Absolute Good in Lord of the Rings

[Boromir88]

What we have here is a very different thing, not a question about some lore thing, but rather directly questioning Tolkien's own belief.~TM

But the conflictions occur when Tolkien repeatedly denies allegory in his story, and he cut out religion from his story. Rather, religion is in symbols and you can say Gandalf is Christ-like, Eru is like the Christian God. But the depth of the characters makes it impossible to say Gandalf is Christ and Eru is the Christian God.

Tolkien wasn't writing to teach, nor was he to preach, he was writing a story for people to enjoy, and not just Christians. In Letter 142 Tolkien believed that critics will find it hard to "pigeon-hole" his story. You can't take one label and slap it on to one of Tolkien's characters. Is there a christian influence? Without a doubt, I say yes. But there's also norse, greek, modern, linguistic influences, and the list can go on from there.

And besides, personal beliefs change overtime. Maybe after writing the story, setting it down, thinking about it, reworking it...etc - through that process his ideas changed. Who knows? But, you don't have to be Christian to believe someone has to die to save something he/she loves. What I mean with that is, there are certain themes, ideals, morals, whatever you want to call them, that are global. Sacrifice, mercy, The Fall, death, Stewardship, these are everywhere, and these ideas are what Tolkien decided to work with, and write into his story.

but I always took the meaning of all-good to be only that a person's will and intentions are absolutely good (setting aside whether this is equal to absence of evil here).~Mac

I personally agree with you there , but I would caution that we don't attach our own external beliefs to the characters in the story, or the internal text. Now, to completely detach our beliefs from the text I think would be absolutely () impossible, but we must do so as much as possible.

I will say it's clear that someone intentions do matter, and that is set up right in the story where Saruman justifies his "end" by going through admittingly horrible "means." So, what we have is in Saruman's own delusional mind, his intentions are good, but are they really? And on top of that, he doesn't care what it takes to reach those ends, he doesn't care who he kills, maims, destroys to get there, but he will reach his "good end."

Then we have several letters where Tolkien states, the Ring's destruction (definitely a good thing) is no benefit to Gollum. Gollum's intentions were completely and totally evil. He had planned for a long time to lead the hobbits into a deadly trap, and his actions in the Sammath Naur are anything but good. Eventhough the Ring is destroyed, because Gollum slips in, that does no good for Gollum, his motives were entirely evil.

And on top of that we have Sam, who has good intentions when he mistakes Gollum's "pawing" at Frodo; Sam is only looking after his master. However, his snap and failure to pity Gollum quite possibly leads to Gollum's failure at redemption. Even someone with entirely good motives (not like Saruman who is delusional ) causes evil to happen. It's unintentional, but Sam could not find Pity for Gollum up until the very end, in the Sammath Naur. This doesn't make Sam evil, but does it make him absolutely good?

Here is another thought, there's been talk about absolute evil, Morgoth, Sauron..etc and Tolkien does say that he doesn't believe in Absolute Evil, but he goes on to talk about the two big villains in his myth (Morgoth and Sauron) - what about objects? What about the Ring? Maybe since Sauron is not absolute evil, it is impossible for him to create something that is. However, the Ring just has this knack to turn every possible light, into dark. It has the ability to twist, and corrupt even the most noble actions. And as Frodo is full of pity, strength, courage, to get the Ring to the place where it was made, Frodo's chance to overcome an object of absolute evil; an object that can do no good and turn the best intentions upside down, fails. Frodo succumbs to the Ring - does it then take an absolute good character to destroy an absolutely evil object?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Hmm, then you say that in order to be absolutely good, one has to be perfect (in this case, all-knowing)? Of course a good person's actions would be better if he was omniscient, and Manwe certainly made quite a couple of mistakes in his career, but wouldn't this make the threesome of all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful partly redundant? My knowledge of theology is admittedly rather limited, but I always took the meaning of all-good to be only that a person's will and intentions are absolutely good (setting aside whether this is equal to absence of evil here). I don't see why it should be impossible to have a person that is all-good, but not all-knowing and all-powerful. In any case, this was at least my idea when I labelled Manwe absolutely good.

I'm not so sure it's a theological background that'd be necessary to get where I'm coming from so much as a philosophical one (though where philosophy of God is concerned, the two are obviously intertwined). Pertinent to explaining what I was getting at, however, is the following post from Boro:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Here is another thought, there's been talk about absolute evil, Morgoth, Sauron..etc and Tolkien does say that he doesn't believe in Absolute Evil, but he goes on to talk about the two big villains in his myth (Morgoth and Sauron) - what about objects? What about the Ring? Maybe since Sauron is not absolute evil, it is impossible for him to create something that is. However, the Ring just has this knack to turn every possible light, into dark. It has the ability to twist, and corrupt even the most noble actions. And as Frodo is full of pity, strength, courage, to get the Ring to the place where it was made, Frodo's chance to overcome an object of absolute evil; an object that can do no good and turn the best intentions upside down, fails. Frodo succumbs to the Ring - does it then take an absolute good character to destroy an absolutely evil object?

This is pertinent, however, insofar as I would disagree with Boromir about the Ring being absolutely evil, because it does NOT have the ability to corrupt all actions. Notable as an exception here is Tom Bombadil (seen in the text) and, speculatively, any effect on beings substantially more powerful than Sauron, such as Manwë or Varda (I can see no reason why beings with more power than Sauron could be seduced by the promise of his, lesser, power).

It is not that the Ring lacks in evilness so much as it lacks in capacity to achieve absolute evil. Because I'm a professional nitpicker, I would therefore distinguish between absolute evil and complete evil. The Ring, in my opinion is not absolute evil but rather complete evil. There is nothing good about the Ring*, but it is not absolutely evil because it does not have the capacity to effect that much evil--and not only because it cannot grant power equivalent to that possessed by Manwë or (formerly) Melkor, but because it has to GRANT evil. The Ring is an evil tool, but it is not as evil as it could be because it cannot effect its will alone. Granted, it does seem to have a will of itself, which is why it is substantially more evil than other tools capable of producing evil, but it is not capable of evil action on its own, but requires assistance--assistance in proportion to whoever is wielding it; greater in the case of Galadriel or Gandalf, less in the case of Sam or Gollum.

Likewise, to get back to my explanation regarding Manwë, it is not that I think he is anyway less than completely good, but that he is not absolutely good. Everything that Manwë does is good, but it is not absolutely good because he does not have the foresight to know what is best in every situation, and so cannot do it (the example of Númenor already given is pertinent) in every situation. Though the motivation of Manwë remains good in all situations, he is not absolutely good because he lacks the knowledge or power to be so.

Hopefully, that hairsplitting on my part makes a bit more sense now.



*Unless one takes the Augustinian path and says that, since existence is a good, the Ring, since it exists, is still good at least to that minimal extent.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

It is not that the Ring lacks in evilness so much as it lacks in capacity to achieve absolute evil. Because I'm a professional nitpicker, I would therefore distinguish between absolute evil and complete evil. The Ring, in my opinion is not absolute evil but rather complete evil. There is nothing good about the Ring*, but it is not absolutely evil because it does not have the capacity to effect that much evil--and not only because it cannot grant power equivalent to that possessed by Manwë or (formerly) Melkor, but because it has to GRANT evil. The Ring is an evil tool, but it is not as evil as it could be because it cannot effect its will alone. Granted, it does seem to have a will of itself, which is why it is substantially more evil than other tools capable of producing evil, but it is not capable of evil action on its own, but requires assistance--assistance in proportion to whoever is wielding it; greater in the case of Galadriel or Gandalf, less in the case of Sam or Gollum.

I would agree with Formendacil (and the instances he noted) that the One Ring is not an Absolute Evil, particularly since it did effect good consequences in some limited aspects of the story, such as when invisibility saved Bilbo from Gollum, Orcs and spiders, or when Sam appeared as a great warrior Elf. Granted, these instances were merely a by-product of the Ring's power and not its primary function; however, even these limited aspects allowed for 'good' to eventually prevail over 'evil', and therefore there cannot be an 'absolute' appellation attached to it.

In addition, Frodo could still show compassion and mercy while in possession of the Ring; a Ring exhibiting the characteristics of 'absolute evil' would override such virtuous thoughts immediately, or at least confound such feelings on a greater level much sooner.

[Boromir88]

Formen great stuff.

I was more, or less, just speculating on a couple things that came to mind. Because I think the essential question is can someone who is not absolutely evil (as Tolkien clearly states Sauron wasn't) create an object that is? Also, when if you believe in Gandalf's words, that Bilbo's finding of the Ring, was something the Ring had not intended, then can we talk in absolutes?

I agree that to be absolute, you not only have to have pure and absolute intentions (either good or evil), you also have to be all-knowing and all-powerful. The Ring is neither, good things happen beyond it's control, and of course while it does have great power over people, it's not all-powerful.

Granted, these instances were merely a by-product of the Ring's power and not its primary function~Morthoron

I would argue that invisibility isn't an off-shoot of the Ring, but a power that the Ring uses itself. Perhaps this is better left for another thread, but I'll just briefly state my points here...

In A Long Expected Party, Bilbo remarks that he always felt an "Eye" searching for him, and this made him want to put on the Ring and hide. I find it interesting that anyone in trouble, turns to the Ring to hide. Isildur wanted to escape from the ambush, but after he puts on the Ring, it slips off; he's shot and killed. Whenever the Ringwraiths are around, Frodo has this urge to put on the Ring, on Weathertop it costs him severely. On Amon Hen, the entire quest is almost blown-up, as Frodo puts it on to escape Boromir and he's almost discovered by Sauron. Gollum used the Ring to sneak around and steal, when he's in the Misty Mountains Gandalf says that the influence of the Ring began to wear off, because Gollum had no need to hide/use the Ring while under the mountains.

I think the Ring uses invisibility as a mind-game, a trick, a trap, to snare it's bearer. It makes its bearer believe, if you put me on, you'll be invisible, no one can find you, you can get out of danger, but really it's a false sense of security. The Ringwraiths and/or Sauron could spot you, and in Isildur's case it betrayed him. Now, how about Bilbo? My only guess is the Ring wanted to escape the Mountains/get away from Gollum.

Like I said, this is probably better left for a seperate thread, I just wanted to briefly point out, I'm not so sure about invisibility being an off-shoot of the Ring's powers. Rather it's a trick the Ring uses to lull it's bearer into believing his is safe/he is unseen. This is just more speculation on my part, just every instance that I could think of, the Ring uses it's invisibility as a trap.

[Lalwendë]

The Ring cannot be an 'absolute evil' and there's an excellent reason why - Tom Bombadil. To him, it might as well just be a piece of tat from Ratners.

Used, desired, fought over - in all of these circumstances, the Ring is indeed evil, but lightly flipped up in the air like a two bob coin, it's just a ring. Note that Bilbo never really suffers the terrible consequences that Isildur, Frodo and Gollum all suffer - he doesn't carry the burden of knowing what this thing is nor does he have any desire to do anything sinister; he can also give it up relatively easily - I should imagine Bilbo would have had much more trouble coming off Pipeweed (if Rivendell was the non-smoking house that you suspect it might be ) than giving up the Ring This is possibly why Gandalf kept his suspicions quiet for so long, too...

The things which the Ring causes clearly partly depend upon the minds/hearts of those who possess it, so it isn't 'evil' in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Likewise, to get back to my explanation regarding Manwë, it is not that I think he is anyway less than completely good, but that he is not absolutely good. Everything that Manwë does is good, but it is not absolutely good because he does not have the foresight to know what is best in every situation, and so cannot do it (the example of Númenor already given is pertinent) in every situation. Though the motivation of Manwë remains good in all situations, he is not absolutely good because he lacks the knowledge or power to be so.

So, does this excuse him from the inevitable results of getting on the big celestial phone to 'sir' and grassing up the Numenoreans? His intentions were good, but was he to know Eru would just rip a huge rift in the sea bed and send innocents to the depths?

It would have irrevocably changed the story of course, but had I been Eru I would have instead chastised the Valar for doing such a stupid thing as creating Numenor as it was in the first place! Though of course they might have spent the rest of their days weeping for the lost children of Numenor after their over-reaching all went wrong!