I was thinking about the original question more in terms of St. Augustine vs. Manicheism.
In Manicheism [which might be seen as a combination of pagan,Zoroastrian, & Gnostic Christian elements]'good' and 'evil' are a duality, two opposing principles of light and darkness, god and devil, soul and body. These two principles are coexistent, objective realities which strive for control.
Opposed to this view, was the view of St. Augustine whose basic premise was that there is only God and from him proceeds creation. God and the actions of God(since there is nothing 'other'with which to compare) are the primary standard for what is subjectively called 'good'. All creatures are variations of this good according to the choices made by them through the grace of free will. There is no objective 'evil' only shadings of the original good; subjective reactions against the 'good' of the Creator.
Tolkien, it seems to me, attempts an uneven balance between these two poles of thought. There are objective, real examples of evil - the Ring, for one, and even Morgoth and his twisted creations which have fallen so far from the good. But still it is 'good' of the Creator which is always the final standard for the outcome. Underlying all creation is the hand of Providence, continuously offering moments of grace and light as needed.
Morgoth, imo, is not/cannot be evil by nature. His nature is Eru's nature; & Eru's nature is the standard for the subjectively termed 'good'.
Is Morgoth evil by choice? If you mean by this does he deny 'good' and choose 'evil', I would say he can't even do this - there is no 'evil' to choose.
Morgoth is termed 'evil' because his choice of actions are for those actions opposed to the will of Eru. Given the possibility of grace and the underlying pervasiveness of Providence, even Morgoth has potential for an epiphany and for redemption.
__________________
Eldest, that’s what I am . . . I knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.
|