Evil in Middle-Earth

[Wayfarer]

No. No. No.

Again, you miss the point, Haradrim.

Words have meanings. Each word refers to a specific concept. The word Evil, by definition, means a certain class of actions - it is NOT just whatever the majority of people happen to dislike.

You make the grave error of not distinguishing between Fact and Opinion. Whether or not an object fits the definition of evil is a far different question from whether or not people believe it to be evil.

Even if every man, woman, and child on earth sincerely believed that Murder, Rape, and Torture were 'good', and that Compassion and Altruism were 'evil', that doesn't make any difference. Evil is Evil. The only way that you could ever say otherwise is by changing the definition of Evil - which renders the entire thing a moot point since you're now talking about something completely different from what everyone else is.

[Haradrim]

Okay I just want to know who specified that murder, rape, and stealing is evil and who specified that truth and love were good. You yourself said no one decided it. We as a people decided it. Im not talking about evil as the word but evil as the concept so there is no set definition for it. Also why is murder bad? Why is rape bad? and why is stealing evil?

[Attalus]

*Sigh* Nobody "decided it." It is self-evident, to everyone who has witnessed it, that murder and rape are evil. Every society that we have records of have condemned them, including the Code of Hammurabi, the oldest corpus of laws in history. And you still have not given us an example of a society that does not condemn them, and whose definition of evil is different than ours. C.S. Lewis called it "the Tao," and it is the common morality of the human race. He does this in The Abolition of Man, a book that you should read. Soon.

[inked]

Attalus,

A-a-men! A-a-men! A-a-men! A-men! Amen!

set to a possibly recognizable tune you should know well!


Haradrim,

I second Attalus' recommendation. Criminy, I'll third it, vote it, and get unanimous approval!

[Wayfarer]

Nobody needs to 'decide' on it, Haradrim. That's the point. It's true by definition. People decide what the word means - in this case, Evil is defined as 'Morally wrong' 'causing harm'. Then we can look at things like Murder, Rape, and so forth, and say 'This is an Evil act, because it fits the definition of Evil'.

To say anything else is inaccurate. I repeat, there are only two ways you can say that Murder or Rape is not evil: You can say 'I don't think Murder or Rape is harmful', in which case we go to the definition of Harm and see whether or not those actions cause harm. Or, you can do as you seem to, and attempt to redefine the word 'Evil'.

You repeatedly confuse two widely disparate concepts: What is evil, and what is called evil. These are not the same thing. Take another word: for example hot. The word hot means 'At a high temperature'. Anything that is at a high temperature is hot by definition. But even if everybody on earth gets together and agrees that Miranda Otto is hot, her temperature does not change (Although in this example there are alternate definitions which may apply).

Because you see, words have meanings. But the important thing to remember is that the word itself is only a symbol representing a concept. Changing the word doesn't change the concept to which it refers - we can change the definitions so that Ice is now Hot and Murder is now Good, but that doesn't have any effect on the truth of the previous statement - Ice still has a low temperature, murder is still harmful. Trying to redefine the word to change the concept to which it refers is the act of a fool.

(I also vote for reading The Abolition of Man, btw. )

[Pytt]

I agree! Wayfarer, that was great!I havent't thought much about evil in that wawsy, but your post, and others in realy helps me see what evil realy is.

[Haradrim]

Okay. In my opinion.... evil is not in the same league as hot or cold. It is a concept, a moral belief. It is something we as human beings give definition to and everyone on this planet knows the difference excpet for a few crackerjacks. I think the underlying difference in our beliefs is that we believ in two very different ways of looking at evil. You look at it as something that exists something that is actually there and I look on it as a concept we have given a name for. I think of it like love. In my opinion love is a creation of ours to give menaing to a concpet which we "feel". I feel the same way about evil. I believe we as a people created it and gave name to something that is an concept. So I wish to end my portion of this debate and not conceeding but offering my hand as a truce.

[Olmer]

I think you all missing the point what Haradrim is trying to tell. He is talking about the roots of the meaning

The Universe does not have Good and Evil; whatever happens is just usual course of nature, which does not judge, but constantly struggles to keep stability between the Order and the tendency for Chaos. What we call Good simply woun't exist without what we call Evil. For better or for worth it was CREATED by God for counterbalance, and by God it was allowed to exist. It is the LAW of Nature, nothing more or less .
The distinction between this two balances made by PEOPLE for a guidance to move from the primitive cave-men clans to more civilized society.
As time went by and the earth was becoming more densely inhabited the popular believes was formed by people and defined by the people to regulate safe communication between each other, and then got holded to it by the majority.
It doesn't mean that the evil meant the same to everybody; some tribes were killing theirs mortally wounded and terminally sick; in some the rape was a celebrated custom, some were eating people without giving a second thought about theirs gastronomic morbidness. In their eyes they did not commit evil-doing, they were just following the courses of nature as is set for miriads inhabitants of the earth.

As we progressed towards more civilized society, we learned to control the "calls of nature" by making a distinction of things which would be hurtfull to others, and in many times it grossly depends on the definition of the Evil considered by society you are in. Sadly it's still true for our time.
So, the whole conception of the Evil was created not by the nature, but by the people in order to protect them from slipping back from civilized population to unruly prehistoric men with basic instincts instead of intelligence.

[Attalus]

Highly disagree. Evil is not a concept relative to the universe but to human beings, and thus by extension to Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits. Evil was not created by God, in Christian theology, but by His created beings deviating from His will, so also in Tolkien. To say so is to revert to a Zoroastrian or dualistic viewpoint, which I will not.

[Haradrim]

Thanks Olmer. You really put it like I have been trying to but have been failing. Curse my nonwisdominess. Thanks.
And also I do have a culture where murder was perfectly acceptable and not evil. The Aztecs. They sacraficed their people to the gods all the time so as to preserve the world. Actually that may have been the maya or inca but ti was on eof them.

And then again Attalus evil in ME originaly thought itself a deviant but then again isnt Eru all powerful so why didnt he just snuff Melkor or Sauron out of existence. Ill tell you why because evil was a part of his plan. The people of ME gave it the name evil because it wasnt what they believed. Eru allowed it to exist and he even told Melkor that what he thought was being deviant was all part of his plan. SO there is no evil or and no good it is all a part of his plan. Whether he be God or Eru or whatever you may or may not believe.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Haradrim

And then again Attalus evil in ME originaly thought itself a deviant but then again isnt Eru all powerful so why didnt he just snuff Melkor or Sauron out of existence. Ill tell you why because evil was a part of his plan. The people of ME gave it the name evil because it wasnt what they believed. Eru allowed it to exist and he even told Melkor that what he thought was being deviant was all part of his plan. SO there is no evil or and no good it is all a part of his plan. Whether he be God or Eru or whatever you may or may not believe.

Right now, I'm going to agree with Attalus and look at this from the point-of-view that evil and good both exist. In real life, I don't actually believe this, but because Tolkien put a lot of Christian theology into the mythology of Middle Earth, I have to assume that good and evil do in fact exist.

Which means that as much as I like your idea that Eru allowed it to exist, both good and evil were part of his plan, and so neither really was, I'm going to have to discount it, if only because of your comment "there is no evil...and no good."

Going from there, destruction and "snuffing out" are theoretically evil (you'll notice I use theoretically a lot, especially when I don't particularly always or even ever believe it in real life).

Maybe it would have been more evil if Eru had used his power to destroy Morgoth and Sauron and the other "evil" creatures of ME.

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Maybe it would have been more evil if Eru had used his power to destroy Morgoth and Sauron and the other "evil" creatures of ME.

So, you consider that wiping out the whole population of living an breathing people of Beleriand and Numenor, whose crime was in asking Eru for aid, is a less evil-doing then destroying the major source of evil?
Those Elves and Men, children, women, elderly - all had been annihiliated, but Morgoth was spared, and also Sauron. How benign was Eru's intentions by doing this?
I see no other explanation that for an entity as immense as Eru is no such things as Good and Evil. In his judgment he just do things what he feels fit in the Grand design, for him all what he is doing is Good and Just.

Originally Posted by Haradrim

Eru allowed it to exist and he even told Melkor that what he thought was being deviant was all part of his plan.

.
In another words he ignored the copyright law and put the stamp "Made by Eru" on all good or bad creations.

Originally Posted by Attalus

Highly disagree. and thus by extension to Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits. Evil was not created by God, in Christian theology, but by His created beings deviating from His will, so also in Tolkien. To say so is to revert to a Zoroastrian or dualistic viewpoint, which I will not

I guess you are disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing.
"Evil is not a concept relative to the universe, but to human beings" : this is exactly what Haradrim and I are putting across.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Olmer

So, you consider that wiping out the whole population of living an breathing people of Beleriand and Numenor, whose crime was in asking Eru for aid, is a less evil-doing then destroying the major source of evil?
Those Elves and Men, children, women, elderly - all had been annihiliated, but Morgoth was spared, and also Sauron. How benign was Eru's intentions by doing this?
I see no other explanation that for an entity as immense as Eru is no such things as God and Evil. In his judgment he just do things what he feels fit in the Grand design, for him all what he is doing is Good and Just.

Can't talk about Attalus, but I'll make it clear here that I at least am the one "disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing." Though in my case, it's more my desire to see both sides of the metaphorical story.

What I was trying to say was that in my understanding of the theology that underlies Tolkien's work (and we can debate that as long as we want ), destruction itself seems to be evil.

Doing Evil for a good reason does not change the fact that you are still doing evil. If Eru is an inherently good...um, entity...(and I have my doubts), then what would it have meant for him to do something as evil as destroying Morgoth...? As we've seen, many of the villains were not inherently evil, but slowly corrupted. I know I don't want to imagine what the world would have been like with a corrupted Eru (if such a thing is possible).

It might be a bad example, but look at the sons of Feanor. I'm going to argue that they swore the Oath out of love for their father (I am not going to comment on said father, however). This could be considered doing the wrong thing for the right reasons (as would Eru's hypothetical destruction of Melkor). And look at all the evil it caused as a result.

What would have happened had they not gone with him? Most certainly less evil would have occurred, but they would probably have been seen as abandoning their father. Under those circumstances, one could have argued that they should have helped him, not knowing the evil such an action would have caused.

This is all hypothetical, of course.

(And I hope this is at least slightly lucid, it's getting near 1:30 and I really need to sleep... )

Anyway, to carry my hopefully sound analogy through to its conclusion...

Since Eru did not destroy Morgoth, we have no way of knowing what would have happened if such a thing had occurred. The history of the First Age and everything that followed it would have been different. For the Elves of Beleriand, that would have certainly been better, but for everything that came after?

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Haradrim

.
And also I do have a culture where murder was perfectly acceptable and not evil. The Aztecs. They sacraficed their people to the gods all the time so as to preserve the world. Actually that may have been the maya or inca but ti was on eof them.

And then again Attalus evil in ME originaly thought itself a deviant but then again isnt Eru all powerful so why didnt he just snuff Melkor or Sauron out of existence. Ill tell you why because evil was a part of his plan. The people of ME gave it the name evil because it wasnt what they believed. Eru allowed it to exist and he even told Melkor that what he thought was being deviant was all part of his plan. SO there is no evil or and no good it is all a part of his plan. Whether he be God or Eru or whatever you may or may not believe.

This is so wrong-headed that it is difficult even to figure out where to start. You seem ignorant of even the definition of murder: "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice". - Dictionary.com. The Aztec ritual sacrifices were quite lawful, as an intregal part of their religion. Repugnant to a Christian, perhaps, and containing a great portion of evil in their own right, but not murder, which is for private gain and satisfaction. Eru did not "just snuff out" Melkor and Sauron because He gave them free will, just like all of the Children. Free will is just that, to do right or wrong, be blessed or damned is an individual choice. He told Melkor that what he did would redound to the Plan, not that it was part of it.

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Olmer

I see no other explanation that for an entity as immense as Eru is no such things as Good and Evil. In his judgment he just do things what he feels fit in the Grand design, for him all what he is doing is Good and Just.
.
In another words he ignored the copyright law and put the stamp "Made by Eru" on all good or bad creations.

I guess you are disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing.
"Evil is not a concept relative to the universe, but to human beings" : this is exactly what Haradrim and I are putting across.

Nope, I am disagreeing for the sake of my thinking that you and Haradim are wrong, wrong wrong. Evil is a concept to human beings, not to stars and meteorites. Everything that Eru does is good and just, because He is the source of all good, and evil by Christian theology is anything that runs counter to His will.

[Wayfarer]

I don't understand how you can continue missing the essential point.

Okay. In my opinion.... evil is not in the same league as hot or cold. It is a concept...

Evil is a word. Words have meanings. Evil is a word that happens to refer to a concept rather than an object. An Evil act is one that fits the definition of the word Evil. Period. You can argue that any given act isn't evil, but the definition is there, and it means something. Period. To attempt to re-define the word 'Evil' to mean something other than what it does is no less foolish than trying to change the meaning of 'Hot' or 'Cold'.

The only reason this line of discussion has continued is your apparent inability to understand that words have meanings. I don't hold this against you, but it's just plain incorrect. Wrong.

Whether the words 'Evil' or 'Love' refer to concrete objects or to concepts is inconsequential. Words have meaning - When you say 'Evil' or 'love' or 'hot' or 'purple' you are referring to certain defined concepts. Those words cannot correctly be used to refer to something that does not fit the defined meaning.

Likewise, whether something is thought of as evil does not influence whether or not it is evil. You can argue that Atzec sacrifices do not fit the definition of Evil - that they were not morally wrong, that they did not cause harm, that they were not characterized by spite - in order to claim that human sacrifice was not an Evil act. You can do the same for cannibalism - it is possible to argue that the consumption of slain enemies or war prisoners was beneficial, and in fact caused more good than harm. But it will never be true that 'An act 'A' was not evil because society does not think it is Evil'. That claim can only ever be made from sheer ignorance or blatant dishonesty.

You might think I make too big a deal about this, but I cannot in good conscious accept a truce over a matter in which someone is so plainly Aand obviously wrong. I can no more admit the validity of your case than I could if someone tried to tell me that ice is 'hotter' than water, the sky is 'orange', and 'up' points towards the center of a gravity well.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I don't understand how you can continue missing the essential point.

Evil is a word. Words have meanings. Evil is a word that happens to refer to a concept rather than an object. An Evil act is one that fits the definition of the word Evil. Period. You can argue that any given act isn't evil, but the definition is there, and it means something. Period. To attempt to re-define the word 'Evil' to mean something other than what it does is no less foolish than trying to change the meaning of 'Hot' or 'Cold'.

But Wayfarer, words only have the meanings we assign them. I'd hate to get into semantics (what am I talking about, that's what we've been doing the whole time)...but do any words exist in an of themselves? Evil isn't quite so easy to define as bird or chair... And why not change the meaning of hot and cold? It's all relative. What you would see as hot in Alaska might be cold in Ecuador.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

The only reason this line of discussion has continued is your apparent inability to understand that words have meanings. I don't hold this against you, but it's just plain incorrect. Wrong.

Not going to repeat my last statement, but we've been doing a little more than just that! I know I've been rambling on in a semi-lucid state...

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

You might think I make too big a deal about this, but I cannot in good conscious accept a truce over a matter in which someone is so plainly Aand obviously wrong. I can no more admit the validity of your case than I could if someone tried to tell me that ice is 'hotter' than water, the sky is 'orange', and 'up' points towards the center of a gravity well.

I'll work on the ice and the up ones, but the sky sometimes is orange. Ever seen sunrise or sunset?

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

But Wayfarer, words only have the meanings we assign them. I'd hate to get into semantics (what am I talking about, that's what we've been doing the whole time)...but do any words exist in an of themselves? Evil isn't quite so easy to define as bird or chair... And why not change the meaning of hot and cold? It's all relative. What you would see as hot in Alaska might be cold in Ecuador.

Words do not have inherent meanings. They have meanings given to them by humans, as a matter of convenience. But if they are to be useful the meanings that the are given must be held to.

To take it a bit further - the problem isn't with asking what the meaning of a word is (Inked and I were quibbling about that earlier in the thread, and we essentially agree with each other). It's attempting to change the meaning of a word in such a way as to invalidate the concept the word refers to.

It's the difference between saying that words are made to apply to concepts and that concepts exist because of the words. They're exact opposite approaches.

What, for example, Attalus, Inked, and Myself do is take a word (Evil), work out the definition (Morally wrong, Harmful) and then agree that anything that fits the definition of 'Evil' can be referred to as 'Evil'. The word isn't the think here. If we later decide that 'Evil' will be defined as 'Related to pink bunnies' and that anything which is 'morally wrong or harmful' will be referred to as 'pink', the only think which has changed is the word we use to refer to it - an act (Murder, for example) will still be morally wrong and harmful whether we refer to 'morally wrong' as 'evil' or as 'pink'.

Haradrim, on the other hand, seems to want to say that if 'Evil' is 'Morally Wrong or harmful', and we decide that we're not going to refer to Murder as 'Evil', that murder ceases being 'Morally wrong or harmful' as well. It's a completely bogus line of thought.

The point is, it's not about the word 'Evil'. It's about the concept of evil, which is what the word refers to. Trying to change the word in order to make the concept invalid is a shoddy tactic, and doesn't work in any sense whatsoever. What's more, it's a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I'll work on the ice and the up ones, but the sky sometimes is orange. Ever seen sunrise or sunset?

Replace 'Orange' with 'Neon Green'.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Attalus

This is so wrong-headed that it is difficult even to figure out where to start. You seem ignorant of even the definition of murder: "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice". - Dictionary.com.

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?

[Elemmírë]

I'm not quoting everything you said, Wayfarer...

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

The point is, it's not about the word 'Evil'. It's about the concept of evil, which is what the word refers to. Trying to change the word in order to make the concept invalid is a shoddy tactic, and doesn't work in any sense whatsoever. What's more, it's a waste of time.

I understand what you're getting at now. Hm... I think Haradrim's usage of the word "murder" sabotaged his whole argument. I might have missed something, but I interpretted it as a question not just of the definition of evil but more of a question of the meaning of morality... Though IMO morality in ME is not up for debate...

Replace 'Orange' with 'Neon Green'.

Cheater. I'll have to add that to ice and up.




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