religion, you're moving forward into it. In morality, and in every other avenue of human experience, there comes a point where, as inked said, naturalism falls flat on its face. Our reasoning eventually leads to a point where the universe demands that there be Something Else behind it all. Either you accept that, or you throw up your hands and go home, because any other explanation flies in the face of everything we know.

What you call religion isn't something you go to when you don't want to use reason (though it has been treated that way). It's the logical outcome you arrive at as a result of reasoning - witness all the great minds over the centuries who have come to the same conclusion, and those that have failed or even been driven to madness in their pursuit of an alternative. This is the only answer that makes sense of it all.

[Elemmírë]

It's all a dream, Wayfarer... all a dream...

There is no evil...

There is no world...

*slowly driving herself insane*

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

And here there's a catch-22. We can get to this point by ourselves - there's a great deal which we can learn through sheer stubbornness if we're willing to slog it out. We can use reason to understand the nature of our existance, as you said, without 'falling back on religion'. But you see, there comes a point where you're not falling back on religion, you're moving forward into it. In morality, and in every other avenue of human experience, there comes a point where, as inked said, naturalism falls flat on its face. Our reasoning eventually leads to a point where the universe demands that there be Something Else behind it all. Either you accept that, or you throw up your hands and go home, because any other explanation flies in the face of everything we know.

I basically didn't want to turn this into a religious debate. If you accept the presence of morality and good and evil as obvious, which you do, then yes, you're going to have to move into religious arguments. And then we'd have to go over to the Beliefs thread...

When this discussion is moved back into the realm of ME, can it even be debated that evil exists? IMO, you would have to follow to at least some extent Catholic ideas of morality.

So... the question of whether evil exists is answered. The question of how still seems unanswerable. The question of why...

Anyone want to tackle it again?

[inked]

How evil exists is derivatively. There must be good to even have a possibility of evil as there must be light to have the possibility of shadows. The shadows are entirely derivative. Nonexistent without light and without the interposition of something between the light and a farther observer.

Evil is a) the taking of a good in an improper mode or degree or inappropriate time, or b) the pursuit of a good without regard to the good of others, c) the theft of a good from another by intent or accident, or d) the deliberate suppression of the good of another for perceived self-interest, e) the deliberate destruction of the good for personal pleasure or aggrandizement, or f) opposition to God (the Ultimate Good) out of pride. The categorization of evil in the Christian Church has been known in short as the Seven Deadly Sins. How many can you think of?

[Elemmírë]

Off the top of my head?

pride, lust, envy, sloth, greed, um...

gluttony?

is anger?


Oh dear, I seem to be confusing my question words...

[edited] Interesting how you used the word "good" to define "evil" in every case. But not at all surprising...

I don't think that "pure evil" exists... but how about "pure good"?

In ME or elsewhere...

[inked]

Excellent!

Luxuria or Lust
Ira or Wrath
Gula or Gluttony
Avaritia or Covetousness
Invidia or Envy
Acedia or Sloth
Superbia or Pride

Your Greed equals Covetousness (tho' the latin avaritia captures the sense!). For an excellent and brief review of these lovelies, see "The Other Six Deadly Sins" in CREED OR CHAOS by Dorothy L. Sayers (1949). If you prefer a more exacting and exampled review read her translation of Dante's DIVINE COMEDY with her superb footnotes and explications.

Pure evil does not exist for evil is (all together now) DERIVATIVE. Tolkien makes the point exactly and explicitly in regard to ME - pure evil does not and cannot exist, it is nothing, zero, non-existent.

And, as you noted the description of evil involves necessarily a recollection of the good on which it exists and without which it cannot exist.

There is pure good in the absolute sense. It is self-existent and gave existence to all that is otherwise. It is God of whom it is said "In the beginning God said"...and there was. The creation of the hierarchy of being down to and including matter and all the panoply of creatures from the earth up to and including humanity were declared "good" and that by the Creator.
The creation of creatures with free will necessarily entailed the possibilities of obedience or disobedience. Creatures endowed with that free will had all goodness according to their perfection and place and their capability of creation commensurate. That meant, too, necessarily commensurate potential for disobedience. In each case, the potential for evil could exist without actualization save by deliberate choice of disobedience. And the actualization of the potential was commensurate in the same way with the place and perfection in the hierarchy of being. So in ME Melkor was capable of the most evil potentially and in actuality when he opposed Iluvatar. And great was his fall, and many in his train, to nothingness. So in the primary world, too. From archangel to human, all who knew the good and desired to be in the place of God, actualized their potential and wrought evil in commensurate fashions. That is why we say PRIDE is the first sin in ME and this primary world and that all other evils flow from it as a river from its source. For each evil is a good desired, sought, or wrested in the wrong manner, in the wrong degree, or the wrong season.

But Ultimate Good being unwilling that any should perish took flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth and revealed the very nature of the Creator in the humility of enfleshment, and wreaking obedience in a disobedient world, subverted evil and redeemed it. This took place only in the primary world however and is not accomplished in ME. But as the Redeemer was the Word and eternal as well as fully human, His work in time was also in eternity and applicable to the whole of the disordered creation from first sin to last, and efficacious for the redemption of every act of evil, if men would only claim the gift! Hence, humanity may and will call Him LORD and SAVIOUR in the primary world! And He walks in eternal majesty through ME and this world.
For as Aragorn observed, "Good has not changed."

[Attalus]

What inked said. God is perfect Good.

[Wayfarer]

Indeed.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Does that then make Satan "perfect" evil?

[Pytt]

no, it don't TD. not as I can see it. beacuse as it stands, pure evil don't exist. I don't remeber straight what stands, but in the beggining everythng was good, but with free will they have the possiblity to do evil deeds.
I think..
read inked's post once more

[Attalus]

To quote JRRT in the Letters,

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.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

But you see, there comes a point where you're not falling back on religion, you're moving forward into it.

Well said!

In morality, and in every other avenue of human experience, there comes a point where, as inked said, naturalism falls flat on its face. Our reasoning eventually leads to a point where the universe demands that there be Something Else behind it all. Either you accept that, or you throw up your hands and go home, because any other explanation flies in the face of everything we know.

What you call religion isn't something you go to when you don't want to use reason (though it has been treated that way). It's the logical outcome you arrive at as a result of reasoning - witness all the great minds over the centuries who have come to the same conclusion, and those that have failed or even been driven to madness in their pursuit of an alternative. This is the only answer that makes sense of it all.

Well said, again!