Redefining Good & Evil

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Of course, we don't know what Eru can or can't/will or won't do. Would Eru have permitted Sauron to win? Would he have permitted Frodo to fall if that would have allowed Sauron to win?

Given the remote and uninvolved character of Eru, I think the idea that he would directly intervene to prevent Frodo from failing is out of the question. Melkor ruled Middle-earth for many long ages and Eru did not intervene; why would he treat Sauron differently?

Moreover, even if one admits a small possibility that Eru would not let the quest fail (and I for one do not admit it), this is still a far cry from certain knowledge that he will intervene, so it certainly does not follow that the fight against Sauron is 'not worth fighting'.

Clearly, once the Sil appeared LotR became a different work.

I agree that the Silmarillion offers one a new way of looking at LotR. But I simply can't see how it could 'detract from the sacrifices made, the struggles undergone' as you suggest. There is certainly no assurance in the Silmarillion that good will defeat evil within the world, nor anything to rule out the possibility of Sauron's victory and dominion over Middle-earth.

The matter of Dagor Dagorath and Arda Remade concerns the end of the world, and that only. So yes, if one believes the Second Prophecy of Mandos then Melkor and his servants will at the end of time be defeated. In that sense, the final victory of good is certain. But this does not preclude the victory of evil within Arda; it does not preclude the immense death and suffering that would result from Sauron's victory. To suggest that Eru's final victory makes that suffering (and the heroic efforts to prevent it) irrelevant would be like suggesting that the eventual victory of the Allies in World War II made the Holocaust irrelevant.

Moreover, there are in Tolkien's writings no more than a few brief hints of the Last Battle and the final triumph of good; it is by no means assured. In the published Silmarillion there is no hint of it at all. Yes, the existence of Eru is stated there - but there is no hint, and certainly no assurance, of the ultimate victory of good over evil.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Davem wrote:
Given the remote and uninvolved character of Eru, I think the idea that he would directly intervene to prevent Frodo from failing is out of the question. Melkor ruled Middle-earth for many long ages and Eru did not intervene; why would he treat Sauron differently?

This is a point I've made numerous times - the remote & uninvolved nature of Eru - & been informed that he is constantly at work in the world 'in a hidden way'. But while he is so hidden in LotR that the reader of that work is not aware he is even there (or even actually necessary), The Sil places him firmly in the action - & most importantly in the mind of the reader. The whole universe is transformed by his presence, both its essential nature & its ultimate fate.

I agree that the Silmarillion offers one a new way of looking at LotR. But I simply can't see how it could 'detract from the sacrifices made, the struggles undergone' as you suggest. There is certainly no assurance in the Silmarillion that good will defeat evil within the world, nor anything to rule out the possibility of Sauron's victory and dominion over Middle-earth.

Yes, the whole 'long defeat' thing is there - but again, that's another change. From a reading of LotR as a stand alone (with TH tacked on) work, we know very little of 'Melkor', of any of the 'ancient history' of the world, so we have none of the context for events in LotR that the Sil provides (anyone want to argue that a reader of LotR who then comes to the Sil is able to retain their concept of Elves as heroic, beautiful, wise & good?). LotR is made smaller & more limited by the existence of the Sil in the reader's mind - the 'Great War against Evil!' becomes 'another war against evil'. 'Frodo's Great Sacrifice of Himself to save the World!' becomes 'another great sacrifice of another hero to save the world (again)'. Its difficult to argue (wrongly, of course, of course) that Frodo is a 'Christ' figure (which is possible after a reading of LotR) when one has read of the repeated sacrifices of heroes throughout the whole history of Arda. I repeat - Good & evil become choices which only affect the individual & his or her own time & place but cannot affect or determine the ultimate fate of the world.

Originally Posted by Gwath

If we should be careful of saying that good or bad are things that exist in and of themselves, then we should be equally careful of saying that good and bad are nothing more than terms developed to indicate certain patterns of behavior. Both are ditches that lie on opposite sides of the road. Plato found his way into the first ditch, where the only real thing was the ultimate good (i.e. the Forms). The other ditch is just as bad, where the term "good" has been stripped of all vestiges of permanence or transcendence.

I think it could be argued that in LotR while good & evil are not exactly stripped of all vestiges of permanence or trancendence, they are choices which can be made freely by any individual - & their reward or punishment is simply the kind of world they get to live in. They don't have any 'cosmic' significance. Characters make the kind of bed they want to lie in, & whatever choice they make is not going to please or anger any higher power, & either side can win. Good & evil as permanent/transcendent states (or good as truly permanent/transcendent/evil as its illusory shadow) only come in with the Sil. Building the 'Republic of Heaven' is the task for the victors of LotR as stand alone work - they have to make their paradise, as best they can, with the tools they have to hand. Bring in the Sil & the only option is the Kingdom of Eru (when he finally gets around to bringing it about).

[alatar]

Good thoughts, Nogrod and others. I was hoping to get time to post 'we are animals,' but ya beat me to it.

Though some many not agree, we are animals. Sure, we have credit cards and cell phones, but animals just the same.

But, for discussion, let's pretend that there is some gulf between us and the other inhabitants of this globe. So my question then is, is there good or evil in the animal kingdom? Animals 'murder' in that they do kill for non-sustenance reasons. Rape and incest exist there as well. So what's the difference between them and us?

At first I thought that it might be premeditation. Do animals think out their actions before acting upon them, or is it all instinct/gene-driven? In the case of apes, I would say that 'forethought' (darn Prometheus!) does happen, as observed here. If we have the same actions taking place within the animal world, how then do we then say that as humans, we have knowledge of 'good and evil' whereas the animals just do what they do?

So what is it? Do all animals, human included, have the ability to commit acts of good or evil? Or can only we humans act thus? Hate to sound all relativistic, but are these concepts just in the eye of the beholder?

And, if evil is 'selfish,' and if we cannot exclude animals from evil acts, then isn't this just 'survival,' and yet we want to call it something else?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

This is a point I've made numerous times - the remote & uninvolved nature of Eru - & been informed that he is constantly at work in the world 'in a hidden way'. But while he is so hidden in LotR that the reader of that work is not aware he is even there (or even actually necessary), The Sil places him firmly in the action - & most importantly in the mind of the reader.

To be fair, I'm not among those who have informed you that Eru is constantly at work 'in a hidden way'.

But I was actually thinking more of the Silmarillion. Eru is not invisible there, as he more or less is in LotR, but he is rather remote - certainly far more removed from worldly affairs than the God of the Torah, for example. Indeed, if one were to judge solely from his portrayal of Eru, without any biographical information, one would almost think Tolkien closer to Enlightenment-style deism than to traditional Catholicism. The point is that, even taking the Silmarillion fully into account, Eru is far enough removed from worldly events that the victory of good seems anything but inevitable. Or at least, it does to me.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by alatar

Good thoughts, Nogrod and others. I was hoping to get time to post 'we are animals,' but ya beat me to it.

Though some many not agree, we are animals. Sure, we have credit cards and cell phones, but animals just the same.

But, for discussion, let's pretend that there is some gulf between us and the other inhabitants of this globe. So my question then is, is there good or evil in the animal kingdom? Animals 'murder' in that they do kill for non-sustenance reasons. Rape and incest exist there as well. So what's the difference between them and us?

At first I thought that it might be premeditation. Do animals think out their actions before acting upon them, or is it all instinct/gene-driven? In the case of apes, I would say that 'forethought' (darn Prometheus!) does happen, as observed here. If we have the same actions taking place within the animal world, how then do we then say that as humans, we have knowledge of 'good and evil' whereas the animals just do what they do?

So what is it? Do all animals, human included, have the ability to commit acts of good or evil? Or can only we humans act thus? Hate to sound all relativistic, but are these concepts just in the eye of the beholder?

And, if evil is 'selfish,' and if we cannot exclude animals from evil acts, then isn't this just 'survival,' and yet we want to call it something else?

Well, in my darker moments I have always though that humanity is proably unique in our capacity for sadism and scadenfreude, that is, the we are likey the only cretures who are capable of taking pleasure in the pain and suffering of others (I would even in such a state, go so far as to say that that is the main way we are different than animals). Other animals may hurt and kill kill but we are likey the only ones who engagle in recreational torture for the sheer fun of it (well, maybe a cat toying with a mouse, but that's a grey area)

[Hakon]

Truthfully one of the only things that makes us unique is that we are more evolved. Out intelligence is above those of the animals but our instincts are very similar. We are animals and we always will be.

To address your question Alatar, we as humans label it good and evil. As you said in the animal kingdom murder and rape occurs, but as humans label it as evil. In a way we are always going to be trying to lie to ourselves as a race saying that our instincts are evil. We also label some things that make us unique evil. Alfirin mentioned how sadism makes us different from animals. We label sadism as evil. We label what we dislike about our race as a whole evil.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hakon

Truthfully one of the only things that makes us unique is that we are more evolved. Out intelligence is above those of the animals but our instincts are very similar. We are animals and we always will be.

To address your question Alatar, we as humans label it good and evil. As you said in the animal kingdom murder and rape occurs, but as humans label it as evil. In a way we are always going to be trying to lie to ourselves as a race saying that our instincts are evil. We also label some things that make us unique evil. Alfirin mentioned how sadism makes us different from animals. We label sadism as evil. We label what we dislike about our race as a whole evil.

Whoa! No offense, Hakon, I don't think you've really earned the right to make assertions like that. Maybe if you'd been brainwashed into the Lord's Resistance Army and been forced to kill from age five, or had every person you ever loved destroyed by Stalin, or suffered through the destruction of Nagasaki - in short, experienced about as much pain and suffering as a human can - you might be able to brush such things off as amoral and simply the product of human instinct. But until you have undergone the evil that you dismiss as mere nature, all that kind of talk is just empty philosophy and probably horribly offensive to, say, a victim of gang rape.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

But until you have undergone the evil that you dismiss as mere nature, all that kind of talk is just empty philosophy and probably horribly offensive to, say, a victim of gang rape.

You might as well accuse me of the same thing. My life has been relatively simple and uneventful, and so this is a philosophical and theoretical discussion for me. I apologize and sympathize to anyone for which this is real - I mean no offense or disrespect.

That said, if my belief is that we are animals, that there is no 'spiritual' world, then that surely colours my view of good and evil. It's not to say that I'm right, but it's what I believe, and what I believe can be born out by the evidence.

Not sure what else to say.

[Nogrod]

This is getting interesting indeed! *bows to everyone* (and regrets it's too late here to make a longer post... which probably is just good for the discussion)

Yay Hakon! Very good points indeed! But how should one interpret them?

Originally Posted by Hakon

To address your question Alatar, we as humans label it good and evil. As you said in the animal kingdom murder and rape occurs, but as humans label it as evil.

So like they say in the Genesis: Adam and Eve ate the apple from the tree of knowledge of good and bad? That's what differentiates us from the other animals who roam free and without a conscience nagging at them, and we were thrown out from the paradise eg. the state of moral ignorance because of that?

Some progressive-liberal lutheran (some other protestant) theologians have probably raised that point already I believe. It is a nice argument!

But let's not muddy it up with the more traditional argument that humans are unique as they know good and bad as such - unlike the other animals! And let's not get too happy with that progressive argument either...

Now the progressive Christian view would say it is that we are able to name or call some actions good and bad, to label them that way, and therefore we feel bad of some of our actions and good from others - and that might guide us nearer to God's will. As it was her divine plan from the beginning we should learn these differences to make individual choices.

But looked from that angle, eating the apple was the actual "receiving" of the free will according to morals itself, which was what God willed to us in the beginning? But she somehow decided to use the Devil to lure us into getting it and did not bother herself to do it? Hmm... Interesting.

Did God or did she not will us to have free will on matters over good or bad? If she wasn't willing it, we should have stayed as other animals who act mainly on instinct - and all this talk about good and evil is just led by Satan? So did God dislike us being able to label things as good or bad? At least she cursed the mankind for it... Or are we actually just acting on instinct and just able to deliberate on our choices more the other animals do because of language?

It reminds me of the status of Judas in the stories relating to Christ... so did he actually enable the whole redemption stuff and got lost himself while Christ just ascended to glory making Judas the real martyr, or what is it - and who was Christ then if Judas was the one "bringing the balance" (sorry)? Anyway, if God is omniscient he anyway knew and thus sacrificed Judas, right? Sorry. But you should think about it one day.

Back to the original stuff. The traditional view holds there is a universal truth with good and evil... but if God herself doesn't like us to know it as she blamed Adam and Eve from acquiring that knowledge? And if it is Satan who comes forwards with it, what's the status of these "ultimate truths" about Good and Evil?


Looking at today's extremists: suicide-bombers, al-Qaida, taleban, newly-born political christians, sionists and other orthodox jews, nationalists all around the globe... all those who think their "opinions" on universal good and bad are God-given or otherwise beyond any doubt... Well, if anything, they surely sound like doctrines that were handed to us by Satan herself wishing to undo all that is good in this world!

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Looking at today's extremists: suicide-bombers, al-Qaida, taleban, newly-born political christians, sionists and other orthodox jews, nationalists all around the globe... all those who think their "opinions" on universal good and bad are God-given or otherwise beyond any doubt... Well, if anything, they surely sound like doctrines that were handed to us by Satan herself wishing to undo all that is good in this world!

"Newly-born politicial christians" don't, as a rule, blow people up.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

It reminds me of the status of Judas in the stories relating to Christ... so did he actually enable the whole redemption stuff and got lost himself while Christ just ascended to glory making Judas the real martyr, or what is it - and who was Christ then if Judas was the one "bringing the balance" (sorry)? Anyway, if God is omniscient he anyway knew and thus sacrificed Judas, right? Sorry. But you should think about it one day.

I want to eventually get to the other points you brought up, Nogrod, because they're really interesting, but for now let me just mention this verse, which is germane to the Judas discussion: "The Son of Man goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that if he had never been born." (Jesus speaking, in the book of Mark, chapter 14, verse 21.) Enjoy.

[Pitchwife]

Now, what is this? I'm away from the Downs for just a few days, and when I come back I find this thread has gone to Far Harad and back (or not quite back)!
No chance to address even half of what has gone on in the meantime, but anyway, let me see, where were we? Oh yes: alatar stated the obvious, i.e. that we're animals, and Hakon made a much disputed post which I liked very well, the point being that it's us humans who label certain actions as good or evil.
alatar, in response to the question you raised in your first post in this thread, I think the difference between us and other animals as regards good and evil is not premeditation, but rather reflection. Chimps, dogs, cats etc. may kill, rape (?) or act altruistically, but as far as I know they don't reflect on the ethical value of their actions. They don't ask themselves, 'Ought I to do this?', and they don't think 'I really shouldn't, but heck, I'll do it anyway because I happen to feel like it'; hence, they don't feel guilt or bad conscience. (Dogs, who have been domesticated and lived in close contact with humans for a very long time, sometimes act like feeling guilty when we catch them doing something we don't want them to, but that's more because they feel our displeasure than realizing there was anything wrong with what they did. We're their externalized superegos, so to speak.) Nature may be red in tooth and claw, but she's always innocent, because she doesn't think about what she's doing. (I realize gendered pronouns have become a hot topic in some recent posts, but sorry, I can't call nature 'it' - and that's not just because of grammatical gender in German. Make of of it what you will.)
Or rather, she didn't, until we appeared on the scene. However we may try to disengage ourselves from nature, rise above her, remodel her or destroy her - as animals, we'll always be part of her: the only part of her (as far as we know) that's aware of itself and thinks about itself, its part in the whole and its actions. And labels some of those actions good and others evil.
Hakon said, We label what we dislike about our race as a whole evil, which, to me, has the ring of truth - but what precisely we label as good or evil says a lot about us and our state of maturity or immaturity. Insofar as we're Mother Nature's obedient children, good is whatever ensures survival, whether of ourselves or of our species, evil whatever endangers it. Insofar as we're teenage rebels against her we label the instincts that connect us to her as evil. Insofar as we're adults accepting our place in the whole, it's the same as before, only it's not just the survival of our own species but of the whole ecosphere. (Damn Hegel and his dialectics, but sometimes he does have a point.)
- By the way, I just realized (though I'm not sure if anybody else will, as my thoughts are jumping around quite a bit at the moment) this might be a connection back to the original Eddings theme: evil only cares about the individual; good involves the sacrifice of the individual for the species as a community; next stage of good would be realizing that the community includes all species on this planet. -

(Aside to Gwath: I never said (or meant to say) that good and bad are nothing more than terms developed to indicate certain patterns of behavior. Not merely indicate, but evaluate (as should be obvious from the above).)

(Aside to Alfirin: sadism is an interesting point, but I think what we (i.e. those of us that ever feel that way, which, if I may guess, is much more than would ever admit it but much less than would ever act it out) actually take pleasure in is not really the pain and suffering of others but our own power to inflict it on them; therefore, the people who are most likely to act on a sadistic impulse are those who have been victimized themselves in some way or the other and feel powerless in every other respect - in other words, individuals asserting themselves in the only way available to them.)

OK. Back to Tolkien.

davem, much of what I wanted to say about Eru permitting Frodo to fail or not has been taken care of by Aiwendil, but nevertheless: if Eru was determined to stop Sauron, he would have found a way to do it whether Frodo failed or not, wouldn't he, or otherwise what a poor excuse for a God would he be? Which means that Frodo always had a chance to fail - and indeed fail he did, except that he let Gollum live to save the day (with or without a Divine Nudge). Everything else would reduce Frodo to a remote-controlled puppet and/or divine providence to a failsafe.

The really interesting thing in this context is that while only Gandalf among the good guys may truly know the outcome of things, among the bad guys both Saruman & Sauron know it too - yet they actually try to bring about a different result.

Not sure about this (not even about Gandalf, on second thought). Remember the Ainur didn't see the end of the Music and the later ages of the world. There was the Second Prophecy of Mandos about Dagor Dagorath etc., but do we know when exactly it was made and who was told about it? Saruman may or may not have known, Sauron almost certainly didn't - so I think they can be excused for thinking they might get away with what they were doing.
À propos Saruman, these words of yours made me think of him, and the difference between him and Gandalf:

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

To be sure, for Saruman (and I mean before he got power-crazy) believing or not believing in Eru was not the question - he knew; but he didn't trust in Eru. The way Saruman thought, he, as the head of the Istari, was responsible and in charge, and the only way he could think of to counter Sauron was to find the Ring before him. Saruman would never have laid down his life and trusted the Higher Power to set things right, as Gandalf did in Moria.

Finally, alatar wrote:

Bilbo (or was it Frodo?) thinks that the Shire could use a good awakening, a thinning or dethatching, via a brood of Dragons descending upon the place. He, in essence, would like to 'select' for a specific type of Hobbit, one that is 'awake' and looking upward and not just down at the earth, whose thoughts were more lofty and long range.

It was Frodo. And wouldn't he have made a lovely little dictator of the Shire if he could have claimed the Ring and got away with it? Setting up schools for hobbit children, I'd suppose, with Quenya and Sindarin compulsory as foreign languages and everybody studying the Quenta Silmarillion in the original Klingon. 'Selecting' and bossing around people for what he thought their own good. There was a little Sauron in him after all.

[Morsul the Dark]

I'm going to defend myself, I Know woman can be just as bad as men, I just think as a whole they really are the more compassionate sex, look to think everyone has EXACTLY the same traits is to ignore the truth! anyway what I was saying is yes we should be compassionate about others, HOWEVER in tribal days you had to care for what maybe a couple hundred people(If that) it doesn't carry over to modern times the numbers of those in "Need" is growing and those that are caring is shrinking, because there are those who exploit the "goodness" of others, you think America's welfare system would be so full if the layabouts and losers were forced out, I'm not talking about the disabled or the Newly unemployed people who lost their jobs after twenty years of hard work, I'm talking about habitual slackers. Goodness is helping those in Need, helping those in Want is ignorance

Let's face it when it came down to it you and your family come first survival is our main goal, If it weren't we wouldn't exist. and if we truly were "good" we wouldn't need laws and governments, or quite frankly religion.

and trust me whoever thinks we're intelligent logical creatures hasn't worked retail

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

alatar, in response to the question you raised in your first post in this thread, I think the difference between us and other animals as regards good and evil is not premeditation, but rather reflection. Chimps, dogs, cats etc. may kill, rape (?) or act altruistically, but as far as I know they don't reflect on the ethical value of their actions. They don't ask themselves, 'Ought I to do this?', and they don't think 'I really shouldn't, but heck, I'll do it anyway because I happen to feel like it'; hence, they don't feel guilt or bad conscience.

Excellent! That's the piece I was missing. And I would think that true psychopaths don't reflect much on their actions - they just 'do,' and until stopped, continue to do.

It was Frodo. And wouldn't he have made a lovely little dictator of the Shire if he could have claimed the Ring and got away with it? Setting up schools for hobbit children, I'd suppose, with Quenya and Sindarin compulsory as foreign languages and everybody studying the Quenta Silmarillion in the original Klingon. 'Selecting' and bossing around people for what he thought their own good. There was a little Sauron in him after all.

We all have a little bit of Sauron in us. Like in the Sil, we have to fight the slow retreat.