Evil?

[Illuvatar]

Looking back on the Silmarillion, it says that, while most of the Valar were only a single part of Iluvatar's thought, Melkor had a bit of all of him. Since Melkor became evil, does this mean that Illuvatar himself was also evil, or did Melkor just become corrupted all by himself? "Great might was given to him by Iluvatar, and he was coeval with Manwe. In the powers of all the other Valar he had part...."
--The Silmarillion, Valaquenta, Chapter four

[Astaldo]

As a supreme god Iluvatar had all these charecteristics. Maybe "evil" too. But of cousre maybe Malkor was corrupted, but the problem is by what. By himself?

BTW Iluvatar is written with one "l" :)

[Illuvatar]

Oops! How do you change your username?

[Arvegil]

Well, I don't know about the question as phrased, but the Ainulindale obviously contemplates a role for Melkor's evil (and not just Melkor's evil, but his disruption of what would otherwise be a more static system) as part of the master plan.

[Astaldo]

I don't know who do you change the username but even if I did it wouldn't help. There is already another Iluvatar.

[Húrin Thalion]

"This is your minstrelsy, and each of you shall find contained herein ... all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou Melkor, wilt percieve that they are but part of the whole and tributary to its glory."

This, and the passage about Melkor's war on Ulmo, which only resulted in the creation of a new beauty, ice and snow, proves that Melkor only thought that he was free to do evil. In the end he was the servant of Iluvatar, who aided him, maybe even more than any of the other Valar, in making the song beautiful and fascinating.

I'm only waiting for people to bash me about Iluvatar not being evil, and utterly defeating me with the quote about Iluvatar despicing Melkor's work. ;)

[Barliman Butterbur]

...Since Melkor became evil, does this mean that Illuvatar himself was also evil, or did Melkor just become corrupted all by himself?

This question of course is applicable to all Western religion: "Did God purposely create evil, or did something slip?" (In which case of course, one cannot argue that "God" is perfect.)

There are some underlying assumptions in this question that bear legitimate scrutiny. It is assumed:

•That "God" actually exists.
•That "God" exists as described in Western holy books.
•That "God" is separate from Creation.

As a person who stands outside all religion, the question has no meaning for me, and is of importance only for believers in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim viewpoint. Most believers in Western religions forget the fact that there are ways to look at this which are, for westerners, "totally out of the box," as it were.

For instance: Hinduism posits that

•Everything that exists and does not exist is in fact "God." Matter and energy are congealed forms of Spirit, as well as Nothing; as well as everything that human beings will never know about.
•Each individual therefore, is also a part of "God," and that each individual soul is a drop in the ocean of "God."
•Since "God" is perfect and makes no mistakes, evil (also a part of "God's" plan) is a perfect part of a perfect Reality.
•Karma/Reincarnation exists: each soul slowly (in most cases) moves through a succession of lives toward the realization that it is in fact "God," and once this realization is attained, it will dissolve into God as a drop of water becomes one with the ocean.

Buddhism posits much the same thing, except that, for them, there is no "God." Things are simply as one finds them, including the rest of the above.

For myself: I totally believe that good and evil are the opposite ends of the spectrum of human behavior. Rather than take responsibility for his actions, man gives "God" the credit for what's good, and gives "Satan" the credit for what's bad. Good and evil are the consequences of our actions, and we are responsible for our actions — not "God," not "Satan."

I could go on, but this is enough for now.

Barley

[Gothmog]

However, despite the "applicability" to 'Real World' questions, in this case the existance of "God" here is a fact as we are discussing Tolkien's legendarium.
Húrin Thalion
I'm only waiting for people to bash me about Iluvatar not being evil, and utterly defeating me with the quote about Iluvatar despicing Melkor's work.Of course Iluvatar is not evil, no more so than Iluvatar is good. ;)

Barliman Butterbur
For myself: I totally believe that good and evil are the opposite ends of the spectrum of human behavior. Rather than take responsibility for his actions, man gives "God" the credit for what's good, and gives "Satan" the credit for what's bad. Good and evil are the consequences of our actions, and we are responsible for our actions — not "God," not "Satan."
This view is very much applicable to the question of the thread. Good and Evil are limited to Arda. Iluvatar did not call Melkor "Evil" and it was not until the Ainur came to Arda that the term Evil even existed. It was created by the Valar and used by them and by the Maiar and Children of Iluvatar. Since Iluvatar was the creator of the Valar and Arda, could the definitons of any lesser being be appicable to him? As Manwë saysThus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been. The views of those limited to Arda will be much different from those of Iluvatar. So our limited perspective of "Good" and "Evil" do not apply to Iluvatar.

[Gildor]

Iluvatar, like his children, would have the capacity for both good and evil since all that exists within Arda came from him. Evil did not create itself. Iluvatar does not embrace evil nor does he directly prohibit it, for more greatness is achieved in the struggle against it than would be done if there was nothing to strive against.

[Ruinel]

Good AND Evil are neither perfect nor imperfect. They are references to each other. One can not exist without the other. All beings are capable of both Good and Evil... it is how we govern ourselves which determines where we are on the scale of Good and Evil.

In the creation story, everything is created by Eru. It can be presumed, in this story, that nothing existed before Eru made it.

Melkor was given a bit of all parts of Eru, a combination of several attributes and abilities that other Valar had been given. I think this also gave him ambition that the others didn't have (except Aule) as well as pride, which none of them had. The combination of all of this, without the full capabilities of Eru to self govern his feelings, made him feel entited to more than the other Valar, souring him and turning him from his Maker and his colleagues, seeking the recognition and worship which he felt he was entitled to.

Was this necessarily Evil? Well, Evil is relative. He created beings, even though he was forbidden to do so. (But then, so did Aule.) He turned Men against Eru to worship himself, to feed his pride. He corrupted Middle Earth, destroying much of the beauty which the other Valar were charged with. He destroyed the Two Trees. He brought war and pain to the creation of Eru.

And what came of these deeds? Men and Elves learned from each other, they formed aliances, and they worked together against a common enemy. That's not such a bad thing, now is it? Besides, the story would have sucked had there not been a Melkor. ;)

[Ruinel]

Iluvatar, like his children, would have the capacity for both good and evil since all that exists within Arda came from him. Evil did not create itself. Iluvatar does not embrace evil nor does he directly prohibit it, for more greatness is achieved in the struggle against it than would be done if there was nothing to strive against.
I happen to agree with this point. :cool:

[Helcaraxë]

Iluvatar did not create evil. He created the possibility of evil by giving Melkor free will. It was Melkor's choice, and he chose evil.

[Ciryaher]

I don't think that Eru could be classed as being either. Eru IS, he is not one thing or another. He IS. This applies to Barley's point to the RL God as well, according to the texts.

I also don't believe that Eru created any of the Valar a certain way, and they certainly didn't have free will (remember that the Valar envied the Eldar and Atani because they had free will, and the Valar did not). Eru brought the Valar into being not through some gesture of the hand or wink of the eye. He simply willed it, and so it Was.

The Valar, including Melkor, were not the way they were because they chose to be, that is simply the way it had to be, and nothing any of them did would change that. Melkor had to be "evil", just as Manwe had to be "good"...it is a sort of self-balancing.

*thinks* At least that's how I see it.

[Elemmire]

Very interesting.

I agree that Eru was both good and evil, or more likely, neither.

Since I'm not sure yet if I agree with the idea that Melkor had no choice but to be evil, I'd like to go back to the question of how he became corrupted. And considering how similar Melkor and Aule seem, I wonder why it was Melkor instead of Aule who turned evil...

BTW...

Besides, the story would have sucked had there not been a Melkor. ;)Yes, but Finrod would have lived... ;)

And that would most certainly not have sucked. :D

[HLGStrider]

I think the idea that evil needs to be created is at fault. In Tolkien, we could futily argue whether it happens in the real world, I would argue that it doesn't and can't be. Evil in Tolkien is a force that cannot create, only corrupt. It's like saying that death needs to be created. Death does not, technically, exist as a being. It is, I would argue, only the end to life. Dark does not, I would also argue, exist. It holds no real value or form. Light does. Dark is the abscence of light.

In Tolkien's world all great villians start out good.



Melkor is a Valar created with possibly the most potential of them all.

Sauron is a Maia.

The Orcs were (debateably) Elves.

Sarumen was the leader of the White Council.



Almost all evil sources come from a good source. Evil's creations have no creativity but are mere mockeries of good, generally derived from other creations of good.



If Iluvatar made a tree and a man made it into a chair, would we say Iluvatar created a chair?



Iluvatar created a Melkor.



I think he wanted Melkor to do what he did and created Melkor so he would, but I think he did not create the darkness, for one cannot create darkness.



It could be argued that, before Iluvatar created light, there was only darkness so evil procedes good as a material form, but this is only true in that emptiness procedes fullness. Emptiness has no form. Even a jar we see as empty truly has air within.

[Astaldo]

If Iluvatar made a tree and a man made it into a chair, would we say Iluvatar created a chair?
Good point. :)

[Elemmire]

Almost all evil sources come from a good source. Evil's creations have no creativity but are mere mockeries of good, generally derived from other creations of good.I think your earlier comments really explain well why this is true.

It could be argued that, before Iluvatar created light, there was only darkness so evil procedes good as a material form, but this is only true in that emptiness procedes fullness. Emptiness has no form. Even a jar we see as empty truly has air within.A nice argument. I like it, it seems almost Taoist... it feels true but is hard to grasp completely...

I'm not completely sure what I'm saying yet... but considering this argument, do you think that perhaps Morgoth had to be corrupted because evil precedes good? That basically, because of the nature of the universe, Arda Unmarred would have been essentially impossible no matter what...

Argh...got to go to class; I'm not sure if that makes sense... :p

[HLGStrider]

I am glad you like my points. I was expecting a bit of objection right off the bat, as I directly countered two or three other posts, but I'm sure they'll get around and we'll have a lively debate.

It could be argued that Morgoth had to be corrupted. Obviously out of his evil came great Good, which is more than could be said for Sauron. I think we would have to search much harder for the good end to Sauron's bad means.

But I do think Iluvatar is a stronger power than Morgoth and a power for good. Morgoth was created by Iluvatar with the ability for both good and evil and I would say Iluvatar knew he would go for bad and create the havoc he did, but he also knew in the end all would be right. . .and this is an end we have yet to see. Tolkien's work ends before the last battle, which will be Morgoth's final attempt to throw off Iluvatar's plan and turn all to corruption. Presumably, he will fail and all will be made right. Perhaps we will even see the trees restored.

[Gothmog]

I think the idea that evil needs to be created is at fault.
The idea that "Evil" needs to be created is also not in the question of this thread.
I agree that Evil was not created but this still leaves the question "Was Iluvatar 'Evil?'"
In Tolkien, we could futily argue whether it happens in the real world, I would argue that it doesn't and can't be. Evil in Tolkien is a force that cannot create, only corrupt. It's like saying that death needs to be created. Death does not, technically, exist as a being. It is, I would argue, only the end to life. Dark does not, I would also argue, exist. It holds no real value or form. Light does. Dark is the abscence of light.
An interesting argument that falls at the first hurdle.
From: The Silmarillion: Chapter one: Of The Beginning of Days
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; and of their operation everything should be, in form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest.
But Ilúvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and would not use their gifts in harmony; and he said. 'These too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.' yet the Elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwë, who knows most of the mind of Ilúvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men resemble Melkor most of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him.
It is one with this gift of freedom that the children of Men dwell only a short space in the world alive, and are not bound to it, and depart soon whither the Elves know not. Whereas the Elves remain until the end of days,
So in Tolkien's works, not only was Death created (not as a "Being" but as a fact of the nature of the Atani) but we also see where and when it was done.

If Iluvatar made a tree and a man made it into a chair, would we say Iluvatar created a chair?
No. But we could truthfully say that Iluvatar was the "source" of the chair as it came from that which he created. (The tree and the man ;) )

It could be argued that, before Iluvatar created light, there was only darkness so evil procedes good as a material form, but this is only true in that emptiness procedes fullness. Emptiness has no form. Even a jar we see as empty truly has air within.
But before there was "Light" how culd there be "Darkness"?
From: The Silmarillion: Ainulindale
But when they were come into the Void, Ilúvatar said to them: 'Behold your Music!' And he showed to them a vision, giving to them sight were before was only hearing; With no sight there can be neither light nor dark.

[HLGStrider]

With no sight there can be neither light nor dark.

So in Tolkien's works, not only was Death created (not as a "Being" but as a fact of the nature of the Atani) but we also see where and when it was done.

Point taken and yeilded. This was actually my fault for using my real world logic in a Tolkien arguement. In the real world death is usually seen as a problem, as opposed to Tolkien's view of it as a gift. As I have perfected my good and evil arguements in "real world" discussions, I wrongly applied this one to Tolkien. I simply got carried away with all my analogies.


The idea that "Evil" needs to be created is also not in the question of this thread.
I agree that Evil was not created but this still leaves the question "Was Iluvatar 'Evil?'"


You are right. It wasn't the question, but it had come up in several previous posts, and I thought it should be addressed.


But before there was "Light" how culd there be "Darkness"?


If you define darkness as the lack of light, there can be nothing before light besides darkness. However, I think we need to know light to define darkness. I mean, a man with no conception of clothing would have no conception of naked, would he?


With no sight there can be neither light nor dark.


I'm not sure I agree, but I would like you to explain how you get this conclusion from the quote above it. I didn't see the connection. . .of course, it is getting late here.

I would say that without sight there could be no perception of light but there still could be light. This passage deals only with visions and not with actuality, does it not?

[JPMaximilian]

Good AND Evil are neither perfect nor imperfect. They are references to each other. One can not exist without the other. All beings are capable of both Good and Evil... it is how we govern ourselves which determines where we are on the scale of Good and Evil.


I think that Tolkien would vehemently disagree with these statements. Iluvatar is all good, and as a result of free-will there is the possibility of evil. But good is objective and is not dependent on evil. Evil is the absense of good. I'm confident that Tolkien would believe this based on his very Catholic beliefs.

[Gothmog]

Perhaps Tolkien would indeed disagree with the statements so far as the "Real World" is concerned. However, within his stories it is also possible that he would not. I find it interesting that Tolkien seems to have left Iluvatar completely outside the question of 'Good' and 'Evil' by having within Arda an embodyment of both good and evil. Melkor is of course the full embodyment of 'Evil' and on the other side we find not Iluvatar but Manwe.

What we must not forget with these stories is that Tolkien did not write an allogory of the Christian faith but in his own words On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted – well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity.from The Letters of JRR Tolkien 131.

[Elemmire]

So in Tolkien's works, not only was Death created (not as a "Being" but as a fact of the nature of the Atani) but we also see where and when it was done.
Maybe in a way, though, the argument is not void...

"Now none of us know, though the Valar may know, the future of Arda, or how long it is ordained to endure. But it will not endure for ever. It was made by Eru, but He is not in it. The One only has no limits. Arda, and Ea itself, must therefore be bounded."~Finrod, Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth; Morgoth's Ring

So the Gift of the Atani could be interpretted instead as an escape from the true Death that the Eldar seem to be facing. And this could go back to support that since theoretically nothing existed in the beginning, and that, just as theoretically, nothing would exist at the end, save Eru, then a Death that is nothingness did exist instead of being created.

But I'm straying off-topic.

I think that Tolkien would vehemently disagree with these statements. Iluvatar is all good, and as a result of free-will there is the possibility of evil. But good is objective and is not dependent on evil. Evil is the absense of good. I'm confident that Tolkien would believe this based on his very Catholic beliefs.I'm not sure if I agree with this. It makes sense, but to my mind at least, if evil were simply the absense of good, then evil could only lead to more evil. And that does not always seem to be the case.

[JPMaximilian]

Perhaps Tolkien would indeed disagree with the statements so far as the "Real World" is concerned. However, within his stories it is also possible that he would not.

That's a good point. I maintain that even without a Trinitarian God, Iluvatar would still need to be all good. I have no facts from my Tolkien readings to back that up, so perhaps I'll look over the Silmarillion again and see what I find.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Elemmire
So the Gift of the Atani could be interpretted instead as an escape from the true Death that the Eldar seem to be facing. And this could go back to support that since theoretically nothing existed in the beginning, and that, just as theoretically, nothing would exist at the end, save Eru, then a Death that is nothingness did exist instead of being created.However, Death is not the absence of life but the 'End' of it. So before there was life there could not be death. So even by your view death must have been created no sooner than the same time as life.

Originally Posted by JPMaximilian
That's a good point. I maintain that even without a Trinitarian God, Iluvatar would still need to be all good. I have no facts from my Tolkien readings to back that up, so perhaps I'll look over the Silmarillion again and see what I find.Why would Iluvatar Need to be All good. All that is in fact needed is that (from our point of view) Iluvatar is Predominantly good.

[JPMaximilian]

He wouldn't need to be even partially evil, he gave his creations free will, which allows them to choose evil. That doesn't mean that Iluvatar has to be partially evil in order for this to take place.

[Gothmog]

He wouldn't need to be even partially evil, he gave his creations free will, which allows them to choose evil. That doesn't mean that Iluvatar has to be partially evil in order for this to take place.
I never said that Iluvatar needed to be partially evil, my statement was that All that is in fact needed is that (from our point of view) Iluvatar is Predominantly good.
The problem is the use of such terms as "Has to be" and "Need to be". These terms set limits on what Iluvatar Could be.
After the point of Iluvatar being predominantly good (from our point of view) need vanishes. So the question of Iluvatar being "All" good or not is a matter of opinion. My view of it is that Iluvatar being the creator of Arda is in fact totally outside of any diffinition of good or evil made by lesser beings. So the question in my opinion does not apply in those terms. :)

[scotsboyuk]

If Iluvatar is 'All' then Iluvatar must be both good and evil, one cannot exist without the other. Iluvatar cannot be predominantly either as Iluvatar is capable of creating both. Anything that we define we define against something else; we define Iluvatar (or any Supreme Being) against nothingness because they are 'All', which means that they constitute both negative and postitive aspects, after all, such concepts are human inventions. Good and evil only exist in our minds, they do not exist in nature. A storm that kills hundreds cannot be labelled 'evil', a human who kills hundreds can; the end result for both is the same, yet we only ascribe the word 'evil' to one of them.

[JPMaximilian]

Why do you think that Iluvatar is an 'All'. Why do you think evil cannot evil without good and vice versa. I would say that a storm that kills people would be a "natural evil". The storm itself isn't evil in that it doesn't have a will that decided to kill, but what happened to the people is an evil.

[Gothmog]

If Iluvatar is 'All' then Iluvatar must be both good and evil, one cannot exist without the other. Iluvatar cannot be predominantly either as Iluvatar is capable of creating both. Anything that we define we define against something else; we define Iluvatar (or any Supreme Being) against nothingness because they are 'All', which means that they constitute both negative and postitive aspects, after all, such concepts are human inventions. Good and evil only exist in our minds, they do not exist in nature. A storm that kills hundreds cannot be labelled 'evil', a human who kills hundreds can; the end result for both is the same, yet we only ascribe the word 'evil' to one of them.
And by this very argument I say that Iluvatar is Outside such concepts. This is why I say that he would be "From Our point of View" predominantly good. What he was in truth would be unknowable to lesser beings. ;)

[JPMaximilian]

Why would Iluvatar Need to be All good. All that is in fact needed is that (from our point of view) Iluvatar is Predominantly good.

If Iluvatar is a perfect being, which is a claim I'm not sure is supported by the books, then Goodness being a perfection, would mean that Iluvatar is all Good. By giving his creations free-will, there is an option to do evil, but that doesn't mean that Iluvatar created evil.

[scotsboyuk]

@JPMaximilian (member.php?u=6386)

How can you define 'evil' without defining 'good'? For someone to do something that is 'good' there must be a measure of what constitutes 'good' i.e. that which is not evil.

Deaths due to a storm can be described as being 'evil', but that would be a false description. The fact that the storm ha sno mind is irrelevent, the end result is what we are examining. The storm's 'actions' are described in human terms, a chimpanzee would not consider it 'evil' if one of his fellow chimpanzees were killed by a storm. Human beings use terms such as 'good' and 'evil' to build constructs for ourselves, they are not natural terms, they do not exist in nature.

Can the Big Bang be described as 'evil'? If the Big Bang gave birth to the universe then it also brought into existence Nazis, without the Big Bnag they would never have existed, so can the Big Bnag be classified as 'evil'? Alternatively can it be termed 'good' because it resulte din the Buddha coming to Earth?

What about changing attitudes over time? Was every Roman who watched gladitorial games evil? Was every caveman who killed a rival evil?

@Gothmog

Indeed, when talking about Supreme Beings, we, by definition, can only assign to them our limited knowledge and understanding. By our own definitions of such beings we can never fully comprehend them.

[Gothmog]

Is Goodness a perfection? By some belief systems it is viewed that when something totaly one sided it becomes its opposite.

scotsboyuk
This is true but we will no doubt continue to have many discussions about it. :)

[scotsboyuk]

If Iluvatar is a perfect being, which is a claim I'm not sure is supported by the books, then Goodness being a perfection, would mean that Iluvatar is all Good. By giving his creations free-will, there is an option to do evil, but that doesn't mean that Iluvatar created evil. Who says 'goodness' is perfection? To those who are evil it is not, therefore Iluvatur would not be perfect in their eyes.

By giving those Iluvatur created free will they also had the option of doing good, so Iluvatur cannot be said to have created 'good' either, hence neither resulted from Iluvatur, which would indicate that Iluvatur is not in fact 'All' and that there are things outside of Iluvatur. Yet if there was nothing before Iluvatur then this would seem to be a paradox as nothing could exist that was not of Iluvatur.

[JPMaximilian]

Is Goodness a perfection? By some belief systems it is viewed that when something totaly one sided it becomes its opposite.


That makes no sense to me, perhaps you could elaborate. It seems intuitive to me that Goodness is a perfection.

As to evil. Goodness does not have to be in relationship of anything. I don't think Good or Evil is determined by "cavemen" or Romans. I think that Good and Evil, or right and wrong are objective regardless of culture or time.

[scotsboyuk]

@JPMaximilian (http://member.php?u=6386)

I think you are missing my point old boy. Good and evil are human concepts, which do change over time and with different cultures. Would you consider it evil to burn four hundred people alive in a field because they had different religious beliefs to you? The crusaders who attacked and sacked Beziers in France during the Albigensian Crusade thought it was the right thing to do.

We consider Nazi Germany to have been evil, yet to millions of Germans at the time anti-semitism was a good thing. We consider the use of poison gas evil, yet the Western powers thought it perfectly acceptable to use against each other during WWI.

You consider goodness to be perfection, but that raises two very important points. As Gothmog said above, some people do not consider any extreme, good or bad to be perfection, rather they prefer balance, seeing that for good to exist evil must also exist. That brings me onto my second point, if you believe that goodness is perfection then you also require evil to define that goodness, one cannot have perfection without also having an idea of imperfection.

[JPMaximilian]

Sorry for the double post.

Who says 'goodness' is perfection? To those who are evil it is not, therefore Iluvatur would not be perfect in their eyes.

so Iluvatur cannot be said to have created 'good' either, hence neither resulted from Iluvatur, which would indicate that Iluvatur is not in fact 'All'

I don't think Iluvatar created good per se. Iluvatar is Good, and he can transfer that goodness to another. Things like existence and motion and free-will would be good things.

Iluvatar does not need to create evil in order for there to be evil. I would say that evil is not a thing, but an absence of a thing. For example, war would be the absence of peace.

If Iluvatar created the choices of the creations made by Iluvatar, if you say when Saruman turned to evil Iluvatar created that evil, then you are denying free will.

[Gothmog]

That makes no sense to me, perhaps you could elaborate. It seems intuitive to me that Goodness is a perfection.

As to evil. Goodness does not have to be in relationship of anything. I don't think Good or Evil is determined by "cavemen" or Romans. I think that Good and Evil, or right and wrong are objective regardless of culture or time.
Very well. Let us look at a couple of examples.

The Sun is Good. After all, no Sun, no life on earth. However, too much sun and we live in a desert.

Rain is also Good. No rain, no plants and we have a desert. However, too much rain and we drown.

Each is good but when there is too much of either they become their opposite. And before saying that these are extreme examples, They are so to illustrate the point of something taken to the extreme becoming its opposite. Such as the claim of "All Good".

[scotsboyuk]

Sorry for the double post.



I don't think Iluvatar created good per se. Iluvatar is Good, and he can transfer that goodness to another. Things like existence and motion and free-will would be good things.
Why should they be good things? What makes them good?


Iluvatar does not need to create evil in order for there to be evil. I would say that evil is not a thing, but an absence of a thing. For example, war would be the absence of peace.
Equally good can be described as the absence of evil or peace as the absence of war. Continuing in your logic, Iluvatur need not have created good in order for there to have been good.


If Iluvatar created the choices of the creations made by Iluvatar, if you say when Saruman turned to evil Iluvatar created that evil, then you are denying free will.
Not at all. If you say that Illuvatur need not have created 'evil' for 'evil' to have existed then following that logic Illuvatur would need to have created 'good'. If Illuvatur did create 'good' then it stands to reason that that creation by definition would have created 'evil' along with it as 'good' can only be defined against 'evil'. Continuing in this line of thought we can see that by your logic someone who turns to good would be considered to have no 'free will' because it came from Illuvatur, yet if we see Illuvatur as having created both 'good' and 'evil', or at least both steming from Iluvatur then we can see that free will does indeed exist as Iluvatur is therefore providing a choice.

[JPMaximilian]

Good and evil are human concepts, which do change over time and with different cultures.

I don't think that good and evil are human concepts. I believe that they are objective. If I believe that 2+2=13 then that doesn't make it true.


You consider goodness to be perfection, but that raises two very important points. As Gothmog said above, some people do not consider any extreme, good or bad to be perfection, rather they prefer balance, seeing that for good to exist evil must also exist.

I don't think that personal preference (for balance) has anything to do with objective reality. If they have a good reason for believing this than its worth considering.


That brings me onto my second point, if you believe that goodness is perfection then you also require evil to define that goodness, one cannot have perfection without also having an idea of imperfection.

I don't think that you need evil to define goodness. But even if it did the idea of imperfection does not mean that imperfection actually exists anywhere. The idea of evil does not mean that evil exists anywhere.


Each is good but when there is too much of either they become their opposite. And before saying that these are extreme examples, They are so to illustrate the point of something taken to the extreme becoming its opposite.

That does make sense, however, I would say that the sun is not good or bad, but some of the effects of the sun are good.

[JPMaximilian]

Why should they be good things? What makes them good?

Iluvatar makes them good. If Iluvatar is good, and that goodness drives him to create more goodness.


Equally good can be described as the absence of evil or peace as the absence of war. Continuing in your logic, Iluvatur need not have created good in order for there to have been good.

The absense of evil could be neither good nor bad. If I sit down, then I haven't commited a good or evil act, its morallly neutral.


Not at all. If you say that Illuvatur need not have created 'evil' for 'evil' to have existed then following that logic Illuvatur would need to have created 'good'. If Illuvatur did create 'good' then it stands to reason that that creation by definition would have created 'evil' along with it as 'good' can only be defined against 'evil'. Continuing in this line of thought we can see that by your logic someone who turns to good would be considered to have no 'free will' because it came from Illuvatur, yet if we see Illuvatur as having created both 'good' and 'evil', or at least both steming from Iluvatur then we can see that free will does indeed exist as Iluvatur is therefore providing a choice.

I don't quite follow all of this. Can you explain why you have to define goodness against evil, besides saying that "If Illuvatur did create 'good' then it stands to reason that that creation by definition would have created 'evil' along with it as 'good' can only be defined against 'evil'. " I see no reason why Goodness cannot exist on its own.

[scotsboyuk]

I don't think that good and evil are human concepts. I believe that they are objective. If I believe that 2+2=13 then that doesn't make it true.
How can they be anyhting but human concepts? We have existe don this planet for a fraction of its total age and an even smaller fraction of the age of the universe. Did dinosaurs have a concept of good and evil? Would alines have the same concepts of good and evil as we do? For good and evil to be objective universal laws they need to viewed exactly the same everywhere in the universe at all times. The fcat that this doesn't even happen on Earth invalidates this theory.



I don't think that personal preference (for balance) has anything to do with objective reality. If they have a good reason for believing this than its worth considering.
But then this would invalidate your idea that good and evil are objective, if you are evn prepared to consider a different viewpoint.



I don't think that you need evil to define goodness. But even if it did the idea of imperfection does not mean that imperfection actually exists anywhere. The idea of evil does not mean that evil exists anywhere.
Then define goodness without any reference to evil.


That does make sense, however, I would say that the sun is not good or bad, but some of the effects of the sun are good.
You described the actions of a storm that kills hundreds as being 'evil', what makes the death of hundreds as a result of the sun any different?

[Gothmog]

That does make sense, however, I would say that the sun is not good or bad, but some of the effects of the sun are good.
This is the very point I am trying to show. Too much of any thing ceases to be "Good"

[JPMaximilian]

How can they be anyhting but human concepts? We have existe don this planet for a fraction of its total age and an even smaller fraction of the age of the universe. For good and evil to be objective universal laws they need to viewed exactly the same everywhere in the universe at all times. The fcat that this doesn't even happen on Earth invalidates this theory.

I think that they are concepts revealed by God. If you don't believe in God, I'll have to try and convince you there is before I can talk about Good and Evil. Even still, if I don't believe in God, a vote or opinion of others around the world wouldn't change the objectivity of Math. Without God I don't think there is Good or Evil.


Did dinosaurs have a concept of good and evil? Would alines have the same concepts of good and evil as we do?

I'm willing to say that Dinosaurs can't reason. I don't know of any Aliens (I assume that's what you meant) so I don't know if they could reason/understand what good and evil are.



But then this would invalidate your idea that good and evil are objective, if you are evn prepared to consider a different viewpoint.


Objectivity is not my opinion, but a truth revealed by God. If I didn't believe it, it would still be true, (math example)


Then define goodness without any reference to evil.


Goodness is doing the will of God.


You described the actions of a storm that kills hundreds as being 'evil', what makes the death of hundreds as a result of the sun any different?

That wouldn't be any different. I don't think that the sun is good or bad. Some (as in not all) effects of the sun are not good, some are.

[JPMaximilian]

This is the very point I am trying to show. Too much of any thing ceases to be "Good"

For many things, excess does lead to an evil, eating is good, but eating too much is not, (gluttony). I don't think that this applies to everything or "any thing," however, some things are limitless and are always good. Love is always good.

[scotsboyuk]

I think that they are concepts revealed by God. If you don't believe in God, I'll have to try and convince you there is before I can talk about Good and Evil. Even still, if I don't believe in God, a vote or opinion of others around the world wouldn't change the objectivity of Math. Without God I don't think there is Good or Evil.
If twelve is divided exactly in two, which number are you left with?



Objectivity is not my opinion, but a truth revealed by God. If I didn't believe it, it would still be true, (math example)

That is only valid if one belives in God. Something, which is reveale dby God is only true if one belives in God. For centuries those who believe din God refuted that the world was round, yet mathematics shows us that it is. The word of God is interpreted by flawed human beings, to ascertain that that word is perfect is therfore foolish.



Goodness is doing the will of God.
Interesting answer.

Let me respond with a question; how would you describe killing thousands of innocent people? Good or evil?

[scotsboyuk]

For many things, excess does lead to an evil, eating is good, but eating too much is not, (gluttony). I don't think that this applies to everything or "any thing," however, some things are limitless and are always good. Love is always good.
What of unrequited love that leads to obsession?

[Gothmog]

Please keep the posts related to the Works of Tolkien. Discussions of "Real World Religion" are not allowed on TTF.

Thanks.

[JPMaximilian]

I sense traps, but I'm interested in hearing your arguments so here goes:

If twelve is divided exactly in two, which number are you left with?

If you mean 12 divided by 2 then 6.


That is only valid if one belives in God.


I agree that if you don't believe in God you can't define good and evil except by social constructs, which would be useless to me personally.


The word of God is interpreted by flawed human beings, to ascertain that that word is perfect is therfore foolish.

Religious were wrong about the world being flat. They weren't making a decision on faith or morals, so they have no credibility to say that the world is flat. I don't know where in the Bible it says that the world is flat either. As far as flawed human beings, I believe that the magisterium interprets scripture and guided by the holy spirit, will not go astray.



Let me respond with a question; how would you describe killing thousands of innocent people? Good or evil?

Evil.

[JPMaximilian]

Please keep the posts related to the Works of Tolkien. Discussions of "Real World Religion" are not allowed on TTF.

Thanks.


I think that is unwise, but I will comply. Apparently I was writing the previous post when your message was posted.

[Gothmog]

I think that is unwise, but I will comply. Apparently I was writing the previous post when your message was posted.
You were doing so. :)

Thank you :)

[scotsboyuk]

I sense traps, but I'm interested in hearing your arguments so here goes:

You must have the intuition of an elf. :p



If you mean 12 divided by 2 then 6.

XII divided in half leaves VII, silly I know, but it still goes to show that not everything is always as it seems.


I agree that if you don't believe in God you can't define good and evil except by social constructs, which would be useless to me personally.

Belief in God is a social construct. You believe what others in your doscourse believe, unless you are outside that discourse you will see it as being fact.


Religious were wrong about the world being flat. They weren't making a decision on faith or morals, so they have no credibility to say that the world is flat. I don't know where in the Bible it says that the world is flat either. As far as flawed human beings, I believe that the magisterium interprets scripture and guided by the holy spirit, will not go astray.

They were 'doing the will of God' in supporting a flat world theory. They honestly believed that they were, we know that they were wrong, but they didn't, to them the world was flat, there was no proof to the contrary. Yet we now know that just because something appears a certain way does not make it true.

Guide dby the Holy Spirit? If one looks to the Tolkien once could argue that both Gandalf and Saruman are guided by something similar to a Holy Spirit, one works for 'good', the other for 'evil'. This is important because it demonstrates the idea I have bene trying to put across, duality. How can Gandalf be guided by the Valar to do good if someone isn't doing evil for him to respond to? If Sauron and/or Saruman weren't perpetrating evil then Gandalf would have no need to do 'good' in relation to them. Equally, Sauron would have no need to do 'evil' if the Valar didn't promote 'good'. The two are dependent on one another.
[/quote]

Evil.

Yet King Richard I the Lionheart, arguably the greatest of all the Christian crusaders did just that. He belived he was enacting God's will in fighting the Muslims for control of the Holy Land. Who are we, as humans, to decide what is and what isn't God's will? At the time of the crusades those actions were God's will, sanctioned by the highest auhtorities of the Church. Today we look on them as evil, why? If good and evil are objective and timeless, as you say, why have those opinions changed? Why does the Church now want closer ties with Muslims when it once saw them as evil?

If killing is wrong, is Gandalf evil for participating in battles were people are killed? Is he evil for instigating such battles in the first place? He is a servant of the Valar, the force sof good in Tolkien's world, yet he participates in events, which can be described as evil?

Is Frodo evil for giving into the Ring inside Mount Doom or is it a case of frailty? Were Frodo's actions predetermined by the Valar, in which case none of his actions can be described as evil since they were the will of the Valar? If, on the other hand, the Ring wanted to find Frodo, then can his actions be described as evil since it can be argued that he was carrying out the will of the Ring?

[Elemmire]

Wow... guys... I really don't know what to say. This morning when I last checked this thread was half as long as it is now. I read through everything, but I'm still slightly lost. So I'll wait a little while before getting really involved.

For the most part, I agree with scotsboyuk, except I think you have to take the theology of ME into consideration, instead of fighting over the philosophy of the "Real World."


XII divided in half leaves VII, silly I know, but it still goes to show that not everything is always as it seems.
Actually, there's a better way to do it.

How about 1+1 doesn't always equal two?

If you put 1 female of an animal species with 1 male, then you don't know what number you're going to end up with.

Likewise, 1 male Siamese fighting fish + 1 male Siamese fighting fish=
well, usually 0.

[scotsboyuk]

@Elemmire

When looking at 'evil' in the context of Tolkien is becomes apparent to me that one must recognise a central theme that runs through his work; eternal evil. Throughout Tolkien's works there is an evil force to be be opposed by whomeve ris championing good at the time.

Even when evil is defeated it isn't a true defeat as that evil returns to face the forces good time and time again. Even Melkor, beng banished into the void, is not a true defeat of evil for two reasons; firstly because Sauron takes his place as the evil force in the world and secondly because Melkor will not be truly destroyed until the end of time.

This continuity of evil is actually very important because it allowed Tolkien to define a force for good in the world, which embodied those characteristics he felt were best. By constantly having an evil presence running through his works, which had to be opposed he could also have a force for good, which he could use to demonstarte all that is good and worth fighting for in, not only Middle Earth, but also the real world.

[Elemmire]

Very nice, scotsboy. And wow! You're really quick with responding!

Gyaaa! I don't know how much of that can be debated, and your "detractors" are not currently online, I think.

I can't argue with you! I agree with you!

So.....

How do you think Morgoth became evil in the first place? That hasn't been covered yet, has it?

[scotsboyuk]

@Elemmire

Now that is an interesting question!

How does any evil begin? Does it not say that Melkor tried to dominate the song and that his chastisement from iluvatur caused the shame from whence his anger originated. On the surface this would seem to be the classic tale of the son rebeling against the father and wanting to emulate, if not surpass the father. Pride and shame are a potent mixture and Melkor, as the mightiest of the Ainur, would have had both in abundance.

Tolkien at his simplictic best?

[Elemmire]

Mmm. Simplistic, yes. But it still leaves questions:

But why? And why Melkor? Why not Aule, for example? In many ways, they were similar (it says that somewhere. I'm too lazy to pick up the book and look right now, even though it's sitting right next to me). Why was it that Melkor was doomed, one might say, and Aule spared this?
Was it something in Melkor's nature that made him crave domination over the Music?

If so, was it not Eru who created him with this nature?

And if Eru did create him this way, did he not doom Melkor to be evil?

I don't believe this has been touched on too much yet...

[scotsboyuk]

@Elemmire

It is a common theme to have the strongest and mightiest rebel against the established order, it adds to the tragedy of it that the greatest of the Ainar should rebel.

Interestingly both Sauron and Saruman are Maiar of Aule.

[Elemmire]

Yes... and the Noldor were Aule's favourites among the Eldar. Interesting connections.

So... no insights other than "theme"? :p

What about this part?
If so, was it not Eru who created him with this nature?
And if Eru did create him this way, did he not doom Melkor to be evil?
This would go back to debating about the nature of God, I'm guessing...

*sigh*

[scotsboyuk]

@Elemmire

It perhaps possible to argue the very opposite, that it is the Valar who are governed by pre-destination rather than Melkor. Perhaps, in making Melkor more powerful and knowledgable than the the rest of the Ainar, Iluvatar endowed him with the ability to think for himself outside of Iluvatar's plan. The Valar on the other hand can be said to be pillars, supporting Illuvatar's plan and seeking nothing other than to preserve it, neither to alter or destroy it.

[JPMaximilian]

How about 1+1 doesn't always equal two?

If you put 1 female of an animal species with 1 male, then you don't know what number you're going to end up with.

Likewise, 1 male Siamese fighting fish + 1 male Siamese fighting fish=
well, usually 0.

I'm talking about integers.

[Elemmire]

Oh! Someone else!

I know you are, but do simple integers exist outside of the realm of the mind? Prove it to me one way or the other, I haven't quite decided yet. :p

[JPMaximilian]

Oh! Someone else!

I know you are, but do simple integers exist outside of the realm of the mind? Prove it to me one way or the other, I haven't quite decided yet. :p

That doesn't matter for my point to be valid. Prove a side for yourself if you want to know.

[Gothmog]

As a matter of interest 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. If this was a universal constant then we would not be having this conversation in this manner ;)

JPMaximilian. I have sent you a PM in response to your question about this thread. I hope it helps :)

[JPMaximilian]

As a matter of interest 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. If this was a universal constant then we would not be having this conversation in this manner ;)

Can you give me an example of this? In terms of math how can 1+1 not =2? I think people are arguing against a universal constant because they don't want one. But if they believe that there are no univeral constants then my question has still gone unanswered.

[Gothmog]

If 1 + 1 always equalled 2 then computers could not work. As far as a computer is concerned 1 + 1 = 10.

[Ithrynluin]

Please keep any discussions on religion related to Tolkien.

This is not directed at any post in this thread so far, it is only a notice not to stray into discussing religion alone, completely unrelated to Tolkien, since at the moment a ban is placed upon discussing politics and religion, unless these have to do with Tolkien and his creation in some way.

Thank you

[Elemmire]

Please keep any discussions on religion related to Tolkien.

This is not directed at any post in this thread so far, it is only a notice not to stray into discussing religion alone, completely unrelated to Tolkien, since at the moment a ban is placed upon discussing politics and religion, unless these have to do with Tolkien and his creation in some way.

Thank you
Perhaps you should ban discussion of mathematics too... :p
This is getting somewhat tangential...

That doesn't matter for my point to be valid. Prove a side for yourself if you want to know.
Ouch.

But you're right. Obscure mathematical theory really doesn't pertain to the topic one way or the other, so I'm sorry I brought it back up...
It perhaps possible to argue the very opposite, that it is the Valar who are governed by pre-destination rather than Melkor. Perhaps, in making Melkor more powerful and knowledgable than the the rest of the Ainar, Iluvatar endowed him with the ability to think for himself outside of Iluvatar's plan. The Valar on the other hand can be said to be pillars, supporting Illuvatar's plan and seeking nothing other than to preserve it, neither to alter or destroy it.
An interesting argument, but where would Aule, who wanted to create his own Children, fit into this?

[Arvedui]

I don't quite support the idea that Melkor was given any special treatment as sctosboyuk suggested.
Each and everyone of the Valar came from the thoughts of Ilúvatar. Therefore, none of the Valar can have any part that comes from outside of his/her thoughts. That just doesn't make sense.

When it comes to Evil, I think that it is best described in The Music of the Ainur, as written in the Book of Lost Tales:Thou Melko shalt see that no theme can be played save it come in the end of Ilúvatar's self, nor can any alter the music in Ilúvatar's despite. He that attempts this finds himself in the endbut aiding me in devising a thing of still greater grandeur and more complex wonder: - for lo! through Melkohave terror as fire, and sorrow like dark waters, wrath like thunder, and evil as far from my light as the depths of the uttermost of the dark places, come into the design that I laid before you. Through him has pain and misery been made in the clash of overwhelming musics; and with confusion of sound have cruelty, and ravening, and darkness, loathly mire and all putresence of thought or thing, foul mists and violent flame, cold without mercy, been borne, and death without hope. This gives a much fuller picture on how Evil came to Arda. From this it is my opinion that Ilúvatar was prepared for what Melko might cause, as he almost immediately could give this "feedback."
Too bad this was edited into the rather tame version in The Silmarillion...

[scotsboyuk]

I don't quite support the idea that Melkor was given any special treatment as sctosboyuk suggested.
Each and everyone of the Valar came from the thoughts of Ilúvatar. Therefore, none of the Valar can have any part that comes from outside of his/her thoughts. That just doesn't make sense.

I was merely postulating one possible explanation, I do recognise the inherent weaknesses in such an argument though.

I suppose that to understand evil in relation to Tolkien's works, one must also ask the question, why? If Iluvatur intended for there to be both good and bad as part of an overall 'plan', then one has to ask why? It might be an unfair question as ask why a supreme being such as Iluvatar should do anything, but of course, as much as Melkor and the Valar come from Iluvatar, Iluvatar comes from Tolkien, a human being.

What strikes me about the passage that you quoted is that Iluvatar says that in trying to sing against against Iluvatar's music, Melkor is in fact aiding him to create something even better. Could this be the reason for Melkor's evil? Could it be that it is a case of opposites and balance, that to have harmony, one must also have disharmony? Perhaps Iluvatar's plan needs struggle and something to oppose it, after all aren't the best things created through a hard won struggle? Perhaps this is an overly simplictic view, but one wonders what the point of it all would be without the struggle, without something to work for.

[Elemmire]

It doesn't seem simplistic to me. It seems quite plausible. I'd say more, but I've got to go to class in less than a minute...

[Arvedui]

I think that you are touching bringing up a couple of good points. Very good, actually.
Last things first:
I think that what you are saying is basically that "action" causes "reaction," right? And what Ilúvatar probably hints at is that the reaction will bring forth things that were not originally intended in The Music of the Ainur. And isn't that, as you say, just as it is in life today? Someone brings forth an idea, others counter it, and the final solution ends up as a mix between those?

Concerning if Ilúvatar had a plan for the existance of both good and evil, then I would have to say taht I don't think that he had a plan per se, but that he understood that as he brought forth the Ainur from his own thoughts, then some of them were more or less inclined to evil. If Ilúvatar represents "all," then it would have been impossible for everything to be good. Without the presence of evil, free will would have been restricted from the start, wouldn't it? And I believe that Tolkien in order to make his legendarium/mythology plausible, would have to base The Silmarillion on the world as it is today. And we all know that both good and evil are represented.

[scotsboyuk]

@Arvedui

Essentially your surmisation of my last post is correct, but then there is the question of how Melkor could react to the song in his own way. If Melkor comes from Iluvatar then there is nothing he can do that is not in keeping with Iluvatar, hence he cannot make any change to the song that wasn't intended. However, what if Iluvatar imparted Melkor with a quality, which allowed him to do just that, to oppose, that which Iluvatar had created and/or intended? Could this quality be described as 'evil'? Certainly if one considers working against the natural order wrong, then such a quality could be defined as 'evil'.

[Arvedui]

I believe that the quality in itself is not 'evil,' but the actions that his qualities bring about are surely 'evil' in my opinion.

And I think that it is quite possible that Melko was created as an 'opposer.' It would actually make sense for Ilúvatar to have someone around that wouldn't necessarrily agree with everything that was done.

[HLGStrider]

Threads like this simply prove how useless and annoying a ban on religious subjects is. Tolkien is too deep a work not to eventually carry over what we are discussing into the real world. It conjures up too many real-world paralels in discussion, and the forum is poorer because we constantly are now being interupted in our debates by people reminding us that we are "Near breaking the rule." GASP! Brother. ..

Anyway, I could never understand the logic that says just because we are incapable of knowing truth, it may not exist. Whenever the idea of objective good and objective evil come up, someone brings up that not everyone agrees. Melkor wouldn't have seen himself as evil. It depends on your view point. . .etc.

There are plenty of things people are incapable of knowing that exist. A blind man is incapable of sight, yet light exists. A deaf man cannot hear, yet sound exists. I am incapable of figuring out most higher math (quadratic equations mean nothing to me) yet they have answers.

Simply because Melkor may argue that something isn't evil when Illuvatar says it is doesn't mean that evil doesn't exist in this state. It simply means that either Melkor or Illuvatar is wrong.

My own personal theory (in real life, GASP!) is that truth exists and humans are meant to try and find it, but we will often fail. I don't see why it would be any different within Tolkien, which is, if anything, a starker reality where good and evil are more clear cut in most cases.

Just because you fail to find something doesn't always mean it doesn't exist. If we limit truth to what we humans can observe, we are selfishly denying I'd say 99% of the universe.

Now, I do not know if Tolkien ever states that Illuvatar is perfect. It states all powerful somewhere, I believe, but I couldn't give you the chapter. It does, however, state that there is good and there is evil. I don't think these are objective within Tolkien. Can anyone prove me wrong?

If they were objective, I don't think we would see so many moral quandries in the book. Do you remember that bit lamenting war where a man is trying to decide whether it is better to be held responsible when called before Eru for "Killing his fellow men" or allowing "innocents to be slaughtered" because he wouldn't fight? Why, if there is no objective right or wrong, would he be debating whether Eru would look down upon his decision? Moral decisions are everywhere in Tolkien, often hard ones where there seems to be no right answer.

Obviously there is some right and wrong and Eru is obviously seen as a judge of it. Now, we might logically derive that Tolkien would want a perfect judge, but it is a leap of logic that goes more on what is likely than what is logical.

[scotsboyuk]

There are plenty of things people are incapable of knowing that exist. A blind man is incapable of sight, yet light exists. A deaf man cannot hear, yet sound exists. I am incapable of figuring out most higher math (quadratic equations mean nothing to me) yet they have answers.

Having already made my point, on the subjects you raise, previously, I will not go over them again, except to comment upon the above quotation.

If human beings didn't have a sense of sight, would light exist? One may argue that it would because it is a physical component of the universe, but if no human being had ever been able to perceive light, then how would we know what light was? We wouldn't even be able to have this conversation, because light, as far as human beings are concerned, would not exist. One may argue that a race of blind humans could use technology to detect light, but how and why would we do that? Having lived for millenia without light, how would we recognise it and how would we understand it without vision? Why would would we even bother trying to detect it? With no ability to perceive light and no use for it, why bother?

We only know, that which we percieve, and perception is a subjective matter. Existence comes in many forms, perception is the key to existence. Just because one set of rules tells us something, does not necessarily make that set of rules correct. Then again, it doesn't necessarily make it wrong either.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by HLGStrider

Threads like this simply prove how useless and annoying a ban on religious subjects is. Tolkien is too deep a work not to eventually carry over what we are discussing into the real world. It conjures up too many real-world paralels in discussion, and the forum is poorer because we constantly are now being interupted in our debates by people reminding us that we are "Near breaking the rule." GASP! Brother. ..Threads like this prove nothing of the sort. If it is not related to Tolkien then it does not belong here (especially as we are in "The Halls of Tolkienology" fora) If it is related to Tolkien then carry on.
Anyway, I could never understand the logic that says just because we are incapable of knowing truth, it may not exist. Whenever the idea of objective good and objective evil come up, someone brings up that not everyone agrees. Melkor wouldn't have seen himself as evil. It depends on your view point. . .etc.

There are plenty of things people are incapable of knowing that exist. A blind man is incapable of sight, yet light exists. A deaf man cannot hear, yet sound exists. I am incapable of figuring out most higher math (quadratic equations mean nothing to me) yet they have answers.

Simply because Melkor may argue that something isn't evil when Illuvatar says it is doesn't mean that evil doesn't exist in this state. It simply means that either Melkor or Illuvatar is wrong.
The logic is very simple. If we cannot Prove that something exists then there is the possibility that it does not. If we are incapable of knowing this truth then we also are incapable of proving it. As for Objective Good or Evil, to be objective it would need to be seen by all people in the same way. Much like when water boils it can be observed by all people to turn to steam. Now the observation that boiling water becomes steam is objective (so far as I am aware it happens every time water boils), a statement that water boils at 100º C is however, subjective.

Light does not exist as an objectively separate thing, it is our subjective name for a very small part of the Electro-magnetic spectrum, there is far more in the infra-red and the ultra-violet than between those very close points. Likewise, sound is what we subjectively call those frequencies of vibration in gas, liquid or solids that our ears react to. There are many more different frequencies of such vibrations that we do not “Hear”.

Please provide a quote where Ilúvatar says it is evil since according to Ilúvatar, all of Melkor’s deeds are to the greater glory of the work.
My own personal theory (in real life, GASP!) is that truth exists and humans are meant to try and find it, but we will often fail. I don't see why it would be any different within Tolkien, which is, if anything, a starker reality where good and evil are more clear cut in most cases.

Just because you fail to find something doesn't always mean it doesn't exist. If we limit truth to what we humans can observe, we are selfishly denying I'd say 99% of the universe.Yes this truth may well exist, no one can prove a negative. However, when you fail to find something it opens up the possibility that it does not exist.

You are correct in what you say about limits. However, this also holds true in limiting the “Truth” to what you believe it to be.
Now, I do not know if Tolkien ever states that Illuvatar is perfect. It states all powerful somewhere, I believe, but I couldn't give you the chapter. It does, however, state that there is good and there is evil. I don't think these are objective within Tolkien. Can anyone prove me wrong?

If they were objective, I don't think we would see so many moral quandries in the book. Do you remember that bit lamenting war where a man is trying to decide whether it is better to be held responsible when called before Eru for "Killing his fellow men" or allowing "innocents to be slaughtered" because he wouldn't fight? Why, if there is no objective right or wrong, would he be debating whether Eru would look down upon his decision? Moral decisions are everywhere in Tolkien, often hard ones where there seems to be no right answer.

Obviously there is some right and wrong and Eru is obviously seen as a judge of it. Now, we might logically derive that Tolkien would want a perfect judge, but it is a leap of logic that goes more on what is likely than what is logical.

Good and Evil are within Arda and seen only by those in Arda. The one thing that is never shown in Tolkien’s work is what Ilúvatar sees as Evil. Even Melkor’s most evil deeds only add to the greater glory of the work. So the views on Good and Evil in Arda (very much like our own views in the real world) are subjective. Any Objective view would be that of Ilúvatar which is not known to any other, only to Ilúvatar himself (even the Valar only have their subjective view).

The one seeming exception to this is Melkor’s possible deed of “nihilistic destruction of Arda” which was (it would seem) prevented by the War of the Jewels and ended with Melkor being removed from Arda.

[scotsboyuk]

But when Tolkien lets Eru say that "For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." he is merely re-iterating Boethius point, that evil is more harmful to the malefactor and that in the end the divine plan will prevail and evil will only have contributed to that.

Now, we certainly cannot prove that Eru himself was evil, but when we learn that "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me[Eru], nor can any alter the music in my[Eru's] despite." what are we supposed to think? Does this not portray Eru as omniscient, and also does it not mean that evil was part of the divine plan?
Having 'defended' Boethius, rather succesffully despite Theodoric's best efforts, in a mock trial at university I do feel some sympathy for him! :p However, I shan't get into Boethius here, rather I would like to comment on the above quotation.

I don't believe the quotation from Tolkien is supportive of Boethius, if one examines the quotation more closely then one would perhaps see that it isn't necessarily indicative of Iluvatar including 'evil' in a 'divine plan'. 'Evil' is a word, which we human beings have invented to describe certain modes of behaviour, which the majority of the population find to be unacceptable. Our view of what constitutes 'evil' changes depending on our political, cultural and religious backgrounds. For example, an ardent Nazi may not think it evil to hate Jews, unlike most non-Nazis. Now if Germany had won WWII then it seems likely that the dominant paradigm would be one, in which anti-Jewish feeling was something to be encouraged and feeling sympathetic towards Jews looked upon as 'evil'.

If we try and think outside our discourse for a moment, we might imagine that a being, such a Iluvatar, would not necessarily operate on the same level as we do. Those events Iluvatar sets in motion may be interpretated by lesser beings as good and evil, but are they? Does Nature interpret a lion killing an antelope as evil or Mother Theresa helping the sick as good? We as human beings label things, those things would still happen if we did not exist; antelope would still die and there would still be disease, they would be no more or less good or evil in objective terms.

The prevalent discourse at the moment is the Western mindset, the majority of humanity seeing the world in terms of duality, good and evil. Why is it ok for Christians to eat meat? The Bible clearly states 'Thou shall not kill', it doesn't draw a distinction between killing humans and any other creature, so why do most Christians not belive it evil to kill a cow for food? Humanity fights against Nature, we try to define Nature and impose values and restrictions upon it.

[Gothmog]

Tolkien's Ilúvatar does - to me - not resemble an impartial and remote creator-deity, and hence one that appears beyond any human conception of good and evil, rather, he seems to be partial and side with the "good" (as can be gathered from some examples) and thus resembles very much the God of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) who re-defines his own laws and meddles with his own creation within time...
While I agree that Tolkien's Ilúvatar does not appear to be impartial he is for the most part remote. He allows the Valar the managment of Arda only "meddling" when it is outside their scope or power, much the same as the Valar themselves came to do with Middle-earth. :) He also, to me, appears to be beyond human (or Elvish and even Valar) conceptions of good and evil. While he does indeed seem to be partial and side with the "good" it is also evident that Ilúvatar has different ideas of what is evil.

[scotsboyuk]

@Walter

I agree with your comments on the applicability of real world situations to Tolkien's works, but one must remember that the worlds Tolkien created are derived from our own world. Everything within Tolkien's works came from the mind of a man, a man influenced by our world just a smuch as anyone else. Comparisons between the real world and Tolkien's works can prove useful, but I do agree that one must be careful in how far one takes such comparisons.

My comment on the 'Western mindset' does include the entire world. Whilst other discourses do exist, the prevalent one is that of the West, which I take to mean those cultures stemming from the Judeo-Christian tradition, hence, this definition would also include Islam (in this context!). The only cultures where such a discourse would not exist would be where such religions/ways of life, such as Buddhism, Confucism, Toaism, etc exist. However, even in such examples, the spread of Western secular, as well as ecclesiastical, values has spread and reinforced a Western dualist discourse on the nature of good and evil.

While I agree that Tolkien's Ilúvatar does not appear to be impartial he is for the most part remote. He allows the Valar the managment of Arda only "meddling" when it is outside their scope or power, much the same as the Valar themselves came to do with Middle-earth. :)
The Valar very much remind me of the Greco-Roman pantheon, in so far as they have characteristic mortal traits and care for the world enough to become directly involved at points.


He also, to me, appears to be beyond human (or Elvish and even Valar) conceptions of good and evil. While he does indeed seem to be partial and side with the "good" it is also evident that Ilúvatar has different ideas of what is evil.Evidently, since the evil in Tolkien's works, ultimately, derives from Iluvatar.