Iluvatar made Melkor evil?

[Lief Erikson]

I think those were very good examples, RÃ*an, and I actually would like to remark that they actually are the same opinions that I have held.

If I might quote myself . . .

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I never said anything against Ilúvatar's defending his own, and I agree that choosing the wrong course brings about eventual ruin for the one who does it, in Tolkien's works.

However, you cannot eliminate from the equation the necessary variable of punishment.

I suppose I simply didn't demonstrate the reasons for this opinion as clearly as your examples did .

[Wayfarer]

Rian, you have successfully shown myself and rian to be substially in agreement. I am most pleased to meet you. THere are a few points which I would state differently, but all in all, you provide an excellent argument. Thank you.

SGH, I did notice your sig, btw.

[Wayfarer]

Now, I would like to make a more lengthy comment on evil and free will:

Whether evil and free will can coexist depends largely on how you define evil. For my purposes, I'm going to say evil is:'deviation of a moral being from the principles of virtue imposed by conscience, or by the will of the Supreme Being, or by the principles of a lawful human authority .'

Now. Can we agree that evil is not good, and good is not evil? In that case, good could be defined as 'adherence by a moral being to the principles of virtue imposed by conscience, or by the will of the Supreme Being, or by the principles of a lawful human authority.'

Now, it is Eru we are concerned with, and he is inarguably the supreme being in arda.

I maintain that Eru, as the creator, knows more about his creation than anyone else. This includes the proper working order.

Now, I don't think it's too big an assumption that the creator would want his creation to act in the manner it was designed to act. Indeed, it is almost inconceivable that he should do otherwise. I would also presume that any principles which he institutes will be to uphold the proper working order.

THis isn't really a problem, because most things don't have free will. Rocks always obey the law of gravitation. Missiles always obey the laws of momentum. Humans always obey the laws of traffic.

Right? ]: )

Now I come to my point. You see, a rock doesn't have free will, it has no choice whether or not it acts as it is supposed to. A human does. And if Eru were to force humans to act accordinly to the principles of good behavior, they would not have free will either.

Now, if Eru knows how things in his creation work best (as I presume he does), and if he wants them to work the best, (as I also presume he does), then it is impossible to have free will without the possibility of evil. Because evil is deviation from the principles which eru has imposed, the inability to choose evil is the inability to do anything other than what eru wishes you to do. Which isn't free will.

Now, there is a way which free will can exist without evil, and that is when every individual chooses to do good. This is what heaven is-the place where everybody has already made the choice. But it is impossible to have free will without at least the possibility of evil.

[Sister Golden Hair]

SGH, I did notice your sig, btw.

Really? Pretty cool huh?

[Wayfarer]

Yes. Who is it?

[Rían]

SGH - ugh, I can't stand beer! My mom used to use it to set her hair in curlers, believe it or not! I prefer White Zinfindel (sp?). I'm not too wild about red wines. No, I'm just silly because I had so much fun this weekend with some long-time girlfriends away from the little kidlings! (I didn't cut up ANYONE's food this weekend! )

"Will he be there, bright and tall, and the wind in his hair? Tell him. Tell him not to be reckless. Not to seek danger beyond need!"

"I will tell him," said Finrod. "But I might as well tell thee not to weep. He is a warrior, Andreth, and a spirit of wrath. In every stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long ago did thee this hurt."

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Yes. Who is it?

It is Andreth and Finrod, from "Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth" Histories of Middle-earth, volume 10, Morgoth's Ring.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Rian, you have successfully shown myself and rian to be substially in agreement. I am most pleased to meet you. THere are a few points which I would state differently, but all in all, you provide an excellent argument. Thank you.

SGH, I did notice your sig, btw.

You're welcome! And I agree with what you stated in your next post.

And I just noticed you asked who were the speakers in SGH's sig, and now I see she answered you. The quote in my post after you said "who is it" is the next two paragraphs in the Athrabeth after her sig. SGH and Artanis and I discussed the Athrabeth at great length a little while ago - it is a beautiful work. You would probably be interested in the appendicies, where it discusses Tolkien's view of the fall of man.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
SGH - ugh, I can't stand beer! My mom used to use it to set her hair in curlers, believe it or not! I prefer White Zinfindel (sp?). I'm not too wild about red wines. No, I'm just silly because I had so much fun this weekend with some long-time girlfriends away from the little kidlings! (I didn't cut up ANYONE's food this weekend! )

Sorry about the beer. I hate wine, gives me heartburn.

Isn't that grand, not having to cut up food for little people. You'll be sorry though when they don't need you for that anymore.

Thank you for the after quote on my sig. That always brings a tear to my eye.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree completely with the opinions and assertions you've just given.

However, let me continue the train of thought. The principles and morals Ilúvatar gives are for his creation's good. His design is perfect and flawless, so to step outside of it is to lose this perfection. Only by coming back to it and reforming your ways can you enter back into this design. When you step outside of Ilúvatar's will or his "moral code", you won't necessarily instantly experience collapse and hardship, though. Numenor is an example of this. When they turned aside from Ilúvatar's will, they gained far more power and influence then they'd had while they were following in obedience to him and the Valar. Their punishment wasn't a natural consequence for their evil. And Ilúvatar's using Frodo to destroy Sauron. That was also an artificial consequence, his using an individual from the outside to defeat evil. I think it's safe to say that Ilúvatar hates evil, and it makes sense, for in Tolkien's world all the races natural hate evil unless they are corrupted, for then they dwell in it. These creatures were created by him and his personality is reflected in their natural behavior.

He hates evil not only because it's bad for the individual who is participating in it, but because of the harm it does to others. And because of this he punishes it, just like a rabid dog must be shot. To keep it from growing and spreading it must be put down, violently if necessary. We see examples of this in all of Tolkien's work. If evil was only harmful to the person participating in it, Ilúvatar wouldn't have to bother to take any action. Everyone would naturally not want to get hurt, so they would stay loyal to him. But often evil can be the more successful road, rather than only the rocky one.

A just god, like Ilúvatar, would have to bring punishments for evil. Evil can frequently appear more pleasant than good, and physically it probably is. To take the legos all for yourself appears to be the nice thing on the outside, and there isn't any reason for it to be more pleasant for you on the outside to not participate in taking it. You upset morals at once, and this leads to the path of imperfection, but if you take the legos, taking them doesn't always lead to personal misery for you. Only if you have a parent around, then you'll regret it.

Let me take RÃ*an's example a step further. Suppose (Taking the natural consequence theory as the only truth and discarding the artificial consequence), there is the parent around and the older child takes the legos from the younger. The older child is made happy by having all the legos for himself now, and the younger child is miserable. The younger child goes to the parent and asks to get the legos back. The parent doesn't bother. What impression will the younger child get? That taking legos from someone else is fine, and won't be punished. It's more pleasant on the exterior, even if it's internally damaging. The younger child grows older and starts behaving the same way, without punishment. Lack of punishment leads to moral collapse not only for the person without discipline, but for others who observe and suffer from the lack of discipline.

This parent, however, luckily, is going to punish the older child. The older child is punished and the younger child sees that taking legos in the future isn't such a good idea. This is an artificial action of the parent, and without it, the normal consequence would have led to disaster.

[Nibs]

Heh. You're right.

My apologies.

[Lief Erikson]

All right .

[Wayfarer]

Yes... And both internal and external consequences of evil are well attested in tolkien.

For example, long before the numenoreans were destroyed in the Breaking, they had begun to die at a much younger age. Why? Because they had become corrupt, and they lived life in grasping fear, rather than with the humility and acceptance of death that Eru intended. They rejected the gift of men, and so made it a curse to themselves.

Sauron is another example. Tolkien writes that, after the ring was destroyed, sauron became impotent, unable to do anything but lurk in the shadows and consume himself in his malice. This is not a punishment from illuvatar, it had already begun before the ring was even made, and was certainly beyond remedy at the moment it was destroyed. In fact, I think the case could be made that destroying the ring of power did not actually harm sauron, it simply negated his power to harm others. And so he was left alone and powerless, with nothing to do but continue the downward spiral of self-torture. I think the word for that condition is 'hell'.

But I digress. You make some very good points.

[Wayfarer]

Change what?

]: )

[Nibs]

Hey, I changed it! Now, maybe you should change yours, now!

[Wayfarer]

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I'll talk with you all more another time. For now, I bid you goodnight .

[MasterMothra]

heheh, if i were a betting man, i would go with legolas, rian.
great siggy SGH. do you approve of mine?

the illusion of free will, and how it applies to tolkien is a great topic of discussion. until you realise one thing: "there are no legos!"

[Wayfarer]

Master mothra, i would like very much to hear you quaqlify the statement that free will in arda is an illusion. There is no basis for your claim whatsoever.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Isn't that grand, not having to cut up food for little people. You'll be sorry though when they don't need you for that anymore.

Thank you for the after quote on my sig. That always brings a tear to my eye.

Yes, the nice thing is that I can solve almost all of my 2 younger kids' problems with a little elbow grease; my 12-year-old's problems are a little more complex.

You're welcome, and here's the final part and the ending of the Athrabeth:

spoken by Finrod Felagund, Friend-of-Men, to Andreth the wise:
'But you are not for Arda. Whither you go may you find light. Await us there, my brother - and me.'