Let's Talk Morgoth

[Eruanna]

why was Melkor evil? Was this part of Iluvatar's plan?

If we see Melkor and the other Valar as aspects of Iluvatar, then it makes sense that there has to be evil in order to create balance with good, perhaps Melkor was simply fulfilling his purpose.

Arda remade being better than Arda Unmarred, but he ultimately enriched the story of the world. Can you imagine the history of Arda without his plans and machinations?

This is an interesting point, Maédhros. Sometimes good comes out of evil. Certain things, like wars for instance, are thought of as bad things, but throughout history we can see that times of war have also been times of invention and innovation in both technology and medicine.

[alatar]

What I've never understood is how an omniscient omnipresent infinite God could be considered 'good.' Doesn't that seem to place a limit on or anthropomorphize something beyond our understanding?

Melkor was obviously evil once he came to Arda, but beforehand I would have to agree with others that technically he wasn't, though he was in discord with Iluvatar. Was this pre-Arda discord because of pride, which is considered to be evil (discord - pride - evil)? Was he 'evil' because he failed to harmonize with the others, and maybe even worse, because he also silenced others, limiting their freedom?

And it should be plain to see that if Iluvatar wanted to remove Melkor from the theme that he could have easily done so at any time; therefore I would say that Melkor was a necessary part of the plan.

Wonder how Tolkien found this as he was a Roman Catholic? Satan, whom many consider to be like Melkor, is never thought to be 'part of the original plan.'

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

Wonder how Tolkien found this as he was a Roman Catholic? Satan, whom many consider to be like Melkor, is never thought to be 'part of the original plan.'

Personally, as a practising Roman Catholic myself, I never once saw Melkor's meddling as a part of the original plan. Melkor's self-seeking musical changes were exactly the same, in my mind, as Lucifer's pride. The thing though, is that Eru/God allows his sentient creatures freedom. Thus, although it was not Iluvatar's intent, when Melkor disrupted the Music intended to be the act of creation, Iluvatar did not obliterate it and start over again, but rather, he took up the changes and used them to make Arda a more beautiful, ultimately better place. Our free will, like Melkor's, can disrupt the divine intentions, and make life worse for our peers, but in the end, God's will can bend all things towards Him and his ultimate goal.

We may steer the car into the ditch, but God will keep us going towards out destination, even if it be over field and fen.

[obloquy]

We may steer the car into the ditch, but God will keep us going towards out destination, even if it be over field and fen.

Without condemning us as "evil," aye?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Without condemning us as "evil," aye?

Well, like the owner of the car, he might be pleased that it makes it to the end destination, but I rather suspect that those responsible for steering into the ditch will receive their just reward for mucking it up and ruining the transmission...

[HerenIstarion]

...will receive their just reward for mucking it up....

Deliberate steering into the ditch, I hope and suppose.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I never once saw Melkor's meddling as a part of the original plan. Melkor's self-seeking musical changes were exactly the same, in my mind, as Lucifer's pride.

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. Is there then one greater than he? Does Iluvatar limit himself, whether consciously or subconsciously, in regards to not 'unmaking' Melkor? And just how does one limit the infinite?

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.

Anyway, where I see Melkor and Satan differing is in that Iluvatar uses Melkor's discordance to create things even greater whereas is seems to me that the Christian God is at odds with Satan and never would overtly 'use' something from the same. I know that all things still reflect the glory of God, but in Tolkien's world it is stated directly. Another thought: whereas Manwe is the King of Arda and Melkor is the Anti-King (so to speak), Lucifer is the purported king of this world and God is the King of everything not of this world.

The thing though, is that Eru/God allows his sentient creatures freedom. Thus, although it was not Iluvatar's intent, when Melkor disrupted the Music intended to be the act of creation, Iluvatar did not obliterate it and start over again, but rather, he took up the changes and used them to make Arda a more beautiful, ultimately better place.

So again he must not have minded the disruption. Not to debate the other book, but the Christian God drowned a world full of people expressing their free will. Iluvatar let each censor its own type (Vala, Maia, Eldar with occasional overlap).

Our free will, like Melkor's, can disrupt the divine intentions, and make life worse for our peers, but in the end, God's will can bend all things towards Him and his ultimate goal.

Though I understand what you are trying to say, note that you cannot "disrupt the divine intentions" of a God by definition. Even Satan/Melkor, being a creation of the god of the particular world, could not influence the same without the permission from said god. And in regards to "God's will can bend all things towards Him and his ultimate goal,' where does free will end and God's will start? I kinda like that idea that the rules of the game have been set up and now we're on our own.

[obloquy]

Hi, alatar, I'm obloquy. I'm pleased to meet you and I hope you post frequently.

Great post.

[HerenIstarion]

Alatar, well argued. Despite my total disagreement, can't help but approve of form, if not of content.

It may be advisable to look at the following:

Of evil, free will and fate (by legolas)
The role of fate in Middle Earth (by Mithadan)
The halls of Mandos and elvish free will (by JenFramp). (see post #18 of that thread. It was not written as direct answer to questions you rise, rather elvish fate was in mind, but I think it may work in this case too)

About ‘incorporating’ of Melkor/Satan’s undoing into further creation – one thing to remember is a Christian concept that God has no need to create.

Crude analogy:

Suppose I have a cow, and a garden. Suppose further the cow defecated on a path in my garden. It is not a proper place for a cow to do the deed, and evaluation I may give the event would be ‘bad’. My further course of action may be manifold:

1. I may use the manure to dung the flowerbed and grow flowers
2. I may simply throw it away

It does not follow, though:

1. That I was obliged to use that particular ‘bad’ piece of manure for fertilization
2. That I was unable to grow flowers by other means if I threw it away, after all

That I take it up and use it for better purposes, thus ‘cleansing’ the paths in my garden back to original and producing more beauty through doings of my cow, is my glory

EDIT: point about freedom - when I gave my cow the freedom to walk my garden, I certainly counted for possibility it may do the thing in inappropriate place. That I hoped it would be a good cow, and not use the freedom I gave her to defecate there is, I believe, obvious. That I valued her freedom more than my possible displeasure with necessity of spade-work, is, I hope, likewise obvious. That I would have loved her more (and my end in letting her into the garden in the first place) if she used her free will to refrain from the deed, is what follows (see also Was Eru a sadist by bombadil, post #14) END OF EDIT

Obloquy, mere arbiter above Good and Evil and other than both does not work, I'm sorry. What would be the ground for judgement? Brilliance of performance? Artistry? But point about moral law I can accept, sure. I'd rather word it simpler, like 'Ultimate being of God expresses itself as moral imperative in all created beings. To accept the imperative is good. Creature has the right and ability to choose or choose not the acceptance of the imperative. That'd be freedom

cheers

[alatar]

Thanks to all for the kind words.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Suppose I have a cow, and a garden. Suppose further the cow defecated on a path in my garden. It is not a proper place for a cow to do the deed, and evaluation I may give the event would be ‘bad’. My further course of action may be manifold:

1. I may use the manure to dung the flowerbed and grow flowers
2. I may simply throw it away

It does not follow, though:

1. That I was obliged to use that particular ‘bad’ piece of manure for fertilization
2. That I was unable to grow flowers by other means if I threw it away, after all

That I take it up and use it for better purposes, thus ‘cleansing’ the paths in my garden back to original and producing more beauty through doings of my cow, is my glory

I assume that one could remove the manure from the garden, as if it had never happened. Or, next year, not allow the cow in the garden at all. Or plant a new garden with a fence and a 'no cow' rule. From a worm's POV, it would seem that the Gardener could have done something about the organic material, and if not, then either chose not to ("I'll work it into my glory") or could not do so ("I can't alter the cow's free will"). When the worm overhears the Gardener talking in the garden, and hears that the Gardener could completely destroy the garden, replant the garden, remove the manure, eat the cow, etc, and yet the cow gets back in again and does 'the deed' again, some worms may begin to doubt the Gardener's abilities or desires.

Anyway, as I know nothing of cows, but more about canines - especially one in particular that lives with us and is treated as if it were human (sigh)...when I go out into the backyard to clean it up, inevitably (and if there is a universal law, this may be it), I step in what we refer to as the dog's "business." Initially, I want to blame her, but really, it's my fault. I wasn't careful enough, I let the job go undone to where the odds of stepping on grass decreased, etc. I am ultimately responsible for the dog and where it does its business.

Surely God takes some of the responsibility for the business.

EDIT: point about freedom - when I gave my cow the freedom to walk my garden, I certainly counted for possibility it may do the thing in inappropriate place. That I hoped it would be a good cow, and not use the freedom I gave her to defecate there is, I believe, obvious.

A cow eats grass, and the waste product goes where? It's not like you would say, "hey, call the TV news! I think that my cow defecated!" You knew full well what the cow does, and assuming that you really know this cow, you also know that the chances of 'going in the garden' are high, yet you still let it in. Is the cow bad for doing what it must do? Is not the Gardener bad for placing the cow in the Garden then calling it not good for what is natural for the cow? Did the Gardener tell the cow not to do said deed? Did the cow understanfd?

Poor cow.

[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!).

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by alatar

What I've never understood is how an omniscient omnipresent infinite God could be considered 'good.' Doesn't that seem to place a limit on or anthropomorphize something beyond our understanding?
...

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.

Edited multiple times to correct egregiously bizarre grammar.

[Celebaglar]

Originally Posted by alatar

Melkor was obviously evil once he came to Arda, but beforehand I would have to agree with others that technically he wasn't, though he was in discord with Iluvatar. Was this pre-Arda discord because of pride, which is considered to be evil (discord - pride - evil)? Was he 'evil' because he failed to harmonize with the others, and maybe even worse, because he also silenced others, limiting their freedom?

No Melkor was not evil in the beginning. Melkor was in my oppinion to ambitious, he wanted power and to make things he believed in his mind to be good. He could be labelled as smarter than the rest of the ainur, for he thought independantly, and when he was shunned for his originality or difference, that is when he began to grow 'evil' as we know it, by disdaining the restrictions as his power as one of the ainur. My post seems a little strange, but i thought of how it might be from Melkors view. I believe he can be compared most accurately to a human as a Hitler type of person, he allowed his jealousy to grow out control into hatred.

[Maédhros]

From the Published Silmarillion

But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar, for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself. To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.

This has always interested me. Why would only Melkor feel this way among the Ainur? Why does he has that innate curiosity that the others lack?
From Morgoth's Ring: Myths Transformed

Melkor must be made far more powerful in original nature (cf. 'Finrod and Andreth'). The greatest power under Eru (sc. the greatest created power). (He was to make/ devise / begin; Manwë (a little less great) was to improve, carry out, complete.)
Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as to control the hroa, the 'flesh' or physical matter of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it. A vaster and more perilous, procedure, though of similar sort to the operations of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient', and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.

I had always thought that Melkor strayed from his path. To me at first, he was the one to have become like the great architect of the making of Arda, while the other Valars put their touches here and there. But now I think that perhaps I was mistaken.
Perhaps a world like that was to be flawed, perhaps it was that the reason that Melkor had such other ideas unlike his brethren.
What if Melkor's devise to make begin, was not meant for Arda but for Arda Remade? Consider, Melkor "incarnated" his power to the flesh of Arda, leaving no choice but to make it anew. With all of his interference he enriched the overall history of the world and that of Men, so that they should be an integral part of the remaking of Arda. By having struggles in Arda, wouldn't that make in the end the joy of victory that much sweeter?
If the only part of Arda was Valinórë, which had no Melkor ingredient on it, and yet Men could not live there and it was a constant source of grief in Men, would that not be wrong. Perhaps that is what Melkor saw and that is what led him to his ways. Perhaps Arda Remade was the way that all of the beings could live in perfect harmony together and Melkor was the one who began it all.