Redefining Good & Evil

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

And a thriving community is...good? Sounds circular.

Haha! Echoing the naturalistic fallacy of G.E. Moore then?

Fine. And I do accept the challenge as a valid one. Saying that something is natural and therefore good is an argument that begs the question. Some of the socio-biologists went as far as to claim there is a "rape-instinct" in men who just don't get a mate. That is obviously wrong. It must be.

One can't say "success in the process of evolution" = good.

But if we discuss where morality comes from we can not shut our eyes to the fact that all the other primates act as we do - or that all the other gregarious animals do it. We have nice concepts of it and think it in elaborate terms but in the end we act similarly.

And no wonder the one rule that is common with all of the mankind and the different cultures - the "golden rule" as we know it - seems to be the one shared by all gregarious animals...

[Nogrod]

You Boro raise a thousand interesting questions. Let me try to give my two cents just on a few of them.

We see other people having an ice-cream in a hot day and suddenly we feel we would like to have one too. Or we see a good looking girl/man on the street (or television) and our sexual passions are aroused.

Aren't we like Max who just reacts to the world around him?


With self-interest it's clear every organism tries to stay alive. I'm not a great fan of Mr. Dawkins' "egoistig gene"-doctrine, but there is a point there: any organism will wish to prevail and have descendants. So we humans do too.

If Max thinks he has to guard the yard to be able to do what he should why would that motivation differ from ours? If not being a bit simpler? Looking at the chimps and Bonobos shows that other animals can have very complex systems of identifications and aims they wish to settle - and even dogs (I'm no dog fan myself but underestand why some people are) can seemingly "think" about them (not to talk of dolphins, whales, ravens, crows, magpies - which are much more clever than domesticated dogs even if we tend to love them more and relate to them more easily).

But anyway I don't see the difference between the self-interest and morals as you do Boro. Or I do have a different interpretation of it.

One wants to stay alive. Sure. And one wants to lead a good life. Sure as well. But one is also wishing to see others having a good life around her/him. Now why?

If we were purely egoistic what would it matter if other people perished? But it matters to us! We feel bad if our friends suffer, we cry when our relatives die, we feel bad if a person we only know through the internet loses his/her job. (Sorry about that but I couldn't resist it).

We care about others and that is our nature!

It's clear we do not worry as much about people on the other side of the planet. We may be moved by a catastrophe like the Tsunami in Thailand a few years ago or the earthquakes in Myanmar last year but still, until we have connections to people actually suffering from those, we tend to be just symphatetic to the victims.

But why are we even symphatetic? Because that is our nature!

Why do we love and get concerned of others? Because that is our nature!

Originally Posted by Boro

All I can really know for certain is death and pain. That is we all have the capacity to cause death and pain, but with or without us, it exists and it is certain.

Why be so pessimistic? Why don't you say that all we can really know for certain is life and happiness?

For every act of violence there are a thousand acts of kindness in this world. Just look at your everyday world!

Do not confuse the media (which only reports exceptions like beatings and murders and war) with reality where we all live in peace and love! (sorry, I had to let my old-hippie -spirit loose after all)

When someone getting it safely to her/his work is a front-page news I want to leave this humanity for things would be really bad then...

[Boromir88]

I know your post came before the message I sent you, so you may have already figured this out, based upon the PM, but it's relevant to the discussion here, and it can't hurt bringing up new things I did not send.

But anyway I don't see the difference between the self-interest and morals as you do Boro. Or I do have a different interpretation of it.~Nogrod

There's nothing wrong with wanting to live, wanting to survive, wanting have sons and daughters who would make you proud. But, what if many years from now, when I have little Boro's running around and in my own self-interest to see them succeed I decide to threaten, and coerce, their principal/teachers to give them "A's." Now granted this is a rather simple scenario, but some of the greatest atrocities can be committed out of love, love for family, love for those you care about. Or maybe even a tougher one to slam your head about, what if your child is the one who takes someone's life? And let me ask, would you be able to turn them in, if you knew they did it? Would you be evil if you did not, out of protection?

Let's just take a look at Grima, and this is where I disagree that LOTR is "not Manichaean" end of debate. Why does he betray Rohan? Saruman didn't beat him, or force him into it...not initially at least. It was money, but wasn't it also love? Love for Eowyn? Grima made the initial choice to deceive and betray. This is where the problem occurs when you take out free will, you displace blame to someone else. Eru is running things...right? So it must be his fault Grima betrayed! There is no personal responsibility in Grima's decision to betray, it's all Eru's fault, or Saruman's. As opposed to Boromir who consciously admits to doing wrong, but doesn't displace blame on the Ring, nor on Eru, or anyone else except himself.

"I tried to take the Ring from Frodo," he said. "I am sorry. I have paid."~The Departure of Boromir

That is where Boromir's redemption is...not because he believed in a Divine power, that was ultimately good. But that he is personally responsible for whatever choices he made - good or bad. That is where other characters like Saruman, Denethor, and Grima fail, in their justification for their actions and their blame of others.

Why be so pessimistic? Why don't you say that all we can really know for certain is life and happiness?

Whoever declared that death and pain were evil? Or something bad? I think there is a difference between death and pain, by nature, and death and pain, by humans.

Nature and life requires death. Trees drop their leaves so they can bloom again. Flowers age and die, but drop and spread their seeds to grow new ones. Like everything else, humans need to reproduce to survive. Pain teaches us valuable lessons, I mean I sure as heck done like feeling it, but like I said, I know now not to stick my head in a fireplace that is burning wood! Pain makes us stronger. If something is natural, how can it be evil?

I think what makes "death" and "pain" carry the negative weight with people, is the fact that humans have the ability to cause it (as do Chimps and other primates). Death and pain that is caused by people is what I would call evil. Death and pain occur naturally, but what gives us (as humans) the right to cause it and take away other living beings right to reach their own natural end? To use an LOTR example, I mean someone killing or enslaving people - you know like Sauron. I agree that we have the capacity to care, love, and be sympathetic, and there doesn't need to be a Divine power (or a 'hero' that provides a good example) to show us what is good, but we also have the capacity to hand out death and pain, and there doesn't need to be a Divine power (or a brutal oppressive dictator) who allows it. We have the capability to kill and inflict pain, without anyone forcing us or threatening our instincts to survive - and that is what I classify evil. We have the natural ability to be caring and loving, as well as the natural ability to cause death and pain, it is the the one we choose to act on that defines whether we are a good person...or well...not. (Of course this is just a rather simple and "major problems" explanation, I can get into talking about what are someone's intentions. We might say something, out of frustration or anger, that hurts someone we care about, but that doesn't make us evil...but anyway that might be suited for another discussion).

[davem]

Wish I had the time to join is properly - I just don't, but I am intruiged by many of the ideas brought forward - both on the thread & privately. Especially interesting to me is the idea of good intentions producing evil results - the desire to protect & support the community, even the sacrifice of oneself for the 'greater good', which actually results in evil - from the Nazi soldier who sincerely believed that the Jews were subhuman & a threat to his people & lays down his life on the battlefield to Sir David Pepper http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8087530.stm. Lewis words seem apposite

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience.

I think this is where Eddings' philosophical take on things collapses, because one can sacrifice oneself for the community - lessen oneself to make others greater, die for the cause, & still commit be wrong - if we use 'wrong' in the sense of causing harm & denying/taking away freedom. Sir David wants to severely curtail individual freedom in order to save lives (though it seems he has not thought about what quality those lives will have - you could also save lives, probably more lives, by confining everyone to a padded cell so no-one is placed at any risk at all.

And this, I think, is where Tolkien's world, ultimately guided & watched over by a source of ultimate 'good' makes such moral choices easier - if Eru or God is in ultimate control then one can trust him to take care of the bigger things & all the individual has to do is get the small, everyday things right - Frodo doesn't have to think 'If I let Gollum live he could get the Ring & bring about the rule of Sauron & everyone & everything I care about will suffer unimaginably' - I, simple little Frodo have the fate of the world in my hands at the moment! No, all he has to think is 'Is it right to kill this creature I have at my mercy? - in short, he only has to deal with issues, make choices, that are within his capacity to make - at no point is Frodo ever forced into a position where the fate of the world (in fact where the fate of anything but his own soul) is put at risk. The fate of the world is in greater hands. Simple choices are all simple folk are faced with. Trust in Eru/God to deal with the big things & simply do what's right in every circumstance - ie don't hurt someone if you don't have to at that particular moment. Act out of love & compassion - even if that seems like weakness.

Of course, if one doesn't (or can't) believe in Eru/God then one suddenly becomes responsible for the greater matters, because one's choices can (one believes) change the world -'The fate of the whole world depends on me alone - if I don't destroy the Ring everything will be lost! (er, better just cut his throat then, to be on the safe side). Remove Eru/God & the individual tends to find themselves in the position of having to take over his role Sir David clearly believes that if the UK Government don't completely rule our lives & curtail our freedoms then the terrorists will win.

So, things are actually easier for the believer than for the unbeliever, & the unbeliever is forced to make choices/take actions that the believer will leave in the hands of a higher power.

Which is fine if such a higher power actually exists - because if it doesn't then like the heroes of Pullman's & Eddings' worlds (& Sir David !), we actually are responsible for the fate of the world - evil, the Magisterium, 'terrorists' could actually win.

And I've spent way more time than I should have here.

[Boromir88]

I think this is where Eddings' philosophical take on things collapses, because one can sacrifice oneself for the community - lessen oneself to make others greater, die for the cause, & still commit be wrong - if we use 'wrong' in the sense of causing harm & denying/taking away freedom.~davem

And the opposite can be true too, if you think about "tough love." We can be selfish and demanding of our family, friends, and loved ones, because of the fact that we do love them. We do want them to grow, succeed, find love, and try to prevent them from making "wrong" decisions.

Which is fine if such a higher power actually exists - because if it doesn't then like the heroes of Pullman's & Eddings' worlds (& Sir David !), we actually are responsible for the fate of the world - evil, the Magisterium, 'terrorists' could actually win.

You've explained the strengths and weaknesses to Eddings' and Tolkien's world far better than I could. But I will just add too, that despite Tolkien wanting to give his characters as much free will as possible, which is something we can see, as he wrote about wanting to use the Eagles "sparingly" since they were "dangerous machines." I think with LOTR, he was trying to remove the Eru factor as much as possible, but the point still since Eru is unrivalled, and he is good, good will win in the end ,so it really does take away Frodo's (or anyone else's) ability to decide the fate of the world.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It was money, but wasn't it also love? Love for Eowyn?

Nonsense. It was lust, or at least the desire to possess. It's the 'love' of the stalker. Grima cared nothing in the least for Eowyn's desires or happiness as a fellow, equal, human being. He just wanted to own her: the literal objectification of another person.

And, no, Eru didn't 'will' or 'cause' it, as if he was pulling Grima's strings. Tolkien does make use of the Deus ex Machina, but only in indirect fashions.

Grima was selfish, and thus evil. He was so, chose to be so, on his own. All Men and even Elves are capable of so doing because all of Arda was Fallen from the beginning.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think with LOTR, he was trying to remove the Eru factor as much as possible, but the point still since Eru is unrivalled, and he is good, good will win in the end ,so it really does take away Frodo's (or anyone else's) ability to decide the fate of the world.

And the removal of Eru - or his inclusion - depending whether you read LotR as a stand alone work or in the light of the Sil, actually changes your experience of the story profoundly. Without Eru one is in Eddings/Pullman territory, where one's acts can determine the fate of the world as well as the fate of one's soul. Hence, the quest is given infinitely greater significance & meaning. So, the presence of Eru actually lessens the drama but increases the hope of the reader.

What's interesting is that for over twenty years people had to read LotR in one way, but now can read it in another way entirely (though its still not the case that all readers of LotR will read (or if they do, will take into account) the Sil. Without the Sil LotR can be read from an 'Eddings-esque'/Pullman-esque' perspective. Yet, what's interesting to me is that the idea of 'good' as self- sacrifice, love, compassion, making oneself imperfect,& 'evil' as seeking self-perfection, self-containment, rejection of weakness & attainment of some kind of Nietzchean ideal, is shared by all the authors. The real difference between Tolkien's & Eddings/Pullman's worlds is the presence of Eru (& the quality of imagination, of course).

[Pitchwife]

Great stuff and loads of engaging thoughts by everybody - thanks for a great read! Unfortunately, I haven't read Eddings myself, but anyway, here's my farthing's worth on some of the points that have been addressed up to now.

Originally Posted by davem

And the removal of Eru - or his inclusion - depending whether you read LotR as a stand alone work or in the light of the Sil, actually changes your experience of the story profoundly. Without Eru one is in Eddings/Pullman territory, where one's acts can determine the fate of the world as well as the fate of one's soul. Hence, the quest is given infinitely greater significance & meaning.

Indeed, and I think this goes to show once more Tolkien's wisdom in avoiding any overt statement on the religion/theology of Middle-Earth in LotR. Wouldn't it be boring if the characters had read the Ainulindale and knew that everything will work out fine in the end? It will, of course, but our friends (except, probably, Gandalf/Olórin) don't know and can't be sure of the outcome; they may get some fleeting glimpses and intimations of light and high beauty beyond the reach of the Enemy, but in general, they can only hope and do their best.
However, I can't agree that in Tolkien's world, the characters' actions affect only their own souls. For example, while Frodo's sacrifice may not have made any difference to the fate of the world in the long run, it made a huge difference to everybody living in Middle-Earth in the meantime. Maybe if Frodo had failed (e.g. by killing Gollum instead of having mercy on him) and Sauron had regained the Ring, the Valar or Eru himself would have intervened to prevent Sauron from gaining dominion over all Middle-Earth, but even in this case, what would have been the cost in human/elven/dwarven suffering, if another War of the Powers, another Drowning of Númenor had occurred?
As to your point about the Elves' 'embalming' desire for perfection being evil according to Eddings' standard, isn't it interesting that it was chiefly the Noldor (Galadriel!) who were obsessed with arresting change, much less the Sindar and Silvan Elves, and that they clearly caught the disease in Aman? They got hooked on changelessness in the Undying Lands and, as Boro has said, tried to reproduce the conditions they had got used to there in M-E. Moreover, the Valar themselves weren't entirely innocent of the desire to resist change, shutting their Earthly Paradise off from events in the rest of the world. I'm sure Tolkien wouldn't have gone as far as calling this desire 'evil', but I think I remember he censured the Powers for their fainéance.
As to good intentions producing evil results, my first thought reading that great quote from Lewis was - Gandalf, if he had taken the Ring.

Just a few more stray thoughts before I let my wife at the computer:

Boro: All I can really know for certain is death and pain.
Nogrod: Why be so pessimistic? Why don't you say that all we can really know for certain is life and happiness?

Isn't it obvious? Happiness is never certain; death always is - i.e. it's the only thing that's guaranteed to happen to all of us sooner or later; that's why life and happiness are so precious (no Gollumish pun intended). "The future is uncertain, the end is always near."

Gwath: But I don't understand where good can come from if it does not come from God? How could such a thing exist in an impersonal, arbitrary, random world unless we make it ourselves

Sorry for philosophical nitpicking, but this is a perfect example of thought stumbling into the pitfalls of language. Just because 'good' can be used as a noun in most European languages, we tend to think of it as a thing or entity of some sort that 'exists' and, because it exists, must be 'made' by somebody; but good is nothing that exists, its just what we do - and so is evil.
But if you really mean where our standards for judging certain actions as good or evil come from, I find Nogrod's answer quite satisfying.

No time for more at the moment, but I hope this will go on for a while.