Absolutely Evil

[The 1,000 Reader]

I think it means two things.

1. No one is born evil.

2. No one does something thinking that they themselves are evil. They see themselves as a good person, or the person does not see at all.

[Boromir88]

2. No one does something thinking that they themselves are evil. They see themselves as a good person, or the person does not see at all.

Interesting, and I agree. I think this describes Saruman quite well. I think a majority of the "evil-doers" in history, in literature...etc had felt like what they were doing was right, it was just. It's sort of like the ends and means sort of thing. Who cares if I commit these heinous acts the end will justify the means. And there's a quote from the Council of Elrond where we see Saruman fit perfectly into this category:

We can join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows; its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.~The Council of Elrond

To Saruman it doesn't matter how he does it, who gets hurt, what he does, what matters is in the end he thinks that what he's doing is right. He thinks what he's doing is why the Istari were sent to Middle-earth. He thinks, doesn't matter if he joins with Sauron, because in the end he plans to backstab him and complete his mission. And we all know Saruman is fooled and has leddown the wrong path.

[Kuruharan]

Eru being the creator here and I think the representation of absolute good...I mean Tolkien doesn't say there isn't an absolute good? So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

I believe this is partially why Tolkien did not think there could be absolute evil.

Judging from some of Morgoth's behavior, I don't think it would be too much to say that Tolkien associated evil in many respects with nullity. Morgoth just destroys and ruins. In that light, Tolkien's comment about evil=0 makes perfect sense. Something absolutely evil would destroy itself because that would be the ultimate conclusion of its own evil, the necessary end point of that line of thought and action. Sauron is never associated with that sort of thinking, and even Morgoth was only vaguely.

[Legolas]

I'm caught up in a long paper on Paradise Lost due in a few hours, so this hits close to what my mind is on (but coincidentally, I'm short on time and will have to return later).

I'm not sure how Absolute Evil is defined. According to the definitions you've presented, Absolute Evil would only be able to exist in the absence of some Absolute Good (Eru) or perhaps be equal in origin. Would something that is Absolute Evil would have to be eternally present, if for no other reason than that its end would be good?

[Cailín]

What a complicated issue! I have been thinking a lot on good and evil recently... And came up with no conclusions, so this might make no sense at all.

1) Being evil from the very first breath to your very last. Which I've always believed that no one is "born" evil, we all have the capability of doing evil, but I just don't think that someone can be evil right as a baby.

I often hear say that young children are innocent and unspoiled. Before children learn morals, they are neither capable of doing right nor wrong, since they have no concept of these things. As long as you are unaware of the law, you cannot break it. Consequentially, most and possibly all children have a unique self-centeredness, allowing them to experiment freely with the boundaries of human morals without feeling restraint out of fear for causing others pain. In that sense, children are really the most evil beings of us all, but blissfully unaware of it - till they see the reaction of their surroundings.

As soon as being evil becomes a choice, it cannot be pure anymore. However, humans perceive evil that was not done consciously as a lesser crime.

I am not sure what I am trying to say. If someone is absolutely evil, he or she will not know good. S/he cannot choose to be not evil. Is a person then still evil? Is not what we humans think of as evil only evil because it was a willful act?

2) Eru being the creator here and I think the representation of absolute good...I mean Tolkien doesn't say there isn't an absolute good? So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

Assuming dualism has some grain of truth in it, if there is absolute good, there is absolute evil. By his mere existence, Eru would have ensured the presence of an opposing force. In that sense, he could have created it indeed.

The only thing I eventually can come up with: wholly good is, as wholly bad, the absence of all action and therefore nothing. Logically, Tolkien is right in saying that it cannot truly exist, only as a hypothetical zero point.

[Kuruharan]

As long as you are unaware of the law, you cannot break it.

I'm afraid not. The law is something outside of you that is present whether you are aware of it or not. Hence the "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" bit.

Consequentially, most and possibly all children have a unique self-centeredness, allowing them to experiment freely with the boundaries of human morals without feeling restraint out of fear for causing others pain. In that sense, children are really the most evil beings of us all

This sounds like you are arguing that humanity is born bad.

If someone is absolutely evil, he or she will not know good. S/he cannot choose to be not evil.

I disagree. I think part of evil is knowing good and deliberately rejecting it. Under this definition absolute evil would be a total rejection of any good or positive action...in other words, total destruction.

wholly good is, as wholly bad, the absence of all action

How so? You don't think good could be a creative force and still be good?

[Boromir88]

I'm not sure how Absolute Evil is defined. According to the definitions you've presented, Absolute Evil would only be able to exist in the absence of some Absolute Good (Eru) or perhaps be equal in origin. Would something that is Absolute Evil would have to be eternally present, if for no other reason than that its end would be good?~Legolas

I don't know what it is, or am not absolutely sure how to define it. Those are just some things I've come up with and of course await to hear your input.

I often hear say that young children are innocent and unspoiled. Before children learn morals, they are neither capable of doing right nor wrong, since they have no concept of these things. As long as you are unaware of the law, you cannot break it.~Cailin

I agree with Kuru in that you can break the law and yet not be aware that you are breaking it, but I do see what your saying. Instead of the "law" however, perhaps morals would be the better term. As a newborn can you have concept of what is morally right or morally wrong? I don't think so, it's your upbringing and experience that effects ones morals, as a newborn I don't think they have a concept of what is "right and wrong" until they get older.

Assuming dualism has some grain of truth in it, if there is absolute good, there is absolute evil. By his mere existence, Eru would have ensured the presence of an opposing force. In that sense, he could have created it indeed.

I don't know if Eru is in fact "wholly good," but thinking that he is, I don't think he actually could create something as evil as he was good. To do so wouldn't that mean he would have to create something as powerful as himself? If so, can Eru do that, create a force that is equal to him?

This sounds like you are arguing that humanity is born bad.

Well we are all born with the ability to do "bad," so perhaps in some way we are.

I've also been thinking about Tolkien saying that "evil is only a perversion of good." So in order to have an "evil" there must be something good and it's twisted...therefor nothing can be "wholly evil" since it's only a perversion of good.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Oh how I wish I'd kept those PMs with Aimè.

What they boiled down to is that good and evil are not "real" (which, of course, begs the question of trying to define reality); they're merely social constructs. It comes down to a matter of perspective.

It's not as though you can spot evil and yell to your companions "Look, look! There it is, over by that tree. Careful, don't touch it... it's evil!"

Besides, one person's evil is another person's "Hey, that's a really good idea. Sounds fun, let's try it."

Since you can't even define good and evil or pin them down, how can you claim that they come in absolutes? Everyone and everything's got a redeeming quality. Even Morgoth; remember snow? And any cynic can tell you that good isn't all that good.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Legolas

I'm caught up in a long paper on Paradise Lost due in a few hours, so this hits close to what my mind is on (but coincidentally, I'm short on time and will have to return later).

I hope Ulmo will return with some cogitations on Milton. I recall one wag saying to me once upon a time that Milton's problem was understanding how God's creations always turned out fallible. The Creator's creations were never as powerful or as perfect as He was--how to account for that.