Redefining Good & Evil

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hakon

Truthfully one of the only things that makes us unique is that we are more evolved. Out intelligence is above those of the animals but our instincts are very similar. We are animals and we always will be.

To address your question Alatar, we as humans label it good and evil. As you said in the animal kingdom murder and rape occurs, but as humans label it as evil. In a way we are always going to be trying to lie to ourselves as a race saying that our instincts are evil. We also label some things that make us unique evil. Alfirin mentioned how sadism makes us different from animals. We label sadism as evil. We label what we dislike about our race as a whole evil.

Whoa! No offense, Hakon, I don't think you've really earned the right to make assertions like that. Maybe if you'd been brainwashed into the Lord's Resistance Army and been forced to kill from age five, or had every person you ever loved destroyed by Stalin, or suffered through the destruction of Nagasaki - in short, experienced about as much pain and suffering as a human can - you might be able to brush such things off as amoral and simply the product of human instinct. But until you have undergone the evil that you dismiss as mere nature, all that kind of talk is just empty philosophy and probably horribly offensive to, say, a victim of gang rape.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

But until you have undergone the evil that you dismiss as mere nature, all that kind of talk is just empty philosophy and probably horribly offensive to, say, a victim of gang rape.

You might as well accuse me of the same thing. My life has been relatively simple and uneventful, and so this is a philosophical and theoretical discussion for me. I apologize and sympathize to anyone for which this is real - I mean no offense or disrespect.

That said, if my belief is that we are animals, that there is no 'spiritual' world, then that surely colours my view of good and evil. It's not to say that I'm right, but it's what I believe, and what I believe can be born out by the evidence.

Not sure what else to say.

[Nogrod]

This is getting interesting indeed! *bows to everyone* (and regrets it's too late here to make a longer post... which probably is just good for the discussion)

Yay Hakon! Very good points indeed! But how should one interpret them?

Originally Posted by Hakon

To address your question Alatar, we as humans label it good and evil. As you said in the animal kingdom murder and rape occurs, but as humans label it as evil.

So like they say in the Genesis: Adam and Eve ate the apple from the tree of knowledge of good and bad? That's what differentiates us from the other animals who roam free and without a conscience nagging at them, and we were thrown out from the paradise eg. the state of moral ignorance because of that?

Some progressive-liberal lutheran (some other protestant) theologians have probably raised that point already I believe. It is a nice argument!

But let's not muddy it up with the more traditional argument that humans are unique as they know good and bad as such - unlike the other animals! And let's not get too happy with that progressive argument either...

Now the progressive Christian view would say it is that we are able to name or call some actions good and bad, to label them that way, and therefore we feel bad of some of our actions and good from others - and that might guide us nearer to God's will. As it was her divine plan from the beginning we should learn these differences to make individual choices.

But looked from that angle, eating the apple was the actual "receiving" of the free will according to morals itself, which was what God willed to us in the beginning? But she somehow decided to use the Devil to lure us into getting it and did not bother herself to do it? Hmm... Interesting.

Did God or did she not will us to have free will on matters over good or bad? If she wasn't willing it, we should have stayed as other animals who act mainly on instinct - and all this talk about good and evil is just led by Satan? So did God dislike us being able to label things as good or bad? At least she cursed the mankind for it... Or are we actually just acting on instinct and just able to deliberate on our choices more the other animals do because of language?

It reminds me of the status of Judas in the stories relating to Christ... so did he actually enable the whole redemption stuff and got lost himself while Christ just ascended to glory making Judas the real martyr, or what is it - and who was Christ then if Judas was the one "bringing the balance" (sorry)? Anyway, if God is omniscient he anyway knew and thus sacrificed Judas, right? Sorry. But you should think about it one day.

Back to the original stuff. The traditional view holds there is a universal truth with good and evil... but if God herself doesn't like us to know it as she blamed Adam and Eve from acquiring that knowledge? And if it is Satan who comes forwards with it, what's the status of these "ultimate truths" about Good and Evil?


Looking at today's extremists: suicide-bombers, al-Qaida, taleban, newly-born political christians, sionists and other orthodox jews, nationalists all around the globe... all those who think their "opinions" on universal good and bad are God-given or otherwise beyond any doubt... Well, if anything, they surely sound like doctrines that were handed to us by Satan herself wishing to undo all that is good in this world!

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Looking at today's extremists: suicide-bombers, al-Qaida, taleban, newly-born political christians, sionists and other orthodox jews, nationalists all around the globe... all those who think their "opinions" on universal good and bad are God-given or otherwise beyond any doubt... Well, if anything, they surely sound like doctrines that were handed to us by Satan herself wishing to undo all that is good in this world!

"Newly-born politicial christians" don't, as a rule, blow people up.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

It reminds me of the status of Judas in the stories relating to Christ... so did he actually enable the whole redemption stuff and got lost himself while Christ just ascended to glory making Judas the real martyr, or what is it - and who was Christ then if Judas was the one "bringing the balance" (sorry)? Anyway, if God is omniscient he anyway knew and thus sacrificed Judas, right? Sorry. But you should think about it one day.

I want to eventually get to the other points you brought up, Nogrod, because they're really interesting, but for now let me just mention this verse, which is germane to the Judas discussion: "The Son of Man goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that if he had never been born." (Jesus speaking, in the book of Mark, chapter 14, verse 21.) Enjoy.

[Morsul the Dark]

Ok couple of things in this thread I've noticed and then my point on the subject

someone said Satan Herself Trust me satan (if he exists) is a guy Woman are inherently good.

sorry no many religious people go around blowing themselves and other up.... only one group comes to mind... sorry if it's politically incorrect just how it works.

Now to the point the authorimposes the metaphor of a chain... good rarely is a chain see thrying to bring everyone to the same level means forcing some down... in fact everyone looking out for themelves...(evil if you will in the scenario) builds stronger links.

if the good chain wants to rust just for the sake of "fairness" andr"rightness" it will break

[Hakon]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

someone said Satan Herself Trust me satan (if he exists) is a guy Woman are inherently good.

That is sexist. Women can be just as bad as men. For all we know if Satan exists that you call a he and Nogrod a she could be an it. I always pictured God and Satan as sort of having no solid form. As not actually visible but there nonetheless. Then again I was raised as a Jew and not a Christian.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This discussion, interesting as it is, has wandered away from any reference to Tolkien. Please connect what you wish to say to Tolkien's point of view and his works; that will help the thread to avoid the pitfalls of personal attacks that lurk under the surface of controversial (especially religious!) discussions. Thanks!

And remember: Freedom is the right of those who do not agree with you to express their opinions just as you do. Please discuss respectfully, stating your thoughts without attacking those of others.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

EDIT: x-posted with Esty. All right, I hope it is forgiveable... and since I have already written it... anyway, good idea to try to bring the thread back to Tolkien. Though not sure if it was very closely related to him originally anyway.

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

"Newly-born politicial christians" don't, as a rule, blow people up.

Fortunately not, but also unfortunately sometimes they may support when somebody else blows people up...

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

sorry no many religious people go around blowing themselves and other up.... only one group comes to mind... sorry if it's politically incorrect just how it works.

More groups. In all cases, it is just the sects on the edge, but it happens/happened also in India or wherever. Anyway, the point is that it does not need to be blowing oneself up - religious people can be unfortunately often easily misused by some warmongering leaders (who need not to care about the words of their God at all, thinking themselves gods). (That's why the Bible leads people to question stuff... they should.)

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Now to the point the authorimposes the metaphor of a chain... good rarely is a chain see thrying to bring everyone to the same level means forcing some down... in fact everyone looking out for themelves...(evil if you will in the scenario) builds stronger links.

if the good chain wants to rust just for the sake of "fairness" andr"rightness" it will break

And so which way is it supposed to work - will it ultimately go down to "eat or you will be eaten"? Also if what Nogrod quoted is right, it doesn't work like that even among animals who have been often used (unrightfully anyway, as it's been known for a long time already) as example of the mere survival of the fittest (and in the era of enlightement as the cruel nature with claws and jaws in contrary to the reasonable human mind).
And isn't it so rather the other way around - and obviously it works that way, otherwise we won't be here, but just a few of the most powerful and capable individuals - that it is inherent for humans to think of the other? Now it actually dawned on me that it really is so - how else could we last the way we did?
There have been bones of very old people found by the archaeologists, coming from really ancient times, some beginning of neolite. The interesting thing was that they were bones of some people who have apparently been disabled, and ontologically - all their life. But they lived until very old age. So that means they had to be cared for by others, even back then.
And then, just because of the limits. Purely pragmatically: even if you were on your own and cared only for yourself, there are things you have no power against - random events, natural disasters, anything. At any point, also anybody stronger than you can come and take your property or kill you or anything. Whereas when the parts of the chain care of each other, you, as one of the links, can help the other when you are all right and the other is not - and the other can then do the same for you in reversed situation. This way, it's not just relying on oneself, but this way also the community is capable to withstand f.ex. the natural disasters or things like that (to some scope, of course, but generally...).

And just from the worldwide scope, we are basically called upon to be "good" and that this "good" should have some social dimension to it. To kind of build on the words of Hakon on alatar - even if we are "just animals", the point is, what do we make out of what we have?
According to Genesis 2:15 - "God put Man into the garden to care of it and to keep it" ("to care of it", in Hebrew it says "to serve it" - just the way a good farmer "serves" his animals or something like that). Even if we are "just animals", we are - and certainly now - in the position of the dominant species, so it calls upon our responsibility. And that is on the world-wide scope, ecologically, and socially (which was the original point of this).
(Not to speak that while being the dominant species, we still are not completely in control and cannot know whether some changes we make on the Earth won't backfire on us.)
So, my point is just that - it does not matter that much, in my opinion, what are the presumptions you are stemming from, but how you act. Because also many people act differently even if they base on the same ideas. To use examples from this thread, the thought of inherent wickedness of humans can lead to different ends: a given-up pessimism ("everything is going to go wrong anyway, why should I bother to do anything"), but also to a strong effort in opposition to the bad. Despite the Catholic doctrine of original sin, the Christians often - led by their faith and hope - were the more determined to do something. Whereas somebody who lacked hope would be far more inclined to just give up. Though, importantly enough - and partially in connection to what Nogrod said about the inherent goodness - people many times don't cease to try to do good things even then. Just some who are really cynical and don't care about anything then.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Ok couple of things in this thread I've noticed and then my point on the subject

someone said Satan Herself Trust me satan (if he exists) is a guy Woman are inherently good.

Originally Posted by Hakon

That is sexist. Women can be just as bad as men. For all we know if Satan exists that you call a he and Nogrod a she could be an it. I always pictured God and Satan as sort of having no solid form. As not actually visible but there nonetheless. Then again I was raised as a Jew and not a Christian.

It goes (and I hope it goes even outside my view) that way also among today's Christians (and it went so more or less for most of the time. Funnily enough it's mostly unreligious people who think of God as male or things like that. Even the un-orthodox Jewish kabbala, which was in many other things rather "blasphemous" from the point of view of orthodox Judaism or Christianity, portrayed both "masculine" and "feminine" sides in God). Simply put, not only God is not male nor female, and neither "it" (and this is why I don't like either pronoun to be used, not even "it", but what can one do then, I guess it doesn't matter what we use as long as we know what we are talking about. Or, even better said: as long as we don't know what we are talking about, if you get my meaning), but in some way all of that together and even more, transcending any masculinity or femininity or whatever. (Which is unnecessarily overemphasised anyway.)
It also makes no sense to divide sexes on the basis of good or evil and I hope reasonable people (and on this forum) do not think like that anymore, one way or the other. I have heard really angered complaints from the part of the feminists who have, in some way, encountered some similar things like Morsul said, and they complained about it a lot, because such way of thinking once again makes a woman just something else than a man (intentionally using this word so that you can read it in both senses: as "human" and "man").
Whereas, to return to speaking biblically, according to Genesis 1 and 2, God created both man and woman equal, as counterparts to the other (Gn 2:18), even - as emphasised - from the same material (unlike in many myths of other nations, where man is made of e.g. iron and woman of clay or stuff like that). According to Genesis 1:27, God created man and woman together and together they are called "Adam". (I don't know what it is like in various translations, in the Czech one we have "human" at first and "Adam" is used only later as the personal name. I know at least that in the King James version the word "Adam" is used since the end of first chapter, but it is referring to both man and woman still and it is not clear in there when it switches into the personal name of the male. In any case, in the original, "adam" in Hebrew means "human" and the word does not have any female counterpart, unlike the words which are used from v. 22 on to label man and woman ('iš and 'išša, similarly to in v. 1:27 zakar and neqebah, "male and female").
Anyway, the point is, also with their part on eating the fruit of the tree, and on the sin, they are equal - they both eat, and most of all, they both try to hide after their crime. And they are trying to put the blame on the other in such a typical way that it's so actual even for us now. Just the way they answer to the question: "Have you not eaten from that tree?" "Oh, but it was the woman you [!] gave me" (so who is blaming whom here?) and when the woman is asked "Oh, but it was the serpent". Like quarreling children.
To add more of the Protestant perspective here, the point is often seen nowadays not in the deed itself, but in this reaction. It at least shows the way of thinking of the "criminals". First trying to hide, then putting the blame on each other - certainly something is wrong here just from the behavior, quite plainly without the need to speculate about any metaphysical reasons behind it.

And I did not even get to write anything in particular to Nogrod's post above But I guess I have written enough and I also have other things to do than just to write here (unfortunately).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Since I have already joined this discussion... I feel obliged to write something concerning Tolkien and the view of good and evil and things that have been mentioned here.

The comparison with Eddings (never read anything by him, but anyway) makes me think whether the evil really is not in Tolkien spread according to the selfish disunity. Well, the Orcs and such have really no other reason to be together than because they are forced to it: and they cannot build any own reason for it, because they are forced to be so, and have no freedom. That of course could bring some ideas already, but I will go even a bit further. The Free Peoples are far from united - and they represent good - but what is the greatest warning we are given? That some Boromir, Gandalf, or Galadriel will take the Ring and unite the Free Peoples by force. So, I ask - does it not go again towards the freedom? So, is in Tolkien's work goodness in freedom to choose - and in the subsequent choice of goodness? It seems to me so, because if there is anything so recurring in LotR, it is the rejection of power - even if used for "good" ends. But it seems to me, by what I have outlined here now, are the ends still good after this? I think not.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

And so which way is it supposed to work - will it ultimately go down to "eat or you will be eaten"? Also if what Nogrod quoted is right, it doesn't work like that even among animals who have been often used (unrightfully anyway, as it's been known for a long time already) as example of the mere survival of the fittest (and in the era of enlightement as the cruel nature with claws and jaws in contrary to the reasonable human mind).

People continually get the 'survival of the fittest' idea wrong (not saying this of anyone here). Fit...this doesn't mean the strongest, prettiest/handsomest, fastest, etc. Fit...able to survive well enough to get offspring into the next generation. A platypus is not the prettiest creature, the three-toes sloth not the fastest, nor the echidna the strongest, but each survives well enough in its environment.

This way, it's not just relying on oneself, but this way also the community is capable to withstand f.ex. the natural disasters or things like that (to some scope, of course, but generally...).

What we have 'learned/evolved' is that, by forming communities, we as a species can survive better - be more fit. As stated, alone we are vulnerable. As ants have formic acid that makes them resistant to predation (except by anteaters), we have 'community.' And that community includes the weak and frail as well as the strong and swift. Not that it was always the case, but the toothless hobbled elder contributed to the community just as much as the hunting males and the gathering females.

And just from the worldwide scope, we are basically called upon to be "good" and that this "good" should have some social dimension to it. To kind of build on the words of Hakon on alatar - even if we are "just animals", the point is, what do we make out of what we have?

Today we have no excuse. It's one thing when an animal has no food or shelter for the stronger to take from the weaker, or to rid themselves of these burdens...difficult times call for difficult measures. But animals don't read genetics tomes; we do. So to 'kill off' or select for a specific type of individual type makes us vulnerable to the vagaries of the environment. We need to keep within us (as a community) the most diverse set of genes possible to ensure that we have a chance. You never know what the future will bring, like a big thumping meteor, and so we want to be sure that some will survive, whatever happens.

Frank Herbert wrote about this idea in a short story named, "Seed Stock." The 'ideal' in our eyes may be the worst choice for the survival of the species.

In regards to 'evil,' is it those instinctual animal impulses that no longer are needed in our community-adapted species that come out in certain individuals? Not to trivialize, but like teeth in chicken?

Anyway, the point is, also with their part on eating the fruit of the tree, and on the sin, they are equal - they both eat, and most of all, they both try to hide after their crime.

Some may see a reason for subordination here:

Originally Posted by YHWH in Genesis 3:16

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

God may have created them equal, but things went awry shortly thereafter. And note that to me, both are 'equal,' though equal isn't the right word - I can't bear children, and I'm not 'the same' as my wife. Think that 'halves of whole' is better.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by alatar

People continually get the 'survival of the fittest' idea wrong (not saying this of anyone here). Fit...this doesn't mean the strongest, prettiest/handsomest, fastest, etc. Fit...able to survive well enough to get offspring into the next generation. A platypus is not the prettiest creature, the three-toes sloth not the fastest, nor the echidna the strongest, but each survives well enough in its environment.

Of course, but the point was that the "bonus" to the survival of the fittest is for the humans to include even those who are not contributive at all. You are sort of giving answer to yourself right in the second part:

What we have 'learned/evolved' is that, by forming communities, we as a species can survive better - be more fit. As stated, alone we are vulnerable. As ants have formic acid that makes them resistant to predation (except by anteaters), we have 'community.' And that community includes the weak and frail as well as the strong and swift. Not that it was always the case, but the toothless hobbled elder contributed to the community just as much as the hunting males and the gathering females.

The point of what I had in mind was going to the extreme and including even the absolutely uncontributive and "unfit" members. Okay, a cripple who isn't capable of doing anything in the group of stone age hunters may contribute still in some way, perhaps by telling stories or whoknowswhat, but what if he doesn't do even that? There are and have been people who cannot, but still are cared about. I wonder - does it mean, then, if holding this theory you propose, that keeping these disabled is somewhat contributive in itself, let's say, strenghtening the bonds within the society and giving them more chance to accept even those who do not seem to be contributive, because even though we don't see it now, they eventually could?
I must say, anyway, that I dislike the idea that it would be so "just" because it would be advantageous or anything like that. Because, wouldn't it be just blind determinism again? And if there is something I am strongly against, it's determinism.

Some may see a reason for subordination here:


God may have created them equal, but things went awry shortly thereafter. And note that to me, both are 'equal,' though equal isn't the right word - I can't bear children, and I'm not 'the same' as my wife. Think that 'halves of whole' is better.

Yes, that sounds good. But "equal" in the other sense - I actually like the formulation in the abovementioned Genesis 2,18 woman is defined towards man "knegdo" (KJV: "meet for him", though I wonder what exactly is that supposed to mean), sometimes translated as "equal to"; but simply it means something like "a counterpart to", literally "as opposite to him", meant, like when you are standing face to your reflection in the mirror. That would go more or less around the lines you said.

As for the subordination, it's been interpretated like that many times, and not just that place, of course. The more given the context of the society (most of the important biblical characters are male etc.). But it is clear the thing cannot be taken one-sidedly like that. The verse you quoted is interpretated a statement, not as an order, after all, it's a part of the description of the results brought by the sin. And indeed it's the way it went.

Anyway, were we not supposed to turn this discussion back to Tolkien?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

The point of what I had in mind was going to the extreme and including even the absolutely uncontributive and "unfit" members. Okay, a cripple who isn't capable of doing anything in the group of stone age hunters may contribute still in some way, perhaps by telling stories or whoknowswhat, but what if he doesn't do even that? There are and have been people who cannot, but still are cared about. I wonder - does it mean, then, if holding this theory you propose, that keeping these disabled is somewhat contributive in itself, let's say, strenghtening the bonds within the society and giving them more chance to accept even those who do not seem to be contributive, because even though we don't see it now, they eventually could?

...

Anyway, were we not supposed to turn this discussion back to Tolkien?

Bilbo (or was it Frodo?) thinks that the Shire could use a good awakening, a thinning or dethatching, via a brood of Dragons descending upon the place. He, in essence, would like to 'select' for a specific type of Hobbit, one that is 'awake' and looking upward and not just down at the earth, whose thoughts were more lofty and long range.

But, in the end, what is 'good' about the Shire is that, among individuals like Bilbo and Frodo and his friends (and Lotho and Ted ), it also contains 'simple folk' that have no mind for Dragons and other worldly events.

It's these Hobbits that Frodo saves, though they are not world-wise warriors with swords in one hand and copies of Quenta Silmarillion (in the original Klingon) in the other. Even Ted serves as a good negative example in hygiene.

I must say, anyway, that I dislike the idea that it would be so "just" because it would be advantageous or anything like that. Because, wouldn't it be just blind determinism again? And if there is something I am strongly against, it's determinism.

Not actually sure what you mean.

[Pitchwife]

Now, what is this? I'm away from the Downs for just a few days, and when I come back I find this thread has gone to Far Harad and back (or not quite back)!
No chance to address even half of what has gone on in the meantime, but anyway, let me see, where were we? Oh yes: alatar stated the obvious, i.e. that we're animals, and Hakon made a much disputed post which I liked very well, the point being that it's us humans who label certain actions as good or evil.
alatar, in response to the question you raised in your first post in this thread, I think the difference between us and other animals as regards good and evil is not premeditation, but rather reflection. Chimps, dogs, cats etc. may kill, rape (?) or act altruistically, but as far as I know they don't reflect on the ethical value of their actions. They don't ask themselves, 'Ought I to do this?', and they don't think 'I really shouldn't, but heck, I'll do it anyway because I happen to feel like it'; hence, they don't feel guilt or bad conscience. (Dogs, who have been domesticated and lived in close contact with humans for a very long time, sometimes act like feeling guilty when we catch them doing something we don't want them to, but that's more because they feel our displeasure than realizing there was anything wrong with what they did. We're their externalized superegos, so to speak.) Nature may be red in tooth and claw, but she's always innocent, because she doesn't think about what she's doing. (I realize gendered pronouns have become a hot topic in some recent posts, but sorry, I can't call nature 'it' - and that's not just because of grammatical gender in German. Make of of it what you will.)
Or rather, she didn't, until we appeared on the scene. However we may try to disengage ourselves from nature, rise above her, remodel her or destroy her - as animals, we'll always be part of her: the only part of her (as far as we know) that's aware of itself and thinks about itself, its part in the whole and its actions. And labels some of those actions good and others evil.
Hakon said, We label what we dislike about our race as a whole evil, which, to me, has the ring of truth - but what precisely we label as good or evil says a lot about us and our state of maturity or immaturity. Insofar as we're Mother Nature's obedient children, good is whatever ensures survival, whether of ourselves or of our species, evil whatever endangers it. Insofar as we're teenage rebels against her we label the instincts that connect us to her as evil. Insofar as we're adults accepting our place in the whole, it's the same as before, only it's not just the survival of our own species but of the whole ecosphere. (Damn Hegel and his dialectics, but sometimes he does have a point.)
- By the way, I just realized (though I'm not sure if anybody else will, as my thoughts are jumping around quite a bit at the moment) this might be a connection back to the original Eddings theme: evil only cares about the individual; good involves the sacrifice of the individual for the species as a community; next stage of good would be realizing that the community includes all species on this planet. -

(Aside to Gwath: I never said (or meant to say) that good and bad are nothing more than terms developed to indicate certain patterns of behavior. Not merely indicate, but evaluate (as should be obvious from the above).)

(Aside to Alfirin: sadism is an interesting point, but I think what we (i.e. those of us that ever feel that way, which, if I may guess, is much more than would ever admit it but much less than would ever act it out) actually take pleasure in is not really the pain and suffering of others but our own power to inflict it on them; therefore, the people who are most likely to act on a sadistic impulse are those who have been victimized themselves in some way or the other and feel powerless in every other respect - in other words, individuals asserting themselves in the only way available to them.)

OK. Back to Tolkien.

davem, much of what I wanted to say about Eru permitting Frodo to fail or not has been taken care of by Aiwendil, but nevertheless: if Eru was determined to stop Sauron, he would have found a way to do it whether Frodo failed or not, wouldn't he, or otherwise what a poor excuse for a God would he be? Which means that Frodo always had a chance to fail - and indeed fail he did, except that he let Gollum live to save the day (with or without a Divine Nudge). Everything else would reduce Frodo to a remote-controlled puppet and/or divine providence to a failsafe.

The really interesting thing in this context is that while only Gandalf among the good guys may truly know the outcome of things, among the bad guys both Saruman & Sauron know it too - yet they actually try to bring about a different result.

Not sure about this (not even about Gandalf, on second thought). Remember the Ainur didn't see the end of the Music and the later ages of the world. There was the Second Prophecy of Mandos about Dagor Dagorath etc., but do we know when exactly it was made and who was told about it? Saruman may or may not have known, Sauron almost certainly didn't - so I think they can be excused for thinking they might get away with what they were doing.
À propos Saruman, these words of yours made me think of him, and the difference between him and Gandalf:

Of course, if one doesn't (or can't) believe in Eru/God then one suddenly becomes responsible for the greater matters, because one's choices can (one believes) change the world

To be sure, for Saruman (and I mean before he got power-crazy) believing or not believing in Eru was not the question - he knew; but he didn't trust in Eru. The way Saruman thought, he, as the head of the Istari, was responsible and in charge, and the only way he could think of to counter Sauron was to find the Ring before him. Saruman would never have laid down his life and trusted the Higher Power to set things right, as Gandalf did in Moria.

Finally, alatar wrote:

Bilbo (or was it Frodo?) thinks that the Shire could use a good awakening, a thinning or dethatching, via a brood of Dragons descending upon the place. He, in essence, would like to 'select' for a specific type of Hobbit, one that is 'awake' and looking upward and not just down at the earth, whose thoughts were more lofty and long range.

It was Frodo. And wouldn't he have made a lovely little dictator of the Shire if he could have claimed the Ring and got away with it? Setting up schools for hobbit children, I'd suppose, with Quenya and Sindarin compulsory as foreign languages and everybody studying the Quenta Silmarillion in the original Klingon. 'Selecting' and bossing around people for what he thought their own good. There was a little Sauron in him after all.

[Morsul the Dark]

I'm going to defend myself, I Know woman can be just as bad as men, I just think as a whole they really are the more compassionate sex, look to think everyone has EXACTLY the same traits is to ignore the truth! anyway what I was saying is yes we should be compassionate about others, HOWEVER in tribal days you had to care for what maybe a couple hundred people(If that) it doesn't carry over to modern times the numbers of those in "Need" is growing and those that are caring is shrinking, because there are those who exploit the "goodness" of others, you think America's welfare system would be so full if the layabouts and losers were forced out, I'm not talking about the disabled or the Newly unemployed people who lost their jobs after twenty years of hard work, I'm talking about habitual slackers. Goodness is helping those in Need, helping those in Want is ignorance

Let's face it when it came down to it you and your family come first survival is our main goal, If it weren't we wouldn't exist. and if we truly were "good" we wouldn't need laws and governments, or quite frankly religion.

and trust me whoever thinks we're intelligent logical creatures hasn't worked retail

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

alatar, in response to the question you raised in your first post in this thread, I think the difference between us and other animals as regards good and evil is not premeditation, but rather reflection. Chimps, dogs, cats etc. may kill, rape (?) or act altruistically, but as far as I know they don't reflect on the ethical value of their actions. They don't ask themselves, 'Ought I to do this?', and they don't think 'I really shouldn't, but heck, I'll do it anyway because I happen to feel like it'; hence, they don't feel guilt or bad conscience.

Excellent! That's the piece I was missing. And I would think that true psychopaths don't reflect much on their actions - they just 'do,' and until stopped, continue to do.

It was Frodo. And wouldn't he have made a lovely little dictator of the Shire if he could have claimed the Ring and got away with it? Setting up schools for hobbit children, I'd suppose, with Quenya and Sindarin compulsory as foreign languages and everybody studying the Quenta Silmarillion in the original Klingon. 'Selecting' and bossing around people for what he thought their own good. There was a little Sauron in him after all.

We all have a little bit of Sauron in us. Like in the Sil, we have to fight the slow retreat.

[Hakon]

That little bit of Sauron in us is what Sauron himself used. It is what helped him deceive both Ar Pharazon and Celebrimbor.