Evil in Middle-Earth [Archive]

Attalus

08-30-2004, 10:19 AM

You have a point though Attalus, i've even ventured a few defenses of melkor in the past... i think souls who are very passionate about life and knowledge of it can get easily caught up in 'evil', though there are certainly ones like gandalf, who was able to temper his desires with compassion

i've mentioned before in feanor's defense that one can't discount the loss of his mother and later his father in the events that followed... not necessarily a justification, but a reason behind his 'evil'

celegorm and curufin are a bit tougher... they were some pretty nasty elf-types :DI think Fëanoro's main problem was intense egotism. I am quite sure that the loss of his mother was a cause of this, and jealousy at his father's re-marriage, but being so gifted and a prima donna to boot caused him to regard his own concerns as central and everybody else, even the Valar, probably even Eru's, as secondary or even of no importance. This is a good working definition of evil, even before his rebellion, and then his latent sociopathy turned to violence. He had to have those jewels, no matter how many Teleri or anyone else had to die for it. As for Curufin and Celegorm, in addition to their kidnapping Lúthien, they caused Finrod's expulsion from Nargothond. Celegorm's dog deserted him, for crying out loud! A fellow has to be pretty bad for that to happen. :p

brownjenkins

08-30-2004, 10:39 AM

Offhand, I base this upon the fact that Tolkien was a Christian. Free will is a very Christian concept so I'm guessing that (even if he didn't mention it explicitly) Tolkien intended it. But I'll look up a quote for you on that matter (eventually :D )

from the sil:

(voice of eru) 'But to the Atani I will give a new gift.' Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else

from this one could conclude that only men had free will

Beren3000

08-30-2004, 10:44 AM

from this one could conclude that only men had free willThat's inconclusive (to me at least!).
I'll elaborate on my opinion later...

Telcontar_Dunedain

08-30-2004, 11:00 AM

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

Artanis

08-30-2004, 11:21 AM

I beg to differ. Illuvatar created free will for the Ainur (and later for Elves and Men) it's from this free will that evil sprouted. So you might say that Illuvatar allowed the existence of evil but NOT created it.How could Iluvatar not create evil if it was inherent in free will?

I think you are right however, in that free will exists in Arda for all its inhabitants, and that Middle Earth is heavily influenced by the fact that Tolkien was a Christian.

Beren3000

08-30-2004, 05:47 PM

Ok, here's my full opinion, brownjenkins:

Even if the Music was "as fate" to all other creatures, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't have free will. The Music just predicted their lives and their choices but didn't influence them in anyway. It's the same in Christianity. God knows our every step, our every choice; but that doesn't mean we're not free-willed. It just means that God has the power to know all of our actions beforehand without His influencing them.

brownjenkins

08-30-2004, 06:07 PM

probably very much as tolkien saw things, thanks :)

Attalus

08-30-2004, 06:17 PM

How could Iluvatar not create evil if it was inherent in free will?

I think you are right however, in that free will exists in Arda for all its inhabitants, and that Middle Earth is heavily influenced by the fact that Tolkien was a Christian.
Iluvatar did not create evil. He created beings with free will who could turn apart from Him, value other things more highly than Him, and when they made that choice, that crreated evil.

Artanis

08-31-2004, 02:35 AM

Iluvatar did not create evil. He created beings with free will who could turn apart from Him, value other things more highly than Him, and when they made that choice, that crreated evil.You are probably right. :)

Telcontar_Dunedain

08-31-2004, 03:17 AM

Just like Beren has explained to us

Fewin Greenleaf

09-06-2004, 01:36 PM

This subject has been touched on in other threads but I thought (well RtB suggested) that I should open a thread about Evil in Middle-Earth.
What is evil and what makes a person evil.
I think a person is evil if they commit evil deeds and do not repent. What does everybody else think.

all things that do not conform with God's laws are evil.

Telcontar_Dunedain

09-06-2004, 01:38 PM

I woldn't say evil. Wrong yes but not evil.

Fewin Greenleaf

09-06-2004, 02:51 PM

i still say they're evil. theft, murder, rape, etc...aren't all these evil? you mean, when a person kills another, he merely commits something wrong and does not commit something evil?
yes, they're wrong. they're wrong because they're evil.

Telcontar_Dunedain

09-06-2004, 03:58 PM

No but other things. Lying. When you lie does that make you an evil person?
Boromir commited wrong but he wasn't evil.

Fewin Greenleaf

09-07-2004, 01:40 AM

Absolutely! When one lies, there is in him a deliberate intent to do wrong, to cause deception, to damage another individual's person. What is in the mind of a person lying is something that is evil.

Telcontar_Dunedain

09-07-2004, 02:09 AM

Well everyone's told a lie before. Does that make everybody evil.

Fewin Greenleaf

09-07-2004, 02:56 AM

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

Haradrim

09-07-2004, 10:43 AM

from the sil:

from this one could conclude that only men had free will

Has anyone read Foundation by Isaac Asimov. In the book the character the book is based upon, Hari Seldon, is able to predict the course a large group of people will take but he can not predict the fate of one man because his mathematics used to predict can not be that specific.

I think it is much the same way for the "fate" of elves, and dwarves. (sidenote Hobbits descend from Humans so I think they are considered human. Thanks BoP) BAck to the fate thing. Elves, and dwarves as a whole have their fate already written down. THeir race has a path to take and that is the path they will take. However the individual elf or dwarf has the ability to shape his/her own life.

For Men I think that their part wasnt already made so they could shape their lives as an individual and as a race. Also I could be wrong but didnt it say somewhere in the Silmarillion that the role of men in the last battle was unknown or something to that extent.

For those who didnt understand what I was saying by those paragraphs meaning the difference between predicting a large body of people and individual I highly suggest Foundation by Isaac Asimov. It is a great book and very fun.

Phew that was a lot of writing....:)

Artanis

09-07-2004, 11:26 AM

I liked that parallell to the Foundation series Haradrim. Though I don't agree that Hari Seldon's theories can be applied to Middle Earth. :)

Telcontar_Dunedain

09-07-2004, 11:55 AM

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

09-07-2004, 04:20 PM

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

10-05-2004, 04:37 PM

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

10-06-2004, 06:17 PM

Great post, inked. Very comprehensive. :)

Wayfarer

10-06-2004, 07:41 PM

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

10-06-2004, 10:36 PM

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. :eek:

Last Child of Ungoliant

10-07-2004, 05:46 AM

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! :D

Last Child of Ungoliant

10-07-2004, 06:48 AM

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

10-07-2004, 06:49 AM

Last Child of Ungoliant

10-07-2004, 06:51 AM

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

10-07-2004, 10:25 AM

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

10-07-2004, 10:36 AM

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

10-07-2004, 12:11 PM

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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Evil)' and merely 'Wrong (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=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

10-07-2004, 11:04 PM

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 :D 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

10-08-2004, 01:41 AM

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
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
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
Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
b. Unfair; unjust.
Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.
Not functioning properly; out of order.
Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
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
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
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
A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
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.
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
More inferior, as in quality, condition, or effect.
More severe or unfavorable.
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

10-08-2004, 02:38 AM

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

I don't agree they are synonymous in this case. We'll see abou that. ]; )

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?

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?

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. ;)

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

10-08-2004, 06:57 AM

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

Attalus

10-08-2004, 10:20 AM

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

Michael Martinez

10-09-2004, 03:04 PM

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

10-12-2004, 04:20 PM

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." :p

Wayfarer

10-12-2004, 04:29 PM

Pfft.

That's easy.

The third person singular of the substantive verb 'be'.

And before you get smart, 'be' in this sense used as a copula 'equal in identity'.

Therefore, my statement reduces in simplest terms to the quasi-mathematical metaphysical equation E=D, where E is Evil and D is Dischord.

inked

10-12-2004, 04:40 PM

O, sure, the dictionary definition! But how about the legal definition?
(I am not sure that the two lawyers - Bill and Hillary, that is- would agree on the definition you gave :eek: .

BeardofPants

10-12-2004, 04:41 PM

Not to be completely anal, but language isn't exactly a science... wait... okay, maybe it is, but it ain't static. Language is fluid, constantly changing... so posting dictionary definitions, while helpful, don't mean shite.

Good to have you back in the saddle wayfarer. Been a while since we've gone head to head. ;)

inked

10-12-2004, 04:49 PM

Wayfarer,

you wrote "'be' in this sense used as a copula 'equal in identity'".

therefore,
copula or not copula
that copula the question ? :cool:

Wayfarer

10-12-2004, 05:02 PM

No, no. That's a different usage. To exist in actuality

And of course I disagree with you, BoP. One of the biggest mistakes that can happen in a discussion is for a word to be used without a clear idea of what it means - especially when different people come up with different meanings and try to apply them to things that other people are saying.

For any meaningful discussion to take place, all parties must have a common understanding of what the words that are used mean. The dictionary, being a compilation of all the most commonly agreed on meanings, is an invaluable means to this end.

BeardofPants

10-12-2004, 05:13 PM

I'll grant you that dictionaries can give a common base to leap from, but which dictionary, which definition, etc? If people can't agree on life-philosophies, then why should they agree with the version of dictionary definitions that you posted?

Wayfarer

10-12-2004, 05:21 PM

Because I am almost infinitely more intelligent than they are, and only a neural failure of the life-threatening sort would prevent them from recognize that.

Of course. ];-)

inked

10-12-2004, 05:50 PM

Wayfarer,

If we accept your definitions, then I concede that if evil is defined as morally wrong, to err is to be evil. Ther might be wiggle room for argument about such definitions but as a famous depantatizer is onto that I will desist. i think perhaps the crucial point I was making was one we tentatively agreed on - the conscious aspect of evil.

Interestingly, the Hebrew for sin is a concept like yours: anything less than perfect adherence to the Law is sin, no matter how closely it may miss.

But I think as humans we have gradations of evil that are useful descriptors as we tend not to view lying on the same plane as murder - though both may result in the death of persons.

so, what do you think? :evil:

BeardofPants

10-12-2004, 05:57 PM

Because I am almost infinitely more intelligent than they are, and only a neural failure of the life-threatening sort would prevent them from recognize that.

Of course. ];-)
*mutters something about delusions of grandeur*

I think that you're just gettin' antsy cos you know that I'm right. :p

Rían

10-12-2004, 05:57 PM

Because I am almost infinitely more intelligent than they are, and only a neural failure of the life-threatening sort would prevent them from recognize that.

I'd just like to remind you of your sig; specifically : "Look, I'm human--no better than you" ;) :D

(just pullin' your leg! Good to see you back, and I might try to jump back into this discussion tomorrow. And I agree that people have to get their definitions agreed upon, or talk is senseless.)

Wayfarer

10-12-2004, 07:45 PM

Oh, grave misfortune. I have been hoisted on my own petard. (Incidentally, a 'Petard' was originally French for 'a loud discharge of intestinal gas'. Later it was used for 'an explosive device'.
Hey! Somebody commented on the new sig! Happy day! You wouldn't happen to be able to place it, would you? I imagine that most people are at least passingly familiar with the source. :D

BoP - My real answer is, I don't really care whether they agree with me. My purpose is to get people to think about what they're saying. That's what matters.

The greatest concern I have when entering a discussion like this isn't that I prove myself right. I'm no better than anoyone else, and when I'm right more often than not it's because I noticed something others missed than from any special virtue on my part. What concerns me is that, regardless of the truth or falshood of our initial opinions, all parties involved come out of the discussion after having figured out what the truth of the matter is - or at least coming closer to it.

People are not entirely rational creatures. Half the time we can reason our way to a decision, but the rest of the time we just... emote. We fall into the trap of believing that we can feel our way to a decision, and more often than not we try to do this without really understanding what we're talking about. I vainly allow myself the conceit that by not just asking for but demanding that we start off by getting everyone together and hashing out exactly what it is we're talking about I can help to lay a groundwork which will allow reasoned discussion to take place.

I take a look at a thread like this and I see that it starts off with questions: What is Evil? What makes a person evil? To enter any subsequent discussion without first addressing those questions is ludicrous. Yet by the second post in this thread, the topic begins to move away from the original questions and start attempting to debate through examples (X is evil! No, X is not evil!). We also ran into the problem of conflicting ideas of what a word means (In this case, we were discussing 'evil' and 'wrong'.)

I almost always consult with a dictionary (usually I use Lexico's online dictionary for these sorts of discussions) because, quite frankly, I believe that words have meanings and that the definition is not arbitrary. Sometimes we should use another definition, but unless we agree ahead of time it should always be assumed that the 'standard' definition is going to be used.

Inked has a choice of response, of course. He can agree, or offer an alternative definition (and for the sake of the discussion, do try to be as clear as possible). After all, going back and forth over what the word 'evil' means is the purpose of this entire thread.

I think perhaps the crucial point I was making was one we tentatively agreed on - the conscious aspect of evil. I can agree with that to a point. One of the things which I said that perhaps got lost amid the shuffle is that a person can do evil but not be evil.

Interestingly, the Hebrew for sin is a concept like yours: anything less than perfect adherence to the Law is sin, no matter how closely it may miss. Oh. Wow. I would have never expected that. :D

But I think as humans we have gradations of evil that are useful descriptors as we tend not to view lying on the same plane as murder - though both may result in the death of persons. Humans tend to make artificial distinctions. Even if we agree that there are gradiations of evil, the fact remains that an act is evil regardless of the degree. Evil is a quality, not a quantity.

inked

10-12-2004, 10:00 PM

Wayfarer,

How does it feel to be hoisted by one's own petard? :eek: :D :cool:

Valandil

10-13-2004, 09:29 AM

Wayfarer,

How does it feel to be hoisted by one's own petard? :eek: :D :cool:

:confused:

Did someone just give Wayf an Atomic Wedgie?

:p

Wayfarer

10-13-2004, 10:44 AM

How does it feel to be hoisted by one's own petard? :eek: :D :cool:
I can see my house from here. :rolleyes:

Michael Martinez

10-13-2004, 10:48 AM

Wayfarer

10-13-2004, 11:02 AM

You are SO evil.
So it should read...
Evil
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
The quality of being Wayfarer?

Hmmm...

Rían

10-13-2004, 12:18 PM

Hey! Somebody commented on the new sig! Happy day! You wouldn't happen to be able to place it, would you? I imagine that most people are at least passingly familiar with the source. :D The other sig was a bit long ...

It's from one of my favorite books in the Bible. The speaker is someone that God is angry with because he didn't speak what was right about God :D

Rían

10-13-2004, 12:59 PM

Just a quick contribution to the Aulë discussion (one of my favorite stories in the Sil - fascinating!)

I disagree with the opinion that Aulë was innocent of evil/wrong intent at first. I think he knew he was going against Ilúvatar's will (and I would define that as evil/wrong), as evidenced by two things:

1. Ilúvatar's statement : "Why hast thou done this? Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority?" IMO, rebellion against rightful authority is evil/wrong, and that's something that Aulë would know, and Ilúvatar says Aulë KNEW that making the Dwarves was beyond his authority.

2. The fact that Aulë worked "in secret" out of fear that the other Valar might "blame his work". This is a pretty big indicator, IMO, that Aulë knew it was wrong right from the get-go.

I just love Aulë's repentant speech, and how he was even so bold to state to Ilúvatar that "Yet the making of things is in my heart from my own making by thee; and the child of little understanding that makes a play of the deeds of his father may do so without thought of mockery, but because he is the son of his father." And how he is willing to destroy his work, and even takes up the hammer to smite them. The tone of the speech is repentant, NOT defiant, IMO, and shows his willingness to change to align with Ilúvatar's will. (And I think we should always be bold with God, too! Why not be truthful? He knows anyway! )

Michael Martinez

10-13-2004, 01:02 PM

The other sig was a bit long ...

It's from one of my favorite books in the Bible. The speaker is someone that God is angry with because he didn't speak what was right about God :D

Um, there might be an indirect Biblical source, but that would be a hard one to pin down. At least, I have seen this citation before, and someone said it came from my site (though I don't know where we would have had it).

Rían

10-13-2004, 01:05 PM

Job chapter 33, speaker: Elihu son of Barachel, speaking to Job. Translation : The Message. :)

Job is such a great book - one of my favorites! I like how God answers Job with His character, instead of a specific line-by-line answer to Job's complaints, and Job is entirely satisfied with the answer. Job was the wisest of his time, after all, and he knew a good and right answer when he got it.

Attalus

10-13-2004, 01:57 PM

That was because God answered Job by saying that the answer was in Himself, not in logic or right. Job says then, in effect, "Oh, well, if it's like that, okay!" :)

inked

10-13-2004, 03:21 PM

Yes, it should be made clear that Elihu gave the answer that humans could reason out all the events from prior cause, and Elihu of course meant that the prevailing theory was "Job, you sinned and that's why you're being punished, Dude. Now, let's figure it out, man. I know this seems kinda rough, but, you know me! Buck up, now!"

Job refused the human understanding of evil as solely due to personal dessert!
He gets down with God and says, "Yo, YHWH, let's get it right between us. I am righteous. Read my lips! Why are you doing me this way?"

Job doesn't hesistate to take God to the mat and get real with his feelings. But in the end, when God takes Elihu et alia to task for their blaming Job, He merely indicates that humans cannot grasp the whole matter. He points to Job and says, "Be like him. Keep the faith, get mad, call me names, let it all out!" Thus he justifies Job before human accusers and acquits him righteous.
BUT to Job YHWH says "Check out all I've done. You know me. What is your response?" Job says "Despite all, I still trust you! (not that I don't think you could have done something else). My faith is in you!"

Job's response to evil is, IMHO, most like Gandalf's.

Rían

10-13-2004, 03:46 PM

(BTW, Michael, I really enjoy your essays, and your site led me to Entmoot :) )

Attalus - IMO, it's a bit more than "Oh, well, if it's like that, okay!" Job actually retracted his complaints and questions, and repented in "dust and ashes". I think a more accurate summary of what Job said would be : "Whoa baby! You da Boss! You rock! Woo-hoo!"

I think Aulë is a bit like Job - both basically really good characters, then a slip (but not an entirely wholehearted one), then complete repentence and restoration with their Creator.

Rían

10-13-2004, 03:56 PM

Celegorm's dog deserted him, for crying out loud! A fellow has to be pretty bad for that to happen. :p
(BTW, this cracked me up! )

Rían

10-14-2004, 12:13 AM

That was because God answered Job by saying that the answer was in Himself, not in logic or right. But it's also important to realize that logic and right ARE IN God.

Another interesting thing about Job and Aulë - I think they both fell into an error that "good" people can fall into: I think they started trusting in their own goodness, apart from their Creator, instead of their goodness in relation to their Creator.

I think that altho Job was "righteous", he fell into error by thinking of God as one of the "household gods" that abounded in his time and place, and he started dealing with God the way one deals with household gods - with a vending-machine attitude. "Hey, local god, I throw a few babies on the fire, you bless me next time I go to war!" Babies in - ka-ching - blessings out. And for Job : righteous behavior in - ka-ching - blessings out. IOW - Job is in control. I think part of the way God dealt with Job was to get this lie out of his head - God Almighty does what is good and right, and no one stops Him, and He is NOT to be bought or bribed.

Aulë fell into a similar error, I think. He thought that he could bring about good apart from the boundaries that are a natural part of being a created being (as opposed to the Creator of all). And Ilúvatar dealt with him in the way we often see in the Bible - asking, basically, "what have you done?" It's not that Ilúvatar didn't KNOW! Asking that question means : "Here I am, the One that created you and everything else; the One that is all good and all love and all righteousness. You know you did wrong - what are you going to do with that?" And Aulë chose to repent, as did Job, when the truth was presented to them by their Creator.

(Not worded too well, but I just had a few minutes ... )

Attalus

10-14-2004, 10:36 AM

But it's also important to realize that logic and right ARE IN God.

(Not worded too well, but I just had a few minutes ... )True. I should have said in human logic and right, by definition imperfect.

Michael Martinez

10-14-2004, 04:13 PM

I think that altho Job was "righteous", he fell into error by thinking of God as one of the "household gods" that abounded in his time and place, and he started dealing with God the way one deals with household gods - with a vending-machine attitude. "Hey, local god, I throw a few babies on the fire, you bless me next time I go to war!" Babies in - ka-ching - blessings out. And for Job : righteous behavior in - ka-ching - blessings out. IOW - Job is in control. I think part of the way God dealt with Job was to get this lie out of his head - God Almighty does what is good and right, and no one stops Him, and He is NOT to be bought or bribed.

I don't think Job looked at God in that way at all. Why would God hold Job out to be a righteous man in the first place, if he was not living faithfully to begin with?

Job didn't understand why he was being tested, and he was understandably upset when his friends accused him of being responsible for his woes. He spoke out in anger against God, and that is what got him rebuked.

Rían

10-18-2004, 06:09 PM

(sorry I couldn't respond sooner - we were camping at the beach this weekend :) )

Why do you think God did what He did to Job, and do you think it was fair and/or good?

Attalus

10-19-2004, 10:13 AM

I think that the answer lies in God, as it was said. God has many ways of testing our hearts, and (seemingly) undeserved catastrophe seems unfortunately to be one of them. One of the most uncomfortable lines in Scripture is, to me, "From those who have much, much will be expected."

Rían

10-19-2004, 05:34 PM

Yes, that line makes me very humble and uncomfy, too, since I'm very blessed. But the Bible is very right in one of its more profound lines - it's more blessed to give than to receive.

Michael, if you come back, I'd love to get your response to my question! And Attalus, what do you think was God's purpose/goal in testing Job's heart? (not that I'm an expert - I just like to discuss things and share ideas)

Michael Martinez

10-19-2004, 08:31 PM

Michael, if you come back, I'd love to get your response to my question! And Attalus, what do you think was God's purpose/goal in testing Job's heart? (not that I'm an expert - I just like to discuss things and share ideas)

Well, you're asking a literalist to answer a speculative question. The Book of Job says God was testing Job to demonstrate the strength of Job's faith to Lucifer.

I don't have an opinion on the purpose of the book beyond the teaching that one's faith in God is more important than all the opinions in the world.

Rían

10-21-2004, 04:19 PM

He spoke out in anger against God, and that is what got him rebuked.Do you think it was the attitude (anger) that got him rebuked, or something Job said that got him rebuked? IOW, what was God's statement on this?

Rían

10-21-2004, 04:22 PM

Well, you're asking a literalist to answer a speculative question. The Book of Job says God was testing Job to demonstrate the strength of Job's faith to Lucifer. But there can be more than one purpose to what God did, and I think since God is omniscient, one can conclude (while still being a literalist) that whatever change happened in Job was also intended by God; don't you? If so, what change do you see that took place in Job?

(ps - I don't know you well and don't know if you like these types of discussions or not - feel free to say you're not interested! :) )

Sister Golden Hair

10-22-2004, 08:39 AM

Are we still talking about "Evil in Middle-earth," or the bible?

Rían

10-22-2004, 12:05 PM

Sorry, we got sidetracked by Job, a fascinating book!

(remember my title! :D but I'll head back to the thread topic now)

Rían

10-22-2004, 12:11 PM

From the very first post - what makes a person evil in ME -

I don't think you can call a person "evil" in the sense that you can say "1 + 2 = 3". IOW, there's not some magic threshold that is crossed where everyone agrees that so-and-so is now evil, altho he wasn't yesterday at teatime. I think it's just kind of a "what is this person characterized by" type of judgement, and that even the "good" people in ME sometimes did evil things, and the "evil" people did good things. But the "evil" people were more characterized by doing evil things than good things, and the TREND of their choices was going more and more to evil.

There's an interesting analogy in CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce" where they talk about a person who is a complainer, and then they get to the point where they're no longer a person who complains, but they are simply a complaint; IOW, the person themselves has so abandoned themselves to that particular evil, by their free-will choosing it over and over again, that they have forfeited their very personhood and thus their free will. That's why little, daily choices are important. I think we see this in Saruman, who at the end is actually unable to choose anything but evil. He HAD free will in the beginning, and was a great person, but his daily, continual choices to serve self and evil actually took away his free will at the end. His loss of personhood was rightly mourned, and it came about by choosing evil continually.

Sister Golden Hair

10-22-2004, 12:12 PM

Sorry, we got sidetracked by Job, a fascinating book!

(remember my title! :D but I'll head back to the thread topic now)Yes, and let's not forget "Bliss Ninny." :D ;)

Rían

10-22-2004, 12:14 PM

Should I add "(and Bliss Ninny on the side)" to my title? :D

(ps - check out my post above yours - what do you think?)

Sister Golden Hair

10-22-2004, 12:25 PM

I can add "bliss ninny" if you like. :D

I don't think you can call a person "evil" in the sense that you can say "1 + 2 = 3". IOW, there's not some magic threshold that is crossed where everyone agrees that so-and-so is now evil, altho he wasn't yesterday at teatime. I think it's just kind of a "what is this person characterized by" type of judgement, and that even the "good" people in ME sometimes did evil things, and the "evil" people did good things. But the "evil" people were more characterized by doing evil things than good things, and the TREND of their choices was going more and more to evil. I think it's a matter of degrees of evil. You can't compare the balrog to an Orc, or Orcs to the Sacksville-Baggins'. With people, they have the potential to do both good and evil. It may be a choice, but it is what drives you to make that choice, don't you think?

inked

10-22-2004, 12:31 PM

Wayfarer

10-22-2004, 12:32 PM

Allow me to venture that, according to Tolkien, our world was supposed to be Middle Earth. And since the Bible originates in our world (Middle Earth!), and the discussion is mostly still about good and evil... the answer is Yes! Both!

Okay. Back on topic. *fights of the Pnume with a stick*

I maintain nonetheless that ying-yang dualism can... Eek. Sorry about that. I maintain my statement that evil is qualitative, rather than quantitative. While evil may or may not be measurable on the scale, something is evil regardless of how evil you think it is. A 'little evil (http://sinfest.net/d/20020926.html)' is qualitatively the same as a great evil (http://sinfest.net/d/20030608.html).

Rían

10-22-2004, 03:05 PM

Yes, but people were talking about calling a person evil. I think we can judge whether a particular act is evil or not, but can a person be called evil if they do some evil and some good? I was trying to describe how/when I would call a person evil.

Or if you want to get into Boolean logic - should evil be 0 (which is what is is acc'd to Tolkien) and good be 1, and should the equation be written with an "AND" or an "OR" operator? Or is there not an equation at all for this?

type-of-person = evil-act-1 AND evil-act-2 ... AND evil-act-n AND good-act-1 AND good-act-2 ... AND good-act-n.

In this equation, if there are any evil deeds, then type-of-person would equal "0", so the person would be evil, even if they had predominately good acts :eek: But if we used an "OR" operator, then if there were any good deeds, the person would be good, even if they had predominately evil acts.

I think I'll let God make the final call and just worry about myself and getting my number of evil acts down!

So what do you guys think of my trend-leading-to-loss-of-freewill idea?

inked

10-22-2004, 05:20 PM

Trend becomes fact in this instance of will to self or other than God(cf. Gollum, Saruman, Sauron, the late Kings of Numenor, Melkor, Lotho, etc. in ME; see also, Weston and Devine in the Space Trilogy by Lewis, all the non-remaining ghosts in THE GREAT DIVORCE;Tom Riddle aka Lord Voldemort, Bartimaeus Crouch, JR, Death Eaters in Harry Potter series 1-5th books).

Trend becomes fact when willing the good or God (cf. Bilbo. Sam, Frodo, Boromir, Galadriel, etc. in ME; Ransom, Perelandrian Eve and Adam, Mark Stoddard in the Space Trilogy, the remaining ghosts in TGD; Snape, Sirius Black, Mundungus, etc. in HP).

This great truth is summed up well by Albus Dumbledore (paraphrasing) telling Harry it is not our abilities but our choices that make us what we are. :)

Rían

10-22-2004, 05:46 PM

I like the picture CSL gives in TGDivorce - the Tragedian, and the little teensy guy by his side who is the actual person ... who gets smaller and smaller and finally disappears ...

*sees SGH looking this way*

:eek: ... which of course REMINDS me of Middle Earth and, um, evil things! ;)

inked

10-22-2004, 09:15 PM

Hey, Rian,
Why should SGH look at this post suspiciously? I did a FABULOUS job of getting us back into a ME mileu so realistic that the wind wafting through Fanghorn would near take your hat off - if you had one! And then there was Wayfarer's superb connective post (notice how nice it is to have and insufferable one around from time to time?) showing the equivalence of ME and our prior discussions in real time (both qualitative and quantitative aspects, rest assured). So a small, teensy digression into the lands of TGD connecting as they do with all that has gone before (get it?) shouldn't really get SGH's attention.

Or are you just rabbity? :D

The implosion of the self which is the inherent nature of evil is actually shown in the same mode in ME and TGD. In TGD all the grey town is nearly subatomic in size though it seems vast to the even more miniscule inhabitants concerned only with themselves. In ME all evil becomes focused in a ring which is incomparably smaller than the Crack of Doom where it is vanquished. The spiritual reality conveyed in ME and TGD is that self will leads to the black hole phenomena - not existence in any meaningful sense!
OUCH!

SEE ;) !

Wayfarer

10-22-2004, 11:55 PM

Or if you want to get into Boolean logic - should evil be 0 (which is what is is acc'd to Tolkien) and good be 1, and should the equation be written with an "AND" or an "OR" operator? Or is there not an equation at all for this?

In boolean logic, Good would be zero, and evil would be Nonzero. A boolean logic switch (at least those I've worked with) translates 0 into 'no' and anything else into 'yes'. 1 is generally used for simplification, but bool(3) and bool(-5) will give the same answer.

Ultimately, as far as my mind can understand, evil in its simplest form must be 'non-good'... or a lack of good. Which means that as long as there is a possibility for things to become more good, evil is present.

And in that sense... if we are going to treat an act as qualitatively good or evil, then any act that does not have the best motive and fails to bring about the best possible motive in the best possible manner.

...

Okay. No pressure. :rolleyes:

On the other hand... utilizing a strict definition such as that above, then we can't always say someone is good because they have good intentions - they might still be doing an act of evil (and, as can be said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions).

And really, when we get right down to it, when we think 'a person is evil', what we mean is 'they do evil things, and we know about it'. Now, if we accept that evil is an absence of good, then every person who is not perfect is qualitatively evil.

Rían

10-23-2004, 12:50 AM

In boolean logic, Good would be zero, and evil would be Nonzero. I disagree. I was going by JRRT's definition of absolute evil as a non-entity, which I think would translate into zero. Why do you think "good would be zero"?

A boolean logic switch (at least those I've worked with) translates 0 into 'no' and anything else into 'yes'. So why would good correlate to "no"? I would think it would correlate to "yes".

Anyway, I was just havin' some fun :) Not that any of this boolean stuff matters! (at least in this discussion) I just thought it would be fun to try to translate into mathie-type-stuff and speculate away...

And really, when we get right down to it, when we think 'a person is evil', what we mean is 'they do evil things, and we know about it'. Now, if we accept that evil is an absence of good, then every person who is not perfect is qualitatively evil.But I don't accept that definition :)

Rían

10-23-2004, 12:54 AM

Hey, Rian,
Why should SGH look at this post suspiciously?
(I'm just pullin' her queenly leg!) :D

I did a FABULOUS job of getting us back into a ME mileu so realistic that the wind wafting through Fanghorn would near take your hat off - if you had one! And then there was Wayfarer's superb connective post (notice how nice it is to have and insufferable one around from time to time?) showing the equivalence of ME and our prior discussions in real time (both qualitative and quantitative aspects, rest assured). Aren't we all just fab-u-lous?!!! *pats on backs all around*

We got her fooled, guys!!

So a small, teensy digression into the lands of TGD connecting as they do with all that has gone before (get it?) shouldn't really get SGH's attention. I agree - it was TOTALLY connected to Middle Earth - Totally, dude! :D

Or are you just rabbity? :D
*looks down a tempting rabbit trail .... *
No! No! Come BACK, self! *smack*

The implosion of the self which is the inherent nature of evil is actually shown in the same mode in ME and TGD. In TGD all the grey town is nearly subatomic in size though it seems vast to the even more miniscule inhabitants concerned only with themselves. In ME all evil becomes focused in a ring which is incomparably smaller than the Crack of Doom where it is vanquished. The spiritual reality conveyed in ME and TGD is that self will leads to the black hole phenomena - not existence in any meaningful sense!
On the serious side - I like this summary :)

Rían

10-23-2004, 12:57 AM

And in that sense... if we are going to treat an act as qualitatively good or evil, then any act that does not have the best motive and fails to bring about the best possible motive in the best possible manner. I'm being very broad in my use of the word "act" - I'm including things that only God can see, such as thoughts ...

Sister Golden Hair

10-23-2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Wayfarer

Okay. Back on topic. *fights of the Pnume with a stick*
Originally posted by Rian
*sees SGH looking this way*
(I'm just pullin' her queenly leg!)
Aren't we all just fab-u-lous?!!! *pats on backs all around*

We got her fooled, guys!!
I agree - it was TOTALLY connected to Middle Earth - Totally, dude!

Rian, Wayfarer, WHAP WHAP WHAP!!!! :D

Inked, you're pretty new here so I'll let you slide, this time. :p

inked

10-23-2004, 10:47 AM

Thank you, your Golden Haired Sisterness. Most honored am I to be nonWHAPPED! :)

Attalus

10-23-2004, 11:05 AM

And really, when we get right down to it, when we think 'a person is evil', what we mean is 'they do evil things, and we know about it'. Now, if we accept that evil is an absence of good, then every person who is not perfect is qualitatively evil.Actually, according to orthodox theology, this is true. That is why the Incarnation was necessary for the salvation of fallen mankind. To quote CSL, "When the saints say that they are vile, they are not performing an amusing act of self-deprecation, but giving an expert's opinion." (The Business of Heaven)
:(

Rían

10-23-2004, 12:33 PM

Great quote, Attalus!

*applies bandaids liberally*
I'll be good now, SGH!

Forkbeard

10-24-2004, 11:41 AM

And really, when we get right down to it, when we think 'a person is evil', what we mean is 'they do evil things, and we know about it'. Now, if we accept that evil is an absence of good, then every person who is not perfect is qualitatively evil.

THat's one model, and it leads to a strict dualism. Augustine introduced another that I think probably takes better account of what we really find in the world. That is, Evil is twisted Good. Good exists without evil, and good was made by God at creation. Evil, however, can not exist apart from good and needs good to exist. On this model there is no such thing as absolute evil, and all evil is redeemable unless it chooses not to be. I think it is this model that lies behind much of Tolkien's work, though there is a problem--the nature of the Ring seems to suggest another model for evil.

Attalus

10-24-2004, 02:04 PM

THat's one model, and it leads to a strict dualism. Augustine introduced another that I think probably takes better account of what we really find in the world. That is, Evil is twisted Good. Good exists without evil, and good was made by God at creation. Evil, however, can not exist apart from good and needs good to exist. On this model there is no such thing as absolute evil, and all evil is redeemable unless it chooses not to be. I think it is this model that lies behind much of Tolkien's work, though there is a problem--the nature of the Ring seems to suggest another model for evil.I agree. JRRT said in the Letters that there is no absolutely evil creature in his stories, "for that would be Zero." No intelligence, at the very least, and Gandalf says that Sauron is very wise. The Ring, however, is "altogether evil," its (supposed) beauty it's only Good quality.

Wayfarer

10-24-2004, 03:44 PM

Yes, there are no bannas. :p And no wholly evil (that is, lacking any good characteristic) creatures.

But I wasn't trying to quantify good and evil, but qualify them. And for a creature to be truly good they must be free from any evil - otherwise the evil that is present will mar everything that they do.

While I agree that a completely evil creature would be a null-entity (because existance itself is a good thing), in abstract terms I find it most applicable to reverse it - good is Zero, because true good is the absence of evil, or perfection. Human experience is almost asymptotic.

inked

10-27-2004, 12:01 PM

Wayfarer,

Is the absence of evil perfection? Are there degrees of perfection?

If Melkor had chosen obedience once the thought of disobedience ocurred to him, would Arda have been more perfect? :)

Michael Martinez

11-16-2004, 11:26 PM

But there can be more than one purpose to what God did, and I think since God is omniscient, one can conclude (while still being a literalist) that whatever change happened in Job was also intended by God; don't you? If so, what change do you see that took place in Job?

(ps - I don't know you well and don't know if you like these types of discussions or not - feel free to say you're not interested! :) )

Sorry for the long absence. I have been on the road and finally moved back to Texas recently.

The Book of Job is (according to Protestant points of view) a teaching story. I don't know how the Catholics view it. The story is supposed to provide a lesson in faith. We don't know why God allows evil to happen to us, but we do know that he loves us and wants us to love him in return. Job knew he had done nothing wrong, but he was wrongly accused of having sinned by men he had called his friends. That is an all too common occurrence. Rather than accept Job as a man of faith who was being tested by God, his friends assumed he had done something wrong and called upon him to confess his sin.

On another level, in English Literature (the KJV being the subject of study), the Book of Job has been called by some critics a study in human busibodiness. That is, it examines how people go about minding other people's business without really knowing what is wrong. In the end, the self-appointed judges get their comeuppance.

Job is also noted for introducing some aspects of Satan not previously seen (in Biblical literature).

Michael Martinez

11-16-2004, 11:50 PM

Evil in Middle Earth and everywhere else we know of in the Universe (Terra) is composed of two parts in its effects. There is the situation into which we are born consisting of the cumulative effects prior to us and in which we are enmeshed involuntarily, but to which we must respond. Then there are the purely personal components we face (which may partake of and contribute to the historic reality).[/b]

That is not correct. Tolkien portrays all evil in Middle-earth as being the result of personal choice. Even the corruption of the Orcs (and Trolls) is a result or effect of Melkor's choices. The evil which Melkor's followers commit is the result of THEIR personal choices.

When Tolkien was struggling with the nature of Orcs (in those notes and essays published in "Myths Transformed" in Morgoth's Ring), he indicated that it required a great deal of Melkor's power and concentration to totally or nearly totally suppress their independent will -- and they by nature rebelled against his domination.

Hence, the Orcs were struggling to be free of Melkor's corrupting influence, even if they in the long run committed their own evil acts.

That is, Tolkien gave even the Orcs the freedom to choose between complying totally with their master's will or defying it, and many of them (perhaps all) -- when allowed to make their own choices -- chose to defy that will. They sought to express themselves freely.

Tolkien clearly tried to strip "sin" of all its literary accretions and take it back to the basics. After all, these Middle-earth stories are supposedly set in a simpler time, and are pre-Biblically disposed. That is, what theology they provide is rudimentary, not sophisticated.

In a footnote to Letter 211, Tolkien wrote:

*Almost the only vestige of 'religion' is seen on II pp. 284-5 in the 'Grace before Meat'. This is indeed mainly as it were a commemoration of the Departed, and theology is reduced to 'that which is beyond Elvenhome and ever will be,' sc. is beyond the mortal lands, beyond the memory of unfallen Bliss, beyond the physical world.

In Letter 156, he wrote:

"The Numenoreans thus began a great new good, and as monotheists; but like the Jews (only more so)( with only one physical centre of 'worship': the summit of the mountain Meneltarma 'Pillar of Heaven' -- literally, for they did not conceive of the sky as a divine residence -- in the centre of Numenor; but it had no building and no temple, as all such things had evil associations....

Further on:

So ended Numenor-Atlantis and all its glory. But in a kind of Noachian situation the small party of the Faithful in Numenor, who had refused to take part in the rebellion (though many of them had been sacrificed in the Temple by the Sauronians) escaped in Nine Ships (Vol. I 379, II. 202) under the leadership of *Elendil* (= Aelfwine, Elf-friend) and his sons *Isildur* and *Anarion*, and established a kind of diminished memory of Numenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth -- inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs -- their only 'hallows': or almost so. But the 'hallow' of God (Eru) and the Mountain had perished, and there was no real substitute. Also when the 'Kings' came to an end there was no equivalent to a 'priesthood': the two being identical in Numenorean ideas. So while God (Eru) was a datum of good* Numenorean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history, He had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Numenorean influence: the refusal to worship any 'creature', and above all no 'dark lord' or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving. (Those under special Elvish influence might call on the angelic powers for help in immediate peril or fear of evil enemies. +--) It later appears that there had been a 'hallow' on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is presumed that with the re0emergence of the lineal priest-kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Numenorean influence lasted.

The first note reads:

There were evil Numenoreans: Sauronians, but they do not come into this story except remotely; as the wicked Kings who had become Nazgul or Ringwraiths.

He was careful not to dress up the evils of Middle-earth in the trappings of theology. There is a mythical element of an undying line of descent from Luthien, which leads to the rise of a tradition of monotheistic priest-kings. But even the priest-kings "fall" from grace and rebel against God by choice.

In order to avoid the fallacy of presenting everything in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys", Tolkien allowed evil to emerge as a result of choice, without trying to explain the spiritual ramifications of the choices made (we don't actually know what is to happen to the Balrogs and other Maiar who follow Melkor down into his nihlism -- that fate is to be determined in a later age, or at least revealed).

In Letter 154, Tolkien responded to criticism of The Lord of the Rings which made it out to be simply "Good guys versus Bad guys" by writing:

...But the Elves are NOT wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron; as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. They wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal historical Middle-earth because they had become fond of it (and perhaps because they there had the advantages of a superior caste), and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it as a pleasuance, even largely a desert, where they could be 'artists' -- and they were overburdened with sadness and nostalgic regret....

The Elves chose poorly, but they chose on their own behalf. Sauron didn't corrupt them -- he seized an opportunity in their desire to stay in Middle-earth and retain all the privileges and prestige they had acquired.

Evil is not given a status equal to Iluvatar -- it doesn't even approach Iluvatar's capability. In fact, Melkor never understands (in The Silmarillion) that the Flame Imperishable, which he seeks for in the Void, is with Iluvatar and not something separate (not separate in the way that Melkor is distinct from Iluvatar) from him.

Continued in next message.

Michael Martinez

11-16-2004, 11:52 PM

Continued from previous message.

There is, in fact, only a slight foreshadowing of the triple aspects of God in Christian teachings. Ea might be something like The Word (which is Christ), but The Silmarillion and all related works would fail to meet the criteria of the Nicene Creed (Note: I grabbed this translation at random -- there may be better translations available):

We believe in one God, the Father All Governing, creator of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father as only begotten, that is, from the essense of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created, of the same essence as the Father, through whom all things came into being, both in heaven and in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate, becoming human. He suffered and the third day he rose, and ascended into the heavens. And he will come to judge both the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But, those who say, Once he was not, or he was not before his generation, or he came to be out of nothing, or who assert that he, the Son of God, is of a different hypostatis or ousia, or that he is a creature, or changeable, or mutable, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

There is simply nothing of this teaching in the various Middle-earth mythologies. They presume nothing of Christ or the identification of the Father and Son.

So, evil is neither equal to good nor dispossessed by it (that is, the struggle between good and evil is really between those who adhere to Melkor and those who adhere to Iluvatar, but the Biblical struggle between God and Satan has not yet begun).

Evil is inferior because it is confined to Ea. Iluvatar is always in clear control and he allows history to unfold in accordance with his own desires. Everything Melkor attempts "redounds" (contributes) to Iluvatar's glory.

Michael Martinez

11-17-2004, 12:04 AM

Yes, but people were talking about calling a person evil. I think we can judge whether a particular act is evil or not, but can a person be called evil if they do some evil and some good? I was trying to describe how/when I would call a person evil.[/b]

Tolkien had something to say on the subject:

From Letter 131:

The Second Age ends with the Last Alliance (of Elves and Men), and the great siege of Mordor. It ends with the overthrow of Sauron and destruction of the second visible incarnation of evil. But at a cost, and with one disastrous mistake. Gilgalad and Elendil are slain in the act of slaying Sauron. Isildur, Elendil's son, cuts the ring from Sauron's hand, and his power departs, and his spirit flees into the shadows. But the evil begins to work....

He singles out Sauron (and Melkor before him) as visible incarnations of evil, but they are not evil personified. Sauron and Melkor chose to incarnate themselves in forms which were visibly evil. They were the classic Dark Lords of bad (and good) fantasy literature.

Sauron and Melkor are both free to move throughout Middle-earth, and they deceive anyone who will listen to their lies. But their actions are only their own -- the evil acts committed by others are not transferred to or fully blamed upon Melkor and Sauron. That is, evil is not defeated by defeating either Melkor or Sauron. Evil continues to abide in Ea, and in Middle-earth. Gandalf made that point clear in "The Last Debate":

'Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary....'

Attalus

11-17-2004, 11:02 AM

'Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary....' That quote puzzles me. When I first read the books, I thought it was referring to Morgoth, but we know now that Morgoth was cast into the void. Who do you think it is referring to?

inked

11-17-2004, 11:54 AM

Attalus,

Perhaps I was simplistic but I understood this to refer to the parasitic nature of evil (as Boethius and numerous philosophers pre- and post- Christian eras) defined it. So I took it to mean that the possibility of Evil would again and again be actualized in ME as it is in our experience. As long as the good exists and freee will is possible, another Dark Lord could arise among any of the created orders. Does this make sense to you? Though we take the "whom do you serve" in absolutist sense in regard to the text, I think it a much more general question myself. At any time any personality could exalt itself against the ONE and pursue what Morgoth, Sauron, Gollum, etc have sought in their varying degrees. Thus, inherent in a created world with true free will the exaltation of self above all, to the place of God, results in the recurrent rise of evil and all its attendant destructions of persons and places.
(Until, as Christians believe, and Tolkein hoped, the final battle is FINAL and all enemies are put beneath HIS footstool and death itself cast into the place prepared for it. For it shall not be as CS Lewis observed in THE GREAT DIVORCE that the good shall ever be at the mercy of the wicked! :D )

Michael Martinez

11-18-2004, 01:56 AM

That quote puzzles me. When I first read the books, I thought it was referring to Morgoth, but we know now that Morgoth was cast into the void. Who do you think it is referring to?

It WAS referring to Morgoth (who was NOT cast into the Void -- Tolkien waffled on what happened to Morgoth as the Middle-earth mythology moved farther away from the earlier mythologies).

Attalus

11-18-2004, 11:04 AM

Ah, well that explains it. Makes perfect sense, that way.

Nurvingiel

11-18-2004, 11:06 AM

It WAS referring to Morgoth (who was NOT cast into the Void -- Tolkien waffled on what happened to Morgoth as the Middle-earth mythology moved farther away from the earlier mythologies).
Morgoth was not cast into the void? What hapenned to him then? (Why do I think he was... :confused: )

Wayfarer

11-18-2004, 02:20 PM

Hey! Welcome back Michael!

Wayfarer, is the absence of evil perfection? Are there degrees of perfection?

Somehow I seem to have missed this. Yes. I believe that the absence of Evil is Perfection.

Actually, I can go farther than that and qualify it - Perfection is a state characterized by a complete absence of Evil, while still retaining the potential for evil. Perfection is that point at which there is no longer the possibility of things becoming more good or less evil.

To take this from our perspective, we can look at our own state of existance and tell ourselves 'It could be worse, but it could also be better'. We can imagine our state of existance becoming either more good (and thus less evil), or more evil (and thus less good). If the trend continues long enough in one direction or another, there will come a point where either Good or Evil becomes overwhelmingly dominant (such as in Valinor, or in Mordor), but still containing traces of the other (there was a bit of evil in Valinor, and some small good in Mordor).

The ultimate end if one continues the trend towards Evil is that each good attribute dissapears one by one, until a creature which is almost completely Evil maintains only existance (which is a good quality). Remove that, leaving something wholly Evil - and you have nothing, the void.

On the other hand, continuing the trend in the other direction, towards Good, will see the weakening and loss of those Evil characteristics which a creature possesses. Once the last of those qualities is set right, all that remains is that which is wholly Good - that which is perfect.

In retrospect, perhaps it would be best to say that Evil is Zero and Good is Infinity. Conceptually that fits the bill of what we are talking about. Strictly speaking, though, I feel the mathematical concepts are best applied in reverse. Perhaps it's awfully picky of me, but it's possible to perform mathematical equations on Zero and recieve a different result (0-1=-1), whereas any operation performed upon Infinity (Except dividing it by itself), will always give a result of Infinity (∞-1=∞, ∞*2=∞). What I'm getting to here is that a state of 'perfect' Evil (Null. The complete absence of good things) can never produce a result other than itself, whereas a state of perfect Good contains the potential for (but not the actualization of) Evil.

Meh. Perhaps we should just say that Morality is always Multiplicative, not Additive? :p

Anyway. By definition there cannot be grades of perfection. In saying that something is 'more perfect' than something else, what we really mean is that it is 'less imperfect'. There is perfection, which is Good, and grades of imperfection all the way down to nonexistance, which is Evil.

If Melkor had chosen obedience once the thought of disobedience ocurred to him, would Arda have been more perfect? :) If Melkor had chosen obidience when the thought of disobedience occured to him, Arda would have remained Perfect (I think). Of course, that would mean retaining the potential for Evil (and Melkor retaining the thought of Disobedience), which means that Evil could have occured later. For all we know, Melkor resisted the temptation to rebel for subjective aeons before finally exalting himself above his creator.

Perhaps, if we want to niggle on that point, we could say that imperfection arose as soon as Melkor realized that he could act against his creator if he wished. I don't really know. That does remind me of the statemen (strangely enough, also from The Great Divorce) that once all is said and done and things have been made perfect again, nobody in Heaven will be thinking about Good, because they will be too busy experiencing it. Perhaps it could also be said that in a state of perfect Good there will be no concept of Evil (which would seem to be true about Manwe, for example).

inked

11-18-2004, 06:41 PM

Wayfarer,

I think we agree. If the perfect is defined as the absence of evil and the fullest experience of the Good possible, i.e., the Beatific Vision and Experience of God, then we do. That is how I understood your post, at any rate.

As to the realization of the above, if Arda had remained uncontaminated by evil, there is the sense in which the increasing actualization of the potential inherent in each created entity would have contributed to a further experience of the Good until these were maximized in the equivalent of the Beatific vision. When I posed the question it was this process I was envisioning, thus thinking the original creation was Good but not Perfect in that sense as it would take time for each creation to achieve its full potential and achieve its Beatific Vision. (I also had in mind the end of PERELANDRA where the obedient Adam and Eve of that Unfallen World set about to achieve the ends appointed and possible to them, which, of course Lewis could only suggest to our imaginations. There world was Good by the choice of obedience, but it had not attained the fulness of its possibilites.)

Wayfarer

11-19-2004, 12:35 PM

Indeed. :)

Attalus

11-20-2004, 04:59 PM

Funny, I was thinking of Perelandra long before it was mentioned. Perelandra obviously contained the possibility of evil, both disobedience and that scientist-demon, whatshisname. But by obedience, the world remained at the furthest as it could be frome Evil, maintaining a fragile Perfection.

Wayfarer

11-20-2004, 09:10 PM

Perhaps you could even say that the world moved farther away from evil.

An interesting thought: Can it be said to be 'more good' to have been tempted and resisted the temptation (or turned back after failing to resist), than it would have been to have been innocent and never have been tempted?

I'm reminded of the statement I've heard that it's no virtue to be sinless if you have never felt any temptaton.

Haradrim

11-20-2004, 09:20 PM

But the gold ofhe ring wasnt evil...... just kidding. SOme of you may get that inside joke and if you dont you dont want to.

One thing I want to say about evil is what is good. To define evil you must first define good. Good is just what the majority of peoples morals are. If everyone on earth believed that you could kill, rape, and pillage anyone you wanted then that is not evil that is just what it is. It becomes good. The only reason evil is evil is because it is a minority. I mean imagine for instance that the Valar are all evil and Melkor/Morgoth is good. (By evil I mean evil in our terms and by good I mean good in our terms) In that situation Melkor is evil and the Valar is good. Evil is just the morals that are the exact opposite and in minority of the "good" morals.

inked

11-20-2004, 09:22 PM

Yes. It was more good that temptation was met and overcome. If you compare Malacandra and its peoples to Earth and Perelandra, you get some idea. The peoples of Malacandra had never been tempted and were incapable of understanding evil, as you will recall. I think it is interesting that the general themes are played out up close and personal in Middle Earth while they are played out on much broader canvases in the Space Trilogy. Quite a number of parallels as one would expect from two classicists!

Wayfarer

11-20-2004, 09:29 PM

I just feel that I should point out that you're wrong, Haradrim. ;)

Haradrim

11-20-2004, 09:57 PM

Hmm how many want to gang up on me. For some reason people like to do that to me.... :) I like it though. Us poor Haradrim are never understood. (sniff sniff)
Oh and wayfarer...
No Im not... :) ;)

Wayfarer

11-20-2004, 10:10 PM

I'm a 'gang'? Okay. ;)

In any case, you can't just make an assertion and pretend that it's fact. You can say 'evil is whatever is in the minority', without having anything to back it up, fine, your choice. But if I choose to say 'You're wrong', I don't really need to say why, since my statement is just as strong as yours. ;)

Haradrim

11-20-2004, 10:32 PM

By gang I wasnt referring to you. Usually whenever i make an assertion and in my opinion fact ;) I am usually in the minority and in that case "evil" ;) also I cant really back up my case cuz there really are no real cases of this in history and no literature that I know of. Its more a philisophical statement that I would like to try and defend. SO I cant really back it up except by disproving your anti-arguments. ;) yeah I know its kinda weak but whatev... :)

Attalus

11-21-2004, 12:53 PM

*Joins Wayfarer to gang up on Haradim* Evil is not just the opinion of the majority, as if everybody once held a meeting and voted on what was good and what was not. Evil is an easily definable (and recognizable) condition: in orthodox Christian theology, it is anything that separates the soul from God; in morality it is what hurts oneself and particularly others. What you are describing is moral relativism, and I do not subscribe to that, at all, at all. I further agree with Wayfarer that unsupported statements are not evidence of the truth or otherwise of anything.

Haradrim

11-21-2004, 06:21 PM

Attalus,
I was not saying that people held on egreta meeting and decided. however, In your opinion the majority of people on this planet would agree that murder is wrong. That it is evil. I agree with this and I presume you and everyone else here does as well. However what if you were to go to a planet where evil was perfectly acceptable and the majority of the people did not view murder as a bad thing but in fact that it was good. Then to them murder is good. It may seem evil to us but we are in the minority on that planet. We are evil because we are opposite of their good. good aznd evil are completley relatice. Evil and good truly are in the eyes of the beholder and the majority. :)

Wayfarer

11-21-2004, 06:49 PM

You're still wrong, though. Completely wrong.

Whether or not you call something Evil has no bearing on whether or not it is Evil. It doesn't matter if you consider murder to be wrong - either it is or it isn't, and that doesn't change regardless of what the majority thinks.

I don't want to pick on you or anything (no more than usual, anyway), but no matter how much you repeat something and no matter how many people who agree with you, you're either right or you're wrong and that's it.

It's my experience that people who say the sort of things that you're saying tend to... emote to the decision rather than thinking about it, and are usually confused as to what they're talking about. Not to imply that you are or anything, but again, you admit yourself that you really don't have a leg to stand on as far as supporting that idea...

And which of the Beholder's eyes is it in, anyway? ;)

Haradrim

11-21-2004, 06:54 PM

the left...
and why is murder evil. I believe it is evil. But why? why is stealing evil? whats wrong with it?

And again I do admit I have no leg because there really is nothing to base this on other than my having thought about it for a long time. Not as long as most philosophers or as long as the grand scape of things but still long relative.... to my life.

Attalus

11-21-2004, 07:34 PM

However what if you were to go to a planet where evil was perfectly acceptable and the majority of the people did not view murder as a bad thing but in fact that it was good. Then to them murder is good.Majority, minority, hootnanny. Murder is evil because by definition it harms another being that the murderer has no mandate from society to do so. Evil, as I say is an easily identifiable and definable quality. Democracy has nothing to do with it, no matter how much you argue it. You need to cite an instance that murder was actually considered a good thing, generally, and you can't. http://www.theoasisforums.com/non-cgi/smileys/whackya.gif

Haradrim

11-21-2004, 07:41 PM

Once again I am nto saying people voted on it I am jst saying that we are all taught what is "good" and what is "evil". I by no means have to cite a case in which murder was a good thing. but I cna come up with a hypothetical case on another planet where such a thing never went to jury because it was not a crime. If everyone on our planet was taught that murder was good and a few of us were taught that it was evil. We would think of them as evil and they would htink of us as evil but because we are the majority they would be the evil ones in our eyes. I could even make a claim to the fact that there is no universal evil or good but that it is all dependent on the place you live and what the majority there believe. I know many of us believe in God here and someone is eventuallyg oign to make the argument including God. I know I cant disprove that theroy so I am not going to try and disprove GOd because I dont know myself.

Attalus

11-21-2004, 07:45 PM

You miss the whole point. Evil is not subjective. It doesn't matter what people think. Evil does harm. That some hypothetical person might or might not think so is unimportant.

Haradrim

11-21-2004, 07:47 PM

but who says what is evil and what isnt? Why is murdering evil?

Wayfarer

11-21-2004, 08:55 PM

The definition of Evil says so. Which is what Attalus is trying to get across - Evil can be defined as something that does harm - so murder is evil. Another way of defining Evil is 'Something contrary to Iluvatar's will' or even, as I've suggested, 'something less than perfect good'.

Again, it doesn't matter what people think. Even if /everyone/ was made to believe that murder was 'good', that wouldn't make it good, just like everyone believing 1+1=1 doesn't make it true. There are facts, and they don't care whether or not a majority agrees with them.

Haradrim

11-21-2004, 11:00 PM

I hate to break it to you but evil is not a fact nor is it something that is universal in the universe. Evil is not a fact nor an absolutely definable thing. there is no definition of evil. In ME against the will of Illuvatar does mean evil but isnt everything apart of Illuvatars plan. He says that to Melkor in the Sil. Cant quote it but he says every evil you do and everything you do against me will be part of my plan. Meaning that nothing is against Illuvatars will. Meaning evil is a belief meaning there is no real absolute definable evil action.

inked

11-21-2004, 11:24 PM

Haradrim,

Come over here so I can cut off your head and prove that there is no evil :evil: .

GK Chesterton observed that when people denied the doctrine of sin, they denied the one empirically verifiable truth of Christianity.

I would modify that to say that when people deny evil they deny the one empirically verifiable truth of Middle Earth and our daily existence. Some religions go so far as to allege it all illusion.

You know that good and evil are not relative in thought, word, or deed in your very being...unless by steady willful ignorance you have convinced yourself otherwise.

Haradrim

11-21-2004, 11:30 PM

How is iti ignorance. It is a way of thinking> i am not Chrisitan and am not bound by those doctrines. I have spent many an hour thinking about this. I believe what most people believe in this world to be evil. Murder is evil, so is raping, stealing, all that stuff but I do not believe that for every culture in the universe that is evil. Also you did not reply to my claim about Illuvatar's plan. Everything is Illuvatars plan he made that clear when he spoke to melkor. If everything is in his plan than how can anything be good or evil it is just in his plan. Illuvatar is not bound by good and evil. he just made a plan and that plan will be carried out. In this world evil is evil because the majority say it is or it is the way the majority thinks> Most humans naturally feel one way or the other abhotu good and evil however in some alien world this may not be true. There may be no good and no evil. It is completely relative.

inked

11-22-2004, 12:05 AM

Haradrim,

How is it ignorance, you ask? It is ignoring the fact that you elevate to supreme value one thing: relativity of good and evil. If there is one absolute, it is an absolute good because evil is derivative.

Ergo, you know this except if you wilfully ignore it! :D

Haradrim

11-22-2004, 12:11 AM

Exactly you just said it yourself. Evil is derivative. We dont know everything in this universe. There are probably other civilizations and other races. What if in fact we are the derivative. Then we are evil. You said it yourself. Thank you. Thank you very much. Evil is relative to the majority> Even if we are int he minority than it is still relative We are just on the opposite side.

inked

11-22-2004, 12:45 AM

Precisely, Haradrim, we are derivative. All nature and morality is derivative. The first and greatest evil is to attempt to ignore that fact and elevate oneself to the place of the Creator, either God or Eru, and is known as pride and hubris. Exactly as Tolkein demonstrated in ME. The Creator is not mocked in this world or ME. Exactly as Tokein demonstrated in ME. The incorporation of the prideful rebellions in both worlds required redemption, not validation of evil, by the Creator. Funny, though, in both Creation and subCreation the truly evil always proffer exaltation of self as true fulfilment when leading the unwary into the trap of self-doom. Interesting, no? :eek:

Wayfarer

11-22-2004, 02:00 AM

The question is, of course, derivative from what?

I think the dissagreement stems from precisely this question.

BeardofPants

11-22-2004, 02:38 AM

Derivitive from nothing. Derivative, OTOH.... ;)

inked

11-22-2004, 10:57 AM

Wayfarer,

You sly dog, you. You know the answer!

BoP,

The fallacy of materialism means that your thoughts are merely the product of random motions of atoms and have not a whit of meaning. :evil: Nice exchanging random atomic motions with you :) . Instead of Schrodinger's cat, however, in your case we have pantssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss :rolleyes: !

inked

11-22-2004, 11:04 AM

Whether in Middle Earth or our Earth
It was Iluvatar/Eru or God gave birth
Bestowing all of worth
Redeeming/ransoming pride's smirch
"Good has not changed", Aragorn's turf,
Lewis,Tolkein, Sayers et alia surf
The wild,unexpected lurch
Sin, Incarnation, Undone Curse!

That clear enough on derivations? :)

Attalus

11-22-2004, 11:55 AM

unless by steady willful ignorance you have convinced yourself otherwise.Best description of Haradim's mental processes I have ever read. There is no definition of evil? How about this: "Evil is cruelty and injustice." It does not matter whit how much you argue against it, Haradim, evil is evil, recognizable by any rational being. True, some things are mixtures of good and evil, as Wayfarer pointed out, but it is the sorting and allocation that is difficult, not the nature of good and evil. I am still waiting for the examples of what you say from the real world.

Wayfarer

11-22-2004, 04:44 PM

Wayfarer,

You sly dog, you. You know the answer! I am! I do! :D

BeardofPants

11-22-2004, 05:38 PM

.... Nice exchanging random atomic motions with you :) .

::headbang:: :cool:

Instead of Schrodinger's cat, however, in your case we have pantssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss :rolleyes: !

Weeell.... I ain't tried to kill a pair of pants lately. :rolleyes:

Haradrim

11-22-2004, 07:33 PM

But Attalus, you would say that evil is cruelty and innjustice and so would everyone. But you just gave me three synnonyms. Not exactly but close enough. I would not say that evil is not cruelty an injustice. But who decides what is cruelty and injustice the majority of morals. Therefore that which goes against the morals of the majority is injusice and immoral and therefore evil. ANd everything was part fo Erus plan as he himself said to Melkor so how can there be such a thing as evil if it is all a part of his plan.

Wayfarer

11-23-2004, 02:31 PM

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

11-23-2004, 02:42 PM

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

11-23-2004, 09:55 PM

*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

11-23-2004, 11:22 PM

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! :evil:

Wayfarer

11-24-2004, 01:27 AM

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

11-24-2004, 12:16 PM

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

11-28-2004, 01:36 AM

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

11-28-2004, 03:08 AM

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

11-28-2004, 01:16 PM

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

11-28-2004, 07:20 PM

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

11-29-2004, 11:24 PM

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. :mad:

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

11-30-2004, 02:05 AM

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.
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. :p :D
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. :cool:

Elemmírë

11-30-2004, 02:23 AM

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. :p

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

Anyway, to carry my hopefully sound :o 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

11-30-2004, 11:02 AM

.
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

11-30-2004, 11:07 AM

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. :p :D

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. :cool: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

11-30-2004, 03:01 PM

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

11-30-2004, 04:57 PM

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.

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! :p I know I've been rambling on in a semi-lucid state... :o

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

11-30-2004, 05:38 PM

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.

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

11-30-2004, 05:40 PM

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

11-30-2004, 06:05 PM

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

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. :p I'll have to add that to ice and up. :D

TD: btw, are you planning on murdering Haradrim or something? :p ;) :D

Attalus

11-30-2004, 07:58 PM

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?All killing is not murder, as I was at pains to explain. Killing an enemy in war or in self-defense is not murder. See my definition. It has to be unlawful. Malice is usually implied but is not requisite.

Elemmírë

11-30-2004, 08:40 PM

To me, all killing is the same. But I'm not going to get into that here or now.

btw, Attalus, do you think that war is evil?

Haradrim

11-30-2004, 08:43 PM

In the world of ME. When the Gondorian soldiers killed the Haradrim they were doing what was just and right from the perspective of the Gondorians. And when the Haradrim were to say kill a Gondorian that was an evil act and it was completely unjust because we are the ones who are just from the Gondorians perspective. But from the Haradrim's perspective when I kill a gondorian it is good and just because they do not follow Melkor and his ideas are correct. and when a Gondorian kills a Haradrim that is an unspeakably evil task which was uncalled for because we are the just ones and you are unjust. So in this instance evil is not the same thing and in fact depends on the POV and the majority of the people on either side. If a majority of Haradrim for some odd reason thought to themselves it is not evil for them to kill us then its not an evil act.

Also did Eru not say to Melkor when he was doing his bad stuff that while he thoguth he was being deviant he was in fact following the plan of Eru and that everyones has a part in the plan. So if in fact Eru allowed Melkor to exist he was allowing evil. So if he was allowing it then wasn't it in his will and if it was in his will then it wasn't evil. So there was no evil in middle Earth. Everyone was just following a greater plan.

Also wayfarer if we are comparing evil to say temperature. I am from Minnesota. I wear shorts at 45 degrees and I feel nice. Lets say you are from florida to you 45 degrees is fricking cold. Now lets use evil. I am say an orc. I dont find murder evil in fact it is quite enjoyable and everyone of my bretheren like doing it. So now lets say I am a gondorian. I think murder is evil and everyone of my bretheren find it evil. So in that instance evil is not the same thing the meaning itself changes. The word remains the same but the meaning is different. and in the situation of the cold. A majority of people iN minnesota find 45 degrees enjoyable so therefore its enjoyable weather. In florida a majority of people find 45 degrees extreemnley unenjoyable. Also as a n orc most orcs dont think of murder as evil so to them it is not evil. And to most gondorians murder is evil so to them it is evil.
Evil is defined by the majority and your POV.

oh and t.d.

bring it! :) :) jk

Elemmírë

11-30-2004, 09:25 PM

Haradrim, you're getting into questions of morality.

If Wayfarer wants to define Evil as something "Morally wrong and harmful" then we have to get into morality and start to ask what is right and what is wrong.

So technically, I think you're questioning both definitions.

Philosophy, anyone? ;)

btw, careful, Morgoth... TD is dangerous, and I think he's working with Elssear (my nickname for Aragorn ;) )

Haradrim

11-30-2004, 09:28 PM

Its not a question of morals. Morals have nothing to do with it. Its POV and majority not morals. That is my statement. Morals are the same thing as evil. Decided by the majority and the POV so morals are not in question in my opinion however I think that also is the difference in the two arguments. One side is arguiong morals while my side is arguing that morals are subjective and therefore decided based on majority and POV so this will probably never resolve. But its fun anyway.

Elemmírë

11-30-2004, 09:39 PM

I'm trying to clear up this misunderstanding.

I think (though I'm not sure) that Wayfarer was annoyed that you would change the meaning of the word "Evil" without changing what it stood for.

Its not a question of morals. Morals have nothing to do with it.
Morals are the same thing as evil.

Well... you either just contradicted yourself, Morgoth, or the rest of us are just terribly misinterpretting you.

btw... morals are not the same thing as evil. But I think you meant that being morally wrong and being evil are the same thing. Wayfarer was arguing (I think) that you were changing one without changing the other.

(Wayfarer... if I have it wrong, can you come later and explain again what you were saying?)

See... if you don't change your view on morality, and think that killing is morally wrong no matter what, then even if you say it isn't evil in some cases, and are still saying that it is morally wrong, you have a paradox, and a ridiculous one at that.

Look at it this way. Evil is a word, nothing more. It is a concept that is tied in with morality. You can't attack the word itself, but the meaning behind the word, which would be the morality issues behind it.

I personally think that the whole issue of morality is very fluid... as is the idea of hot and cold. ;)

Haradrim

11-30-2004, 09:48 PM

What I meant is that (I was typing fast as I had to hand it over to my mother quickly so the contradiction was because I wasnt thinking about what I ws writing for that post and that post alone.) Morals in my opinion are not at debate. This is hard for em to phrase. I do not disagree with anything Wayfarer and Attalus are saying. I just think that they are not looking at it from another culture like the orcs in which the view of evil is different. Evil is not in my opinion about morals. Evil is about what your view point is. The exact oppostie is evil. So evil is a matter of POV. Then you have to think okay thats for one person. now lets look at a society. If the majority of the viewpoints believe something then the opposite of that is evil. So evil defined by the majority and the POV.

and just to clear up I dont think evil is the same as morals it was a typo.

Elemmírë

11-30-2004, 10:13 PM

Morgoth, I'd love to continue this debate with you, but could we move it someplace else... so that we don't clutter this thread up.

For me, talking about morality and evil is easier when I can take it outside of ME, since in ME I feel bound to argue something I don't personally believe in, because for me, ME is based partly on Christian ideas, so I feel bound to honour them and to look at everything from a suitable point of view, but I divorce Christian theology entirely from my true perceptions of good and evil.

Teacup Cafe, or is there someplace we can actually go?

Wayfarer

12-01-2004, 12:11 AM

I'm trying to clear up this misunderstanding. I think (though I'm not sure) that Wayfarer was annoyed that you would change the meaning of the word "Evil" without changing what it stood for.

Well... you either just contradicted yourself, Morgoth, or the rest of us are just terribly misinterpretting you.

btw... morals are not the same thing as evil. But I think you meant that being morally wrong and being evil are the same thing. Wayfarer was arguing (I think) that you were changing one without changing the other. See... if you don't change your view on morality, and think that killing is morally wrong no matter what, then even if you say it isn't evil in some cases, and are still saying that it is morally wrong, you have a paradox, and a ridiculous one at that.

Look at it this way. Evil is a word, nothing more. It is a concept that is tied in with morality. You can't attack the word itself, but the meaning behind the word, which would be the morality issues behind it.

Yes, yes, yes! Exactly right. <3

Haradrim, you're getting into questions of morality.

If Wayfarer wants to define Evil as something "Morally wrong and harmful" then we have to get into morality and start to ask what is right and what is wrong. Here's the definition I came up with (from earlier in the thread):

Evil
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
The quality of being Wayfarer?

Evil can be any or all of those things. So, in further consideration it would be possible (under sense 4) to define something as evil based on opinion.

I do not disagree with anything Wayfarer and Attalus are saying. I just think that they are not looking at it from another culture like the orcs in which the view of evil is different. Evil is not in my opinion about morals. Evil is about what your view point is. The exact oppostie is evil. So evil is a matter of POV. See, here's the inherent problem. I agree with you that Orcs most likely did not consider what they did to be evil. They certainly don't walk around talking about how evil they are and how great it is to be evil. The essential question is whether that makes a difference - does believing something is evil (or not-evil) make it fit the definition of Evil? Does the failure of the Orcs to consider themselves Evil make them good? Clearly not! Orcs are wicked, harmful, infamous, and malicious - they meet just about every definition of Evil there is. Whether they think that they're evil is inconsequential.

It's not the suggestion that Orcs may not be as evil as everyone thinks that's wrong. I've argued on that point more than once myself. Nor is it the idea that certain actions may be more or less evil depending on the situation - I think the whole concept of morality is, not fluid perhaps, but certainly complex.

Haradrim, I fail to understand the point of continually explaining your opinion. The long and drawn out explanations don't serve any purpose. You see, the problem isn't that the rest of us don't understand what you're trying to say, it's that what you're trying to say is incorrect.

There is an essential difference between whether someone thinks something is Evil and whether it is evil. Equating the two is hopeless, because it completely invalidates the meaning of the word and renders it conceptually impossible.

In effect, what you're saying is "Anything that is called Evil is Evil." And, by corolarry "Evil is anything that is called Evil." It's a recursive definition that fails to provide any meanigful idea of the concept which the word is meant to relate.

Furthermore, there is already a word for what you are trying to describe - Unpopular. This, like every other word, means something, but whether a given act fits the definition of Unpopular has practically effect on whether it fits the definition of Evil.

By all means, talk about morality, talk about good and evil, talk about what does or does not fall under any of the above categories. But let's have no more of this nonsense of trying to force an arbitrary redefinition of the word so that it supports your fallacious (but not evil) ideas.

Elemmírë

12-01-2004, 12:55 AM

Yes, yes, yes! Exactly right. <3

Here's the definition I came up with (from earlier in the thread):

Evil
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
The quality of being Wayfarer?

Evil can be any or all of those things. So, in further consideration it would be possible (under sense 4) to define something as evil based on opinion.

Glad I got it right, Wayfarer. :D

Alright, when I say I don't believe in good and evil (have I said that yet?), I mean in the sense of #1 on your list, Wayfarer. I don't think the others can be debated, especially #6. ;)

See, here's the inherent problem. I agree with you that Orcs most likely did not consider what they did to be evil. They certainly don't walk around talking about how evil they are and how great it is to be evil. The essential question is whether that makes a difference - does believing something is evil (or not-evil) make it fit the definition of Evil? Does the failure of the Orcs to consider themselves Evil make them good? Clearly not! Orcs are wicked, harmful, infamous, and malicious - they meet just about every definition of Evil there is. Whether they think that they're evil is inconsequential.

Okay.

Orcs = Evil
Feanor and Sons after kinslayings = Evil

Or is this true? By your definitions, they both did evil deeds, but does this inevitably make the doer evil?

And how about this one:
orcs killing elves/humans = evil
elves/humans killing other elves/humans = evil

how would you define Elves or humans killing orcs? This obviously causes harm (to the orc, at least), but can you consider it evil?

By all means, talk about morality, talk about good and evil, talk about what does or does not fall under any of the above categories.

Oh, let's. Just not here. :p

Telcontar_Dunedain

12-01-2004, 03:45 AM

TD: btw, are you planning on murdering Haradrim or something? :p :D ;)

No! :rolleyes:

But the principle of a man of Gondor killing a Haradrim is surely just as bad as a man of Gondor killing a man of Rohan.

EDIT: Haradrim, Haradrim are following what hey viewed as correct, and so they didn't need to be killed, but pitied on and taught what was right. Look what the Rohirrim did to the Men of Dunland, they taught them that there ways were evil.

Attalus

12-01-2004, 10:28 AM

To me, all killing is the same. But I'm not going to get into that here or now.

btw, Attalus, do you think that war is evil?
All killing is not evil. KIlling in self-defense can be a positive good. War contains evil, but is not inherently evil. A Haradim killing a Gondorian on the field of battle commits an act which has evil in it, but is not inherently evil, depending on his motivations, beliefs, and the laws of his state. All actions by mortal Men (and women) contain an evil component, because we are fallen creatures.

inked

12-01-2004, 10:56 AM

Haradrim,

You think you believe in relative morality in Middle Earth and you state that it is the same in our world. So, instead of Tolkein's world which is a subcreation of ours, take your view to the Second World War and explain why what Hitler and the German's did to the Jews/Gypsies/mentally retarded Germans/resistors was NOT evil.

And when you are done with that please assess the actions of Osama ben Laden and his followers on 9/11/01.

Then, the beheaders in Iraq and elsewhere and the school-killers in Beslan.

Oh, and you might consider Sadaam Hussein and America in Iraq.

Finally, what answers to correctness between moral views that are relative and opposed in general? How is the decison made?

inked

12-01-2004, 01:22 PM

Haradrim, I found this hot off the press to throw into the mix. Any evil here?

Nov 30, 4:24 PM (ET)

By TOBY STERLING

(AP) Ten thousands protesters demonstrate outside Dutch government buildings as the Upper House of...

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of dec

iding for themselves whether they want to end their lives - a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.

The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said.

Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.

Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.

The hospital revealed last month it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital or the doctors.

Roman Catholic organizations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to the announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.

"The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into a vertical cliff," said Wesley J. Smith, a prominent California-based critic, in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.

"As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting."

According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen, but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals.

Groningen estimated the protocol would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country of 16 million people.

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge.

However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.

"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."

More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said.
**************************************

I submit that there is a vast difference between the prolongation of viability to no discernable end and discontinuing the "heroic" in that regard versus the active "putting down" of those determined to be incapable of decision making. Anyone for the absence of the slippery slope?

Olmer

12-01-2004, 02:31 PM

Attalus

12-01-2004, 02:46 PM

All of this is about HUMAN'S decisions based on morality and THEIR OWN definition of "evil-doing" mostly delineated by the Church. This is a RELATIVE MORALITY. And I agree it's a very slippery slope, so we should't go farther than that.

We were talking about a definition of the evil and possibility of existance on its own, away from the Grand Plan of God, in correlation with Tolkien's Middle-earth. And even in his point of view as a devoited catholic he says that any creations or doings, which in ours view considered as being "evil" , would become a part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good. (Letter#151)
So in the mighty God's/Eru's view it is no evil, just a mere discords which had have a benign nature in the first place.
Ever heard an expression "The road to hell paved by good notions"?
This is a thik "grey area" between definition of "good" and "evil", because sometimes they interchange.Morality is for humans, not for animals or "the universe". Humans are created, fallen beings, to whom Evil is a constant threat. Your second to last sentence ("So i..." is an unwarranted leap in logic. Just because good can arise from evil does not make it any less evil, just that the Almighty has the power to make it so. Also, nobody denied that there were gray areas, since fallen human beings always have some evil in them and what they do. Our contention is that Evil exists, and is not a relative term. Murder is evil, and no human society has condoned it.

Wayfarer

12-01-2004, 04:03 PM

Alright, when I say I don't believe in good and evil (have I said that yet?), I mean in the sense of #1 on your list, Wayfarer. I don't think the others can be debated, especially #6. :p

I'm actually okay with that. Sense #1 is very (very) complicated, as you have to take the term 'Morally Wrong' and determine what exactly is meant by 'moral' and 'wrong', and each of those words requires further explanation... so, I'm satisfied to let it lie, at least for now, and concentrate on the others as a working definition.

Orcs = Evil
Feanor and Sons after kinslayings = Evil

Or is this true? By your definitions, they both did evil deeds, but does this inevitably make the doer evil?

Yeeee....no? :rolleyes: :) Maybe.

In some ways, whether a person does an evil deed is an indicator of whether they can or should be considered to be an 'evil' person. I think, however, that perhaps it would be most informative to say that an evil person should be judged in the same way as an evil act - they can be considered evil if their character fits the definition of Evil.

Take the orcs, for example - it is beyond reasonable doubt that they did Evil acts, and it is generally agreed that they are evil (though the degree to which they are evil is speculative). It could reasonably be said that they were evil not just because they did evil things but because they had an evil character - As I said, the orcs were wicked (sense 1), harmful (sense 2), infamous (sense 4), and malicious (sense 5). There is some overlap, naturally, but I would say that perhaps the orcs should be considered evil not for what they did but for what they were. Thoughts?

Of the sons of Feanor, we can agree that they did evil things, and we could probably agree that overall they caused ruin, injury, or pain to much of Beleriand (Sense 2). However, I'm not sure that alone would be enough to categorize the individuals (rather than their actions) as Evil. On th other hand, they certainly gained some very bad reputations (sense 4), and some of them were certainly characterized by anger or spite (sense 5). So it might be said while all of the Sons of Feanor did evil acts, only some of them were really evil individuals. Agree? Disagree?

And how about this one:
orcs killing elves/humans = evil
elves/humans killing other elves/humans = evil

how would you define Elves or humans killing orcs? This obviously causes harm (to the orc, at least), but can you consider it evil? The question is, in what sense (if any), is that killing Evil, and in what circumstances is it taking place?

All killing, we can agree, causes harm to the person being killed, and probably to others. So any killing at all is evil according to def. 2.

Skirting around def. 1, we can say that an orc killing a human or elf is most likely going to be evil under def. 5 (Orcs are generally Malicious). A human or elf killing another human or elf will also sometimes (in the case of murder) fit under that category as well. I would be inclined to say that... oh, my. This is tricky, isn't it? :D

Allright. Say we have three individuals - O (an orc), H (a human), and E (an elf).

* If O attacks and kills H without provocation, we would generally say that is an evil act because O is causing harm to H, and is doing so maliciously. O kills H - Evil.
* If H attacks and kills E without provocation, we would likewise call this an evil act for the same reasons. H kills E - Evil.
However, if O attacks H without provocation, and H kills in self defense, then * H is causing harm, but not maliciously, so is not evil in that sense. It could also be argued that the amount of harm caused by H killing O (the loss of a life), is equal to the harm prevented (O killing H would be no less harmful than H killing O). We would be inclined to say, I think, that these would cancel out - the total amount of harm done is no greater than it would have been if H had allowed himself to be slain, and may very well be less (since O might have gone on to slay E afterwards. In that case it would almost be a good thing.). So, H kills O in self defense - Not Evil, and possibly Good.
* If E likewise kills H in self defense, the act would likewise not be malicious, and E isn't causing more harm than he would by allowing H to kill him. However, H is probably less likely than O to go on to kill more people, so the chance of this being a good act are lessened. E kills H in self defense - Not Evil, but probably not Good.
* Now, say H seeks out and attacks O. In this case, O would not really be acting maliciously were he to kill H, and in the short term would be doing no more harm by killing H than he would by allowing H to kill him. In that, it is not an evil act. On the other hand, H might rightly fear that O intends to kill both himself and H, so in that case O allowing himself to be killed would cause less harm (the loss of one life versus the loss of two) than killing H in self defense. So, O kills H in self defense - Possibly Evil, Possibly Not.
* On the other hand, if H seeks out O and succeeds in killing him, H is still acting maliciously, and is causes harm to O. So, it is probably evil act. However, if H kills O because he fears O is dangerous, it could be argued that H is attempting to do good by preventing O from killing others. By that token, we would probably say that H killing O preemptively is an Evil act, but done for a Good reason.

I think it is fair to say that killing, in any situation, can be defined as an evil act. But what of situations where that killing might prevent far worse things from happening? I do think it is fair to say that killing might be the lesser of two evils - in some cases, it might even be the least evil possibility available, in which case it would relatively be a kind of good.

And yes, I did say 'relatively'. Even an absolute system of morality does not nescessarily have to be simple. What is good or evil in any situation depends on that situation, and in that it is relative. This is a quite different kind of 'relativity' from the sort that claims good and evil are relative to what people think of them.

Earniel

12-01-2004, 04:09 PM

Haradrim, I found this hot off the press to throw into the mix. Any evil here?
Last time I checked the Netherlands weren't located in Middle-earth. :p Euthanasia is a whole different discussion all together.

Elemmírë

12-01-2004, 04:25 PM

Last time I checked the Netherlands weren't located in Middle-earth.

Netherlands=Holland
Eregion=Hollin

:eek:

btw, Wayfarer...I'm still trying to decipher your response, don't worry, I will respond :evil: )...

inked

12-01-2004, 04:50 PM

Alas and alack! But good and evil are in Holland as elsewhere in the primary world. And, regardless of semantics or recursive thinking or tautologies, it is from the primary world that we take our good and evil and see them worked out in the subcreation of ME. It is in the light of the subcreation that we can sometimes develop clearer concepts about the primary world (paraphrasing Tolkein from ON FAIRY STORIES).

And, what makes Tolkein appealing, according to critics who may or may not have read his work, is his "simplicity" which appeals to "puerile imaginations" and is not at all controversial and is inapplicable to the "real world" - such as we are finding in this thread! Just goes to prove the critics wrong in that regard (yours would be the fourth generation to do so if you are college age,
Earniel)!

:)

Earniel

12-01-2004, 05:01 PM

Netherlands=Holland
Eregion=Hollin

:eek:

That's it. I'm moving across the border.

Then again, maybe not.

And, what makes Tolkein appealing, according to critics who may or may not have read his work, is his "simplicity" which appeals to "puerile imaginations" and is not at all controversial and is inapplicable to the "real world" - such as we are finding in this thread! Just goes to prove the critics wrong in that regard (yours would be the fourth generation to do so if you are college age, Earniel)!
Hey now, hey now, I'm not a critic! :p Fourth generation or otherwise. And I certainly wouldn't be calling Tolkien's works simple! Still, I don't think evil in ME is equal to evil in our world. Neither do I see what euthanasia has to with Middle-earth.

Elemmírë

12-01-2004, 05:15 PM

@ Wayfarer:

That could have been an English paper, Wayfarer. ;)

I understand most of what you’re saying. At least, I think I do. I cannot debate with you on definitions 2-5 of evil, so I’m not going to try. Debating sense 1 would get us nowhere, so I’m not going to do too much of that.

I think, however, that perhaps it would be most informative to say that an evil person should be judged in the same way as an evil act - they can be considered evil if their character fits the definition of Evil.

Take the orcs, for example - it is beyond reasonable doubt that they did Evil acts, and it is generally agreed that they are evil (though the degree to which they are evil is speculative).It could reasonably be said that they were evil not just because they did evil things but because they had an evil character - As I said, the orcs were wicked (sense 1), harmful (sense 2), infamous (sense 4), and malicious (sense 5).
There is some overlap, naturally, but I would say that perhaps the orcs should be considered evil not for what they did but for what they were. Thoughts?

Of the sons of Feanor, we can agree that they did evil things, and we could probably agree that overall they caused ruin, injury, or pain to much of Beleriand (Sense 2). However, I'm not sure that alone would be enough to categorize the individuals (rather than their actions) as Evil. On th other hand, they certainly gained some very bad reputations (sense 4), and some of them were certainly characterized by anger or spite (sense 5). So it might be said while all of the Sons of Feanor did evil acts, only some of them were really evil individuals. Agree? Disagree?

I think I agree with you, Wayfarer. Despite their actions, I do not consider Maedhros and Maglor inherently evil. Anyone who does should read through the part of The Voyage of Eärendil with Elrond and Elros before debating that point…

It would be harder to defend Curufin and Celegorm, however (especially for me :mad: )

Perhaps, especially in situations like these, we should distinguish between the conscious intent to do evil (sense 2) and simply doing evil. I don’t believe that any of the sons of Fëanor went to ME with the express and conscious desire to lay waste to all the realms of Beleriand. Despite the harm that they caused, I do not believe that this ever changed (except perhaps for the C’s, though I know that some would choose and perhaps succeed at defending them). It is made clear that even during the kinslayings, it was not the destruction of other people that they desired. They always sent word demanding the Silmarils… before they attacked. Though the action of kinslaying was evil (sense 2, possibly sense 1), I do not believe that the sons of Feanor themselves were evil (sense 1).

Orcs, on the other hand, obviously had this desire to cause ruin. Perhaps this could be the criteria by which we judge evil (sense 1).

All killing, we can agree, causes harm to the person being killed, and probably to others. So any killing at all is evil according to def. 2.

Skirting around def. 1, we can say that an orc killing a human or elf is most likely going to be evil under def. 5 (Orcs are generally Malicious). A human or elf killing another human or elf will also sometimes (in the case of murder) fit under that category as well. I would be inclined to say that... oh, my. This is tricky, isn't it?

Yes. It is. And btw, I’m beginning to hate your definitions.

By that token, we would probably say that H killing O preemptively is an Evil act, but done for a Good reason.

I understand your scenarios, for the most part, though it could be dangerous to go into potentiality for good, and speak about the evil that might have been caused. I am glad, however, that you didn’t fall into the trap of believing that because an Orc is supposedly evil (sense 1), it is therefore justified to kill it and automatically not evil.

I think it is fair to say that killing, in any situation, can be defined as an evil act. But what of situations where that killing might prevent far worse things from happening? I do think it is fair to say that killing might be the lesser of two evils - in some cases, it might even be the least evil possibility available, in which case it would relatively be a kind of good.

Anyone else want to argue on this statement? The “least evil possibility available” is “relatively… a kind of good.” Honestly, Wayfarer, I think I agree with you, if only because I find the whole concept relative. I’m sure they’ll be some people (if they haven’t already) prepared to debate this point.

@ Eärniel

Cute. :p Let's all move to Hollin... *ahem*
Holland. :D

Wayfarer

12-01-2004, 05:28 PM

Holland... Hollin. Hmmm... Nordic... Noldor.

Yes. It is. And btw, I’m beginning to hate your definitions. Precision and Clarity are the twin principles which underly comprehensible language, and are absolutely essential if communication is to occur on any meanigful level. ;)

Perhaps, especially in situations like these, we should distinguish between the conscious intent to do evil (sense 2) and simply doing evil. I don’t believe that any of the sons of Fëanor went to ME with the express and conscious desire to lay waste to all the realms of Beleriand. Despite the harm that they caused, I do not believe that this ever changed (except perhaps for the C’s, though I know that some would choose and perhaps succeed at defending them). It is made clear that even during the kinslayings, it was not the destruction of other people that they desired. They always sent word demanding the Silmarils… before they attacked. Though the action of kinslaying was evil (sense 2, possibly sense 1), I do not believe that the sons of Feanor themselves were evil (sense 1).

Orcs, on the other hand, obviously had this desire to cause ruin. Perhaps this could be the criteria by which we judge evil (sense 1).

Perhaps that can be said... but I am inclined to argue that the 'Conscious intent to do Evil (In any sense)' is somewhat of an illusion. It is my experience that humans (of which Elves and Orcs are unique subsets) never consciously intend to do evil - when evil is done, it is always as a means to an end which the individual percieves as being 'good'. As you say, the Sons of Feanor wanted the Silmarils - they did evil acts in the course of pursuing that goal, which they percieved as a good thing (the return of a priceless treasure stolen from their family and wrongfully withheld).

I would even go so far as to say that the Orcs, while the majority of their actions were evil, were not simply pursuing evil for its own sake - they waged war out of fear of Morgoth and Sauron, they looted and pillaged in order to gain food and goods for themselves, and so forth.

Telcontar_Dunedain

12-01-2004, 05:37 PM

Allright. Say we have three individuals - O (an orc), H (a human), and E (an elf).

* If O attacks and kills H without provocation, we would generally say that is an evil act because O is causing harm to H, and is doing so maliciously. O kills H - Evil.
* If H attacks and kills E without provocation, we would likewise call this an evil act for the same reasons. H kills E - Evil.
However, if O attacks H without provocation, and H kills in self defense, then * H is causing harm, but not maliciously, so is not evil in that sense. It could also be argued that the amount of harm caused by H killing O (the loss of a life), is equal to the harm prevented (O killing H would be no less harmful than H killing O). We would be inclined to say, I think, that these would cancel out - the total amount of harm done is no greater than it would have been if H had allowed himself to be slain, and may very well be less (since O might have gone on to slay E afterwards. In that case it would almost be a good thing.). So, H kills O in self defense - Not Evil, and possibly Good.
* If E likewise kills H in self defense, the act would likewise not be malicious, and E isn't causing more harm than he would by allowing H to kill him. However, H is probably less likely than O to go on to kill more people, so the chance of this being a good act are lessened. E kills H in self defense - Not Evil, but probably not Good.
* Now, say H seeks out and attacks O. In this case, O would not really be acting maliciously were he to kill H, and in the short term would be doing no more harm by killing H than he would by allowing H to kill him. In that, it is not an evil act. On the other hand, H might rightly fear that O intends to kill both himself and H, so in that case O allowing himself to be killed would cause less harm (the loss of one life versus the loss of two) than killing H in self defense. So, O kills H in self defense - Possibly Evil, Possibly Not.
* On the other hand, if H seeks out O and succeeds in killing him, H is still acting maliciously, and is causes harm to O. So, it is probably evil act. However, if H kills O because he fears O is dangerous, it could be argued that H is attempting to do good by preventing O from killing others. By that token, we would probably say that H killing O preemptively is an Evil act, but done for a Good reason.
What if O killed H becaus eit thought that if it didn't then H would kill more O's. Is that any more evil than H killing O so O doesn't kill anymore H's?

Elemmírë

12-01-2004, 06:01 PM

Perhaps that can be said... but I am inclined to argue that the 'Conscious intent to do Evil (In any sense)' is somewhat of an illusion. It is my experience that humans (of which Elves and Orcs are unique subsets) never consciously intend to do evil - when evil is done, it is always as a means to an end which the individual percieves as being 'good'. As you say, the Sons of Feanor wanted the Silmarils - they did evil acts in the course of pursuing that goal, which they percieved as a good thing (the return of a priceless treasure stolen from their family and wrongfully withheld).

I would even go so far as to say that the Orcs, while the majority of their actions were evil, were not simply pursuing evil for its own sake - they waged war out of fear of Morgoth and Sauron, they looted and pillaged in order to gain food and goods for themselves, and so forth.

Wayfarer, I'm inclined to believe that morality, good and evil in and of themselves are illusions. I'm trying to find some way to justify the definition of evil (sense 1) so that I can accept it in the realm of the books.

I do not mind your argument at all, in fact, I agree with it, though it seems to me that it somewhat invalidates Evil (sense 1).

So, clarify this for me... are you now arguing that the Orcs were not evil (sense 1)?

What if O killed H becaus eit thought that if it didn't then H would kill more O's. Is that any more evil than H killing O so O doesn't kill anymore H's?

Teddy's got a point.

inked

12-01-2004, 06:37 PM

That's it. I'm moving across the border.

Then again, maybe not.

Hey now, hey now, I'm not a critic! :p Fourth generation or otherwise. And I certainly wouldn't be calling Tolkien's works simple! Still, I don't think evil in ME is equal to evil in our world. Neither do I see what euthanasia has to with Middle-earth.

Earniel,

I didn't mean you were a critic in the sense of a published critic of Tolkien - I was making funny of his original critics who alleged the things I said - this back at the time of publication. CS Lewis and WH Auden took the opposite views and found Tolkien to be quite conducive to reflective thought - as it would appear do the persons on this thread, hence the 4th generation reading Tolkien "critically".

Was I just trying too hard? :D

Wayfarer

12-02-2004, 03:02 PM

Teddy, eh? :D Well TD, I would tend to propose that O and H are simply variables - all other things being equal, it doesn't really matter whether you flip them around. So O killing H pre-emptively would, considering the act itself (in the short term) and not the ramifications, be no more or less evil than H killing O in the same manner.

Of course this is complicated once one expands the problem - O might be more inclined to kill, so in the long term O killing H, even out of fear, might cause more harm (as O goes on to kill others) than H killing O. Additionally, O might have different characteristics than H, which may lead O to kill in a different manner, which could be considered more of an evil act (slow death by torture as opposed to a quick execution, for example).

Wayfarer, I'm inclined to believe that morality, good and evil in and of themselves are illusions. I'm trying to find some way to justify the definition of evil (sense 1) so that I can accept it in the realm of the books.

I do not mind your argument at all, in fact, I agree with it, though it seems to me that it somewhat invalidates Evil (sense 1).

So, clarify this for me... are you now arguing that the Orcs were not evil (sense 1)?

*blink*

In reverse order - I do maintain that the Orcs were 'wicked' (evil, def. 1). However, I draw a distinction in why they are evil.

Hmm... let me try and illustrate this better... When you refer to the destructive impulses of the Orcs, I think we can agree that the destructive acts were Evil, that the impulses to do those acts were also Evil, and that in doing those acts the orcs themselves were Evil. However, when you suggest that this could perhaps be a criteria for judging wickedness (Evil, sense 1), you seem to think that the Orcs desire to do evil for its own sake. Someone fictional put this far better than I could when they said: 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"

What I am trying to say is that I am... somewhat uncomfortable with that viewpoint. Not, mind you, in the sense that the idea makes me uneasy, but in the sense that the thought-shapes are foriegn. I can't get my mind around the idea in a way that allows me to make sense of it.

If pure, baseless Evil involves the complete absence of good, than it is really, as has been brought up before, a state of nothingness. And so, to desire Evil for its own sake is to desire nothingness. A wholly evil creature would desire the complete annihilation of reality, not only destroying everything but itself (like that sword that the one drug-using wizard had ;)) but ultimately the nullification of its own existance, and reality itself. That's just not something I can imagine as being possible to desire.

So, what I suppose I am objecting to is the idea that evil is some concrete thing which can be desired in itself - the idea, as it were, that 'evil' is a kind of 'good' that some creatures seek after. Is that understandable?

I think we can say that, for example, Orcs are 'wicked' according to the definition, but I do not think that they would consider themselves wicked, or that they are attempting to be wicked - ultimately their desire to destroy might boil down to 'they enjoy it', in which their goal (pleasure for themselves) is something which is certainly not evil and possibly good.

It was CS Lewis who said 'Evil is what you get when you pursue good in the wrong way'. Melkor started out desiring something 'good' (Creative and Administrative Power). However, he attempted to achieve this in the wrong way - through violence and conquest, and the result was not the good he desired but further evil (since evil actions cannot have good consequences). Failing to achieve his original goal, he lowered his aim and attempted to take what he could get (Dominating power). Ultimately, when he could not dominate, he fell even further (seeking Destructive Power). You can see in this progression that Melkor starts out desiring something which is good, but moves steadily closer towards what would be considered pure evil - but at no point is pure evil his intended goal.

I shall require some time to allow my thoughts to coagulate, but that's as clear as I can make it right now. I'll leave the discussion of 'wickedness' (Evil, sense 1) for later, since that's going to involve (Yay! :D) more definitions.

Elemmírë

12-02-2004, 04:13 PM

In reverse order - I do maintain that the Orcs were 'wicked' (evil, def. 1). However, I draw a distinction in why they are evil.

Hmm... let me try and illustrate this better... When you refer to the destructive impulses of the Orcs, I think we can agree that the destructive acts were Evil, that the impulses to do those acts were also Evil, and that in doing those acts the orcs themselves were Evil. However, when you suggest that this could perhaps be a criteria for judging wickedness (Evil, sense 1), you seem to think that the Orcs desire to do evil for its own sake.

What I am trying to say is that I am... somewhat uncomfortable with that viewpoint. Not, mind you, in the sense that the idea makes me uneasy, but in the sense that the thought-shapes are foriegn. I can't get my mind around the idea in a way that allows me to make sense of it.

I did not say that Orcs desired to do evil for its own sake.

My exact statement was
We should distinguish between the conscious intent to do evil (sense 2) and simply doing evil.
Orcs, obviously had this desire to cause ruin. Perhaps this could be the criteria by which we judge evil (sense 1).

I could probably have stated it better, and will try again next. :o

So, what I suppose I am objecting to is the idea that evil is some concrete thing which can be desired in itself - the idea, as it were, that 'evil' is a kind of 'good' that some creatures seek after. Is that understandable?

I think we can say that, for example, Orcs are 'wicked' according to the definition, but I do not think that they would consider themselves wicked, or that they are attempting to be wicked - ultimately their desire to destroy might boil down to 'they enjoy it', in which their goal (pleasure for themselves) is something which is certainly not evil and possibly good.

That is definitely understandable. I believe that even in ME, pure evil is as impossible as pure good. I cannot name a character (with the probable exception of Eru) without ulterior motives, whether their actions are ultimately good or evil.

I think this is what Haradrim was actually trying to express. That the idea, if not the popular definition, of wickedness is relative. Perhaps you disagreed with the manner in which he stated it, because it seems that in a way, you agree. Although Orcs, according to our definitions, Orcs are “wicked,” in their own eyes they are not.

Enough with that. At this point, I don’t want to argue the legitimacy of definition of “wicked.” We can debate that later and I’m sure we will. ;)

Now to what I was saying before. I believe I was trying to say that by our standards at least, this “desire to destroy” because “they enjoy it” is what I was referring to as their “desire to cause ruin,” as I put it earlier, and the reason I could justify them as evil (sense 1). While they might not be seeking evil for its own sake, they are still consciously, willingly, and gleefully doing deeds we would usually consider evil (sense 1) and that are undoubtedly evil in several other senses. I do not believe the Orcs would repent of some of the evil they did, whereas several of the sons of Fëanor did repent.

If pure, baseless Evil involves the complete absence of good, than it is really, as has been brought up before, a state of nothingness. And so, to desire Evil for its own sake is to desire nothingness. A wholly evil creature would desire the complete annihilation of reality, not only destroying everything but itself (like that sword that the one drug-using wizard had ;)) but ultimately the nullification of its own existance, and reality itself. That's just not something I can imagine as being possible to desire.

It was CS Lewis who said 'Evil is what you get when you pursue good in the wrong way'. Melkor started out desiring something 'good' (Creative and Administrative Power). However, he attempted to achieve this in the wrong way - through violence and conquest, and the result was not the good he desired but further evil (since evil actions cannot have good consequences). Failing to achieve his original goal, he lowered his aim and attempted to take what he could get (Dominating power). Ultimately, when he could not dominate, he fell even further (seeking Destructive Power). You can see in this progression that Melkor starts out desiring something which is good, but moves steadily closer towards what would be considered pure evil - but at no point is pure evil his intended goal.

Okay.

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure that “pure evil” as the desire for “the complete annihilation of reality” is not something Morgoth wanted.

Alright, I can’t prove this one way or the other, since I don’t have the required books with me right now and won’t for several weeks, but I remember reading somewhere that Melkor was actually nihilistic, and did desire the destruction of everything, possibly including himself. The theory was that if he had destroyed Men and Elves and all the creations of the Valar, he would have eventually destroyed his own quasi-“Children” as well. Unfortunately, I can’t remember whether or not it was argued that he would eventually destroy himself as well.

While Sauron wanted mastery over everything and to dominate it, Morgoth, unable to create a world in his own image, simply wanted to destroy the one that Eru had created.

I wish I had the details on me, but I’m sure I’m not making this up… ;)

I'll leave the discussion of 'wickedness' (Evil, sense 1) for later, since that's going to involve (Yay! :D) more definitions.

Ugh. Oh goody. :p

Telcontar_Dunedain

12-02-2004, 04:24 PM

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.* In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom,' though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other purpose an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants.

This is an interesting quote that attalus posted in the God in Middle-Earth thread and I think this is relavent here.

NOTE: This is my most succesful thread! :D

Elemmírë

12-02-2004, 10:29 PM

Hey! You mean I just copied and linked that for no reason! :mad:

Attalus

12-03-2004, 10:54 AM

Olmer

12-03-2004, 05:30 PM

I have thought about this and come to the conclusion that according to JRRT, nobody, even Melkor, can be totally evil, "since that would be Zero."
Now, these can be good things in themselves, but obviousl contain selfish motives which easily slide into activities that can justly be described as evil.
:) O, almighty God! Finally you made a vehemently opposed Attalus to see the point which Haradrim and I are trying to bring across: that none of God's creations are born to be evil, but under certain circumstancial conditions they could "slide into activities that can justly be described as evil". "Described", but not evil in nature, because even the Dark Lord Sauron began " with fair motives : the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle -earth," in his POV "neglected by the gods"(Let.#131)., which lately had been considered as the evil-doing.
I think you would agree with me on Gandalf's words that he would use a power(which itself is not good nor evil by nature) with notion to do good, just like the 9 kings -nazguls thought, and probably they did a lot of good things for their people, but the power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely . Even being not evil person, eventually you are loosing this definition between "evil, harmful" for somebody and "good, beneficial" for you domain, your people, choosing options which sereves better your interests and your country. This options could be evil in definition but not always evil in intention. Good, under circumstances, can cause as much harm as evil, this why for God/Eru they are equal and unseparated.
It's our business to sort them out. ;)

Attalus

12-03-2004, 06:53 PM

It may have been your intent, but not Haradrim's, who posited that good and evil were basically local customs, and that nothing was really evil except by convention. I have posted over and over again that, as fallen creatures, there is evil in the best of us, but for One. I, au contraire argue that good and evil exist, that they are quantifiable and easily recognizable, though usually not at the same time, a la Heisenberg. Yes, there is some good in Orcs. Damned small, and hard to see, but it is there, just as there is evil in the greatest of saints. We know, because they have told us so. However, God (= Eru Iluvatar) is the source of all good and without stain, the humanly unattainable condition. Evil exists, but it parasitically must have some Good qualities to interact with humans, its intended prey. Ironic, no?

Haradrim

12-04-2004, 03:39 PM

Attalus

12-04-2004, 03:59 PM

So you think enslavement of whole populations and torture and execution of innocent people are just a misunderstanding? Man, You are really far gone. Let me just say that if you ever run up against true evil, you will recognize it, and you won't think it is subject to misunderstanding.

Haradrim

12-04-2004, 04:11 PM

well first of all lets make it clear as i have said so many tiomes I share your views of evil. I think Hitler was a wholly evil man, i think Suaron did unspeakable things I think the slaughter in Rwanda was terribel and I think that the twisting of humans or elves cant remember which into orcs was disgusting. Al these things bring a terrible taste into my mouth. I find therm evil and I dont think its do to misunderstanding. i think people need to be punished when they do evil. Howver not looking from the other persons pov is idiotic andd stupid. Sauron did terrible thingsbut did he think he ws doing evil? No did any of his followers think he was doing evil? No. DId Melkor think he was doing evil? No. Did they think the elves, men, dwarves, valar, maiar, and ents were evil? Yes. So from his POV he was good and they were evil. Did the elves, humans, dwarves, halflings, valar and mair think they were doing evil? No. Did they think what Melkor, Sauron, the Nazugl, the barrow-whights and the orcs were evil? Yes. However since everything is in Erus plan neither one is evil or good it just is. However I am on the side of the human, elves, dwarves, halfli9ngs, valar, maiar, and ents because I consider myself a good person and not an evil one. I however can understand why someone would do someing evil. The blind accusation of evil without any real thought or speculation as to why and did they think they were doing evil is plain stupid.

Telcontar_Dunedain

12-04-2004, 04:41 PM

I wouls still cliam that good and evil are in a sense local customs. Evil is not universal and to identify it you hae to put yourself in the others shoes. As many of you have said, Sauron or Melkor did nto mean to do evil andprobably never thoguth they were doign evil. Hoever the free peoples of ME and the other Valar and Maiar found their actions to be evil. So they fought him. Now from Saurons POV he is trying to do something good and all these other people attack him for trying to do so. Now what do we call people who attack the act of good. Evil. SO in Melkor and Saurons eyes the other Valar Maiar and elves, men and dwarves, and halflings and others were evil. But if you reverse it. THese people thought Melkro and Sauron were doing evil. SO they attacked and what do we call something that attacks evil. Good. However since we hear the story from the side of the Valar, Maiar, Anar, humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, ents, and all others we see Melkor as good. But Tolkien could easily have switched the story around and made it from mlkors view and we would have seen the story completely differently.
Yet they are not wholly evil. Mostly. maybe but not wholly. It is just as with Gollum. There was a part of him that was unconquered and if he, on of the water-folk, could resist evil so he was not wholly conquered, then I'm sure a Vala and a Maia could. As for the matter on orcs they were bred thinking what they did was right and that it was the eles, men, dwarves etc. that were scum, not themselves. I do not thnik that this theory works for Morgoth and Sauron though. They were the Ainur and knew what they did was wrong. Read Sauron's reaction when Morgoth was overthrown after the War of the Wrath. He, for a time, repented but soon fell back into his old tracks. Morgoth's intentions started out as good and just wanting to be called lord and have his own people, yet his good intentions went wrong. I think it is entirely possible that in the jails of Mandos he repented, yet when he was free again, the jealousy overwhelmed him and he remember what the Valar had done to him for the sake of the elves. Yet when he sued for pardon he could have meant what he was saying, yet as Sauron did later, fell back into old habits.

Saurons eyes
Sauron's eye! ;) :p

Couldn't resist

Pytt

12-04-2004, 06:43 PM

when looking to your post Aragorn, there is one thing I don't agree to . I think Sauron, Morgoth and their followers did know they were evil, and they did know they were acting evil. I ceartainly belive they thought they were doing the right, but I think also they were aware of the cruelty in their deeds. they knew it was not the way it should, razing, pillaging, and slaugthering. atleast Sauron and Morgoth did know they were acting against Eru.

Elemmírë

12-04-2004, 08:56 PM

As far as my knowledge extends, everyone who we would consider "evil" in their own minds were doing the "right" thing.

As Pytt said, Sauron and Morgoth most likely realised that their actions were cruel (I cannot believe that anyone with plans for world domination/destruction would be so dense as to not see the obvious ;) ), but in their own minds, they probably believed that they were in the "right."

So you think enslavement of whole populations and torture and execution of innocent people are just a misunderstanding? Man, You are really far gone. Let me just say that if you ever run up against true evil, you will recognize it, and you won't think it is subject to misunderstanding.

Most certainly such things are evil, but does that mean that the people perpetrating these deeds are evil themselves? I hope this example does not offend anyone, but while slavery was practiced in the South (US), was every Southerner or Southern slave owner evil?

In my mind, there is a difference between being misled, angry, confused, and/or desperate (a combination that could lead to any number of the things Attalus posted) and being evil.

...Haradrim, you seem to be switching sides more often than I do :o ... Can you explain your point of view more clearly? :confused:

Attalus

12-05-2004, 11:42 AM

First of all, I think evil people are mostly in denial about the evil that they do. They mostly do what they want and what benefits them, and just don't think (or care) about the effects on others. 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. Only after their culture was shattered by the Northern victory were they free to think about it clearly. Thus, the idea that "violence never settles anything" once again is shown to be false.

Elemmírë

12-05-2004, 04:59 PM

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

12-05-2004, 05:01 PM

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

12-05-2004, 05:03 PM

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. :p

[edited] You edited. :D

Is this about to return to the "who is really evil?" debate? :rolleyes: ;)

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

Telcontar_Dunedain

12-05-2004, 05:06 PM

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

Attalus

12-05-2004, 06:57 PM

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

12-06-2004, 10:43 AM

"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!

Finnrodde

12-07-2004, 03:43 PM

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

12-07-2004, 03:55 PM

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

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

12-07-2004, 04:31 PM

I'm bored. Let's start. :)

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

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

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

Bad

Not achieving an adequate standard; poor: a bad concert
Evil; sinful.
Vulgar or obscene: bad language.
Informal. Disobedient or naughty: bad children.
Disagreeable, unpleasant, or disturbing: a bad piece of news.
Unfavorable: bad reviews for the play.
Not fresh; rotten or spoiled: bad meat.
Injurious in effect; detrimental: bad habits.
Not working properly; defective: a bad telephone connection.
Full of or exhibiting faults or errors: bad grammar.
Having no validity; void: passed bad checks.
Being so far behind in repayment as to be considered a loss: bad loans.
Severe; intense: a bad cold.
Either:
Being in poor health or in pain: I feel bad today.
Being in poor condition; diseased: bad lungs

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

12-07-2004, 04:39 PM

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

Evil
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
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
Virtuous conduct.
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

12-07-2004, 05:03 PM

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

Anyway. You more or less sum up morality, but my dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com) ;) 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

12-07-2004, 05:12 PM

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

Anyway. You more or less sum up morality, but my dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com) ;) 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 :p)

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...:D

Wayfarer

12-07-2004, 07:23 PM

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

12-07-2004, 07:25 PM

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. :p

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

Wayfarer

12-07-2004, 07:30 PM

My question still stands, though. I will consider the answer while I chew on your brain. *chew* *chew* *gnaw*

Elemmírë

12-07-2004, 07:33 PM

Would you like fries with that?

mmm... sorry. Wrong thread. :p

Attalus

12-07-2004, 08:26 PM

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

12-07-2004, 10:27 PM

*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

12-07-2004, 10:34 PM

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

Erm... You spelt my name wrong. :p

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... :cool:

btw... That post was just saved on my hard drive. :D ;)

Wayfarer

12-07-2004, 11:49 PM

Erm... You spelt my name wrong. :p I did not. ;)

Nyah! :p

Elemmírë

12-07-2004, 11:51 PM

I'm back! :D Did you miss me? :p

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.

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).

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. :p

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?

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.

:p What would BoP say? Pamsy-wamsy? ;)

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

Wayfarer

12-08-2004, 12:55 AM

I'm back! :D Did you miss me? :p No. :rolleyes:

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. :D

Back to you, Wayfarer.

...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

12-08-2004, 01:20 AM

No. :rolleyes:

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

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. :evil:

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... :p
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! :eek:

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

Attalus

12-08-2004, 11:08 AM

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. :p

*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

12-08-2004, 12:30 PM

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

12-08-2004, 03:15 PM

*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. :rolleyes: :D

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

12-08-2004, 03:42 PM

Elemmírë

12-08-2004, 04:23 PM

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

12-08-2004, 05:04 PM

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

12-08-2004, 05:08 PM

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.