Sauron vs. Your Mama - A Discussion of Power in Middle-earth

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, as we know from the Ainulindale, the true source of Melkor's actions still resides with Eru; moreover the last paragraph of the Silmarillion states that the evil seeds planted by Melkor still give fruit. In a sense, this is what made it possible for him to be defeated - he dissipated his power, he diminished himself so that he may perpetuate his works through an long lasting corruption of Arda. In a sense, the Marrer did not leave Arda; Melkor might be gone (he might even repent ), but his essence of evil is ever at work.

I think you're seeing the glass as half empty. As I pointed out in post 35 above, Melkor's slow self-defeat may be a foreshadowing of the gradual mending of Arda itself. The Melkor element is not necessarily evil. True, the way in which Melkor behaved as Morgoth, when he had become physical himself, was evil according to those laws of morality that govern physical beings. But wasn't Melkor's mar actually effected when his voice disrupted and overpowered those of the others during the Music? That spiritual event is what Iluvatar brought into physical existence and it continues to unfold: there are eruptions of discord and epochs of dissonance, but Iluvatar himself is its ultimate source, and if we could view it all at once, as only Iluvatar can, we might see the "grand design." The healing of Arda may not be just in spite of Melkor's efforts, but may actually be made possible only by the power of his essence and how much of it he invested in Arda, which is surely more than any other Power.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Melkor element is not necessarily evil.

I wouldn't take an utilitarian approach - that his element is not evil because it worked out for good. Also, Tolkien states in his letters that the free will of the valar was guaranteed by Eru - and Eru setting up all available options and Melkor choosing one them are different aspects. I would paraphrase Tolkien on Gollum:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him...I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

[obloquy]

I wouldn't take an utilitarian approach - that his element is not evil because it worked out for good.

Well that's not what I'm saying, either. Melkor's power was not evil power. I express my thoughts on this more completely in another thread:

Classifying Melkor as "evil" is questionable. He sought to further his own purposes, and since those were in disharmony with the other themes in the Music they were resisted and this caused strife. What's interesting is that, while the Valar did not know what physical manifestation their music would have, Iluvatar did and still he did not condemn Melkor. Instead he declared that ultimately his will would be accomplished, with Melkor as his instrument.

At this point it had all been laid out for Iluvatar to see. This suggests to me that Melkor had not done anything "evil"--at least in the absolute sense--in the eyes of his father. The corruption of Arda becomes minor on this universal scale, and the "big picture" had not been altered from Iluvatar's original purpose. Melkor, at the time when he had already wrought all his corruption, was above (or outside the jurisdiction of) the concepts of "morality" or "good and bad" that we and the Children of Iluvatar are familiar with and use as guides to make our decisions. Melkor merely resisted the vision of his Creator, which he was created with the will to do and this action was apparently still within his rights. Iluvatar did chastise him, but then made it clear that the beauty of his vision had not been compromised:

Obviously. That's the point. All of Melkor's discord did not corrupt Iluvatar's plan, so how can we call it evil without maligning Iluvatar himself? He didn't fix the Music or remove Melkor's contribution.

....
[Iluvatar] didn't oppose it, he contained it. He humbled Melkor and silenced him when he saw fit, but he did not oppose the theme Melkor had sung. Had he opposed it, he would not have claimed to be its "uttermost source."

....
I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

Good post, and it echoes my feelings on the definitions of good and evil. 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. Since Melkor and the rest of the Valar were installed as creators and gods of Arda, they had a similar right to do what pleased them without moral constraint. As far as I can remember Iluvatar does not provide a moral structure to guide their actions, apart from his direct communication with Manwe. Morality is designed to guide physical beings. Similar to the Biblical account of the origin of the demons, once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation.

[alatar]

I'm somehow drawn to the thought that, in Arda, Tolkien skirts the problem of evil that is an issue in his Christian religion (as I understand it). In short, in Christianity it is posited that evil exists in the world as (1) the result of man's fall and (2) a consequence of free will - you can't choose God if there is no other choice. God allows evil - or the turning away from him - in order to have free will. Skeptics consider that, at the end of all things, there will exist a heaven in which followers will have both free will and live in Paradise. If this is possible at the end, why could not God have created Eden with choice yet Perfection, where all was truly and forever good?

Anyway, in Arda we have evil, yet the world is far from perfect before humans show up. Melkor goes his own way, he thinks, and yet simply does the work of Eru. Presumably all creatures are granted free will, or at least the illusion thereof, regardless of whether they exist within or outside of Arda, yet I don't think that it was necessary for a Melkor to appear for free will to be granted. Evil is, but technically wasn't a necessity.

Make sense? I'm trying to wrap my thoughts around it as well.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

This suggests to me that Melkor had not done anything "evil"--at least in the absolute sense--in the eyes of his father.
...
I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

That Iluvatar didn't remove the corruption of Melkor is due to the laws inherent in this universe:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.

There does seem to be a system of judgment, which can be applied even to every finite creature:

Originally Posted by Melkor Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

This is pretty much the same rule as applied to Gollum above, only in reverse, demonstrating the same principle: it is intention that defines the morality of an action. Gollum's actions may lead to good macrocosmically, but he did them out of wickedness, so he still is evil. On the other hand, even if one errs, but with good intent, it is not a sin.

Cf. Osanwe-kenta, we also have the existence of the axani, 'law, rule, commandment; as primarily proceeding from Eru'. According to this text, Melkor repudiated all such rules coming down from Eru. In the Later Quenta Silmarillion, there is a definition of the root of evil:

Originally Posted by Of the severance of marriage, HoME X

... trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

Melkor is defined countless times as the Enemy; is he simply the enemy of the elves, or of the Men? I doubt that. From the beginning he fought against Manwe and Co, but even he is merely a vice-regent of Eru; this opposition to Manwe is in fact an opposition to Eru.

Originally Posted by obloquy

[Iluvatar] didn't oppose it, he contained it. He humbled Melkor and silenced him when he saw fit, but he did not oppose the theme Melkor had sung. Had he opposed it, he would not have claimed to be its "uttermost source."

I don't think that there is much difference between containing and opposing Melkor's discord. Manwe is specifically said to be "the chief instrument of the second theme that Iluvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor", so the opposition between Melkor and Eru was definitely not one-sided. There is further evidence of Eru's disapproval of Melkor deeds when Tolkien reffers to the corruption of the elves into orcs:

Originally Posted by Of the Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor

This it may be was the vilest deed of Melkor, and the most hateful to Iluvatar.

Could anything, in fact, not have its uttermost source in Eru - esspecially when we are talking something as fundamental as a moral category, evil? I doubt that. As I mentioned previously, Eru setting up all available options and Melkor choosing one them are different aspects.

Originally Posted by obloquy

As far as I can remember Iluvatar does not provide a moral structure to guide their actions, apart from his direct communication with Manwe. Morality is designed to guide physical beings. Similar to the Biblical account of the origin of the demons, once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation.

Besides the axani I already mentioned, I believe that this distinction does not take into account the fact that the valar can act without being embodied

Originally Posted by Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor

For the Valar may work many things with thought rather than with hands, and without voices in silence they may hold council one with another.

We also know that Aule also overstepped his boundaries, he broke a rule, when he tried to make the dwarves:

Originally Posted by Letter #212

Aule, for instance, one of the Great, in a sense 'fell'; for he so desired to see the Children, that he became impatient and tried to anticipate the will of the Creator... When he had made thirteen, God spoke to him in anger, but not without pity : for Aule had done this thing not out of evil desire to have slaves and subjects of his own, but out of impatient love, desiring children to talk to and teach, sharing with them the praise of Iluvatar and his great love of the materials of which the world is made.

The One rebuked Aule, saying that he had tried to usurp the Creator's power; but he could not give independent life to his makings...

- Behold, said the One: these creatures of thine have only thy will, and thy movement. Though you have devised a language for them, they can only report to thee thine own thought. This is a mockery of me.

Originally Posted by alatar

Presumably all creatures are granted free will, or at least the illusion thereof, regardless of whether they exist within or outside of Arda, yet I don't think that it was necessary for a Melkor to appear for free will to be granted. Evil is, but technically wasn't a necessity.

I think we should make a difference between evil as a moral category, and Melkor as the most powerful agent of evil; indeed, the two of them exist independently. And since evil is a prerequisite of free will, and if all the valar had free will from the beginning, then evil precedes even Melkor (who, on the other hand, in the beginning at least, was pictured to be good; he fell "afterwards").

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I think we should make a difference between evil as a moral category, and Melkor as the most powerful agent of evil; indeed, the two of them exist independently. And since evil is a prerequisite of free will, and if all the valar had free will from the beginning, then evil precedes even Melkor (who, on the other hand, in the beginning at least, was pictured to be good; he fell "afterwards").

Think that this is what I was getting at. If, in heaven, there will be free-willed spirits/souls, and, by definition, being in the presence of God cannot contain evil, why could not the Creator create a world with free will and not evil (or, again as some posit, so much)? Why the "prerequisite?"

Regardless, as I don't want to start another brouhaha, but how does evil differ in the world that Tolkien created? To me it seems that the free will - evil connection is not to the same degree, if it exists at all in Arda.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

Why the "prerequisite?"

Well, there might be a misunderstanding. I see the moral category of evil as anything else but an idea, a possibility, a potential, an abstract, an archetype if you will - not as an active power. Without it, no exponent of evil could exist. And without good having a counterpart, we really could not have morality, and a good chunk free will neither.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by alatar

Skeptics consider that, at the end of all things, there will exist a heaven in which followers will have both free will and live in Paradise.

The scriptures indicate that the paradise will be on Earth, as was originally intended. After all, why should an issue brought up by rebellious creations change God's purpose for Man? Why put them on Earth to begin with, if their real place is in Heaven? He wouldn't; Man was created expressly to live on Earth, and this is reinforced by the knowledge that there are already spirit creatures who were created to live in Heaven (angels). I recognize that this is a controverted point, but I believe this analysis makes more sense than a Heavenly reward for righteous life on Earth, as if Earth was always intended to be merely a testing ground.

Originally Posted by alatar

If this is possible at the end, why could not God have created Eden with choice yet Perfection, where all was truly and forever good?

I believe he did. That is, all was good except direct challenge to his sovereignty, which is what Satan's lie amounted to, and also Adam and Eve's acceptance of it. Eating the fruit was just a gesture to consummate the rebellion; it's not as if that was God's favorite fruit and he simply didn't want to share it. I know this sounds like the opposite of what you said, but in order for peace to be maintained, that one principle must always be unchallenged: once Man declares that he is not subject to God, men begin to fill that vacuum of leadership and lawmaking, which (long story short) necessarily leads to strife.

Originally Posted by Raynor

That Iluvatar didn't remove the corruption of Melkor is due to the laws inherent in this universe
...
Cf. Osanwe-kenta, we also have the existence of the axani, 'law, rule, commandment; as primarily proceeding from Eru'. According to this text, Melkor repudiated all such rules coming down from Eru. In the Later Quenta Silmarillion, there is a definition of the root of evil

I recognize that Melkor/Morgoth was the Enemy. I also recognize that he committed evil. What I am saying is that before the physical manifestation of the Music, Melkor's rights were absolute and his "corruption" of the theme was within his rights as primary created being. All it amounts to is Melkor dabbling in everyone else's sauce, making it all more to his taste. He had no knowledge of how the Music would unfold when brought into being by Iluvatar. The manifestation of his discord turned out to be immoral within the physical world, but prior to that, when he originally wove his "element" into all things, there was no such inherently physical* designation. Certainly later, when Melkor was running amok within the material world, his actions were evil. The wicked things he did during the Ages had already been woven into the tapestry, so to speak, but relatively innocently; in that when his voice overpowered others in the Music, he exhibited only grandiose selfishness, not specifically murder, torture, corruption, etc.

Additionally, to reiterate what I expressed a few posts ago, Arda's healing may be possible solely because of Melkor's vast vitality, which he poured into creation more than any other sub-creator.

*in Tolkien's world, by virtue of the fact that guidelines were not laid out for the sub-creators' Music, and persistent disharmony was chastized but not "repaired". Only after the theme was brought into material being did actions take on the aspect of either good or evil within that physical cosmos. Whether morality applies solely to physical creation in our universe (and whether there is such thing as immaterial creation) is certainly debatable elsewhere.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Whether morality applies solely to physical creation in our universe (and whether there is such thing as immaterial creation) is certainly debatable elsewhere.

Well, I take the liberty to give it a try, should anyone feel interested.

Originally Posted by obloquy

All it amounts to is Melkor dabbling in everyone else's sauce, making it all more to his taste.

I find it really difficult to challenge that, since I can't rely on facts or evidence, seeing that all this happens before a "humanly" conceivable world. All I can put forward are my personal thoughts. Should we agree that moral judgment can be applied before Ea, doesn't his behavior require a stricter view? I believe the problem is two-pronged; I would say the valar did have rights, to express themselves peacefully, and Melkor interfered with that, with the intention to subvert what they were doing. And if it is intention that counts, then even in a child's play, or in arts, deeds can have moral consequences. I would further argue that what they were doing had nothing trivial about it; the making of music seemed to be their primary activity, the fundamental way in which they learned about each other and of the mind of Iluvatar; this would only aggravate Melkor's subversion. However, even greater than this, seems to be Melkor's intent to challenge directly even Iluvatar. In a theist world, isn't this a sin per se? Could it be amoral to go one-on-one with the Creator, in front of everyone else? No matter how little or much he knew, isn't it a prerequisite that you treat the ultimate being with utmost respect, in each and every aspect? I believe that Melkor having the ultimate proof of the existence of Eru can only put evil at the root of his disrespect. I think that Melkor had all it took for him to make realise what he was doing, so I see both his deed and his intent as evil - with his retribution coming either then (with the humiliation in front of others), or during Ea, or afterwards.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Additionally, to reiterate what I expressed a few posts ago, Arda's healing may be possible solely because of Melkor's vast vitality, which he poured into creation more than any other sub-creator.

I don't think that this action gives him credit, since the healing wouldn't be necessary should he not have erred; I see the healing as a negative point in his activity - it is the one thing that most likely requires the greatest "effort" from Iluvatar to counter. I do see that his marring brought greater glory to Iluvatar, it gave more valor to Men (& all the others who opposed him), and these are good in and of themselves, but they most likely occur due to the active intervention of Eru, without which most likely the opposite would happen.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Think that this is what I was getting at. If, in heaven, there will be free-willed spirits/souls, and, by definition, being in the presence of God cannot contain evil, why could not the Creator create a world with free will and not evil (or, again as some posit, so much)? Why the "prerequisite?"

Regardless, as I don't want to start another brouhaha, but how does evil differ in the world that Tolkien created? To me it seems that the free will - evil connection is not to the same degree, if it exists at all in Arda.

Well, I don't want to start that brouhaha you wished to avoid, but isn't the real problem the fact that the Creator, whether it is Eru or Tolkien's real God, cannot create something as perfect as He is? (I seem to recall this as a topic of discussion on "Paradise Lost". Could even have been a Second Age discussion, it was that long ago.)

So for every Creator, the actual object of creation always fails to live up to the concept originally entertained?

[obloquy]

"As perfect"? Are there degrees of perfection?

Any theory of what an infinite, omnipotent being is capable of is suspect. The dimensions of God (even simply as a concept) are so far from being fathomable that application of physical laws or philosophical ideas is akin to using a ruler to determine the temperature of the sun. If you're going to ask questions about the abilities of a being that supposedly predates all physical creation, it should be this: How could God be subject to laws that, by definition, govern that which is created?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, I don't want to start that brouhaha you wished to avoid, but isn't the real problem the fact that the Creator, whether it is Eru or Tolkien's real God, cannot create something as perfect as He is? (I seem to recall this as a topic of discussion on "Paradise Lost". Could even have been a Second Age discussion, it was that long ago.)

By definition. Or not, as what created God? How could perfection create non-perfection? Unless what we perceive as paradise lost is actually perfect, albeit from a different point of view.

Even I haven't the energy to whip this horse.

So for every Creator, the actual object of creation always fails to live up to the concept originally entertained?

As far as we know. It's been considered that the death of gods comes from boredom. What's the point if you know everything that is, was and will be, down to the fall of every sparrow's feather? Maybe the perfect universes don't include sentient beings or entropy - kind of like well-made dioramas.