[DaughterofVana]

And if he is good, even a little, than it is not possible for him to be evil, or even bad, simply a bit corrupt...

But that *is* the definition of "bad," at least Tolkien-decreed bad. "Corrupt." The viewpoint of bad and good that I believe Tolkien had (and that he put forth in ME) is not that bad and good are two seperate, conflicting entities (that is Dualism), but that bad is corrupted good (that is... dare I say it?... the :cringe: Christian viewpoint).

Here's what I said about it in the other thread:

In the Sil, it says that Melkor could not create things of his own, only pervert and bend things to his will. I took it that Sauron, as a "disciple," per se, of Melkor, is the same. Therefore, there isn't *really* an either-or stance on the issue, because when you say that someone is for the "evil" side, they are in actuality for the side of the perverted good.
No, I'm not repeating myself. This is a drastic step away from the "Is it not only a dream? Is it not all relative?" philosophy that some might use to explain ethics. In the Christian stance, good was good and then part of it became bad; not that good and bad are two different things existing independently. That is dualism, and something that I tend to believe didn't exist in ME. For if it did, we would have a *good* Eru and a *bad* Eru, existing independently, who each created Their creations (Manwe, Melkor, etc.) independently from each other. If that happened, then ME would have been a very different place. But we didn't have that--we had Eru creating the Valar, and one of those going horribly wrong. We have the perversion of good into bad. (And just because he said he didn't use allegory, GaladrieloftheOlden, doesn't mean that Tolkien didn't express truth as he saw it in his books.)
The fact that we have a title for something "good" and a title for something "bad" expresses that there is indeed a difference between the two. When we call something "bad" (as aragornreborn alluded to), we *have* to have some sort of standard to apply it towards. Because if we didn't, then how would we know if good *was* good and bad *was* bad? I can only tell if this red is the same shade as that flower outside my window if I can see and compare. And, likewise, I know very well if something isn't red, because when I hold it up against something that is *already* red it looks blue instead. "Okay, so how do I know I'm calling "red" red and "blue" blue? How do I know that this flower is actually red in the first place?" Because that knowledge had to be there before the titles would make any sense. If I differentiate between red and blue, it *must* be because there are some inherent differences between the two, and not just a different way of looking at it. I would have called both red, then, to follow up with the metaphor, and not bothered calling something blue in the first place.
You can't just say that this is learned behavior, and that's why I think one thing good and another bad. Because from the same people I learned the definition of bad and good from are the same people I learned the pretty red thing outside my window is called "flower" (and that it is red). If you go *that* route--that maybe the people who taught me bad and good were mistaken--then you better not stop there. If good and bad is an illusion, then *everything* is an illusion. Therefore, life has no meaning. Not a very nice thought. "Excuse me, I'm going to go hide under the bed."
So. Good and bad *must* have some difference, then, because we have affixed titles to them that call them what they are. Okay, then what about the opinion that the titles affixed to "good" and "bad" can be interchangeable depending on the context? Well. Is there anyone here who genuinely believes, in his or her own heart of hearts, that war, murder, pillaging, etc. *isn't* bad in itself? Sure, we may say that in some *instances* it is okay, but that doesn't mean that it makes the actual *act* okay. It just means that, in that particular instance, the standards are dropped because something else is more important. The definition is not changed.

I feel really odd quoting myself, but since I would have ended up saying the same thing, then I decided to do this. Go to the "Tolkien and Killing" thread in books for more discussions on good v. evil. This thread is about whether the characters listed above are "good" guys or not... not an extreme difference, but one nonetheless.

-'Vana