I'm writing an essay on relativism in LOTR

[IronParrot]

As part of my International Baccalaureate diploma requirements, I am to write a 3500-4000 thesis paper on any subject within certain criteria. I chose to do an English lit study on our favourite novel... hopefully my topic proposal will be accepted. It's on "The Relativist Portrayal of Good and Evil in LOTR". Basically, I'm planning to argue that good and evil do not exist in pure forms in LOTR, and the story is less of a battle between good and evil than one of innocence and corruption.

I think I'll be doing some, er, "research" here at Entmoot, so opinions on the subject are definitely welcome and appreciated. :)

[easterlinge]

I have trouble with Special Relativity as it is..... why oh why did I do physics? :confused: :confused:

[Amandil]

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on good and evil in it's pure form, as opposed to corruption and innocence (and relativism, for that matter!). It might be hard for the posters to provide helpful suggestions when they're not quite sure what you're on about.

Are you getting at (what I would call) dualism, with a simply good "substance" and a simply bad "substance," or monism, with all BEING being good, evil being only a deprivation of good? (I'm taking these ideas from my understanding of St. Augustine's refutation of Manichaean gnosticism.)

I think Tolkien is consistent with the second, "monist" type of metaphysic. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is what you're getting at with "innocence" and "corruption." Orcs are a prime example, I think: Morgoth didn't make an originally evil species, he had to take something that existed already and twist it to make it "corrupt"...

...I'm blabbering...sorry--you don't even know me!

(I'm new here, fresh from the MEVault boards...)

[Ñólendil]

Welcome Amandil, old friend! Ranadwelt here, I though you were a different person! I'm glad you've decided to post here, it's a great place!

[IronParrot]

Well really, what I'm going to get at especially is the question: "Do absolute, pure good and evil actually exist in LOTR?"

And I'm going to try to justify the answer "no". However, I need to be fully aware of both sides of the issue to argue anything in the first place.

[Amandil]

Hi Rana/Lorco/Dylan/Falmaion...Inoldonil...nice new handle!

I was wondering what you were calling yourself on these boards. (If I had known, I would have used your name as the "referral-guy" when I signed up here.) I hadn't been over at the VNBoards for a few months, dropped in yesterday, posted twice, and noticed that your signature said you had moved. So I decided to drop by, and it seems rather nice here. Tis' a pleasure!

(hey, what's this "sapling" bit? Does that mean I'm a newbie or something, sort of like earning stars back at the VNBoards? -- Hang on, now I'm a hobbit, for some reason!)

IronParrot: about pure evil & pure good, again, I'm not quite sure what you MEAN by "pure" etc. is quite clear, just yet.

Anyway...

Love,

[Ñólendil]

Why, you followed me, then? I'm touched. Glad you like the handle, I do too. It was a nickname Glinlosorn gave me, he thought it fit (I agree).

Yes, there are 'ranks' here too, like the stars of the Vault Network. This is how it stands:

Sapling (Minimum Posts: 0)
Hobbit (Minimum Posts: 3)
Enting (Minimum Posts: 50)
Elven Warrior (Minimum Posts: 100)
Elf Lord (Minimum Posts: 500)

Sorry, no Rangers. :)

Administrators are Ents, but you'll find a few custom titles here and there.

[Amandil]

Ah, I thought I saw somewhere that you were an administrator, but I didn't notice anything in your title about that...until you explained the whole ent thing. Right on. Congrats at being an admin! I'll see you around the boards, once and a while...

(I just stopped by the MM3D-whatever boards for the first time, and scolded blackheart for importing Alastair Crowley into a discussion about Tolkien's metaphysics!)

[Selwythe]

My pointers:

In my opinion, Morgoth is the only purely evil one.

All the others were his creations, subject to his will. Even Sauron was not entirely evil, since he was Aule's Maiar at first and contemplated turning to the good side after Morgoth's fall but the fear of withstanding Manwe's sentence chilled him.

You can refer to that chapter when Sam and Frodo were at Ithilien and this Harad guy fell before Sam and he wondered "did he choose this or was he forced blah blah blah blah blah" quote.

[Ñólendil]

I forgot to mention that Moderators are Huorns (or more properly Huyrn, I guess. I'm not too keen on Sindarin pluralization rules, rather confusing for me).

Thank you for the congratulations! Though in my opinion I've yet to earn the honours. I haven't visited the MM3D boards yet. Blackheart already shuving his magic theories down their throats? Poor guy. Like they'll implement that.

Forgive me for asking, but who's Alastair Crowley?

Selwythe, I agree about Morgoth. Only he was wholly evil, being after all it's originator.

[Michael Martinez]

Who is related to whom really has nothing to do with good and evil in Tolkien. Lotho, for example, was Frodo's cousin, and he was evil.

[Amandil]

Rana: Oh, blackheart's not forcing things down people's throats, it's just that he's reading his peculiar metaphysical ideas into Tolkien's texts (which is illicit, I might add). Too bad, really.

Still a nice guy, though!

Alastair Crowley (sp?) is a dead British fellow, who thought he was Mr. Occult or something, a self-proclaimed antichrist or beast or something. Altogether disagreeable, at any rate. I don't know much about the man because learning about him disgusts me! Let's leave it at that. We're talking about pure evil in the Lord of the Rings, not in 20th century Britain! :)

I'm still unclear on what IronParrot understands the clause "pure evil" to mean. Sure, Morgoth was the "most evil" of them all. But was he "purely evil," i.e. he was comprised of an evil substance, or was the evil substance, or had no good desires in him whatsoever?

Remember that Morgoth couldn't "create" anything out of nothing (ex nihilo), he could only pervert/twist/corrupt existing good things (i.e. theories about the origin of Orcs...). Had Morgoth been "purely evil" in a metaphysical sense, it would be odd if he resorted to actualizing his evil designs by relying on existing good things.

Besides, Melkor wasn't created evil. Selwythe, Sauron wasn't the only eventual-villain created by Eru. Morgoth was a creature as well. He is/was a contingent being. He was good to start out, but was grossly misdirected. Morgoth himself, then, I think is not "purely evil" in a metaphysical sense, because Eru made him and (presumably) that was a good thing to do.

Morgoth had good desires, too. He wanted to change the world, the way it was run, etc., but he didn't want to OBLITERATE it. The big problem with Morgoth was that he wanted to rule the world himself, rather than as a viceroy for Eru. He didn't want to obliterate the Music of the Ainur, he just refused to listen to the conductor. "Nobody chooses to do evil. They only choose the wrong good, or the good wrongly." (Semi-Augustinian, I think...)

See what I mean? This concept of "pure evil" is, as yet, ambiguous. Otherwise, I wouldn't be ramling on about metaphysical vs. methodological (?) evil!

Sorry about all that...

I'm not sure what MM is talking about with the "related to so and so" bit...

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Amandil
I'm not sure what MM is talking about with the "related to so and so" bit...

A poorly executed pun. Nothing more.

[IronParrot]

Thanks, Amandil - that's the kind of thing I was thinking I'd write about: the difference between being created as evil for no purpose other than to be evil and eradicate good, and a matter of corruption.

It seems that the most immediate flaw I must fix in my essay right away is to make a more concise definition of what I mean by pure, absolute good and evil...

[arynetrek]

here's some thoughts, not all meant to be used together, don't know if this will help or not...

Ungoliant
(my copy of Sil has been lent so i can't look this up) "pure evil" exists, always has, it's unavoidable. she's an evil being from outside the world (i think Tolkien uses similar phrasing) - which also brings up: where did she come from? tolkien gives the impression that she just appeared outside the world, so has pure evil (assuming she is) always been around but brought into the world by a lesser evil (aka morgoth)? or is morgoth too pure evil, and uses creatures who are like-minded but not necessarily worse than he to aid his nefarious deeds? Every mention of Ungoliant shows that she's the most "purely evil" of anyone in LotR or Sil (including Morgoth) - her greed, mercenary behavior, spreading evils (AKA her children) over ME, & even her destruction (eating herself to death, the glutton). morgoth is clearly a Bad Guy, but his greed comes from being naturally great (the most powerful Valar) & wanting to be greater - which is a very human-like trait.

or...

Morgoth?
maybe "pure evil" is not born, it's attained. he gets more & more desparate, causing greater & greater evils as he progresses. tolkien would HATE this comparison, but morgoth has almost Hitler-like traits. it seems that the majority here are already arguing Morgoth as an example of evil; the idea of "pure evil has to be gained" also works for sauron, gollum (i don't believe that he's PURE evil, but it could be supported), the Ring, & a handful of minor characters.

or...

there is no "pure good" or "pure evil," every action is a mix of the two. feanor & his descendants had every right to seek vengeance against the thief of the Silmarils, because their priceless heirlooms have been stolen & especially because of the timing of the theft are irreplaceable & unbelievably valuable. their actions cause a lot of grief for all of ME, but not every encounter with a Silmaril causes pain (would Beren & Luthien wed if they hadn't been able to rescue one to please her father & get his consent? would their relationship, without that test they both went through, be as strong & memorable? & if they didn't meet & marry, how many important figures in ME would never have been born?).

these are NOT well-thought-out examples, just ideas.

are you going to post your paper when it's finished?

aryne *

[Ñólendil]

Actually (Amandil: ) Morgoth did want to obliterate it. That was his prime objective. See my post in this thread (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?threadid=2127).

I know what you mean about Blackheart. He does have a habit to assume things about Tolkien's magic based upon his own studies in magic of the kind seen in our 'Primary Reality'. But actually I find he's right in the money in terms of a lot of his grand-scale magic theories. They're really not theories, all that about the Unseen World in Tolkien's 'Ean' writings ought to be regarded as fact.

[Amandil]

Hey all, you can see I don't pop by very regularly.

Iron Parrot, may I suggest St. Augustine's Confessions as the classic text surrounding "substantial" vs. "deprivation" evil. You needn't read the whole Confessions, only Book VII. (You can trust me: I'm from Medicine Hat.:) )

And that's about all I can chat about now...later to you all!

Love,

[Blackheart]

I'll turn you into a newt.

I'll have you know I wasn't reading Golden Dawn practices into Tolkien metaphysics, merely comparing subtractive aura magic to certain aspects of Tolkiens early metaphysical (BOLT) cosmologies.

And damnit, everytime you guys mention my name, you know you take a risk...

One day I might actually appear.

[Wulažg]

Even assuming that absolute good or evil exists, that would only be in the perception of Tolkien. For instance, in my opinion the most evil thing that can be done is to twist the minds/spirits/bodies of entities, things like creating the Orcs. That form of corruption is horrible and the closest thing to absolute evil one could find. Also the definition of good is merely the opposite of absolute evil, and the same for absolute evil. Which makes the entire thing pretty subjective and overused, kind of like "'nature", "pristine" and "manmade".

[Blackheart]

<For instance, in my opinion the most evil thing that can be done is to twist the minds/spirits/bodies of entities, things like creating the Orcs. That form of corruption is horrible and the closest thing to absolute evil one could find.>

Oh?

So what if you were able to take an orc and "re-educate" him?

Isn't that exactly the same process?

If it is, then certainly what the Valar did to those poor wee elves was horribly evil. They certainly "corrupted" them out of their natural development....

How can you define corruption as evil, if you are promoting a relativistic ethical system?

And I'll gnaw your limbs off! Ska!

[Lightice]

Well really, what I'm going to get at especially is the question: "Do absolute, pure good and evil actually exist in LOTR?"

And I'm going to try to justify the answer "no". However, I need to be fully aware of both sides of the issue to argue anything in the first place.


Very true. Morgoth first wanted simply became different than his brothers and sisters while travelling in Darkness searching for Light, but as he never found it, he became bitter, and in the end corrupt. Corruption started from him, but he wasn't the corruption. And corruption is different from evil. Morgoth and those who followed him fell in corruption and darkness and in the end destruction. I however wouldn't call that "evil". As for the "good" guys, Eru wanted to keep in control of everything. It was rather like "Big Brother is watching" kind of thing, really. I wouldn't thus say, that Eru was 100% good, nor were Valar.
So nothing was pure. Only shades of gray.

[Blackheart]

Bah- youse is going around it da wrong way...

Arda is a different metaphysical realm than reality.

All you need do is define Eru as "absolute good".

Once you have arbitrarily done that, you can define anything in direct opposition to Eru as "absolute evil".

You can define Eru as such, because it IS a different metaphysical realm.

[Wulažg]

That's the really cheap way to do it. It's fine, jsut really cheap. If you do decide to do that, you will need to spend a LOT of time explaining Eru then, his motivations, his 'personality'

[Blackheart]

Right after someone explains 'ow you can have moral relativity in a cosmos with a defined creator.

Relativism denies the existence of absolute good and evil. In a universe with a definate creator, the existence of absolute good is a given, though it may not be what you might define as "Good".

[Lightice]

So if Eru would massacre entire elf race becouse of what Fëanor did, would he still be ultimate Good? Ofcourse he didn't, but in different universe he could had.
. I go even farther than relativism. I say, that Good and Evil aren't subjective. They're outright nonexistant. They're just things humans made up to feel the universe a little bit more organised. Ofcourse, in reality universe is place of constant chaos. Good and Evil have no place in there, where planets collide, galaxies crash and millions of assumed civilisations die every day.

[TinuvielChild]

i thought it was Aleister Crowley?

whooo...this is deep people, i'm over my head. *slowly backing out of this thread that she naively wandered into* :)

enjoy your discussions people, i probably would if i could comprehend more than 2/3 of it! oh, and praps Tom Shippey's book "J.R.R. Tolkien, Author of the Century" can help. :cool: :)

[Blackheart]

I'm afraid you are mixing up your universes there.

Arda is a tad different from this one.

You can go ahead and say things like good and evil are just human constructs in this reality.

However, the same cannot be said about Arda, since it's recorded that Eru created everything, including the metaphysical system. Even down to constructs like time, and death.

It's not that difficult a concept, if you want a difficult concept, tell me if/why free will exists in Arda.

Well it has to, since Melkor rebeled. So why did Eru create creatures with free will if he knew it was going to lead to rebellion and thus "evil"?

Assuming he's also omniscient... I think he has been described in general terms thereof.

[Wulažg]

Because there can be no good without evil, or at least it is very hard to have good as a concept with nothing to compare it to, and so there must be some evil and imperfection in the world.

[Blackheart]

Ahhh- but that's the crux of the problem.

If Eru designed his unverse to include freewill, and therefore evil as a necessary componant for expression of free will, and to display a contrast to good, then evil is also his creation.

It's the old evil is an illusion argument, which is my personal opinion. If it all reflecs to his greater glory, then 'ow can it be evil?

So I insist that you forthwith stop your persecution of orcs, as they are obviously carrying out Eru's will, and you are interfering with such, and are therefore evil! Evil I tell you!

:eek:

[Ñólendil]

If Eru designed his unverse to include freewill, and therefore evil as a necessary componant for expression of free will,

But evil was not designed by Eru as a necessary componant for expression of free will. Evil was first conceived of by Melkor (who was not originally evil), in his time away from the One. It's the free-will bit that explains why Eru would prevent Himself from forcing evil not to exist. Instead He created Themes to counteract it and is always at work against it.

[AreteLaugh]

Would the story of Ea had made any sense to us if discord had not arose? And even if it was comprehensible would it have been interesting? We wonders... We wonders... Melkor, evil or not, was certainly critical to the story.

Just because the Vala don't record whether Eru had peers doesn't mean that he didn't have any. Perhaps at the end of days everybody gets to meet Eru's mom and dad?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Ñólendil


But evil was not designed by Eru as a necessary componant for expression of free will. Evil was first conceived of by Melkor (who was not originally evil), in his time away from the One. It's the free-will bit that explains why Eru would prevent Himself from forcing evil not to exist. Instead He created Themes to counteract it and is always at work against it.

If you define free will as the ability to choose one's own actions and destiny, irregardless of the will of one's creator, and you furthermore define following the will of one's creator as "good", then yes, evil IS a necessary componant of free will.

Melkor did not concieve evil in the void. He had an original thought. The very first original thought that ever existed probably. The fact that it contradicted the will of his creator was of a secondary consequence, and dictated by the laws of the universe.

[Wulažg]

See, we all knew that original thought was dangerous. And Blackheart, I never said that I wasn't evil.... although that might mean that I am just intelligent.... and if you aren't evil...

[Wayfarer]

Xandre! What are you doing here?

[Wayfarer]

Xandre! What are you doing here?

[Blackheart]

Hehe. Skulking, and causing trouble :rolleyes:

I've been spotted! time to go to plan B!

*Snaga speaks*

Whutz plan B boss?

- You stand here and throw things at them while I sneak up behind them wif a big stick!

;)

[Wayfarer]

In any case, it's a pleasure to see you, my good friend. ;)

No chance of me going soft with the likes of you around... ]: )

[Blackheart]

Ahhh. So m spose to keep dem on dere toes eh?

[Wulažg]

I thought the proper phrase was "hang them by their toes"

[Aragorns Dimple]

Pippin is evil, evil I tell you! Nobody could be that silly in Moria, he must have been an agent of Sauron from the git-go.

I wish Aragorn could have been more corruptable, I would have liked to see him in a triangle with Arwen and Eowyn (woohoo).

That's my silly 2c.

[Blackheart]

*Tries to imagine catfight between arwen and Eowyn*


No way. Now if Melkor had been in charge.....

[Wulažg]

So now you're saying that silliness is evilness? Uh oh, that means that ALL the really smart people (eg all of Caltech) is profoundly evil since they are the silliest people around.

[Blackheart]

I rest my case. They are some of the most evil bastards I know, and I see them at all the meetings ;)

[Wulažg]

What about the innocently silly? I know a few (very few) of those and you cannot possibly say that those are evil people. If you do, I'll be forced to beat you over the head with the toughest thing around, another orc''s skull.

[Blackheart]

Innocent my left buttock!

It's obvious that they have chosen to sublimate their evil into sillyness, as a way of avoiding the negative social repercussions of evil behavior.

Pack of degenerates.

:p

[Beleg Strongbow]

example given: Merry & Pippin

[Wulažg]

I'm not talking about people like Merry and Pippin, they were downright mischeivous. i'm talking about people that are silly in the right, nice way. There are a few around if you look. Back to the main topic though...

[Blackheart]

Well then, if you want to talk about the main topic, explain to me how you can have relativism in a universe with a creator?

Hmm, unless of course the creator purposefully imposes a system of relativism.

I don't see much evidence that is the case however.

[Beleg Strongbow]

could you not justify greed as evil?
and while we're at it, let's get a solid definition of 'evil' here.

[Blackheart]

Solid? or Working.

A good Working definition could be:

"In direct opposition to Eru's will."

Now all you have to do is figure out what Eru's will is and you've nailed down both Good and Evil.

[Wulažg]

Woo Hoo! Vector analysis since even Morgoth most of the time was not in exact opposition to Eru's will(I think)

[Wulažg]

Woo Hoo! Vector analysis since even Morgoth most of the time was not in exact opposition to Eru's will(I think)

[Blackheart]

Well, If you want to, but you could reduce it to a single axis, and then why bother with vectors? :confused:

[Wulažg]

But one axis is simple! It is't fun unless it involves imaginary numbers. One axis but imaginary numbers so there are really two axes. Hah!

[Blackheart]

You are one of those people who says they like salt and pepper on their salad, and then complain because there's no garlic powder on the table right?

If you want to make it more complicated than it is go ahead. I'm sure any academic facility will consider you for a position, along with all the other .... complex people.

:rolleyes:

[Wulažg]

You mean the messed up/silly/evil(by your definition) people, aka techers, engineers and physicists?

[Blackheart]

Yeaaah, them.

[Beleg Strongbow]

Please, people. The reason I asked for a definition of evil was because, without a definition, you can argue that nothing is evil.
For Example:
Melkor: NOT EVIL because everything he did was towards Eru's will.
Sauron: NOT EVIL because of above and because he was only serving.
Balrogs: NOT EVIL because they were following the philosophy (that of Melkor and Sauron) that they thought was right.
Ungoliant: NOT EVIL because she was just doing what she had to to survive.
The Witch-King: NOT EVIL as a man, because you could say that he just wanted the ring to serve his people better with, also NOT EVIL as a Ringwraith because he didn't have a choice in his actions; he was controlled by Sauron. (same argument for all Ringwraiths)
Bill Ferny: He's got to eat, doesn't he? What's to say that earning a living his way is worse than slaying innocent Orcs on a picnic?

I invite anyone to suggest names that qualify as evil.
Note: I really do think that all of the above are evil, but I'm showing how it can't be proven.

[Blackheart]

It can't be proven only because we don't have enough information about what Eru's will for his creation is.

However, if I posit, for example, that it was against Eru's will for Melkor to try and claim Arda as his own, and assume lordship, and it was Eru's will that Manwe be the rightful lord of Arda, then guess what?

Melkor is acting in an evil manner, because he is acting contrary to Eru's will.

With the rest of that list, I think you're wanting to use an epistomological argument, similar to "I didn't know it was against the law".

I don't buy that a creature has to knowingly commit an evil act, for the act to be evil. An entity can commit an evil act in ignorance.

Oh by the way, to be more accurate, it's really muddling to state that an entity is evil, when your definition of evil is based on actions. You can say that an entity consistantly acts in an evil manner, but to say that an entity is actually evil, is just a form of shorthand.

In order to actually define an entity as evil, you're going to have to come up with a different definition of evil, and it would have to be some odd idea of evil as an actual substance, which is, in my opinion, rather difficult to do in the context of Arda.

[Wulažg]

Now we're going to have to go to fate and the fact that some evil is a necessary part of Eru's plan(to make people stronger etc.)

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wulažg
Now we're going to have to go to fate and the fact that some evil is a necessary part of Eru's plan(to make people stronger etc.)

Nope. It's a consequence of wanting something "other". If you're directing it's every movement and thought, then you haven't really got something that's "other" have you?

Poor Aule find this out also, though in a different manner.

Melkor suffered from it also, though he wanted to dominate.

It's actually quite a common theme in his cosmology- the need for something "other".

The Vala eagerly awaiting the elves, for example.

[Beleg Strongbow]

So are we defining evil, for purposes of this discussion, as actions contrary to the will of Eru?
Because to me, it seems that we should define it as such, and consider that thinking to the contrary is only original thinking, all of which benifits Eru's plan in the end.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Beleg Strongbow
So are we defining evil, for purposes of this discussion, as actions contrary to the will of Eru?
Because to me, it seems that we should define it as such, and consider that thinking to the contrary is only original thinking, all of which benifits Eru's plan in the end.

Hmm. Good question, I would say so tentatively. Thinking as such, would have no real impact....

Though there's an interesting part about the elves, vala, maia et all being bound to the world, and subject to it's fate, and men being able to seek beyond the world, and determine their own fate....

I wonder if it can be manipulated to confuse the discussion further? :rolleyes:

[Wulažg]

Original thinking creates additional complexity to the plan, so is that good or evil. Ifhe la thanlof us here are profoundly evil(plus we're silly so we're evil on that count too)....

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wulažg
Original thinking creates additional complexity to the plan, so is that good or evil. Ifhe la thanlof us here are profoundly evil(plus we're silly so we're evil on that count too)....

Aha! I KNEW there was a way to equate sillyness with evil!

I'll send you a No Bell Taco prize later. :rolleyes:

[Wulažg]

Ah yes, but that silly is just techer silliness. There are many other types of silliness(I have been doing an indepth study of silliness-really-) and most of those are "innocent silly". I can literally give you about five pages on it. It has indepth analysis including a multitude of references to Tolkien(some of it is in Quenya) and F. Scott Fitzgerald. My English teacher didn't appreciate it but it's useful every now and then. HAH!!:D :D

[Wulažg]

The sad part is that really did that. I should put it on the "you know you like Tolkien too much" thread. It does however prove that the first three types of silliness are quite innocent in their purest forms. The even sadder part is that the five pages was a condensed version. I could give you about 150 pages of illegible handwritten stuff if I could ever find it. Scaryy, huh?

You could almost call it evil...;)

[Beleg Strongbow]

could you?
Because, quite possibly, it is contrary to Eru's will to write 150 illegible pages on humor and silliness. That would make it evil. By virtue of the above few posts, though, merely thinking about writing those pages would not be evil.

[Blackheart]

Which Proves, once again, that silyness is evil!

Just watch Time Bandits if you don't beleive me.

[Wulažg]

Ah yes, but which KIND of silliness? I may very well be silly-evil. But there are those who are very, very silly but not evil. It has something to do with elvishness. People with pointed chins and "elfin" features(plus some other qualities which are less tangible) are very silly but nice, not evil. It may just be a personality resonance thing though. But then they are nice to everybody. Rather silliness in conjunction with empathy is not evil. Raw "complex" silliness, aka techer silliness, may very well be evil though. And I got in trouble for writing 150 pages on it, so it MAY have been evil:(

[Blackheart]

Oh Heil No!

Little tiny cute silly creatures are the most heinous of evils!

[Wulažg]

I'm not jsut talking about little tiny cute silly creatures(e.g. munchkins), I'm talking about NICE ones. You probably stepped on all the ones around you. You forgot about the empathy part. People with empathy who are nice because of that certain type of empathy(actually there are at least 3 types of empathy with similar results)(another part of the dissertation)

[Blackheart]

*checks boots*

Empafy is dat stuff what goes GISH!

Right?

[Beleg Strongbow]

Where's the guy who started this thread, anyway?

[Blackheart]

He sure is quiet for a guy with 60k posts... :eek:

[IronParrot]

Yeah, I've been a little busy lately. And as for the post count, HOBBIT bumped it by about 58000 because he thought his administrative man-skills would impress the chicks. :p

Wow, I thought my thread died. I had no idea it would hit this many replies.

I finished and submitted my paper about two months ago. I actually posted it in the admin forum already. I'd post it here, but I'm wondering if I should post it directly on either Tolkien Trail or one of my own websites... copyright protection and all that crudulence.

[Blackheart]

Nah, just summerize the conclusions for us. Then we can argue about it some more.

[Wulažg]

You mean this thread actually had a POINT? Wow. I thought we were just arguing about silliness and evil.

[Blackheart]

Sillyness is pointless.

Pointless is just evil.

Now you are being evil. See?

[Wulažg]

Silliness is pointless? Is amusement nothing? Stress relief? Do you want all of us to be Vulcans? At least I'll still get to have pointed ears....

[Blackheart]

Wait.. you were being amusing? :p

[Wulažg]

You can call me evil all you want, I don't mind, but when you start calling the innocently silly evil I have to defend them.

[Blackheart]

Name an example of an innocently silly individual.

[azalea]

Children.

[Blackheart]

Pure evil!

I know, I was a child once.

And I have spawned a few. Nothing but evil, without a socially developed conscience.

Don't turn your back on them for a second. Even if they are cute little buggers.

[Beleg Strongbow]

I would like to define evil as a lack of empathy. Any support?

[Wulažg]

At the very least lack of empathy is the cause for much of the evil around.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Beleg Strongbow
I would like to define evil as a lack of empathy. Any support?

Actually that is a very interesting working draft. It meshes nicely with the sociological and psychological concepts of sociopathy.

However, one could make a case for the idea that an entity would have even GREATER capability for harm if they did have empathy, by applying the information in contrary ways.

Which supports my position that women are more evil than men :rolleyes:

[Wulažg]

How does one have greater capacity for evil with empathy? Are you talking about something on the order of sadism?

[Blackheart]

I'm talking about actions, as in evil requires action, as opposed to a state of being.

[Wulažg]

That's debatable. Evil can just be a state of being, especially with higher beings.

[Blackheart]

Oh? And how so?

They are evil because they are "defined" as being evil?

Existence is a state of being. In order for an entity to be evil because of a self refferential definition, then how can actions also be defined as evil?

Are there two kinds of evil? Actions don't actually have a state of being.

[Wulažg]

Let us not use "action", but "decision with will". Also people can to a degree sense the personality of someone, so even if they are nkot planning something evil pople can still be affected by their "evilness"

[Blackheart]

A decision with will??

Too problematic. A decision with will IS an action, so you are now saying that evil is limited to special type of actions...

[Wulažg]

So what EXACTLY is your definition of an "action" then? Let's get a level playing ground.

[Blackheart]

Hehe. Now your talking.

Lets try: Actions must have a verifiable empirical result, and wreak a change in the outside realm we commonly refer to as "reality".

Intentions, thoughts, existence, do not create a "change" and are problematic. Decisions with will are problematic also, unless you interpreat will to mean one takes action upon them. At which point then we're saying something else about the nature of evil.

Everything's problematic of course, if you want to go one step further and define what exactly I mean by change.

Do you? or shall we just hold at this level?

[Wulažg]

Let's keep on going. Descisions with will are merely thoughts that are genuinely meant. Higher beings I presume are able to at least a degree sense thoughts, therefore thoughts that are really meant count as "actions" as thoughts that are really meant number one mean that your unconcious thinks and reacts on it so your actions are minutely changed, and number two others can at least unconciously sense that you are thinking something and THEIR actions will be changed slightly.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wulažg
Let's keep on going. Descisions with will are merely thoughts that are genuinely meant. Higher beings I presume are able to at least a degree sense thoughts, therefore thoughts that are really meant count as "actions" as thoughts that are really meant number one mean that your unconcious thinks and reacts on it so your actions are minutely changed, and number two others can at least unconciously sense that you are thinking something and THEIR actions will be changed slightly.

They may be genuinely meant, but the leap from sensing thoughts to classifying them as actions is going to take more than that.

People may think something mean at you, but if they don't say it, does it have the same level of impact? Does it mean they have the same level of investment?

No, I don't buy the whole "god judges you for your intentions" thing in this universe, much less in Arda.

Melkor could have Thought about weaving his own themes of control into the music the whole time, but it wouldn't have drawn a rebuke. He was probably thinking such thoughts before the music began. It was the action that drew the (percieved) rebuke.

[Ñólendil]

Blackheart is a difficult man to beat in a philosophical debate, I know. But if I may jump in here: I do not believe Melkor had been planning his discord before the Music began. Actually Time didn't exist yet so there is no "had", "been" or "before" (or "yet") to speak of, but you know what I mean. It was already after the Holy Ones had begun their great musics that Melkor journeyed through the pathless Void alone, seeking the Flame Imperishable and conceiving thoughts that were wholly other than the mind of Eru. It was from these thoughts that the Discord of Melkor arose.

This is an aside from the main matter of your odd debate about evil, but I thought I'd put in my piece.

[Wulažg]

I wasn't necessarily saying that thoughts have as much impact as actual actions but they do have empirical results and therefore can be also considered actions technically. Plus when you think about it what really matters is what a person means to do, especially if the others can sense the intentions. Someone being nice doesn't mean a THING if you know they don't mean it. That occurs a lot. People can on a rudimentary and unconcious level tell whether someone is lying or not, in words or actions. People acting out of character are classified as "odd" at the very least etc.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wulažg
I wasn't necessarily saying that thoughts have as much impact as actual actions but they do have empirical results and therefore can be also considered actions technically. Plus when you think about it what really matters is what a person means to do, especially if the others can sense the intentions. Someone being nice doesn't mean a THING if you know they don't mean it. That occurs a lot. People can on a rudimentary and unconcious level tell whether someone is lying or not, in words or actions. People acting out of character are classified as "odd" at the very least etc.

Listen to what you are saying....

People "acting out of character". "Lying".

Thoughts can't have empirical results until they are translated into actions. And yes, someone being nice does mean something, even if they don't mean it... we call it being polite. Which we generally rate above being rude.

If you "sense" anything "evil" about a person's intentions, it's because they are giving off "signals", and that is an action also. The thoughts aren't leaping out of their head into yours...


I do not believe Melkor had been planning his discord before the Music began. Actually Time didn't exist yet so there is no "had", "been" or "before" (or "yet") to speak of, but you know what I mean. It was already after the Holy Ones had begun their great musics that Melkor journeyed through the pathless Void alone, seeking the Flame Imperishable and conceiving thoughts that were wholly other than the mind of Eru. It was from these thoughts that the Discord of Melkor arose.


No, likely he wasn't planning it. But it happened. And actually prior to the music, he had spent time alone in the void also, I think. However that's not Melkor's main flaw. His main flaw, the one that leads him to take the "evil" action of raising discord, is pride. Pride in the gifts he had been given. Perhaps justifiable pride even. But until he acted in that manner, he hadn't actually done anything "evil".

[Beleg Strongbow]

Originally posted by Blackheart His main flaw, the one that leads him to take the "evil" action of raising discord, is pride.
And a lack of sympathy.

[Wulažg]

Exactly. Pride alone is neither good nor bad, but lack of empathy/sympathy makes pride evil.

[Blackheart]

His pride is what underlies his lack of empathy.

Look at Manwe for example. No pride, and he has empathy.

At the bottom of Melkor's lack of empathy is the idea that he deserves better than to be second (pride). And if he isn't getting what he wants, then why should anyone else?

[Wulažg]

Thoughts/feelings do have an effect on the world, albeit a lesser one than actions, but an effect nevertheless. Therefore they MUST be taken into consideration.

[Blackheart]

Thoughts and feelings have no effect on the world, therefore they cannot be taken into account.

There is no translation of thought or feeling into effect without action.

[Wulažg]

ok, I'll grant you this point. Thought only indirectly affects the world. Ah well. What were we arguing about before this point? I seem to remember you saying something about empathy increasing in some cases evil. That doesn't make any sense.

Explain yourself(military tribunal style)

[Faramir]

Gee, sounds complicated, I don't think I could ever do something so complex and long...*shudders*
:D

[Wulažg]

"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here"?


Come, join the Dark Side...


MWA HA HA HA HA!!!

[Wayfarer]

Pride alone is neither good nor bad, but lack of empathy/sympathy makes pride evil.

Actually, it is a specefic form of pride that is Evil.

Aule, for example, takes pleasure in crafting. However, he 'gives freely' and seems to enjoy the works of others as much as his own. That doesn't really fit the definition of pride.

Melkor, in the end, only cared about things for what they could get him. That's unhealthy pride.

Pride is being concerned mainly for oneself. At one end of the spectrum, the elves and the good valar took joy in things for thier own sake- the trees and the silmarils, and everything else under the sun, were all mostly beautiful in thier on right. On the other hand, Melkor and Ungoliant were so proud that they cared only to satisfy thier bloated desires.

Most of us fall somewhere in the middle- we enjoy the LOTR simply for it's own sake, but we are all too often self-centered.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wulažg
ok, I'll grant you this point. Thought only indirectly affects the world. Ah well. What were we arguing about before this point? I seem to remember you saying something about empathy increasing in some cases evil. That doesn't make any sense.

Explain yourself(military tribunal style)

Empathy is the ability to visualize oneself in another's position.

It is a method of conceptualizing knowledge, the impact of actions on another individual.

There's nothing inherant in the definition that says it has to be used for "good" or beneficial purposes.

[Ñólendil]

His main flaw, the one that leads him to take the "evil" action of raising discord, is pride.

I agree. I don't agree with Wulazg's statement that pride in itself is neithor good nor bad. There is a certain kind of pride I think is good, but the [i]arrogant pride in people I think, in itself, bad. Not necessarily harmful to others, but logically harmful to yourself. That kind of pride reaps no benefits. I don't think pride alone makes anyone evil, but no one's saying that either. Pride is the seed of Melkor that took fruit, it is the beginning of Melkor's fall (and that of Lucifer's, which is no coincidence). It's the classic story of the great and powerful angel that sets himself above God and becomes the Enemy. Lack of empathy with sympathy, pity or mercy just goes along with the whole deal, Melkor became evil in every way and there was no good feeling, thought or action left to him in the end.

Melkor, in the end, only cared about things for what they could get him. That's unhealthy pride.

It's also avarice and gluttony, I think. The three go hand in hand, don't they?

[Wulažg]

If there is more than one type of pride, then they are seperate terms OR there is another quality in combination with "pure" pride. I know I'm dealing with semantics but that is this whole discussion, semantics.

[Blackheart]

Errr. If you guys are going to go semantics, then basically the entire thing will boil down to the fact that Melkor wanted what he wanted, and not what Eru wanted.

That's rebellion, and you could make a case that it could happen regardless of pride, avarice, gluttony, or empathy.

[Wulažg]

Of course it COULD have, but the question is what there was this time...

[Blackheart]

If you are going to base a construct on a specific instance or happenstance, then your definition is going to be very limited, not to mention innacurate....

[Wulažg]

I thought the point was to start generally and then file it down to a very fine point...

oh and in your previous post you forgot some of them. Where are the rest of the 7?

[BeardofPants]

Interesting points, Wulažg & Blackheart. I have nothing to contribute at this given time; just subscribing to the thread.

Oh, and:

Pride, Sloth, Greed, Glutony, Wrath, Envy, and Lust.

[Cirdan]

The arguement about Eru being separate from human definitions of evil is interesting since he only exists in a book. The intent of the author, the true "God" in the book is all that matters. Inferences as to who was motivated to do what exist only in the mind of the readers and the author. If it's not on paper it speculation.

Evil is not a substance or a being. It is thought, idea, or action that manifests unprovoked malevolence and disregard against another conscious and aware being. Thoughts can be evil if they are communicated to a being willing to act on them. Pride may be a "sin" but hardly evil.

Was Melkor an "evil" character? Yes, in that he only exhibited evil actions, which, i believe was JRRT's intended role for him. The corruption of Sauron left him, in the end, devoid of good intentions in any form. Regardless of him origins, he become a being intent on mavelont action it the realm of him power and existance, within the content of the written material.

There hasn't been much discussion of the "good" characters. Is good just a benevolent state of mind in a character? Are mistakes evil if the result of the mistake is evil or just "tragic"? Do all of Isildur's acts of heroic good fall away as he succumb's to lust for power at the expense of all of middle earth?

So, would it be evil to put a few arrows in the back of an orc never known to have harmed anyone?

Was it evil to unchain Melkor, given the results of his freedom?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wulažg
I thought the point was to start generally and then file it down to a very fine point...

oh and in your previous post you forgot some of them. Where are the rest of the 7?

Like I can remember them all. :rolleyes:

I bet BOP knows... oh wait she does :p

[BeardofPants]

I bet BOP knows... oh wait she does :p

Yeah: ask me how I know. Go on. Ask me. :rolleyes:

Can we drag this back to topic somehow, instead of picking at semantics? I believe it was ... relativism...? :rolleyes:

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The arguement about Eru being separate from human definitions of evil is interesting since he only exists in a book. The intent of the author, the true "God" in the book is all that matters. Inferences as to who was motivated to do what exist only in the mind of the readers and the author. If it's not on paper it speculation.


That's why it's fun!


Evil is not a substance or a being. It is thought, idea, or action that manifests unprovoked malevolence and disregard against another conscious and aware being. Thoughts can be evil if they are communicated to a being willing to act on them. Pride may be a "sin" but hardly evil.


Well, thoughts and ideas aren't inherantly evil, I still insist. If you communincate them, then that's an Action!


Was Melkor an "evil" character? Yes, in that he only exhibited evil actions, which, i believe was JRRT's intended role for him. The corruption of Sauron left him, in the end, devoid of good intentions in any form. Regardless of him origins, he become a being intent on mavelont action it the realm of him power and existance, within the content of the written material.


no argument here.


There hasn't been much discussion of the "good" characters. Is good just a benevolent state of mind in a character? Are mistakes evil if the result of the mistake is evil or just "tragic"? Do all of Isildur's acts of heroic good fall away as he succumb's to lust for power at the expense of all of middle earth?


I think so. Isildur is a tragic figure, because of his fall. So is the (most of ) the Numenorean race. Melkor is no less a "tragic" figure, his fall was from a higher place, and he fell much lower. But it doesn't make it any less tragic. The difference is in the degree of harm which he is capable of doing. Isildur only had a limited opportunity, but it doesn't mean he didn't do evil.

Whether he was irrevocably evil, like melkor, is another question. That MAY be at the heart of what we are trying to get at. At what point is an entity irrevocably evil? At that point we begin to refer to the entity as "evil", which seems to communicate something about our understandging of evil.


So, would it be evil to put a few arrows in the back of an orc never known to have harmed anyone?


This is a problematic question, since orcs are defined as irrevocably evil. There is a good amount of discussion that orc is derived from Orcus, which means basically AN EVIL CORPSE, or a "souless" one. If the creature is irrevocaby evil, you can be assured that the majority of it's future actions are likely to be harmful.


Was it evil to unchain Melkor, given the results of his freedom?

A much better question. Did Manwe have any knowledge of Melkor's future actions however? Or for that matter, was Manwe capable of understanding that Melkor was irrevocably evil? Well, Tolkein says he didn't or wasn't able to understand that at the time. So if manwe is guilty of anything, it is ignorance. As someone pointed out earlier, somethign may be a sin, but it may not be necisarily evil. In this case, I think you could say that ignorance is a sin, but not inherantly evil.

Hmm, got to think on this some more, if something is inherantly evil, then it is definately going to lead to "harm" of some sort. If it doesn't, then it may not be evil... *goes off to think*

[Cirdan]

I couldn't remember wrath... DAMN that pisses me off!!!

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Yeah: ask me how I know. Go on. Ask me. :rolleyes:

Can we drag this back to topic somehow, instead of picking at semantics? I believe it was ... relativism...? :rolleyes:

How do you know? :p

Lust. and lust and, dang, I can't remember any of the other ones for some reason :p


Reletavism, the idea that there is no absolute standard for evil?

In which case we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. If it's possible for an entity to be irrevocably evil, as Tolkien says the orcs are, and as Melkor seems to be, then I'm not sure we haven't reached a "standard", which would seem to stand against the idea of relativism...

[Cirdan]

This is a problematic question, since orcs are defined as irrevocably evil. There is a good amount of discussion that orc is derived from Orcus, which means basically AN EVIL CORPSE, or a "souless" one. If the creature is irrevocaby evil, you can be assured that the majority of it's future actions are likely to be harmful.


Maybe if Disney had do it they would have Orcley the friendly, but misunderstood Orc, who finds his soul with the help of a friendly hobbit.:rolleyes:

Are there any good corpses, I mean really, they rot, they smell, and they just lay around.

Innate evil is possible within the Tolkien universe, but in reality it is too subjective (I thought you might like that one:))

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


Maybe if Disney had do it they would have Orcley the friendly, but misunderstood Orc, who finds his soul with the help of a friendly hobbit.:rolleyes:

Are there any good corpses, I mean really, they rot, they smell, and they just lay around.

Innate evil is possible within the Tolkien universe, but in reality it is too subjective (I thought you might like that one:))

Yes, Tolkein calls creatures evil, but what is it that makes them "evil"?

I think it's that irrevocable evil thing. Once you pass a certain point, your actions are all pointed at "evil".

[Wulažg]

But what about Grishnahk(I know I butchered the spelling but ah well)?

Plus corpses can create an ecosystem for many good creatures, it fertilizes the soil...

You are thinking from an anthropocentric viewpointand that won't work...:p

[BeardofPants]

Watch it, Wulažg, Anthropologist in the house. :mad:

Yeah, but orc corpses would probably destroy the soil.

Justify that anthropocentric comment, or I'll come and suck your toes. :mad:

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Yeah, but orc corpses would probably destroy the soil.


That raises an intersting (to me) question. Were the Dead Marshes cursed/polluted/too full of the orcs?

On innate evil, possibly Tolkien deemed them beyond "salvation" or not having human/elf qualities other than physical (bipedal, speech, etc). Sometimes they are described as slaves, so how much responsibility for action is on them if they are under threat of the extreme punishments?

If the innate evil is a given, then is innate "good" a possibility? It was addressed earlier in the thread, but not completely.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


That raises an intersting (to me) question. Were the Dead Marshes cursed/polluted/too full of the orcs?

On innate evil, possibly Tolkien deemed them beyond "salvation" or not having human/elf qualities other than physical (bipedal, speech, etc). Sometimes they are described as slaves, so how much responsibility for action is on them if they are under threat of the extreme punishments?

If the innate evil is a given, then is innate "good" a possibility? It was addressed earlier in the thread, but not completely.

I think it's interesting that we've moved to innate evil, without actually looking more carefully at what it is that makes an orc, or a balrog, or a darklord innately evil.

Yes, they were beyond "salvation" but why? It wasn't necessarily because they had no "souls". I have a problem with this because there were Ainur who were irrevocably evil, and Ainur are pretty much nothing but a soul manifested in physical form....

I still think it's because they were unable to do anything but evil actions. For the Ainur like Balrogs, perhaps through force of habit, and repeated action, biterness etc.

For creatures like orcs, trolls, and dragons, it is a bit more problematic. They were "constructed" or bred to be servants of darkness. They have no choice in the matter, but I don't think that makes them any less evil. I do think however, that it's the best evidence yet that they don't have "souls". They don't have free will to choose good.

[Wulažg]

To defend myself against BoP's toe-sucking(even though I would enjoy it) I will say that an orc's corpse still ahs nutrients and organisms will adapt to be able to break it down. It will nourish some organisms.:p

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart
They were "constructed" or bred to be servants of darkness. They have no choice in the matter, but I don't think that makes them any less evil. I do think however, that it's the best evidence yet that they don't have "souls". They don't have free will to choose good.

So was the US army. :p

You gonna tell me THEY have no souls? No wait... don't answer that....

Originally posted by WulažgTo defend myself against BoP's toe-sucking(even though I would enjoy it) I will say that an orc's corpse still ahs nutrients and organisms will adapt to be able to break it down. It will nourish some organisms.

You will not be sucked.... this time.

However, justify your anthropocentric quote, i mellon.

Considering that the middle earth was created from an anthropocentric view, how can we ourselves not view it anthropocentrically?

And given that the dead marshes exist, can it really be postulated that they are feeding organisms with their rotting corpses? And if they are, do we really want to select for these organisms? What is their fitness factor? Selective factor? And most importantly, where are you toes? :p

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart

I think it's interesting that we've moved to innate evil, without actually looking more carefully at what it is that makes an orc, or a balrog, or a darklord innately evil.


I think we did determine that creatures created for the purposes of evil were innately evil in that the were not capable of anything else.

The higher order, corrupted beings are not innately evil, but corrupted to a high propensity for evil, and incorporate more human and complex aspects of evil (the seven sin thingies).


Yes, they were beyond "salvation" but why? It wasn't necessarily because they had no "souls". I have a problem with this because there were Ainur who were irrevocably evil, and Ainur are pretty much nothing but a soul manifested in physical form....


That the Ainur are souls may not be consistent. They are more "gods among men"; manifested powers or spirits if you will, that may lose coporial manifestation without death. Instead they would simply continue as immortal otherwise. It seems to me that the discorporiation of the Maiar was a dreadful blow to their power, but did not diminish their "ultimate" existance; jsut their ablility to operate in the realm of the "living".

Tolkien said that being a servant of evil as Sauron was to Melkor meant they were less evil, being not the ultimate source of the evil. I doubt that would extend to the created "evil" beings.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

So was the US army.

You gonna tell me THEY have no souls? No wait... don't answer that....


:rolleyes: I know you don't want to know.

[Blackheart]

I think we did determine that creatures created for the purposes of evil were innately evil in that the were not capable of anything else.

Yes, but are they innately evil because each and every action they take is pointed towards "evil", or are you suggesting they are some form of evil substance in and of themselves. I certainly don't agree with the latter interpretation, and I think you are positing the first interpretation, but I just am persnikity I suppose.


The higher order, corrupted beings are not innately evil, but corrupted to a high propensity for evil, and incorporate more human and complex aspects of evil (the seven sin thingies).

They have freewill in other words. And their choices have "painted them into a corner".


That the Ainur are souls may not be consistent. They are more "gods among men"; manifested powers or spirits if you will, that may lose coporial manifestation without death. Instead they would simply continue as immortal otherwise. It seems to me that the discorporiation of the Maiar was a dreadful blow to their power, but did not diminish their "ultimate" existance; jsut their ablility to operate in the realm of the "living".

Have you read the notes on the Avari, and what happens to elvish "souls" or "spirits" after death. Apparantly, it is much the same for them. The main difference is that they (elves) are unable to reconstruct a body on their own. They may however be able to posses one.

I do not see the elves as fundamenetally different from men however, except that men leave the confines of Arda. If elves have (or are) souls, then why are the Ainur so different? Of course if it's the TERM you are objecting to, subsitute spirit, life force, whatever makes you comfortable.


Tolkien said that being a servant of evil as Sauron was to Melkor meant they were less evil, being not the ultimate source of the evil. I doubt that would extend to the created "evil" beings. [/B]

Why? Sauron had a choice. He had free will, and chose to be evil, even if he was somehow "mislead".

Orcs, Dragons, Trolls etc. never had free will (I guess William Huggins came closest :p ). They were created to serve a purpose, and loosed upon the world.

This gets at the meat of the problem about intent, free will and evil. If I build an AI, who's sole job is to cause misery and destruction, is the robot evil? If it is, is it evil in the same sense as the creator? If not, why do we have two definitions of evil??

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart
This gets at the meat of the problem about intent, free will and evil. If I build an AI, who's sole job is to cause misery and destruction, is the robot evil? If it is, is it evil in the same sense as the creator? If not, why do we have two definitions of evil??

Can you say that anyone has freewill? AI aside, I don't think you can really impinge the idea of freewill upon any organism.

[Wayfarer]

I don't think that the concept of evil works very well in the absence of free will.

The orcs only had free will some of the time.

When morgoth fixed his will upon the orcs, they could literally feel it. He actually overode thier free will in some instances. So are the orcs evil, or are the merely being forced to do something?

Anothe instance of this- when the ring went into the fire, sauron's orcs lost the will to fight. They threw down thier weapons and got slaughtered- is that evil? I would say not.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Why? Sauron had a choice. He had free will, and chose to be evil, even if he was somehow "mislead".


The God of ME, Tolkien, has declared it so. ;)

In the beginning, and he chose to serve Melkor instead of Aule. Evil choice but not yet completely evil (Evil Lite?). In the end they were both pure evil.


This gets at the meat of the problem about intent, free will and evil. If I build an AI, who's sole job is to cause misery and destruction, is the robot evil? If it is, is it evil in the same sense as the creator? If not, why do we have two definitions of evil??

Only if I'm the the one miserable andor destroyed.:D

Is the evil in the intent, the effect, or the point of view? Are all three required for evil instead of misjudgement, misdeed, or "wrong place, wrong time".

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I don't think that the concept of evil works very well in the absence of free will.

The orcs only had free will some of the time.

When morgoth fixed his will upon the orcs, they could literally feel it. He actually overode thier free will in some instances. So are the orcs evil, or are the merely being forced to do something?

Anothe instance of this- when the ring went into the fire, sauron's orcs lost the will to fight. They threw down thier weapons and got slaughtered- is that evil? I would say not.

You appeared after my post... it's that cache thing again...

The orcs may have had a loss on direction. What to do without evil control.... QUAIL!!!

So, is the ring the ME equivalent of the human "command and control" factor of warfare?

Also, Why slaughter them if they aren't fighting back... Is that evil?

They were slaves if a sort, but created in evil, by evil , for evil... purposeless without it.

[Andúril]

My knowledge of the Timeless Halls episode is not really up to scratch, but I've been wondering about something.

Iluvatar, at the end of the Music, tells Melkor that any actions undertaken by him would only serve the purpose of fulfilling Iluvatar's will. Now, I would assume that the same parameters were set for the rest of the Ainur, but would that scope extend to all concious beings that were to eventually exist (i.e Elves, Men...)?

We know that Men were not constrained to Ea (on death), that Iluvatar had some other "destination" for their non-physical essence. Should we include Men within the scope of Iluvatar's "fate" (for Ea)?

What I am getting at is that if we take EVIL as meaning "that which is against the will of Iluvatar", and we say that ALL concious entities, in all the effects that are caused by them, are merely part of Iluvatar's pre-destined state of existence; are all working towards a common goal (Iluvatar's will), then we must say that evil, as defined, does not exist.

Unless we can agree that the actions (causes) attributed to certain beings do not apply to (or fall within) Iluvatar's common goal concept, evil IMO does not exist.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Can you say that anyone has freewill? AI aside, I don't think you can really impinge the idea of freewill upon any organism.

IMpinge?


Fortunately, Tolkien pretty much tells us that free will exists in his universe.

In fact I htink I remember him having some doubts about this very subject, the nature of evil...

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Anduril
Unless we can agree that the actions (causes) attributed to certain beings do not apply to (or fall within) Iluvatar's common goal concept, evil IMO does not exist.

Does Iluvatar then "move in mysterious ways?" I doubt Melkor believed himself evil, just "different", at first. When he sought to destroy that which he did not create, his malevolence should be regarded as evil, if the word is to have any meaning within the context of the works of JRRT and this discussion. The difference otherwise would just be a matter of asthetics and POV (as it is more inclined to be in the human experience).

[Andúril]

When he sought to destroy that which he did not create, his malevolence should be regarded as evil, if the word is to have any meaning within the context of the works of JRRT and this discussion.But if his malevolence was intended by Iluvatar, then he was not acting against Iluvatar's will, which in turn renders him unqualified for the "Evil" label.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I don't think that the concept of evil works very well in the absence of free will.

The orcs only had free will some of the time.



No, I htink it's more along the lines of they could choose how evil to be, or what kind of evil, or how to torture you, but they really couldn't grasp the concept of altruism. It wasn't part of their "program".



When morgoth fixed his will upon the orcs, they could literally feel it. He actually overode thier free will in some instances. So are the orcs evil, or are the merely being forced to do something?

Anothe instance of this- when the ring went into the fire, sauron's orcs lost the will to fight. They threw down thier weapons and got slaughtered- is that evil? I would say not.

Ahh the good old days.

I always interpreted it as more of a berserker rage. Where they recieved energy, and an unwaverng will. Driven by that will they would recklessly run themselves right upon the enemy, with absolutely no fear.

When the ring went into the fire, the servants of Sauron were dazed and confused. Much like a berserker might be if his rage suddenly vanished. I don't think it was because they were suddenly incapable of taking action. I also don't think they threw down their weapons and stood there trying to surrender, but rather dropped them when they turned to flee.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Anduril
But if his malevolence was intended by Iluvatar, then he was not acting against Iluvatar's will, which in turn renders him unqualified for the "Evil" label.

But Iluvatar was created by Tolkien so there is a layer of design above. :p

Your logic is there, but the story is told in the rigid framework of good versus evil.

If this was the thread who's name shall not be mentioned I would quote, "...in principle, the nonexistence of..." Iluvatar "...for the obvious reason that His existence would imply that He was indifferent, wicked, or cruel" and therefore did NOT exist. But, he's in the books so he does exist... in the book.;)

[Blackheart]

Odd that one should be saddened by the fruition of one's plans. Yet that's just the impression Eru gives at Melkor's rebellion.

Of course I suppose you could continue to split hairs by saying it was an act
:rolleyes:

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Odd that one should be saddened by the fruition of one's plans. Yet that's just the impression Eru gives at Melkor's rebellion.

Of course I suppose you could continue to split hairs by saying it was an act
:rolleyes:

Yes, it seems that he could have "unmade" Melkor when he started trouble, but he was a "child" of Iluvatar... a prodigal son:confused: :rolleyes:

[Blackheart]

Well that's what happens when you stir free will into your easy bake kits.

And for some odd reason, all the supreme creators seem to be deists... "I've set everything in place, lets watch it all unfold"

Maybe it's like that prime directive thingie :rolleyes:

Or too much freewill in the mix....

[BeardofPants]

... Or they like sitting back and watching the resultant chaos...

Gladiators, anyone? :p

[Wulažg]

Without some difference the whole world thing would be pretty boring, true...

one doesn't necessarily have to take it that far though...

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
... Or they like sitting back and watching the resultant chaos...

Gladiators, anyone? :p

Yep, if I was god that's pretty much what I would do meddle and tinker a bit, rest a bit, kick the anthill... WHEE!!!

Nanites would seem to be easier to mend then say, AIDS, since one should have the blueprints. But what would the Indians and Pakis do if they had them right now? :eek:

[Blackheart]

Nanites? In a reletavism thread? :eek:

[Blackheart]

Hrmmm... an example of why you shouldn't go back and clean out your subscribed threads....