The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Elmo]

I believe not one child should die for the sins of their parents... and I'm also opposed to the death penalty

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

I believe not one child should die for the sins of their parents... and I'm also opposed to the death penalty

Yeah, I am as well... but... well, you know, I can't think of any possibly better continuing of the story...

[littlemanpoet]

Within the context of Tolkien's story, it is incorrect to assume that the women and children were innocent of the crimes against Eru and the Valar for which they are punished, while the men are guilty. Were the women quarantined? Were the children not around? No, all were together in the same disobedience against the Law set down by Eru, and paid the penalty thereof.

"But they didn't do anything!"

... that would be the objection, I believe.

Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, we cannot say based on what we are told; what is implied, though, is that the attitude of the Numenoreans was shared by all. The next generation would have been no better, and probably worse, than the one that received the punishment.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by elempi

Within the context of Tolkien's story,. . .

I think what lmp means is that there have been a few changes in perspectives in ethics from the Second Age to the Seventh Age. Tolkien's story is set within a mythological past in which it was deemed appropriate for entire races, nations or tribes to share the same fate. Individual, situational ethics weren't yet around then.

[Lalwendë]

Cynically speaking, isn't it still the case that whole races (probably translated in modern terms as whole cities or neighbourhoods) suffer the same fate brought down from 'on high' - in modern parlance not from god or the gods but by the armed forces/terrorists/city planners or whoever?

Looking at this from the slightly depressing point of view that Tolkien seems to have held that Eru could indeed do seemingly inexplicable and cruel things, isn't it even more tragic that because of the misdeeds of the bad Numenoreans they also caused the suffering of their innocent wives and children? It was a Tragedy of War.

And incidentally, no, I don't feel comfortable with that notion but it's what happens. Maybe we would cope with it better if we believed there was no Eru and Valar behind it all and it was just a natural event or a result of warfare?

As to whether the wives and kids were evil too, well we don't know. But can't we assume that the children were not, as I'm not sure Tolkien ever shows us children as anything other than innocents? And why would a bad Numenorean naturally pass on 'bad blood'? If 'good blood' can make it all they way through the generations to find its way into Faramir, surely some 'good blood' would have found its way into some of those who drowned too?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Once more to that "they didn't care for Men" part.
I'll try to write it shortly and clearly:
1) the Awakening of Men took place when there were enough problems with the Noldor,
2) Valar didn't even know the exact time of their awakening, and as Maca said, it was pure accident that Oromë found the Elves (Valar knew just "the time is slowly coming", but didn't know exact date),
3) and most important, Valar themselves decided not to intervene after their first "failure" - which is what they considered the assault on Utumno and going for the Elves to be. Melkor had by the time of the awakening of Men returned to Middle-earth, and Valar did not want to intervene to the Silmarils cause of Noldor, no other assault on Angband until a messenger from both the First and Secondborn came to assure them that both the Elves and the Men agree with, and request, their help. No other war which would tear land apart (although in the end, it is what happened in Beleriand), no Oromë coming for the Men - and as I said, they didn't know of them - because Valar didn't want to rule with fear (as opposite to Melkor), to force the elves to go to Valinor, to create an image of terrible power so that the elves won't love them as they are but out of fear. This is basically why they considered their behavior at awakening of the Elves as their "failure", and this is why they didn't come for the Men.

[Elmo]

Miriel was killed and she certainly didn't do anything wrong - her story is especially sad i find...

[Nogrod]

I guess all the pantheons of the world have had their mercifuls and cruel ones, the goodies and the baddies; the bringers of plenty and the bringers of doom and damnation. When reduced to just one God on certain cultures, that One has retained those conflicting characteristics. Just look at Yahweh (Jehova), Allah or even the christian God.

So Eru willing to drown all the Numenorians seems to be nothing new from the higher beings as all the enemies of Islam will perish in the end, the unchristians will face eternal damnation in the Last Judgement, all the people had to drown in Noah's flood and so on. The problem we see arising in here I think, is the protestantic interpretation of the God which partly (but only partly) leaves this other side of the coin behind and wishes to stick to the purely loving and good God. With this presupposition - and trying to see Eru as a christian God-like - we face a dilemma: how could Eru do that? If we stick to the traditional Gods we might answer: easily. But if we try to "modernise" (reads: clinging to the traditon of the enlightenment) our image of God will face these problems.

The interesting question to me follows as I try to think how Tolkien himself thought this. Was he thinking it along the lines of traditional religiousity where it was just right and good that the sins of the fathers were avenged to all in the lineage or did he indeed flirt with protestantism here trying to make the readers feel bad about that kind of judgement by Eru?