Evil in Middle-Earth

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Fewin Greenleaf

No, lying does not automatically make a person evil. It is what he does that is evil.

Well take Boromir, he commited an evil deed. Was he evil.

[Haradrim]

Thanks Artanis and I didnt mean to make it seem like I was applying his theory I was just saying that they could be paralelled as you said. HAri Seldon couldnt predict one humans fate but he could predict a groups fate. Illuvatar didnt write down each elfs fate but he did create a fate for elves.

And then humans didnt have their fate created as a race or as an individual.

But these are just my views.

[inked]

The existence of free will is modeled in the song of Ainur which blended with the music of Eru and was worked out within the context of that provision and in harmony with it. Melkor chose to elevate himself and his music against that harmony. This is actually much better than simply stating the availability of free will. JRRT demonstrates the existence of that free will and the option to act harmoniously with the One. He also demonstrates the derivative nature of evil in that Melkor and his abilities were created by the One whom Meldor chose to thwart for Melkor's aggrandizement of Melkor. The One then incorporates the rebellion into the fabric of the music and shows his Supremacy in that process. Melkor is then left with nothing but destruction as an option in which he can express his will against that of Eru.

JRRT incorporates so much more than mere statement but we can make statements about these issues based on the story. Here's how I see it.
1) All being has its source in the Creator.
2) Creation and being were good as designed and made.
3) Derivative beings were hierarchically structured from Eru down to the most
primitive consciousness arising from matter.
4) Those derivative beings were created so as to be able to participate in
life willingly or to not participate willingly.
5) Created beings actualized their participation by obedience to the structure
of the music making real contributions OR actualized their disobedience
by disrupting the music.
6) Subsequent to that first disobedience due to self-will versus the One (aka
pride) all subsequent disobedience flows.
7) Evil has no independent existence.
8) Degree of evil is proportional to hierarchal status (e.g. both Melkor and
Smeagol may become evil and their degeneracy is related to their
place in the created order - Melkor is much more capable of affecting
more than Gollum - but each is what he is through self-will).
9) Individuals within the created order retain their free will until the terminus
of their existence fixes their choice of obedience or disobedience.
10)Individuals may do wrong and do it from evil motive, or they may do wrong
not of evil motive.
11)Individuals may do rightly from good motive, or they may do rightly from
evil motive.
12)Each individual is responsible for his/her/its intent and motive and action.
13)Erring individuals may discover their error and repair it and turn from it, or
they may embrace their error and promulgate it.
14)Each and all of the possibilities and permutations of them is possible to the
beings at each level of created order.
15)Each created being allies himself/herself/itself with either Eru or Melkor by
actual choices available to that creature given the constraints of its
position in the creation and the influential actions of other beings prior
in time (if applicable) and current in time (if applicable).
16)When given choices in alliance and action, those choices matter not only
to the individual but to the whole fabric of creation.

Evil is therefore real and matters in the creation, but arises within individuals as possibility and is embraced into actuality rather than self-existent. Thus when good triumphs, evil will cease to have existence - in the individual and in the created order.

[Attalus]

Great post, inked. Very comprehensive.

[Wayfarer]

Put simply, Evil is Dischord. Evil is any deviation, no matter how slight, from the plan of the One as set forth in the original Music. An individual is evil when they wilfully and knowingly deviate from that plan, and good when they attempt to carry it out. I don't see why that requires a complicated explaination to understand.

[inked]

Wayfarer,

you wrote:"Put simply, Evil is Dischord. Evil is any deviation, no matter how slight, from the plan of the One as set forth in the original Music. An individual is evil when they wilfully and knowingly deviate from that plan, and good when they attempt to carry it out. I don't see why that requires a complicated explaination to understand."

Well, not to put too fine a touch on it, how would you categorize the creation of the Dwarves in violation of Eru's plan? Was it evil because discordant because of impatience or merely wrong for that reason? If evil, how like Melkor's actions and how dislike?

I would argue that wrong because of impatience is not the same as the twisting of creation to destruction for the expression of rebellion against Eru.
All error is not therefore evil, IMHO. That doesn't mean all error must not be rectified or redeemed or both, but that all that is erroneous or discordant is not evil in and of itself. I think this is what Tolkien was demonstrating with the musical analogy; discord may be part of the musical expression legitimately but not when in opposition to Eru or for self-aggrandizement.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i say evil is simple -
Category 1: Taking a conscious and sentient decision to commit acts which disrupt the general order of Arda, Morgoth, Sauron, Ungoliant, Saruman, The Balrogs & Shelob are the ones I would place in this bracket.

Category 2: Being forced or coerced into committing acts of disruption, Orcs, Trolls, Easterlings, Southrons, Nazgul, the Men of Numenor to a lesser extent (Ar-Pharazon...), and the elves which committed such acts, eg Feanor, Eol, Celegorm etc.

Mind you this is only an opinion!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

So you are saying elves, dwarves and hobbits etc. didn't have a mind of their own.

I had been placed under the impression, by reading UT & LotR
that hobbits were in fact a mannish race anyway...?
(confirmation or condemnation from someone with more
knowledge than me...?)

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i say evil is simple -
Category 1: Taking a conscious and sentient decision to commit acts which disrupt the general order of Arda, Morgoth, Sauron, Ungoliant, Saruman, The Balrogs & Shelob are the ones I would place in this bracket.

Category 2: Being forced or coerced into committing acts of disruption, Orcs, Trolls, Easterlings, Southrons, Nazgul, the Men of Numenor to a lesser extent (Ar-Pharazon...), and the elves which committed such acts, eg Feanor, Eol, Celegorm etc.

Mind you this is only an opinion!

Do you think those in 'Category 2' would have had no choice in the matter? Did they bear no culpability for what they did?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Do you think those in 'Category 2' would have had no choice in the matter? Did they bear no culpability for what they did?

Cat 2 is my unknown quantity, some, eg elves/men, would have had choices in the matter, but had been corrupted, others, such as orcs, nazgul and trolls etc would have had no choice, slaves to their master's will.

[Attalus]

Coerced evil is a difficult problem. Patti Hearst was jailed for robbing a bank even though she had been abused and brainwashed by her captors. I guess the final judgement lies with Eru, knowing what was in the individual's heart when they committed their evil acts, whether they had a choice or not.

[Valandil]

BTW... v good post, inked! Reminded me of a similar discussion we'd had in the Silmarillion forum.... which I just bumped FYB (for your benefit)

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, not to put too fine a touch on it, how would you categorize the creation of the Dwarves in violation of Eru's plan? Was it evil because discordant because of impatience or merely wrong for that reason? If evil, how like Melkor's actions and how dislike?

I would argue that wrong because of impatience is not the same as the twisting of creation to destruction for the expression of rebellion against Eru.
All error is not therefore evil, IMHO. That doesn't mean all error must not be rectified or redeemed or both, but that all that is erroneous or discordant is not evil in and of itself.

Not to put to fine a touch on it , but is there really any need to distinguish between 'Evil' and merely 'Wrong'. In this case the two are synonymous.

I would say that Aulë did indeed do an act of Evil in creating the Dwarves. However, since hi sintention was to fulfill the Music, and in his subsequent repentance was willing to undo his evil, Eru granted him his original desire.

Remember that what Aulë first did was create physical shells and animate them with his own power. That is an evil act, and something of the sort Melkor would do. When Eru gave the Dwarves souls, they were brought into accordance with the Music as the other children, negating that evil.

[inked]

Wayfarer,

I don't agree they are synonymous in this case.

Evil is the product of pride and elevation of self-will above that of Eru in the case of Melkor and it contains the component of destruction as intentional for self-aggrandizement.

Aule did not intend destruction nor to oppose himself to Eru. He did show self-will in his impatience to bring forth what he supposed Eru was doing in Aule's time. In this he was wrong (impatience) and erroneous (deviating from Eru's plan). It lacks the intention to destruction. I think Aule depicts the legitimate scientist or seeker after knowledge who procedes faster than ethics or morality would allow. No intention to evil is present consciously but great evil may come of the action(s). This is how Aule differed from Melkor as I see it.

Aule came to see his error and own it as error and attempted to correct his error. This process is known as repentance and resulted in the redemption of Aule's work and intention by inclusion in Eru's plan. But it did not result in Eru altering his original intent in regard to the FirstBorn. The Dwarves were put on hold. (That Eru honored that in Aule's actions which sought to honor Eru shows the magnaminity of Eru and his cooperation with his creatures who dealt appropriately with their errors.) In this too Aule differed from Melkor. Here I think Aule depicts the honorably intended scientist or seeker after knowledge who realizes the error and seeks to correct it by holding back implementation or perhaps even destroying findings that humanity cannot handle.

Aule's creation of the physical shells and animating them by his own power was an erroneous act. But I deny that it was evil. Aule got caught up in the disordered love of an idea. He had knowledge in part of Eru's intent and strove to make it reality outside of Eru's timing. (This is analogous to sin, but it is sin of excess, eg, taking a legitimate action at an illegitimate time or in degrees greater than permissible.) Aule models the appropriate response one may take when one discovers this in one's self or one's work - he abases himself, acknowledges his error and seeks to make amends. But even here he again errs by disordered response and would undo his work before hearing Eru's final say. Aule in fact is very human, nearly a St Peter in his mode of actions. When he finally realizes Eru's will in his specific situation, he embraces it with appropriate obedience. In this he is opposite Melkor.

So, having put on the fine points, O Insufferable One, what sayest thou?

[Wayfarer]

Yeah, yeah... yada yada... blah blah blah. Okay. Fascinating post. But before we get to my attempts at logic and the 'my opinion is' bits, let's play an old game I like to call 'Wayfarer Defines All The Terms And Puts an End To Debating Over Words.'
(This is the part where you say: 'Sounds fun! Let's get started, shall we?' And I, being Wayfarer, get to go first:

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.

Notice that Sense 1, 2, and 5 apply to the discussion. 2 and 4 are meanings unrelated to the concept of real evil. Notice that three possible meanings are: Morally wrong, caising injury, and characterized by anger.

Wrong

1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2. a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
3. b. Unfair; unjust.
4. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
5. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
6. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.
7. Not functioning properly; out of order.
8. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
9. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.

Again, not that not all possible meanings apply. Due to one thing or another, we can rule out all meanings but 2a, 4, and 6. Again, one is contrary to morality, another is innapropriate, and a third is undesirable because of social convention.

Allright... so what is this 'Morality' that's now been mentioned twice? Well, the root word is 'Moral' so...

Moral

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

In this case, it's probably senses 1-4 that apply. Don't you agree? In any case, let's toss in another, similar word which you use a form of:


Ethic

1. A set of principles of right conduct.
2. A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
3. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
4. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

This pretty much appies in its entirity. Notice that all the words we're using have significant overlap.

Bad

1. More inferior, as in quality, condition, or effect.
   More severe or unfavorable.
2. Being further from a standard; less desirable or satisfactory.
   Being in poorer health; more ill. .

Not quite as closely related, but still important. And with that, I think we have enough to go on with.

[Wayfarer]

Okay. Now that we've gotten all the toys set out, it's playtime.

Originally Posted by inked

I don't agree they are synonymous in this case.

We'll see abou that. ]; )

Originally Posted by inked

Evil is the product of pride and elevation of self-will above that of Eru in the case of Melkor and it contains the component of destruction as intentional for self-aggrandizement.

Let me rephrase that: In the case of Melkor, Evil is the product of pride and elevation of self-will above that of Eru and it contains the component of destruction as intentional for self-aggrandizement.

Yeah. That's true. But defining a term on a single-case basis doesn't usually work very well. We know that Melkor's behavior was evil, and by extension anything that would fall into the same category. We do not know whether this is the limit of what can be considered evil. Get what I'm saying?

Originally Posted by inked

Aule did not intend destruction nor to oppose himself to Eru. He did show self-will in his impatience to bring forth what he supposed Eru was doing in Aule's time. *snip*

Here's where we ask - is that enough to make his action nonevil?

Originally Posted by inked

I think Aule depicts the legitimate scientist or seeker after knowledge who procedes faster than ethics or morality would allow. No intention to evil is present consciously but great evil may come of the action(s). This is how Aule differed from Melkor as I see it.*snip*

I think that's a fair description. Aulë was certainly not screwing up on the same order as Melkor, but is there some reason to think one is evil and the other isn't? Let's look at what you just said.

Aulë 'proceeds faster than ethics or morality would allow'. In this, we could he behaves in a way which is both innappropriate and undesirable from a moral or ethical standpoint. In short, he is wrong (2a&5).

Now, 'Morally Wrong' is the first definition we have of the word 'Evil'. And that's exactly what you just said his actions were, despite the fact you tried to couch it in different terms to enforce a purely artificial distinction.

Originally Posted by inked

No intention to evil is present consciously but great evil may come of the action(s).*snip*

Okay, here I think we're getting somewhere... Aulë is not consciously doing evil, even if there are evil results to his actions.

I don't have a problem with this. As I said, a person is not nescessarily evil because they do evil acts.

And so on and so forth...

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

is it me or has wayfarer turned into a living, breathing drictionary?

[Attalus]

Hey, that sounds like one of my posts. I wish we had you on the giant Did-Eowyn-kill-the-Witch-King? argument, er, discussion.

[Michael Martinez]

I would regard evil as any act contrary to God's will. Some evil can be forgiven. Some evil won't be forgiven.

To do evil, however, does not strip one of the ability to feel remorse or to repent of the evil. Simply committing one, or even several, evil acts isn't what makes one's nature utterly evil. Melkor and Sauron immersed themselves in evil acts for ages.

[inked]

Wayfarer, O Insufferable One,

You left out a crucial component in your definitions!
.
.
.
.
.
As a former US President said "It depends on what you mean by 'is."