Redefining Good & Evil

[davem]

Originally Posted by Hakon

The way one views good and evil is the way they are taught to. If one is raised in a society that views murder and rape as a good thing than they view good as that and they view not doing that as bad. In our society we view it as murder and rape are evil. It is simply perspective. In LotR look at Saruman. He thinks he is doing the right thing by betraying Gandalf yet we view him as evil.

Of course - such societies have existed - though the murder & rape is only condoned/encouraged if the victims are members of other societies. If one rapes & murders members of ones own society one is always seen as a bad guy (unless one is able to 'prove' they are criminals/heretics or in some other way deserving os such treatment). But 'good' & 'evil' in the context of the essay, & this is something shared by both Tolkien & Eddings in my opinion, is that self sacrifice, service, willingly weakening & giving of oneself in order to help another (forgetting the 'greater good' argument) are 'good' acts, & that seeking individual 'perfection' whether physical, psychological, or material, closes one off & ultimately denies life, creativity & growth. The Ring gives power to become 'perfect' in that sense - to be able to re-make the world in one's own image - make it 'perfec't & keep it that way. Hence it gives one the power to fulfil one's desire not to do 'evil' in the classical sense, of causing pain & suffering, destruction & mayhem, but of making things 'perfect' - getting rid of 'imperfections' - which is all anyone who desires it, from Sauron himself, through Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo, Galadriel, Denethor, Boromir & Frodo all actually want.

'Evil' in Eddings world (as set out in the essay, its too long since I read any of his work to be able to comment directly) is not too far from the desire of Tolkien's Elves - bring about 'prefection' & embalm it at that point so that it can never fall into 'imperfection'. But his concept of 'good', that imperfection, lessening of oneself, humbling oneself in order to help others is interesting, because he is apparently saying that it is not a case of flawed, imperfect human beings doing their best with divine assistance supplying what they lack & they two combined being now 'perfect', achieving the victory over 'evil,' but imperfection itself, by its very nature of being incomplete, broken, weak, but also loving, self-sacrificing, willing if necessary to be destroyed & lost completely in the process, that is the only way for evil to be overcome. 'Perfect' good & 'perfect' evil are static, unmoving, unchanging, & ultimately dead in any & every real sense, because they have nowhere to go. It is the imperfect which is by its nature truly alive, because changeable, in flux, able to make choices, experience things, alter things. So Eddings seems to be setting up the dichotomy 'Perfect' (whether labelled 'good' or 'evil') is evil because, effectively its dead & can go nowhere & achieve nothing, & 'Imperfect' is good, because for all its flaws its alive.

[Boromir88]

Could someone explain it to me, particularly the part about good and evil not both being true? It's either very simple or very stupid, I'm not sure which, but either way I don't understand it. Thanks, sorry for being dense.~Gwath

I hope you can pardon the Star Wars analogy, it's just that last week I had a marathon and watched all 6, and it's still stuck in my head.

The entire storyline of the 1st three movies is about Anakin fulfilling the prophecy that he is the chosen one who will "bring balance to the force." That is you could say a traditional definition of good and evil, and the view that Tolkien held, which can be seen in The Silm and LOTR. (I said 'traditional' simply as a way to distinguish between Eddings' definition vs. the other, Star Wars, Tolkien, Christianity, however you want to classify it). The traditional definition is dependent on balance between good and evil. This balance is probably not going to be "even," but for one to exist, the other has to. Evil must be allowed to exist because it validates good, "good" is promoted as a moral path that is to be followed. However, good must exist for evil, because evil needs something to rebel against. In the traditional view, evil is pretty much rebelling/rejection of good. There is a divine power (in Star Wars it's 'the force,' there is a light and a dark), and that divine power permits evil to exist because for one to exist, the other has to.

As Formendacil has laid out, Eru permitted Melkor to rebel, and despite Melkor's vigorous efforts all of his discord actually ended up strengthening good. So, in the traditional view, good needs evil and vice versa, however evil can never be as powerful as good. Good will always be victorious, because good is what the divine power is, and the divine power has no other superior, or there is no other power that is equal. Melkor and Sauron never come close to achieving Eru's power, because they simply can't.

In Eddings' definition he is saying that good and evil are separate natures all together, and that they are not dependent on one another. You see in the traditional view, that since good and evil are dependent on eachother, this must mean they are both "true." Eddings is arguing they are two independent and different natures. Good doesn't need evil, nor does evil need good. So, taking from Form again, in Eddings' view there doesn't need to be a divine power that distinguishes between good and evil, good and evil are equal natures, and evil actually can defeat good because of it. Eddings' view relies on the individual, evil doesn't exist because a divine power allows it, evil exists because individuals follow it.

Now, according to Eddings' evil is an imperfect person's desire for perfection. They are full of pride, and lust to be perfect. In this search for pefection, evil is selfish, and therefor evil can not 'win' because evil looks out for itself. Even if good and evil are equal natures, evil can not work together, and therefor evil will lose. Good is the recognition of an imperfect person, is imperfect and can not achieve perfection. However, what makes a person good, is they are selfless, sacrifice for others, or simply care for others. It is this building of community which makes good stronger than evil (not a divine power)...because through giving you are making the entire community stronger, where evil takes for itself and can not work together.

So, where Eddings was going with the statement that both cannot be "true," (at least I think so), is to say that good and evil are separate natures:

They are each the "soul" of the universe, and this reality isn't big enough for the both of them."

In the traditional view, the universe is big enough for good and evil, because they need the other to exist, therefor they are both true. Simply put, Eddings' disagrees, one does not need eachother, good and evil exist because people decide to be selfless and sacrifice (good) or prideful and strive for perfection (evil).

Hopefully, I didn't confuse anyone further, I think I may have confused myself,but at least that's what I took from what Eddings was saying.

P.S. I will just add that I don't think that LOTR is as simple as Nogrod and Form are proposing. That is I think it is not as simple as "LOTR is not Manichean." But I will have to explain at another time.

[davem]

Hardly any time at all but I am wondering whether it could be argued that Eddings' vision is more 'democratic' than Tolkien's - Eddings' characters have the choice of good or evil & the majority choice wins. Tolkien's characters don't have that choice in that whatever choice the individual makes only affects him/herself, not the world, because in the end Eru wins. And is this because Tolkien was an 'anarchist' - but in the strictly Catholic sense of choosing 'Divine' rule over human, in the sense that God's law will always be superior to man's law. Eddings' seems to be a democrat, in the sense that the people's choice decides the victor. In Eddings world 'evil' has a chance of absolute victory & one is not simply fighting for the fate of ones individual soul, but for the fate of the world. Evil cannot win in Tolkien's world but it can in Eddings', & doesn't that make the battle more worthy of fighting? If all the Children decided to reject Eru & turn to evil (seek 'perfection' in Eddings' sense) would Eru allow that - or would he over-rule their desire - as he did in Numenor. In that sense could it be argued that Eddings' characters have more real freedom than Tolkien's, & thus have a more worthy fight to fight? For Tolkien's characters the internal battle is the only important one - in that the outcome of the 'external' battle has already been determined by Eru, whereas Eddings' characters fight both an internal & an external war, the outcome of both being undetermined by any external 'force'.

[Boromir88]

Great stuff davem, as always.

I just have time for a quick response...Since Eddings does allow for the possibility that evil can become more powerful than good (where this is not possible in Tolkien's story), then theoretically it's possible for evil to be the ultimate victor. However, for Eddings' "evil" to win it must be able to work together, but this is the essential failure of evil. Evil, according to Eddings, can not work together and it seems like "working together" is against evil's very nature, so can it truly win in the end?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

.However, for Eddings' "evil" to win it must be able to work together, but this is the essential failure of evil. Evil, according to Eddings, can not work together and it seems like "working together" is against evil's very nature, so can it truly win in the end?

Doesn't it depend on numbers - if enough individuals choose the path of 'evil' (ie the pursuit of individual 'perfection' then 'evil' would simply overwhelm 'good' by sheer force of numbers. 'Good' requires a coming together to win but evil simply requires a narcissitic individualism. Good = active, evil= passivity, because Good must always be 'doing' in order to be 'good - ie, it has to be 'active', changing, mutating, even ceasing to be through acts of self-sacrifice. Evil seeks only to perfect itself & then remain in that state, as, I repeat, is the desire of Tolkien's Elves - but not his men & Hobbits. Hence mortality in Tolkien also = good, whereas denial of death & its replacement with a frozen 'perfection' =evil. Its no coincidence that the passing of Sauron occurs at the same time as the passing of the Elves & effectively as a result of the same act.

Actually in Eddings 'good' & 'evil' are not 'moral' categories, & therefore the choice of one over the other is not a moral choice incurring reward or punishment, because the choice is simply between individualism & community, perfection & imperfection, & whatever the majority chooses wins out. Remove Eru from Middle-earth, & you have the same kind of morality-free choice. Sauron & Saruman are EVIL - 'spiritually wrong' because they have acted against the will of Eru, not because they have done 'bad' things. Remove Eru & Hakon is absolutely right - good & evil become mere perspectives.

[Nogrod]

I think this difference also becomes near to the classical feud between predetermination and the free will of people (creatures of any sort).

Can good be "selected" by people (and what does it mean if we are salvaged by the grace of God anyway) for real, or are our choices meaningless as they are a) random b) preordained c) insignificant?

Providence might be called to solve the problem but it actually makes it worse. If what happens has providence upon it, what will be the status of our individual choices?

A mind-banger if there ever was one... (Not the only one though)


On another issue.

Originally Posted by Hakon

The way one views good and evil is the way they are taught to. If one is raised in a society that views murder and rape as a good thing than they view good as that and they view not doing that as bad. In our society we view it as murder and rape are evil. It is simply perspective. In LotR look at Saruman. He thinks he is doing the right thing by betraying Gandalf yet we view him as evil.

You sound like me fifteen years ago (when I was graduating from the Uni.) - and I must admit your thought has credentials. It is reasonable and arguable that you're right. And with our mutual friend Nietzsche we could build a quite plausible worldview.

But being a bit older I am right now I tend to disagree. (My age is no argument, just something you can relate with.)

Have you read any recent studies on ethology lately? Most of the gregarious animals seem to have the thing we Westerners call the "Golden Rule" in their behaviour. They help those in need, are kind to each other and basically behave well towards one another (do not kill, do not ignore).

Now why would we be any different as cousins to the other primates? If that behaviour is especially common in the other primates why would our behaviour stem from any different source - be it evil or good?

Surely there are cultural differences - like there are with apes; different clans do things differently because of their "culture" - but basically we are primates, gregarious animals with our common instinct of being good to each other.

The evil then?

Have you ever read the book "Humanity" by Jonathan Glover? He makes a belivable case (with horrid examples) how we basically good people can be swayed from goodness and turned into violent beasts- but only with certain techniques. You really should read it. Anyone.

Just think of the following example. In the world-wars (I and II) something like half of the men never shot an enemy. When they were in the situation they could kill someone they shot high over the heads of their targets. Now why?

Well because any decent adult will not kill another person unless it's a question of direct and immediate threat to their own lives - and those few that have faced that situation we now handle as post-traumatic-disorder patients, because that is so tough, killing another human being!

The child-soldiers are a point to be remembered here. Why are they so effective and so used in Sub-Saharan Africa? Because they are malleable, because they can be made into killing robots as they don't have the the moral restrictions of the adults who will not kill others so easily.


Yes. I believe in goodness in all of us - not regarding emergency situations, in which many people also show altrustic behaviour (mind you!) - and it's just something we all thrive for.

I don't personally need God to solve it for us but I understand people who call for him to do that. Goodness is in us - whether you call it genetic, biology, culture, faith, personal decision... But it is there.

Originally Posted by Gwath

I'm very glad to hear you disagree with Hakon regarding the existence of good and evil. But I don't understand where good can come from if it does not come from God? How could such a thing exist in an impersonal, arbitrary, random world unless we make it ourselves, in which case it cannot be held as any kind of monolithic measure at all, but is just as subject to whim as Hakon's socialized morality?

The good is not a monolithic measure to be sure.

If you want a biological answer, I can give you one - or two indeed.

Just think of any group of gregarious animals. Think of groups A and B of the same species which behave differently. In the group A the individuals care for others and help each other in need and in the group B they only care for themselves and do not care of the others. Which one community you think will thrive over bad times? And which will be able to pass their genes forwards? Clearly the group B has no chance whereas group A has all the chances.

Think of yourself then. Would you like to marry a woman who is totally egoistic and only thinks of herself? I believe you don't. You'd like to have a loving and caring wife who is tender and caring of other people - like you. Now which genes get passed forwards; nice ones or bad ones?

So we evolve into better beings! (Just think of the status of children or women in the earlier centuries!) And we are good deep inside!

I know this view challenges the "primordial sin" -idea and I know it is a delicate issue with some people, but please give it a consideration anyway.

And as you Gwath questioned where the good comes from, it comes from us the people - and from chimps as chimps - and from bats as bats!

The good is the rule of the universe (sorry relativists but you're wrong in this even if you can claim individual wins to your behalf)!

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Just think of any group of gregarious animals. Think of groups A and B of the same species which behave differently. In the group A the individuals care for others and help each other in need and in the group B they only care for themselves and do not care of the others. Which one community you think will thrive over bad times? And which will be able to pass their genes forwards? Clearly the group B has no chance whereas group A has all the chances.

And a thriving community is...good? Sounds circular.

[Boromir88]

Now why would we be any different as cousins to the other primates? If that behaviour is especially common in the other primates why would our behaviour stem from any different source - be it evil or good?~Nogrod

This got me thinking about little Max. I had to return back home for a week, as the parents are going away on vacation, and someone needs to watch the dog (actually the only watching that really needs to be done is to make sure sally doesn't come by and steal him ).

Anyway, I let him outside when I got home, and he doesn't need a leash, he stays within the yard, except of course when he spots an unwelcome (or perceived unwelcome) intruder. Today (or well yesterday by the time I am done with this post), it happened to be a deer. He spotted the deer and boom off he went.

So, basically Nogrod, you got me wondering about territoriality, and I also wonder if it has anything to do with self-interest. It's not solely a human idea, animals create their own territory, mark it, and defend it. Does having our own "space" - however large or small it is, fulfill our self-interests? For the little devil Maximillian (as I would imagine for any animal that marks its territory), when he spots something in his territory that he perceives is a threat, he will always bark, and most of the time chase after the threat, until the threat is no more. Whether he just chased the threat out of the yard, or chased after it until he lost sight.

Usually I do have to make an attempt to run after him, because there is absolutely no way I could ever catch him, but once I start yelling out "sit" or "get back here," when the threat is gone he runs back towards me and sits at my feet (as well as of course looking up at me fully expecting to receive "good boys" and lots of petting after returning). Why does he return? He has the capacity to know I can give him what he needs, a space, a place, love, and food (food is probably what he is most self-interested in ). And of course Max fulfills my own self-interest in having a dog who is obedient and can pretty much brighten my day anytime. Long story short, thank you Nogrod in getting me to think about why my little Max, has to go chasing after anything he sees in the yard.

Now, I promise that I did not want to take this way off the literary discussion, and the purpose of this forum, and that is to talk about Tolkien. So check out this transition (oh if I was writing a formal paper right now, I would get into so much trouble)

In getting to think about self-interest, whether that really is an "evil" thing at all, and if complete selflessness is even possible. I mean after all, if we extend kindness and love to someone aren't we trying to build a community and expect the same kindness and love in return?

All I can really know for certain is death and pain. That is we all have the capacity to cause death and pain, but with or without us, it exists and it is certain. It goes all the way down to the cellular level, cells need to die (or if we are talking about plants, decay). In order to rejuvinate and "grow," there needs to be death. And since everything has a life span, in order to survive and replenish, we must have the capability and desire to reproduce. As for pain, in order to learn that it is not a good idea to stick your head in a fireplace, you have to feel it (If you are wondering why I used that example...yes I did that before, but I was like 5 years old, give me some slack ). However, for the most part pain is temporary, and it serves our own self-interest to find relief for that pain, simply because as necessary as it is, we hate feeling it. How this entire cycle of death, pain, relief and reproduction got started, who can say for certain, I haven't the slightest clue?

Evil seeks only to perfect itself & then remain in that state, as, I repeat, is the desire of Tolkien's Elves - but not his men & Hobbits.~davem

Yes, I made note that you kept saying that, and always intended to respond to it, but never really knew how, because it's something I didn't think about, besides simply recognizing it. Now, I think I can.

All that I said about death being certain above, the interesting thing is, Tolkien did not make it certain for his Elves. Elves can die in battle, but as we know they are immortal, death for them is not certain. Ahh, but pain still is...so is their desire for perfection "evil," or is it simply a way to relieve their pain?

With Men (and the other mortal races) death is certain. And just to talk about Men here, how much can change within their lifetime? Maybe a lot of things, but somethings take a long time to change, even well past our own lifetime. If we look at Faramir, when what he desires from Gondor, it doesn't really sound like he wants something different. He wants Gondor to be restored back to it's glory days, just like Boromir. However, I think the difference with Faramir, and why he could reject the Ring, was partly due to his acceptance of change. Now, it's a lot different from what Eddings would probably imagine, because in LOTR there is a higher power. Faramir is aware of this, or at least he is aware that he can not control what happens to Gondor. He wants Gondor restored, but if it doesn't happen than the "higher ups" must know what they are doing. This is perhaps best displayed in Gandalf's talk with Denethor about being a Steward. Gandalf plainly tells Denethor, it's not only Gondor that he loves, but everything that grows and is good in the world, he is the "steward" of it all and will care for all...where Denethor is the "Steward of Gondor" therefor looks out for Gondor and a lot of the times, only Gondor.

Anyway, going back to death being certain for Men, and that is exactly why it should be considered a "gift." Whatever pain they feel will come and go, and maybe Men (such as Faramir) do not want change to happen, but if it does then Men can adapt. Change isn't always good, nor is it always bad, but for Men, if it is bad, at least it will be temporary and for them death will come.

That is simply not the case for Elves. This may be part of the split between Eddings' and Tolkien, I haven't read Eddings', but for Tolkien's Elves, pain is still certain but not death. The Elves desire to keep things as they were, does not necessarily make them evil, maybe it's their attempt to relieve their pain. What it does do is prevent them from changing, which means staying in Middle-earth is impossible. Galadriel used Nenya to preserve and prevent decay in Lothlorien. She was trying to make Lothlorien her own "undying land," but this is simply not possible in Middle-earth. The most she could do was slow time and slow decay. Perhaps that is why Middle-earth needs to be inhabitted by Men, it fits their very nature. Men will die, so it's only natural that everything else must come to an end. For Elves, they can't live in Middle-earth, they very well may live forever and as much as they might try to turn parts of Middle-earth into their own "undying lands," it is simply not possible.