Absolutely Evil

[Boromir88]

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 at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil.... In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to wholly evil will as is possible.~Letter #183

I ran across this letter and started thinking about what is "absolute evil," and how Tolkien thinks about it. Now he says in his writings there is no absolute, or whole evil (and I think I'll take his word for it ), but Sauron is the closest to being absolutely evil.

I've been thinking what is "absolute evil" and can anything actually be absolutely evil? Tolkien didn't seem to agree with anything being absolutely evil, but can someone be "wholly evil?"

I think of absolute evil in a few different ways, perhaps it's just sums up everything, but...
1) Being evil from the very first breath to your very last. Which I've always believed that no one is "born" evil, we all have the capability of doing evil, but I just don't think that someone can be evil right as a baby.

2) Eru being the creator here and I think the representation of absolute good...I mean Tolkien doesn't say there isn't an absolute good? So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

3) One beyond any ounce or smidget of good in them whatsoever. I mean Sauron doesn't go around starting war and killing people unless he has to...which I guess is a good thing. He offers treaties and basically says "be my slaves for the rest of your pathetic life," but hey he doesn't ruthlessly go around just destroying everyone...then there would be no one to rule .

I think that sums it about up, of course I'd love to hear your input.

[The 1,000 Reader]

I think it means two things.

1. No one is born evil.

2. No one does something thinking that they themselves are evil. They see themselves as a good person, or the person does not see at all.

[Boromir88]

2. No one does something thinking that they themselves are evil. They see themselves as a good person, or the person does not see at all.

Interesting, and I agree. I think this describes Saruman quite well. I think a majority of the "evil-doers" in history, in literature...etc had felt like what they were doing was right, it was just. It's sort of like the ends and means sort of thing. Who cares if I commit these heinous acts the end will justify the means. And there's a quote from the Council of Elrond where we see Saruman fit perfectly into this category:

We can join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows; its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.~The Council of Elrond

To Saruman it doesn't matter how he does it, who gets hurt, what he does, what matters is in the end he thinks that what he's doing is right. He thinks what he's doing is why the Istari were sent to Middle-earth. He thinks, doesn't matter if he joins with Sauron, because in the end he plans to backstab him and complete his mission. And we all know Saruman is fooled and has leddown the wrong path.

[Kuruharan]

Eru being the creator here and I think the representation of absolute good...I mean Tolkien doesn't say there isn't an absolute good? So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

I believe this is partially why Tolkien did not think there could be absolute evil.

Judging from some of Morgoth's behavior, I don't think it would be too much to say that Tolkien associated evil in many respects with nullity. Morgoth just destroys and ruins. In that light, Tolkien's comment about evil=0 makes perfect sense. Something absolutely evil would destroy itself because that would be the ultimate conclusion of its own evil, the necessary end point of that line of thought and action. Sauron is never associated with that sort of thinking, and even Morgoth was only vaguely.

[Legolas]

I'm caught up in a long paper on Paradise Lost due in a few hours, so this hits close to what my mind is on (but coincidentally, I'm short on time and will have to return later).

I'm not sure how Absolute Evil is defined. According to the definitions you've presented, Absolute Evil would only be able to exist in the absence of some Absolute Good (Eru) or perhaps be equal in origin. Would something that is Absolute Evil would have to be eternally present, if for no other reason than that its end would be good?

[Cailín]

What a complicated issue! I have been thinking a lot on good and evil recently... And came up with no conclusions, so this might make no sense at all.

1) Being evil from the very first breath to your very last. Which I've always believed that no one is "born" evil, we all have the capability of doing evil, but I just don't think that someone can be evil right as a baby.

I often hear say that young children are innocent and unspoiled. Before children learn morals, they are neither capable of doing right nor wrong, since they have no concept of these things. As long as you are unaware of the law, you cannot break it. Consequentially, most and possibly all children have a unique self-centeredness, allowing them to experiment freely with the boundaries of human morals without feeling restraint out of fear for causing others pain. In that sense, children are really the most evil beings of us all, but blissfully unaware of it - till they see the reaction of their surroundings.

As soon as being evil becomes a choice, it cannot be pure anymore. However, humans perceive evil that was not done consciously as a lesser crime.

I am not sure what I am trying to say. If someone is absolutely evil, he or she will not know good. S/he cannot choose to be not evil. Is a person then still evil? Is not what we humans think of as evil only evil because it was a willful act?

2) Eru being the creator here and I think the representation of absolute good...I mean Tolkien doesn't say there isn't an absolute good? So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

Assuming dualism has some grain of truth in it, if there is absolute good, there is absolute evil. By his mere existence, Eru would have ensured the presence of an opposing force. In that sense, he could have created it indeed.

The only thing I eventually can come up with: wholly good is, as wholly bad, the absence of all action and therefore nothing. Logically, Tolkien is right in saying that it cannot truly exist, only as a hypothetical zero point.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Legolas

I'm caught up in a long paper on Paradise Lost due in a few hours, so this hits close to what my mind is on (but coincidentally, I'm short on time and will have to return later).

I hope Ulmo will return with some cogitations on Milton. I recall one wag saying to me once upon a time that Milton's problem was understanding how God's creations always turned out fallible. The Creator's creations were never as powerful or as perfect as He was--how to account for that.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

2) Eru being the creator here and I think the representation of absolute good...I mean Tolkien doesn't say there isn't an absolute good? So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

Though Eru can be considered goodly, I would never place it as "absolutely good." It made Melkor and the Void. It seems to have set up the game and lets each team play (unless Manwë gets whiny and asks for Daddy Eru to go get his ball...), knowing which team will eventually win in the end (one side has the advantage of love), but still is excited about the play.

[Boromir88]

Now I'm slightly confused. Do you mean that crossing into other people's morals is evil or that causing physical harm is evil...or both?

Sorry Kuru, for being confusing, I mean to say there there is a line between morals and what is good/evil. And that crossing the line bye physically (or even emotionally harming someone- because of their morals, or for whatever reason that matter) is indeed evil.

Take Hitler, he didn't like anyone that was of the "Superior Race," but what made him "evil" was the attempted mass genocide of all the "inferior races/peoples." Hope that's a little more clearer, sorry for getting everything all jumbled.

Perhaps Tolkien's thoughts on orcs may shed some more light on the matter as well:

They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad (I nearly wrote ’irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimatly good.)~Letter #153

So, we can say Orcs were brought into this world as "evil" being Morgoth's "greatest sins," but even they were not beyond redemption.

[Kuruharan]

It made Melkor and the Void.

I'm not sure I follow you here, specifically with the reference to the Void. Surely, if there is anything that could be described as totally neutral it is a vacuum.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I'm not sure I follow you here, specifically with the reference to the Void. Surely, if there is anything that could be described as totally neutral it is a vacuum.

If Eru is God, then It created all things. Or does It live in a space created by an even bigger fish? If there is a Void, then, it had to come from somewhere (and the Void doesn't seem like a very nice place to be, and so...).

[Kuruharan]

If there is a Void, then, it had to come from somewhere (and the Void doesn't seem like a very nice place to be, and so...).

The Void is just where nothing was put, or at least where nothing has been put yet. I fail to see how it is evil just because nothing is there.

How can one recognize good if there is nothing to off-set it?

There would not be any need to recognize it because it just would be.