[DaughterofVana]

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.

Yes. War is a terrible, horrible thing. Yet in some instances, it is the only way we can defend ourselves. To not do so, to not "kill," is to submit to a worse sin: that of suicide. To not stand up for oneself and the things he or she believes in, to be trampled an enemy that wishes only to kill and destroy, that is madness. The orcs didn't just want to take over Rohan--they wanted to kill every last man, woman, and child within it, and burn the bodies until the black smoke rose into the air and the sky turned foul. A vast difference from just varying beliefs. It's all well and good if you believe differently then me, but if you try and *kill me* because of it? You threaten my family and my home and my life and the lives of my children? Stand back. I'm drawing my sword.

Okay. So were the orcs "bad" in themselves? I tend to think no, because they were once good. Are they not created, but perverted? Melkor and Sauron are both perversions on what were once holy, Eru-created things. Orcs, too. But is that creation "bad" now? Sure is. If a piece of cheese has gone all moldy and sour, and little bugs are crawling in and out of it, it still is cheese. But it's "bad" cheese, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. Even though it once *was* good and then *became* bad, it doesn't mean that it still is bad now. A car rusts from the inside out. It is still a car? Yeah, you could call it that. But it ceases to be a "car" in the sense of the word. And how do I know it was a "car" once and now is not? Because I was told it was. Prove me wrong there, and you might as well prove me wrong everywhere else. If there is no bad and good, then why are we having this conversation in the first place? We wouldn't even know what "bad" and "good" was.

I hope I accomplished something in this post. If I said what everyone else was saying, well and good. But I tried; if that means anything.

-'Vana

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]