Evil without Melkor

[Thorin II]

If Melkor had not been evil, would evil have existed in Tolkien's world? Melkor (or one of his agents) was at the heart of just about every bad thing in history, but it also seemed that weakness, jealousy, and other flaws were present independent of him. What do you think?

[Wayfarer]

If melkor had not turned evil, then evil would not have existed in Ea unless or until someone else spontaneously turned evil.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
If melkor had not turned evil, then evil would not have existed in Ea unless or until someone else spontaneously turned evil.

Though the proper question would be, did they "spontaneously turn evil" or was that what Ilúvatar meant to happen? :p

[Falagar]

Ilúvatar gave all his creations free will, so it was his own choice to become evil. Eru probably knew about it, but I think he did not stop it because then he would have to remove Melkor's free will (or lock him up).

[Aden]

the existence of evil is inevitable. Good and evil are important for the maintenance of balance in any world. Otherwise how can you define good if there's no evil. So I believe that if hadn't turned evil someone else would.

[Thorin II]

I tend to agree with Aden. Jealousy and pride seem prevalent in some of the Eldar. Greed and lust for power exist in Men. Melkor took advantage of these flaws to serve his purposes, but even without him, I think they would have led to evil.

[Turgon_Turambar]

Evil is Melkor. No one else is powerful enough to do it.

[Grey_Wolf]

There is always someone who wants to "do his own thing".
But the thought Iluvatar had of ME was that everyone should help in the making of it, thus no one could "be a loner" because that would have been evil in the eyes of Iluvatar.

[Thorin II]

Originally posted by Grey_Wolf
There is always someone who wants to "do his own thing".
But the thought Iluvatar had of ME was that everyone should help in the making of it, thus no one could "be a loner" because that would have been evil in the eyes of Iluvatar.

Perhaps, but that would seem to imply that Iluvatar didn't hold free will in high regard. If that were the case, would he have given the Valar (and his other creations) the ability to make their own choices?

[Ruinel]

'Evil' and 'Good' are like the poles of a magnet. They define opposites. No matter how small you cut a magnet, it will always have opposite poles, North and South. Likewise, no matter how you try to eliminate Evil, there will always be someone who is less Good than other people, defining the opposite of Good, therefore, Evil.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Grey_Wolf
There is always someone who wants to "do his own thing".
But the thought Iluvatar had of ME was that everyone should help in the making of it, thus no one could "be a loner" because that would have been evil in the eyes of Iluvatar. Melkor was indeed "a loner". He went unto the void and was away from his the other Ainur and Ilúvatar, and therefore he became estranged from them. To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.IMO Melkor was not evil from the beginning, but he had a desire to be greater than he was, and he fell pursuing that aim.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally posted by Artanis
Melkor was indeed "a loner". He went unto the void and was away from his the other Ainur and Ilúvatar, and therefore he became estranged from them. IMO Melkor was not evil from the beginning, but he had a desire to be greater than he was, and he fell pursuing that aim.

But in him having that desire do you then think that Ilúvatar had decided that Evil had to exist?

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Grey_Wolf
But in him having that desire do you then think that Ilúvatar had decided that Evil (selfindulgence) had to exist? That's the big question, isn't it? Ilúvatar gave all the Ainur free will. I think in doing that he at least allowed for evil to exist.

[brownjenkins]

i think there is always the assumption that a creator is "good" and one of his creations becomes "evil"... i have always imagined a creator to be a more "neutral"

from the music of the ainur:

Then Iluvatar spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Iluvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not it uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’

(Iluvatar) ‘Behold your Music! This is your minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid the design that I set before you, all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory.’

to me the essence of free will is being able to do whatever you like... and learning through time and experience what is "good" for yourself and those around you, and what is "evil"... i don't know if you can qualify free will, but in some ways i see melkor as the "most free", whereas the other valar seemed more bound to fate and specific roles within arda (as did all the children save men)

though i doubt this was tolkien's intention... i almost like to think that iluvatar's final statement above is a prophecy that one day even melkor will realize his mistakes and see the path to true glory... and this will be a fulfillment of the purpose of arda, the moral development of a truely free soul that is not just a part of the creator, but the sum of all the creator's parts

To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
... i don't know if you can qualify free will, but in some ways i see melkor as the "most free", whereas the other valar seemed more bound to fate and specific roles within arda (as did all the children save men)I like your thoughts, but this particular thing doesn't ring true with me, I would say that if the Ainur were bound to fate even from the beginning of their being, before the music that is, then Melkor was so too, but his role was to be the 'corruptor', the 'evil' one. But I don't think the Ainur were bound to fate, only most of them chose to stay tuned with Ilúvatar, and they chose to make music in harmony with the themes which Ilúvatar proposed to them. Later some of htem chose to descend into Arda and become bound to its fate.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Ruinel
" 'Evil' and 'Good' are like the poles of a magnet. They define opposites. No matter how small you cut a magnet, it will always have opposite poles, North and South. Likewise, no matter how you try to eliminate Evil, there will always be someone who is less Good than other people, defining the opposite of Good, therefore, Evil."
_______________________________
I think the the above suggestion, and
Aden's
"Good and evil are important for the maintenance of balance in any world. Otherwise how can you define good if there's no evil."
_______________________________
are a bit too Manichaean for Tolkien's taste or intent. I believe JRRT and C.S. Lewis, as Christians, saw evil as an absence of good, not a coequal pole. For example, in "Letters" # 183:
In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think 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 Creation of the physical world. In my story [LOTR] Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as possible.

And a bit of a different view from Brownjenkins
"i think there is always the assumption that a creator is "good" and one of his creations becomes "evil"... i have always imagined a creator to be a more "neutral"
____________________________________
I see more Iluvatar permitting free will evil acts but always acting so as to eventually turn them into an eventual good result while still allowing free will and a short to medium run evil result of free will. Speculatively, a Sauron victory in the War of the Ring might have resulted in a long period of darkness in Middle-earth but eventual "rescue" of Middle-earth. (Gandalf to Denethor: "And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair and flower again in days to come)."

On another point, the Ainur seem to exhibit considerable free will and fallibility. Witness their (probable) error in bringing the Elder to Aman.

[Wayfarer]

But of course, it's been well established that what an author says doesn't matter in relation to his world, so that doesn't mean anything. :rolleyes:

[brownjenkins]

you are absolutely correct tuor... tolkien's christian beliefs are apparent throughout his work... and he would probably agree with your assessments

but like all the best creation mythologies... including that of the bible or the rig veda... it is interesting to philosophize upon angles that the author(s) might not have intended to get across

yes it does matter very much wayfarer... there are just two ways to look at a great myth... what did the author intend to say? or, what meaning did you get from the book?

sometimes these things are the same and sometimes they are not... and different people can pick up different meanings... which is the definition of a truly timeless story

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
yes it does matter very much wayfarer... there are just two ways to look at a great myth... what did the author intend to say? or, what meaning did you get from the book?

sometimes these things are the same and sometimes they are not... and different people can pick up different meanings... which is the definition of a truly timeless story
_________________________________

Yes. I think an author's underlying beliefs and retrospective views of a work should be given some consideration, as should a reader's interpretation. By the by, that may have been part of Tolkien's intention in setting Middle-earth in a clearly pre-Christian world, to not make it as doctrinaire and more open to interpretation then, for example, C. S. Lewis's Narnia is.

Wayfarer makes some good points, but I think sometimes carries a point to extremes, not unlike JerseyDevil's movie opinions.
As C.S. Lewis once observed to Tolkien:
" 'Distinguo, Tollers! Distinguo!' as the other man, similarly wreathed in pipe smoke, made too sweeping an assumption.":)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
[I]I think the the above suggestion, and Aden's
"Good and evil are important for the maintenance of balance in any world. Otherwise how can you define good if there's no evil."
_______________________________
are a bit too Manichaean for Tolkien's taste or intent. I believe JRRT and C.S. Lewis, as Christians, saw evil as an absence of good, not a coequal pole. For example, in "Letters" # 183:


And a bit of a different view from Brownjenkins
"i think there is always the assumption that a creator is "good" and one of his creations becomes "evil"... i have always imagined a creator to be a more "neutral"
____________________________________
I see more Iluvatar permitting free will evil acts but always acting so as to eventually turn them into an eventual good result while still allowing free will and a short to medium run evil result of free will. Speculatively, a Sauron victory in the War of the Ring might have resulted in a long period of darkness in Middle-earth but eventual "rescue" of Middle-earth. (Gandalf to Denethor: "And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair and flower again in days to come)."

On another point, the Ainur seem to exhibit considerable free will and fallibility. Witness their (probable) error in bringing the Elder to Aman.
The point I was trying to make is that North and South on a pole define each other, as Good and Evil do. You say the Evil is an absence of Good. What is South without North? What is Good without Evil? How would we define one without the other?

[Aden]

Originally posted by Ruinel
The point I was trying to make is that North and South on a pole define each other, as Good and Evil do. You say the Evil is an absence of Good. What is South without North? What is Good without Evil? How would we define one without the other?

Exactly! One cannot define evil without good and vice versa. And isn't "absence of good" another name for evil?
I'm not talking about pure and absolute evil I agree that such thing might not exist.

[Wayfarer]

I've always had problems with the Manichean view of evil that you're espousing. Good and Evil do not have the sort of symmetrical relationship that it supposes- certainly not in Tolkien's Middle Earth.

Impossible for a being to be wholly evil in the same way that one can be wholly good, making the existance of evil something that is /not/ nescessary, for balance or any other reason.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I've always had problems with the Manichean view of evil that you're espousing. Good and Evil do not have the sort of symmetrical relationship that it supposes- certainly not in Tolkien's Middle Earth.

Impossible for a being to be wholly evil in the same way that one can be wholly good, making the existance of evil something that is /not/ nescessary, for balance or any other reason.
Are you talking to me? Or Aden?

If you are talking to me, my view isn't Manichean, I'm only saying that you can't define one without the other and you can't observe one without knowledge of the other. I also believe that there are variations between Good and Evil, like a scale. Certainly we can point to what Hitler did to the Jews as place it on a scale of Good being a 10 and Evil being a zero and say that it was pretty damn close to a zero.

[Wayfarer]

I'm only saying that you can't define one without the other and you can't observe one without knowledge of the other. Indeed. Which is why a perfectly good society is one in which people have no concept of 'good' because they have never known anything else.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Indeed. Which is why a perfectly good society is one in which people have no concept of 'good' because they have never known anything else. How truely boring it would be... no good, no evil.

[Wayfarer]

No, no. You completely miss my point. :)

In a society that was wholly good, there would be no clear concept of good, because as you say something cannot be defined without a knowledge of it's opposite. This doesn't mean good wouldn't exist- but the concept would be one that does not require definition.

[brownjenkins]

i think it's completely subjective... i don't think melkor says to himself "i'm evil so i'm gonna do evil stuff, muhahaaa!", i think he did what he believed was good for him... as did manwe

the difference, melkor had a very short-term closed minded way of looking at it "what is good for myself is what i want right now"... manwe had the more realistic "what is good for myself and the beings i live with is best for my own well-being in the long run"

you only have to look at how each of them turned out to see who had the better long-term view

i think saying things like there can be no good with out evil is correct, but maybe not phrased in the best way... i think a better way to put it, is that if everyone acted exactly the same way in a given situation, there would be no need to have concepts that differentiate actions... so if there was a world where absolutely everyone acted in ways that most see as "good", the concept of evil would not exist... this does not mean however, that an outside observer, like us, who experience both good and evil could not look at this society and say "their way of life is something we would consider 'good'"

[Falagar]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i think it's completely subjective... i don't think melkor says to himself "i'm evil so i'm gonna do evil stuff, muhahaaa!", i think he did what he believed was good for him... as did manwe

the difference, melkor had a very short-term closed minded way of looking at it "what is good for myself is what i want right now"... manwe had the more realistic "what is good for myself and the beings i live with is best for my own well-being in the long run"

you only have to look at how each of them turned out to see who had the better long-term view
I think you're right in some of that, but not all. Manwë acted more on the basis of what Eru wanted him to do (rather than what he himself wanted).

[Aden]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I've always had problems with the Manichean view of evil that you're espousing. Good and Evil do not have the sort of symmetrical relationship that it supposes- certainly not in Tolkien's Middle Earth.

Impossible for a being to be wholly evil in the same way that one can be wholly good, making the existance of evil something that is /not/ nescessary, for balance or any other reason.

I really don't think my view is Manichean either and I didn't imply the existance of wholly evil (or good) creatures as far as I can remember.
Evil and good are subjective (one could think that Feanaro was evil). I just indicated the existance of evil (the way I perceive it) in Tolkien's world and the fact that IMO that's pretty normal (in any society).

i think it's completely subjective... i don't think melkor says to himself "i'm evil so i'm gonna do evil stuff, muhahaaa!", i think he did what he believed was good for him... as did manwe
the difference, melkor had a very short-term closed minded way of looking at it "what is good for myself is what i want right now"... manwe had the more realistic "what is good for myself and the beings i live with is best for my own well-being in the long run"

you only have to look at how each of them turned out to see who had the better long-term view

i think saying things like there can be no good with out evil is correct, but maybe not phrased in the best way... i think a better way to put it, is that if everyone acted exactly the same way in a given situation, there would be no need to have concepts that differentiate actions... so if there was a world where absolutely everyone acted in ways that most see as "good", the concept of evil would not exist... this does not mean however, that an outside observer, like us, who experience both good and evil could not look at this society and say "their way of life is something we would consider 'good'"


I tend to agree with the above:)

[Ulmo]

because as you say something cannot be defined without a knowledge of it's opposite.

'Without alteration of it' - not necessarily the opposite, though that is the case here.

The difference was ultimately not "I want to do evil" vs. "I want to do good"...Melkor's evil (like much evil) was the result of over-confidence in his ability to act as God instead of with God or for God. With all of his power, he thought that he would make a good creator of the universe himself while Manwe and all of the other Ainur (that did not follow Melkor) realize that such train of thought only leads to destruction. In Osanwe-kenta, Tolkien notes that *any* of the Valar could've gone down the path Melkor did, but he was most likely because of his strength and knowledge - knowledge of so many things (unlike the others who were more or less concentrated on one thing). Aule tried it once, if you remember, in attempting his own children, but found the impossibilities associated with it.

[Artanis]

I have to agree with Ulmo. Melkor wanted to create things of being of his own (act as God), but became filled with envy and hatred because he also, like Aule, found he couldn't do it.

So it seems like the most gifted beings are most likely to be overconfident and prideful, and therefore tempted to not act in line with Eru's intent. Obvious examples apart from Melkor are Fëanor and Saruman. I would perhaps include Denethor too.

[Wayfarer]

I really don't think my view is Manichean either and I didn't imply the existance of wholly evil (or good) creatures as far as I can remember.
Evil and good are subjective...

*rolls eyes* :rolleyes: No. The concept of good cannot be subjective, or else it is worthless. Individual actions can be subjective in relation to perfection (perfect goodness) but even that is a useless measurement without an absolute baseline.

[Lord Boromir]

Melkor was the origin of all evil, so I think Middle-earth would have been a much better place to live if he had not gone evil. Yet the peoples of ME got free wills, and I'm sure that if Melkor did not go bad, others would(although not as capable of great harm).

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
________________________________
Originally posted by Aden:
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don't think my view is Manichean either and I didn't imply the existance of wholly evil (or good) creatures as far as I can remember.
Evil and good are subjective...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Wayfarer:
*rolls eyes* No. The concept of good cannot be subjective, or else it is worthless. Individual actions can be subjective in relation to perfection (perfect goodness) but even that is a useless measurement without an absolute baseline.
_________________________________

I tend to agree with Wayfarer. It rather reminds you of the original Columbo detective TV movie (where Gene Barry is the law abiding psychologist who decides to kill his wife). At one point he says something to Columbo like "All morals are subjective." Hence he has no problem or qualms with switching efortlessly from law- and ethics- abiding model citizen to murderer without any worries or doubts.

[Thorin II]

Originally posted by Ruinel
The point I was trying to make is that North and South on a pole define each other, as Good and Evil do. You say the Evil is an absence of Good. What is South without North? What is Good without Evil? How would we define one without the other?

I get where you're coming from. It's all a matter of perspective. To the Valar themselves, defining good and evil without Melkor (or without Melkor's fall) would've been difficult unless someone else tried to rise above the group. As a reader, we can recognize good or evil without seeing the opposite within the same world because we can compare that world to another world (such as our own). The sense in which I intended the question is what we as readers recognize as evil.