Sauron vs. Your Mama - A Discussion of Power in Middle-earth

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

Why the "prerequisite?"

Well, there might be a misunderstanding. I see the moral category of evil as anything else but an idea, a possibility, a potential, an abstract, an archetype if you will - not as an active power. Without it, no exponent of evil could exist. And without good having a counterpart, we really could not have morality, and a good chunk free will neither.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by alatar

Skeptics consider that, at the end of all things, there will exist a heaven in which followers will have both free will and live in Paradise.

The scriptures indicate that the paradise will be on Earth, as was originally intended. After all, why should an issue brought up by rebellious creations change God's purpose for Man? Why put them on Earth to begin with, if their real place is in Heaven? He wouldn't; Man was created expressly to live on Earth, and this is reinforced by the knowledge that there are already spirit creatures who were created to live in Heaven (angels). I recognize that this is a controverted point, but I believe this analysis makes more sense than a Heavenly reward for righteous life on Earth, as if Earth was always intended to be merely a testing ground.

Originally Posted by alatar

If this is possible at the end, why could not God have created Eden with choice yet Perfection, where all was truly and forever good?

I believe he did. That is, all was good except direct challenge to his sovereignty, which is what Satan's lie amounted to, and also Adam and Eve's acceptance of it. Eating the fruit was just a gesture to consummate the rebellion; it's not as if that was God's favorite fruit and he simply didn't want to share it. I know this sounds like the opposite of what you said, but in order for peace to be maintained, that one principle must always be unchallenged: once Man declares that he is not subject to God, men begin to fill that vacuum of leadership and lawmaking, which (long story short) necessarily leads to strife.

Originally Posted by Raynor

That Iluvatar didn't remove the corruption of Melkor is due to the laws inherent in this universe
...
Cf. Osanwe-kenta, we also have the existence of the axani, 'law, rule, commandment; as primarily proceeding from Eru'. According to this text, Melkor repudiated all such rules coming down from Eru. In the Later Quenta Silmarillion, there is a definition of the root of evil

I recognize that Melkor/Morgoth was the Enemy. I also recognize that he committed evil. What I am saying is that before the physical manifestation of the Music, Melkor's rights were absolute and his "corruption" of the theme was within his rights as primary created being. All it amounts to is Melkor dabbling in everyone else's sauce, making it all more to his taste. He had no knowledge of how the Music would unfold when brought into being by Iluvatar. The manifestation of his discord turned out to be immoral within the physical world, but prior to that, when he originally wove his "element" into all things, there was no such inherently physical* designation. Certainly later, when Melkor was running amok within the material world, his actions were evil. The wicked things he did during the Ages had already been woven into the tapestry, so to speak, but relatively innocently; in that when his voice overpowered others in the Music, he exhibited only grandiose selfishness, not specifically murder, torture, corruption, etc.

Additionally, to reiterate what I expressed a few posts ago, Arda's healing may be possible solely because of Melkor's vast vitality, which he poured into creation more than any other sub-creator.

*in Tolkien's world, by virtue of the fact that guidelines were not laid out for the sub-creators' Music, and persistent disharmony was chastized but not "repaired". Only after the theme was brought into material being did actions take on the aspect of either good or evil within that physical cosmos. Whether morality applies solely to physical creation in our universe (and whether there is such thing as immaterial creation) is certainly debatable elsewhere.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Whether morality applies solely to physical creation in our universe (and whether there is such thing as immaterial creation) is certainly debatable elsewhere.

Well, I take the liberty to give it a try, should anyone feel interested.

Originally Posted by obloquy

All it amounts to is Melkor dabbling in everyone else's sauce, making it all more to his taste.

I find it really difficult to challenge that, since I can't rely on facts or evidence, seeing that all this happens before a "humanly" conceivable world. All I can put forward are my personal thoughts. Should we agree that moral judgment can be applied before Ea, doesn't his behavior require a stricter view? I believe the problem is two-pronged; I would say the valar did have rights, to express themselves peacefully, and Melkor interfered with that, with the intention to subvert what they were doing. And if it is intention that counts, then even in a child's play, or in arts, deeds can have moral consequences. I would further argue that what they were doing had nothing trivial about it; the making of music seemed to be their primary activity, the fundamental way in which they learned about each other and of the mind of Iluvatar; this would only aggravate Melkor's subversion. However, even greater than this, seems to be Melkor's intent to challenge directly even Iluvatar. In a theist world, isn't this a sin per se? Could it be amoral to go one-on-one with the Creator, in front of everyone else? No matter how little or much he knew, isn't it a prerequisite that you treat the ultimate being with utmost respect, in each and every aspect? I believe that Melkor having the ultimate proof of the existence of Eru can only put evil at the root of his disrespect. I think that Melkor had all it took for him to make realise what he was doing, so I see both his deed and his intent as evil - with his retribution coming either then (with the humiliation in front of others), or during Ea, or afterwards.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Additionally, to reiterate what I expressed a few posts ago, Arda's healing may be possible solely because of Melkor's vast vitality, which he poured into creation more than any other sub-creator.

I don't think that this action gives him credit, since the healing wouldn't be necessary should he not have erred; I see the healing as a negative point in his activity - it is the one thing that most likely requires the greatest "effort" from Iluvatar to counter. I do see that his marring brought greater glory to Iluvatar, it gave more valor to Men (& all the others who opposed him), and these are good in and of themselves, but they most likely occur due to the active intervention of Eru, without which most likely the opposite would happen.

[davem]

Of course, Melkor may well have thought that what he was doing was 'right', that he was actually improving the Music (& later, by extension, the world). Whatever, he wasn't actually stopped by Eru - he waas even told directly by Eru that what he was doing would redound to his, Eru's, own glory - 'What you're doing will make me even more glorious!' - which could be taken as encouragement from a certain perspective.

In the end one cannot, as supreme creator, give one's Children free will & then object to the way they use it. If Eru had wanted his Children to only to do what he told them he could have made them robots. Once he creates beings with free will he gives them the ability to go against him. Melkor may simply have been doing his best. Even his desire to reduce the creation to 'chaos' may have been down to his belief that Chaos was a superior form to order. The fact is we don't have Morgoth's side of the story, & don't know his real motivation- we have his enemies' interpretation of his motives. He may well have honestly believed that his vision was superior. One would have to be able to prove that Eru's (& by extension the Valar's) vision was 'superior' in some objective sense. 'Eru was the supreme being & therefore must be right' is simply a 'Might=right' argument.

I'm not sure that Eru's behaviour, let alone his motives, are unquestionably 'right'. There's no mention of 'love' being one of Eru's motives for doing anything. His motive seems, in fact, his own glory - He doesn't, I note, condemn Melkor's dissonances because they will lead to suffering - he says, in effect 'Go ahead - what you're doing is only going to make me look even better than I do right now!'

This is the essential problem for me - either you have one supreme being who runs things Himself, or you have a pantheon of gods who argue & fight among themselves, in a conflict of order vs chaos. When Eru intervenes the Valar become robots who simply obey orders, or are sidelined.

And in the end, for me, Tolkien 's greatest works are the ones where Eru & the Valar are very much in the background & can be safely ignored - TH, LotR, CoH.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

'What you're doing will make me even more glorious!' - which could be taken as encouragement from a certain perspective

That certain perspective, in which a God encourages someone to persevere in evil, could not, in my opinion, be further from Tolkien's world. And there is no such mention in Eru's words:

Originally Posted by Ainulindale

And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory.

If, in the end, as I said previously, the evil of Melkor brings about good, it is only due to Eru, without whom it would not be possible. What Eru is talking about here is the final impotence of evil, or of any action set against Eru.

In the end one cannot, as supreme creator, give one's Children free will & then object to the way they use it.

Why? What would impede the supreme creator to do that?

Even his desire to reduce the creation to 'chaos' may have been down to his belief that Chaos was a superior form to order.

There is hardly any evidence that Melkor sought to improve creation, that is, at least in the final stages of his madness, when he would have likely turned all creation into the chaos you mentioned. And regardless of what one believes it is right, if it goes against the greater good, and if it endangers it, it cannot be possibly tolerated. This "anything goes" argument is simply incongruent with morality.

The fact is we don't have Morgoth's side of the story, & don't know his real motivation- we have his enemies' interpretation of his motives.

Does that imply that Melkor could be the most misunderstood hero? That our judgment is clouded by the tortures, corruptions and destructions he perpetrated and we can't objectively judge him from a moral point of view?

He may well have honestly believed that his vision was superior. One would have to be able to prove that Eru's (& by extension the Valar's) vision was 'superior' in some objective sense.

I already gave this quote (in this thread, and in other occasions when we debated):

Originally Posted by Of the severance of marriage, HoME X

... trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

Denying that Eru is good is the root of evil, according to Manwe. Similar interpretations can be found in the letters, and, implicitly, in all Tolkien's work.

'Eru was the supreme being & therefore must be right' is simply a 'Might=right' argument.

Might, and wisdom, and supreme goodness, etc...

And in the end, for me, Tolkien 's greatest works are the ones where Eru & the Valar are very much in the background & can be safely ignored - TH, LotR, CoH.

I for one choose not to ignore Bilbo being meant to find the One Ring, Gandalf returning from beyond Creation with increased powers and Gollum falling. As you and I know from past debates, either in the works, or in the letters, these are implied/stated to be the works of Eru.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

If, in the end, as I said previously, the evil of Melkor brings about good, it is only due to Eru, without whom it would not be possible. What Eru is talking about here is the final impotence of evil, or of any action set against Eru.

Rather like a doctor giving a gun to a man he knows will go out & shoot people, because he, the doctor, knows he will be able to fix up the victims & come out looking good as a result. Eru didn't have to allow Melkor into Arda at all. If he could be expelled at the end of the FA he could have been expelled before 'Ea!'

There is hardly any evidence that Melkor sought to improve creation, that is, at least in the final stages of his madness, when he would have likely turned all creation into the chaos you mentioned. And regardless of what one believes it is right, if it goes against the greater good, and if it endangers it, it cannot be possibly tolerated. This "anything goes" argument is simply incongruent with morality.

Who determines what the 'greater good' is? Melkor's desire to destroy Arda & reduce it to nothing is, to my mind, rather akin to Eru's wiping out of Numenor. Both Eru & Melkor's intention is to destroy what they don't like.

Does that imply that Melkor could be the most misunderstood hero? That our judgment is clouded by the tortures, corruptions and destructions he perpetrated and we can't objectively judge him from a moral point of view?

Of course we can judge him from a moral point of view. We should also judge Eru from a moral point of view, & hse the same standard, not resort to 'Eru is good & therefore whatever he does is good' arguments. One can't argue that mass killing by Melkor is bad, but mass killing by Eru is good because Melkor is bad & Eru is good. That's a circular argument. Either mass killing is bad whoever does it, or its acceptable.

I for one choose not to ignore Bilbo being meant to find the One Ring, Gandalf returning from beyond Creation with increased powers and Gollum falling. As you and I know from past debates, either in the works, or in the letters, these are implied/stated to be the works of Eru.

Bilbo was only 'meant to find the Ring' by Eru long after TH was written, when LotR became the cumination of the Legendarium. The only one who 'intended' Bilbo to find the ring originally was Tolkien. I doubt many readers of LotR in the pre-Sil days thought about 'divine' intervention in LotR - unless they were religious & chose to read that into it. Personally, I find the whole experience of reading TH & LotR better if I forget Eru & the Valar out of it. I also find it interesting that at Aragorn's coronation in the first edition there is no mention of the Valar: "Now come the days of the king. May they be blessed" is what Gandalf says , "while the thrones of the Valar endure" was added in the Second ed revision - & interestingly the mention is also missed out in the movie, where they, deliberately or not, use the original version. One can perhaps see this as a result of all the 'theological' speculation Tolkien was indulging in during the late fifties/early sixties.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Rather like a doctor giving a gun to a man he knows will go out & shoot people, because he, the doctor, knows he will be able to fix up the victims & come out looking good as a result. Eru didn't have to allow Melkor into Arda at all. If he could be expelled at the end of the FA he could have been expelled before 'Ea!'

Free will was guaranteed for them, as I already quoted:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.

There also are the axani, the rules coming down from Eru; while the valar and the rest can do what they will, their actions have consequences and will be judged against the rules that were given to them.

Who determines what the 'greater good' is?

Eru, obviously.

Melkor's desire to destroy Arda & reduce it to nothing is, to my mind, rather akin to Eru's wiping out of Numenor. Both Eru & Melkor's intention is to destroy what they don't like.

Melkor would have destroyed everything no matter what. Numenor was destroyed only after it became the very seat of evil, where from oppression , torture, killing and blasphemy spread throughout all Middle Earth. These can hardly be compared.

Either mass killing is bad whoever does it, or its acceptable.

We have already been through this, in the Akallabeth thread. My position is that the whole of Numenor was utterly corrupted due to Sauron, and its healing was not possible at that time, and its existence meant danger to the rest of the Men; even at our level, I don't see what other better solution was possible in these circumstances. Tolkien also states in the letters that the supreme inventiveness of the creator can make even a divine punishment to be a divine gift; given what living in Numenor would have meant for its inhabitants, simply their death was, in itself, a gift, as they were facing an evil they could not overcome.

For all created spirits, who is to say what should be their role, and their life length? To me, the answer is obviously Eru.

The only one who 'intended' Bilbo to find the ring originally was Tolkien.

However, this is what the work is now, as Tolkien last intended for us to see it.