Let's Talk Morgoth

[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

If Melkor was not part of the original plan, then Iluvatar is not omniscient and therefore may not be 'God,' or at least an all-knowing all-powerful one.

Well, one has to distinguish between Eru's plan & Eru's omniscience. The fact that Eru is omniscient merely means he knows what will be, not that he planned it. Eru's omniscience does not deny free will to any of His creatures - they are free to do as they will, but Eru, existing outside space-time & seeing past-present-future from an eternal 'now', knows what they will do. Knowing this, he can take what they do into account & choose what to do about it - in other words, He can alter his original plan to take into account the actions of His creatures, but that doesn't alter the fact that his original plan (the form it had when it arose in His mind) did not include Melkor's rebellion.

I think that Iluvatar bet ("played dice" ) that by giving Melkor all of the abilities of the other Valar that he would be prideful, rebel, create new music and in the end fulfill Iluvatar's intentions of creating things more wonderful than Iluvatar could have achieved sans Melkor.

Problem with this is that Melkor suffered as a result of his pride & his resulting rebellion. If Eru had intended his rebellion He must also have intended his suffering, making him 'evil', or at best amoral. On the other hand, if Eru simply made use of Melkor's free choices, while notintending them, he remains 'Good', as Melkor's suffering is a consequence of his own freely willed choices.

Originally Posted by Obloquy

God isn't just "good" because he never makes an error that leads to bad, he is the ultimate good because that's what he chooses to define himself as. He is the arbiter on a tier above the two sides.

One could argue that rather than 'Eru is 'Good'' we should say 'Good' is Eru' - ie 'Good' is whatever Eru says it is? (Eru as a kind of divine Humpty-dumpty - 'When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less'). I don't think this works in the context of Middle earth, as there is a(n unstated) 'natural law', a moral code which is logically consistent & understandable. In short, Eru is not a chaotic but intelligent 'force', acting arbitrarily. At the very least 'Good' & evil (as Aragorn points out to Eomer) do not change over the years.

If 'Good' was simply what Eru decided it was at any particular juncture, then how could a man judge what was Good & what was evil. The fact that within Middle earth a man can judge 'as he always has done' (& as his ancestors similarly had done) implies that there is some kind of objective standard of what constitutes the 'Good'. Now, in Middle earth there is no equivalent of the Bible or the Quran, & 'right' & 'wrong, Good & evil are simply known (& either accepted or rejected) by each individual. This can only be because each individual, having their ultimate origin in the Mind of Eru, has 'inherited' something of that divinity (the individual fea), & knows the difference between right & wrong. If Eru's 'values' are simply arbitrary then each individual's value system (in a world without revelation) would be equally arbitrary - but we know that this is not the case. There is no equivalent to the Ten Commandments in Middle earth, so the fact that there is a general agreement on what constitutes the 'Good' means that it must be logically consistent, & it must make sense to live by it (ie it must provide some kind of social benefit).

Which brings me to what what you say about Eru 'choosing' to define Himself as 'Good'. Does this mean that He has made a choice to be Good but could equally well have chosen to be 'evil'? Wouldn't this mean that Good & evil are moral 'equivalents' neither one more valid than the other? Perhaps on the 'cosmic' level, but on the level of day to day reality 'good' behaviour benefits the greatest number of people & harms the least number. Yet if Ea is structured in such a way that this is the case, & Ea arose in the mind of Eru, as part of His original plan, one can only assume that this 'choice' was made because in His omniscience, knowing Good & evil, He saw that 'Good' was better.

Of course, one cannot assume at all that He made such a 'choice' - maybe the 'Good' is a reflection of His nature - ie, He is 'Good', His nature corresponds to an objective standard of 'Goodness'.

(Its amazing what rubbish one produces when one is bored )

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, one has to distinguish between Eru's plan & Eru's omniscience. The fact that Eru is omniscient merely means he knows what will be, not that he planned it. Eru's omniscience does not deny free will to any of His creatures - they are free to do as they will, but Eru, existing outside space-time & seeing past-present-future from an eternal 'now', knows what they will do. Knowing this, he can take what they do into account & choose what to do about it - in other words, He can alter his original plan to take into account the actions of His creatures, but that doesn't alter the fact that his original plan (the form it had when it arose in His mind) did not include Melkor's rebellion.

So what you are saying is that Eru knew that Melkor would rebel, yet he went ahead and created him anyway. This is one of my issues with omniscience, infinite, etc beings as it just doesn't make sense.

Problem with this is that Melkor suffered as a result of his pride & his resulting rebellion. If Eru had intended his rebellion He must also have intended his suffering, making him 'evil', or at best amoral. On the other hand, if Eru simply made use of Melkor's free choices, while notintending them, he remains 'Good', as Melkor's suffering is a consequence of his own freely willed choices.

Eru, knowing the future yet not changing the present to avoid said future, condemned multitudes to lives of pain, suffering and anguish. And I'm not talking about Eldar or Edain - what about the orcs? Assume not the originals, but your standard Third Age model. What chance does said orc have in regards to free will? Even, presumably, if an orc could be 'good,' it would be either cut down by its brethren or by the forces of good ("hey guys, wait! I'm on your side...")

Thanks a lot, Eru - guess that free will stuff is only for the pretty people.

Now, in Middle earth there is no equivalent of the Bible or the Quran, & 'right' & 'wrong, Good & evil are simply known (& either accepted or rejected) by each individual. This can only be because each individual, having their ultimate origin in the Mind of Eru, has 'inherited' something of that divinity (the individual fea), & knows the difference between right & wrong. If Eru's 'values' are simply arbitrary then each individual's value system (in a world without revelation) would be equally arbitrary - but we know that this is not the case. There is no equivalent to the Ten Commandments in Middle earth, so the fact that there is a general agreement on what constitutes the 'Good' means that it must be logically consistent, & it must make sense to live by it (ie it must provide some kind of social benefit).

Are not the orcs Children of Eru? Or are they condemned from birth with some taint of Melkor that does not permit them to know both good and evil, and so they cannot choose. One would then say that the orcs are neither good nor bad but only doing what they naturally do.

Which brings me to what what you say about Eru 'choosing' to define Himself as 'Good'. Does this mean that He has made a choice to be Good but could equally well have chosen to be 'evil'? Wouldn't this mean that Good & evil are moral 'equivalents' neither one more valid than the other? Perhaps on the 'cosmic' level, but on the level of day to day reality 'good' behaviour benefits the greatest number of people & harms the least number. Yet if Ea is structured in such a way that this is the case, & Ea arose in the mind of Eru, as part of His original plan, one can only assume that this 'choice' was made because in His omniscience, knowing Good & evil, He saw that 'Good' was better.

How can one judge the maker of reality? I would like to dip into Christianity to make a point (Note that I have no desire to offend any person or creed, but just am making an argument):

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

Same god promises land to a group of people. This land is currently occupied. The newcomers exterminate the occupants. Yet this God prohibits murder. But there obviously are exceptions....Is this god good or evil?

(Its amazing what rubbish one produces when one is bored )

Agreed. It's also amazing what one will write when one starts ranting on (and I mean me!).

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Eru, knowing the future yet not changing the present to avoid said future, condemned multitudes to lives of pain, suffering and anguish. And I'm not talking about Eldar or Edain - what about the orcs? Assume not the originals, but your standard Third Age model. What chance does said orc have in regards to free will? Even, presumably, if an orc could be 'good,' it would be either cut down by its brethren or by the forces of good ("hey guys, wait! I'm on your side...")

Thanks a lot, Eru - guess that free will stuff is only for the pretty people.

Are not the orcs Children of Eru? Or are they condemned from birth with some taint of Melkor that does not permit them to know both good and evil, and so they cannot choose. One would then say that the orcs are neither good nor bad but only doing what they naturally do.

Eru had an original plan, which didn't include orcs. This was to be the blueprint for Arda. However, Melkor, utilising his Eru given free will, decided to change that blueprint. Eru, having freely given free will to Melkor, could not take it back - otherwise it would not have been a 'gift'. Once created & given autonomy (indeed probably once concieved in the mind of Eru) there is no going back. Eru may know what will come but he does not dictate it. He is just as bound by the 'Rules' as his creatures.

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

Ah, but for you to have such a choice between not having been created or spending eternity in hell, you would have to exist. You seem to require God to make your choices for you before you even come into being. Whether you end up 'damned' or 'saved' will be a consequence of your freely willed choices. God can't make your choices for you & then force them on you - if He did then he would simply be a puppet master.

But this is getting off topic, as there is no hell or eternal damnation in Middle earth. Sentient beings, on death, go to the Halls of Mandos to learn the lessons of their lives. I would assume that if Orcs were sentient beings, descended from Elves, then dying they would pass to Mandos to be purified & perhaps re-born in their original forms - of course that's just speculation on my part & I can't recall whether Tolkien wrote anything about Orcs going to Mandos

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Eru may know what will come but he does not dictate it. He is just as bound by the 'Rules' as his creatures.

Yet he can intervene - or so we are led to believe by incidents such as Bilbo's finding of the Ring and Gollum's fatal stumble at Sammath Naur.

[alatar]

Thanks all for the great feedback!

Originally Posted by Formendacil

There is a major difference between a cow and a man, that of free will. A parable is an imprecise way of explaining things, intended not to be taken at 100% face value.

Very much agreed, and this is why I find it interesting when limits are placed on something classified as a 'god.' We are limited to 4 dimensions and yet speak of subtleties of an N-dimensional being. And so again, what do the labels 'good' and 'evil' mean to something that it outside of time and space? Though his brethren saw him as evil, did Eru see Melkor as a necessary component, increasing the overall 'good' of the universe? Is this like a twist on the Second Law of Thermodynamics where local pockets of evil are tolerated as the overall good increases?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Tolkien himself struggled with this- hence his perennial indecision as to their origins. Are they man, animal, vegetable, or mineral? Therefore, to bring up the orks is a rather invalid argument, and not quite pertinent to the discussion at hand. Unless unequivocal proof can be displayed about Tolkien's decision on the subject, it is like the Balrog wings debate: fascinating, with support for each and every opinion, but impossible to decide completely, and not much help in any other debate.

As pointed out by The Saucepan Man, I would say that the orcs are part of the argument. If we assume that they were originally elves, then how were the Eru-implanted souls removed? Did Melkor have the ability or permission to do this? What happened to these souls? If the orcs are soulless creatures, then how do they function? Aule's Dwarves needed his constant guidance until Eru endowed them with free will. Or we can assume that the orcs are like any other sentient beings in ME, yet due to some original taint, always choose the darkness (and maybe the Professor didn't know that anyone would have so much time on their hands to think about all of this ).

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Would it be fair though, for a good God to treat the evil and the good the same? After all, justice is an essential component of goodness. Is it just, therefore, for God to treat an amoral, immoral, murderer-rapist who enjoyed his life to the fullest at the expense of others, with no thought of repentence, with exactly the same reward as child-saint who was poor, starved, and abused, but love with all his little heart?

What do I know of Eru's plans? Without Ungoliant, we would not have Beren and Luthien. And not to go off topic too much, but what about Judas, Pharoah, Nero? God created and used these people to further his plan.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Besides which, anyone who is truly evil is someone who REJECTS God entirely.

Disagree. Sauron was going with the guy who had a different, bolder theme - Eru just didn't get it that some changes needed to be made for the greater 'good.' And off topic, you are speaking of the Christian God. Consider pantheism, and then is evil rejecting a particular god or gods?

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

It is just another parable to back up Formendacil (i.e. God does not throw creature out of heaven, creature, as a consequence of its free will, withdraws itself out of it).

So why do I chose to serve Melkor or Eru? All evidence is hearsay. Each side promises a reward. Both sides play by different rules, yet this may be necessary. Eru says that Death is a gift, yet is doesn't seem that way to men. Elves get to 'know' whereas Edain must have 'faith' in regards to what happens after death. Where is the evidence? Melkor and Sauron were brethren of these demi-gods, who speak for the One, and those two may or may not be representative of the whole bunch. Who's to know? Edain ancestors were drowned by the same, heard that*the Elves left one of the 'heavens' after scrapping with the Valar. Hmmm...

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

The built-in standards of what is Good (moral imperatives we've been discussing earlier) are the guidelines. The will is what counts, not intellectual ability or lack thereof, not physical prowess or lack thereof.

Again, where does this leave the orcs as to me they seem to have wills of their own? One may assume from ROTK where, when the Ring goes into the Crack, that the Mordor army, bereft of Sauron's controlling will, goes nutsy as they need some other will to keep them orderly. However, I would point out that the orcs that were hoping to break away and set up on their own were endowed with some free will and were not automatons. How was the "built-in standard" removed?

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Which does, I think, raise a valid question as to why Eru saw fit to countenance the creation, and continued existence, of a wholly evil race that had no opportunity of repentance (during their lives, at least).

Could Melkor have repented? During the ages that he was bound, nothing much happened in Arda worth note. Did Eru make sure that he would be released in order to 'get things going again?' Why did the 'Good' allow Melkor to go free? And I'm supposed to trust these beings' judgements/wisdom?

Originally Posted by davem

Eru had an original plan, which didn't include orcs. This was to be the blueprint for Arda. However, Melkor, utilising his Eru given free will, decided to change that blueprint. Eru, having freely given free will to Melkor, could not take it back - otherwise it would not have been a 'gift'. Once created & given autonomy (indeed probably once concieved in the mind of Eru) there is no going back. Eru may know what will come but he does not dictate it. He is just as bound by the 'Rules' as his creatures.

Agreed about the rules. He told the Valar, "here's the game - have at it!" And though I would agree that Melkor may have changed someone's blueprint for Arda, he did not change Eru's unless Eru permitted the same.

Originally Posted by davem

Ah, but for you to have such a choice between not having been created or spending eternity in hell, you would have to exist. You seem to require God to make your choices for you before you even come into being. Whether you end up 'damned' or 'saved' will be a consequence of your freely willed choices. God can't make your choices for you & then force them on you - if He did then he would simply be a puppet master.

Didn't think about that - thanks. Still, assume that I'm an average shmoe - no big sins, just choose the wrong side of the balrog wings debate, which ends up sending me to Hell. How can I assume that the god who sent me there was 'good?' I will spend a very finite drop of eternity in the 'choosing' phase, and the remainder in punishment. Great system. (by the by, no wings! )

Originally Posted by davem

But this is getting off topic, as there is no hell or eternal damnation in Middle earth.

Agreed. I have been trying to limit my comments to ME, but some points are made more easily using other sources. Not sure if the rest of you do, but I find ME more black and white than the real world. There is evil and there is good. The side to choose is pretty clear.

Thanks for the brain workout and for tolerating my ramblings.