Good and evil

[alatar]

Rereading the first thread and that of tumhalad2's (Welcome to the Downs, by the way ):

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

and many other characters become evil by their domination, in particular the majority of mankind.

The word 'become,' at least on this morning, grates on me. Not sure how it was intended, and I'm not saying that Menelvagor meant it in any particular way, but to me the word 'become' does not seem to connote 'choice.' One chooses to do evil or not. Maybe Melkor and Sauron became evil by the thousand slices of evil choices or one big choice - I don't know. But to me all cognizant beings are free to choose and do not simply wake up one day on the wrong side.

This same thinking applies when a person tells me that "so and so made me..." Children use this argument, but what of adults who are not threatened with harm in any way? When I'm feeling grumpier than usual, I will correct them and say, "No, you choose to let them do..."

Anyway...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Tolkien was at great pains to avoid a Manichaean world. It's inherent in his work that Power Corrupts- it's not really possible in Fallen Arda for there to be a powerful wholly Good being (except Manwe, who, tellingly, is very largely passive).

JRRT as above defined Absolute Evil as Zero- he indicated in one essay that Morgoth had reached a stage of 'nihilistic madness' and, left to his own devices, would have gone on raging until all Ea was reduced to chaos, and continued raging because the Chaos was not of his own making.

Evil in Tolkien is, I think ultimately Selfishness: greed, imposition of will, absence of compassion, ego, solipsism.

********

The absence of religious observance in LR (not Silmarillion) is really very easily explained: Tolkien couldn't conceive his Good peoples as being pagan or anything inconsistent with Judaeo-Christianity. Therefore he felt it was safer to make them largely cult-less 'pure monotheists.' Temples and priests and the like were for the minions of Sauron, who ruled as a God-King.

[Boromir88]

Great job alatar and William in bringing this topic up.

Tolkien was at great pains to avoid a Manichaean world.~William

For the most part I agree...although I think The One Ring is a different matter.

Tom Shippey makes the argument that Tolkien encorporates both Boethian and Manichaen types of evil in The One Ring. Although this has gone contested by others, I think Shippey's got a point.

The Ring has a lust and power that actually exudes evil itself:

'so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it...'~Letter 131

This is Tolkien's Letter to Milton Waldman, and he makes the point that the Ring has it's own innate evil that it exudes on people. There is further mentioning in Letter 246:

'It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power.'

Also from Letter 246, so great was the Ring's power (its influence would reach a 'maximum' when brought into the Sammath Naur) that it was impossible for Frodo (or anyone to destroy):

'I do not think that Frodo’s was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted.'

With that being said when dealing with the Ring, it is not purely Manichaen. If it was I think The Ring would be this all-corrupting force that just corrupts everyone that's around. I think what Gandalf says points to the duality of evil 'within' (Boethian) and evil without (Manichaen):

'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me!...'~The Shadow of the Past

The Ring would not only be able to use Gandalf's 'positive purposes' (pity and a desire to do good), to turn him into virtually another Sauron. But we see here Gandalf's rejection of the Ring ('Do not tempt me!'). Also, there were several others who rejected the Ring (Sam, Galadriel, Bilbo), and I don't think I can put it any better than Faramir's words to Frodo:

'But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.'~The Window on the West

So, there is also the factor of dealing within the person. Or how would characters like Gandalf and Faramir be able to reject the Ring, yet others (like Gollum and Boromir) fall to it?

I don't know about any other examples but with The One Ring I do think we see a duality of the two aspects of evil. Not only does the Ring exude evil itself on to others, but it is Boromir and Gollum's predisposition to greed, glory, and power, from within themselves which led to their corruption by the Ring. While others who did not desire such 'triumphs' were able to reject it.

[Bêthberry]

Surely "good and evil" means someone who is worse than someone who is just "plain old evil."

[davem]

The problem is the Ring gives the power to do good as well as evil. It wouldn't be so seductive to the Wise if it didn't. Gandalf fears that he would use the Ring to do good, so does Galadriel, & that's what they want to do. Gandalf would begin righteous & become self righteous. He would seek to bring about good & the end result would be evil. What the Ring would give him would be the power to defeat evil absolutely, but in this defeat he would become absolute dictator - an absolute dictator who would only do good, but who would have the power to stop anyone doing 'evil' (ie anything he considered 'evil'. And this is the point. Sauron (& Morgoth) probably didn't ever consider themselves 'evil' at all. They intended to re-shape the world in their own image. Hence, it could be argued that 'evil' is a label you stick on your enemy. Sauron quite probably considers Gandalf 'evil'. Remove Eru from the story & it all becomes subjective.

And yet, Eru makes the rules & lays down what is good & what is evil, & he does this with no better justification than that its 'his movie' - he's in charge & has ultimate power. Surely if Gandalf or Galadriel took the Ring they would do good. There's no reason to believe that they would behave like Sauron. Yet they would be evil simply because they had taken control & usurped the role of Eru. So, evil is not necessarily judged on what someone does, but on whether or not they attempt to be 'more' than Eru made them to be. If Galadriel took the Ring & made the whole of Middle-earth into Lorien that wouldn't be an 'evil' act in an objective sense - it would be quite a nice place to live. But it would be against Eru's plan. So, evil is whatever is against Eru's plan - even if the result was everyone living happily in peace & safety - not simply what Sauron (for example) did. Turning Middle-earth into Lorien is as 'evil' an act as turning it into Mordor. There's no way Galadriel, even with the Ring, would be responsible for the Mordorisation of Middle-earth.

Its not what most people would instantly think of as evil. Many readers of Tolkien would consider the Lorienisation of M-e as a victory for good. So, Sauron & Mordor are not 'ideals' of evil. Absolute power - whatever one does with it - is evil, because it is an attempt to take control away from Eru. Hence, if Eru destroys Numenor & slaughters thousands it is a 'good' act, because such destruction is Eru's prerogative. If Sauron had done exactly the same thing it would have been 'evil'. Its down to what you have an innate right to do rather than whether what you do makes things better or worse from a practical point of view. Gandalf with the Ring may have made the world a much nicer, safer, more pleasant place to live, but it would still have been 'evil', because he didn't have the right to do it.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

The word 'become,' at least on this morning, grates on me. Not sure how it was intended, and I'm not saying that Menelvagor meant it in any particular way, but to me the word 'become' does not seem to connote 'choice.' One chooses to do evil or not. Maybe Melkor and Sauron became evil by the thousand slices of evil choices or one big choice - I don't know. But to me all cognizant beings are free to choose and do not simply wake up one day on the wrong side.

But how much choice did the humans who first confronted Melkor had? I wouldn't discard the effects of dealing with higher evil power that cannot be resisted (the foremost case being Frodo). Even in a modern society, I would certainly give mitigating circumstances to a person that has been indoctrinated and brainwashed with evil since childhood, through various means. A good example of Sauron's hold on his servants was at the last battle:

Originally Posted by The Fields of Cormallen, RotK

The Power that drove them on and filled them with hate and fury was wavering, its will was removed from them; and now looking in the eyes of their enemies they saw a deadly light and were afraid.

Originally Posted by davem

The problem is the Ring gives the power to do good as well as evil.

I would call the power to do good one of the deceits that the ring filled the mind of others.

If Galadriel took the Ring & made the whole of Middle-earth into Lorien that wouldn't be an 'evil' act in an objective sense - it would be quite a nice place to live.

Taking all things into consideration, it is rather safe to assume that no such thing would be possible.

Surely if Gandalf or Galadriel took the Ring they would do good. There's no reason to believe that they would behave like Sauron.

This runs contrary to what we know of the ring; a good deal has been already quoted by Boromir.

Many readers of Tolkien would consider the Lorienisation of M-e as a victory for good. So, Sauron & Mordor are not 'ideals' of evil.

I disagree with that idea and reasoning, at least because Sauron and Melkor became nihilistic; I know of no reference that they strived for a Lorien-like M-E.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would call the power to do good one of the deceits that the ring filled the mind of others.

It depends what you mean by 'good'. The Ring enables one to make real one's fantasies. Hence Sam's idea of 'good' is to turn Mordor into a garden, & taht's what he would have done. Galadriel would have made M-e into Lorien. The 'evil' aspect of this 'good' would be that it would be forced on all the inhabitants - whether they wanted it or not. Its a bit like a war between those who believe that democracy is the highest good & those who believe that fundamentalist Islam is the Highest good. Both sides may be right - for themselves. But of they use force to impose that 'good' on others who do not want it it is 'evil'. In that case democracy forced on others who want an Islamist theocracy is 'evil' - its not that democracy is evil in itself (any more than a M-e turned Lorien would be evil in itself) its the imposition of a regime on those who do not want it that is evil. That's why Galadriel's M-e turned Lorien would be evil.

Behaving like Sauron, becoming another Dark Lord, is not about making the whole of M-e into Mordor - Galadriel clearly states that she would not be like Sauron if she took the Ring - she would be as bad - but in a different way - not 'dark' but beautiful & terrible. Sauron inspires hate & fear, while 'all shall love (Galadriel) & despair'.

I disagree with that idea and reasoning, at least because Sauron and Melkor became nihilistic; I know of no reference that they strived for a Lorien-like M-E.

No. Tolkien is clear. Morgoth certainly was a nihilist, & sought the absolute destruction of all things. Sauron, on the other hand, was a totalitarian. He did not want to destroy the world, but to gain absolute control over it. Of course Sauron would not desire a 'Lorien-like M-e. He desired a Mordor like M-e. Saruman desired an Isengard-like M-e (hence what happened in the Shire, Galadriel a Lorien-like M-e, Sam a M-e (by extention) made into a great garden & Faramir a M-e which was like Gondor of old. And if they took the Ring that's exactly what they would produce (to the extent of their innate power), & in that they would be as bad as Sauron. Its too simplistic to think that everyone who took the Ring would become nothing but a Sauron clone, building Dark Towers & employing Ringwraiths. Of course, in their own way they would be as bad, or worse, but they wouldn't be the same.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I'd agree with davem. I think the formulation that the usurpation of power is pretty correct. But, however true you are, davem, I think what you speak of would be just the "normal" corruption by power. That's what the people who made (or considered, cf. below) themselves the ultimate rulers would do, everyone putting the Middle-Earth into the shape of their own imagination, but that won't accord with Eru's plan and thus, be "evil". The Ring, I would presume, would break the last barriers of their conscience and so, even for people like Sam or Galadriel or Faramir or Gandalf, they will cease to care of the others and go after their own goals (even if the goals were to be seen as "good" by them). The moment of taking the Ring for your own is when it happens - that's why there's so much emphasise putting on it, that's why it's so important that Bilbo, Frodo, Sam... received (or came to, but "received", I think, is appropriate word here) it (and not took it by force), though later the former two declared the Ring as "their own and no one's". By taking the Ring for your own, you say "I have the RIGHT to have it and it is only mine, no one else has the right to relativise this" (the words "mine and no one else's" define it pretty well, but I want to make clear what I speak of). Simply said, Bilbo, you don't have the right on claiming the Ring, it's not yours. You cannot say "the Ring should do this and this and never anything else" - at any time, the Ring may pass to anyone else (like Frodo) and you cannot object it. That's the thing Melkor said about Arda:

Originally Posted by Ainulindalë

When therefore Earth was yet young and full of flame Melkor coveted it, and he said to the other Valar: "This shall be my own kingdom; and I name it unto myself!"

The point is that no one can ultimately say this about anything. Even Aragorn, let's say, does not have any right to say that he is the King and it can be never changed. Like Treebeard said, "'never' is too long even for me." Remember that first, Melkor did not want everything to become Darkness: he wanted to claim the Light and to make everything his own. He turned to that "nihilism" when he realized that he cannot have everything ("mine - or no one's!"), that there is still the will of Eru above him, whatever he would do.

In connection with this, maybe there's just only one thing I'd think about, and that's that from what we know, I think there are hints that ultimately the Ring (because it has part of Sauron's power in it) could lead even Galadriel (or these folks we speak of) into doing things that would remind us of Mordor, meaning now the real, "physical" Mordor - destruction and darkness. I think if she retained her status for some time, she'd ultimately start to fade into these "evil" things we know. First, as I said above, she could realize that even as the ultimate ruler there is the will of Eru above her, and she could decide then between just two things: to bow down and obey (diminish, go into the West, remain Galadriel - and leave her Mega-Lórien behind), or to oppose even Eru - and if she went into the extreme as Morgoth did, she would come to the state that the only thing she could do will be destroying everything. "Okay, Eru, I see I cannot control some things against your will, so I will at least destroy them". And here we go. The same path.

Or second, thinking in less extreme ways, maybe something else could happen, because the Ring could come to work here. That's something Raynor mentioned about the "higher evil forces that are uncontrollable"; when Galadriel would have reached the ultimate power in Middle-Earth, there will also be nothing else for her that she would consider "higher" than herself (at least to the point I mentioned above, when she would start to struggle against that what would oppose her), which means, she is the ultimate and despotic ruler, just as Melkor and Sauron at certain point of time thought they were. In this moment, in our Galadriel case, the Ring would come to work, because the person won't have any other things to hold to, and the Ring would probably convince her to "build Dark Towers and create Ringwraith". Why do I think so: Because there is a part of Sauron's personality in the Ring. It does not have anything to do with Galadriel's dreams or goals. But I think the personality of Sauron in the Ring would make her do things even she wouldn't like to do, and she would do them. Strange? I think not - just imagine it. "Hey, why could you not make a Nazgul from Elrond? You ask why would you do that? Well, why not? You are the ruler - you can do everything you want. No one can ban you from turning Elrond into a Nazgul. So prove it." It would take long, perhaps millenia, but I think even Galadriel could start to do things that would make her somewhat like the real Sauron, if she possessed the Ring - and ultimately, the Ring will possess her.

[davem]

I can't ever imagine Galadriel living in a Dark Tower, surrounded by Black Riders & Orcs. I can imagine her living in a Mallorn the size of Barad Dur, surrounded by Elves as enslaved as Ringwraiths & Orcs. And that's the point - for all Tolkien may have made reference to evil having a beautiful form we see very little of that in M-e. Evil is almost uniformly dark & ugly - stereotypical bad guys in the main. This leads many readers to associate beauty with goodness & ugliness with evil.

But take Lewis & Narnia. Narnia under Jadis is beautiful. Snowy landscapes, an Ice Palace, & all ruled over by a beautiful White Queen. Far more seductive than a Mordor ruled by Sauron & peopled by Orcs.

The point about Narnia when we first encounter it is that's its a realm ruled over by evil, but we don't realise that. Its not simply that there its 'always winter but never Christmas. Its that its always winter & never anything else. Jadis has absolute control over the land & has reshaped it in her own image.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I think it's clear what you mean, and as I said I agree with it. However, I am now speaking only of the thing that probably the Ring will ultimately make Galadriel, let's say, build the Dark Tower. Of course she (herself), even corrupted with power (and the more) would prefer a titanic Mallorn tree. But I think that someday the Dark Tower will come - it seems strange and as I said, it would have to take millenia. But it is the Sauron's will in the Ring, thus HIS image of the world, that will leak through. I am not saying Galadriel's mega-Lórien won't be evil, but I am only pointing out one aspect of the Ring that we know about. This is not about power any longer, it is about Sauron's will leaking through. Galadriel will create the Megalórien, a tyranny of itself, different from the stereotypical tyranny of Sauron, but then, I think Sauron's personality stored in the Ring will gnaw its way through and could lead Galadriel to do some of these stereotypical evil things. Against her own, albeit tyrannic wishes, to be absolutely clear.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I think Sauron's personality stored in the Ring will gnaw its way through and could lead Galadriel to do some of these stereotypical evil things. Against her own, albeit tyrannic wishes, to be absolutely clear.

My feeling is that while the Ring may contain some of Sauron's Will, it doesn't contain so much of his 'taste' that it will make a possessor of it ever want to live in a big tower in a blasted landscape - unless that desire was there in the first place. I think a 'megaLorien' is at the same 'extreme' of evil as Mordor - both are 'effects' of the utilisation of absolute power.

In short, while the Mordorisation of M-e is uglier than the Lorienisation of M-e, it isn't more 'evil' (unless judged purely aesthetically). Or in other words, Mordorisation is not the 'final step' beyond Lorienisation - the latter is equally an 'ultimate' manifestation of evil, & would equally demonstrate the absolute victory of the Ring.