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

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

We require Eru to display 'Infinite Compassion' if we are to accept him as 'Good' (even if we cannot fully understand the way that 'Infinite Compassion' works through in time)

While you and I may agree to define good as infinite compassion, we would have no way to understand how this can be best achieved or applied in regards to one human or all humanity. In regards to what might have been the best marriage possible, Tolkien said:

Originally Posted by Letter #43

Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably to have married!

Likewise, I hold that judging whether what happened during lifetime is an expression of good is possible at most at the end of it, but even that may have little value, since one's relation to God most likely extends beyond one human life, maybe beyond all creation. And we hardly have any insight into that.

Or to put it another way, if you were a Man, or Elf in M-e confronted by Eru & Morgoth, both claiming to be the Supreme Being, & with no knowledge of who they were, how would you determine which one was Good & which Evil if you could not apply an objective standard of Good/Evil?

Men have already been deceived by Melkor once, and he was worshiped instead of Eru. Lacking (at least) infinite knowledge, such a tragedy is rather possible on the human level.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

While you and I may agree to define good as infinite compassion, we would have no way to understand how this can be best achieved or applied in regards to one human or all humanity.

No, but Good = Infinite Compassion, & if Eru didn't act with Infinite Compassion he would not be good. Hence Infinite Compassion is a standard by which Eru can be judged as Good. If it could be proven that the destruction of Numenor was motivated purely by anger & hatred on Eru's part & he displayed a callous disregard to the resultant suffering we would have to say that it was not a 'Good' act according to the criteria laid down by Tolkien. You seem, if I understand you, to be arguing that we have to accept that whatever Eru does is 'Good' in the sense that he can only do Good (whether that is clear to a creature or not) , not that 'anything' Eru does is 'Good' even of it is cruel, mean, petty or spiteful. But this is, to my mind, to argue that there is an objective standard of Good by which are judging Eru's behaviour - we are saying 'Eru's behaviour is in conformity with The Good' not Eru can behave like Morgoth & that behaviour would still 'Good' simply because Eru was the one behaving in that way.

Men have already been deceived by Melkor once, and he was worshiped instead of Eru. Lacking (at least) infinite knowledge, such a tragedy is rather possible on the human level.

Or more likely inevitable. If Eru is playing the long game, not appearing to men in a clear & unambiguous form & explaining what's going on then its inevitable that Men have to do their best, make the best choice they can in the circumstances. Moreso if Eru has decided to give Morgoth a free reign in Arda. Maybe that's necessary in the long run, but I don't see that having put Men in that position Eru can complain about their choices.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

If it could be proven that the destruction of Numenor was motivated purely by anger & hatred on Eru's part & he displayed a callous disregard to the resultant suffering we would have to say that it was not a 'Good' act according to the criteria laid down by Tolkien.

But no such thing is possible, regardless which human would write the story, or which person attempts to prove.

My point is that we cannot investigate beyond what is limited and created. If I were to venture a speculation, then even if Eru was supposed somehow to make an error and deviate from what would be the best application of infinite compassion (which I thoroughly disagree with), then, at least insofar as effects are concerned, he would have all that it takes to transform that and to make it more than worth it and thus any "mistake" would be at best temporary, achieving greater good in fact. Or, to try to better approximate the perfection we attribute to him, through all his actions he can achieve a greater good on a scale that may elude us, as limited beings.

Maybe that's necessary in the long run, but I don't see that having put Men in that position Eru can complain about their choices.

Well, the standard to which Men are apparently judged is more lenient than making the best possible choice:

Originally Posted by Note to Melkor Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But no such thing is possible, regardless which human would write the story, or which person attempts to prove.

But i don't see that attaining such proof is logically impossible.

If I were to venture a speculation, then even if Eru was supposed somehow to make an error and deviate from what would be the best application of infinite compassion (which I thoroughly disagree with), then, at least insofar as effects are concerned, he would have all that it takes to transform that and to make it more than worth it and thus any "mistake" would be at best temporary, achieving greater good in fact. Or, to try to better approximate the perfection we attribute to him, through all his actions he can achieve a greater good on a scale that may elude us, as limited beings.

If Eru is perfect he cannot make errors. Making errors is due to imperfection. All the actions of a perfect being must, of necessity, be perfect. To make an error which he then has to put right implies he is learning from his mistakes. But an Omniscient being cannot 'learn' anything because they would always have absolute knowledge of everything. Eru knows everything that was, is & will be because he exists outside time, in 'Eternity'. Learning implies 'evolution' from a 'lower' to a 'higher' state. Eru cannot 'evolve' to a higher or 'better' state from a lower or 'worse' one. Eru is always Eru. You can't posit an original, 'imperfect' Eru evolving into a final, 'perfect' Eru.

And, again, attributing 'perfection' to Eru is judging him according to a standard of perfect-imperfect & requiring perfection of him - If he is Eru he must be perfect ('perfect' here being used in a moral sense)..

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But i don't see that attaining such proof is logically impossible.

Well, I still hold that a finite cannot comprehend the infinite, let alone judge it. How could we recognise inherently human emotions/motivations at an infinite level? It would be flawed from the start.

If Eru is perfect he cannot make errors.

I know. I believe I made it clear in my post that this was somewhat of a (unnecessary, sidetracking) reductio ad absurdum, exploring that even if Eru was imperfect, he would still be able to achieve overall good results. And as far as Eru being morally perfect, again, only someone with his attributes could judge the optimality of any of his actions, in accordance with the greater good.

[davem]

So is it possible that Eru could be imperfect, even evil, according to human standards of Good & Evil? If not, then Eru corresponds to what we would consider The Good (in M-e terms). Eru is Good - according to the M-e definition of Good (infinite Compassion, absolute love - not to mention omniscience, omnipotence). Therefore we have Eru, & we have a moral value system which defines Good as 'X' & according to that moral value system Eru ticks all the boxes for 'X' & is therefore Good.

How would we be able to say 'Eru is Good' if we didn't measure him against our criteria for Good & Evil? If Eru were to do something which we consider 'evil' - ie, if he was to commit an (on the face of it) 'Morgothian' act & torture & corrupt an innocent being would we be justified in calling him 'Evil' because he behaved like the living manifestation of Evil in M-e? And if we, because of our creaturely limitations must not judge Eru to be 'evil' simply because he committed what seemed to us an evil act, how can we justify judging Morgoth evil for committing exactly the same act?

We as readers don't judge Morgoth evil simply because Tolkien says he is. We adjudge him evil because of his acts. The idea that both Eru & Morgoth could commit the same 'evil' act & one (Morgoth) be judged 'evil' for committing it, but the other (Eru) be beyond judgement is, to me, not logical.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

The idea that both Eru & Morgoth could commit the same 'evil' act & one (Morgoth) be judged 'evil' for committing it, but the other (Eru) be beyond judgement is, to me, not logical.

But your logic is flawed even in human terms, as the same act of harming someone can have different moral connotations, depending on the circumstances and the intentions. As to the difference between Eru and Morgoth, any resemblance in the intention to perpetuate evil is considered a priori wrong, in Tolkien's universe too.