Redefining Good & Evil

[davem]

As many of you probably know David Eddings, fantasy writer of epics such as the Belgariad & the Mallorean, died yesterday. I read the Belgariad many years back & enjoyed it but haven't been back to any of his other work. However, googling Eddings today I found this essay which struck me as worth a read - if not a discussion. Its about Eddings' take on good & evil

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...g4.html?cat=38

a few bits

In short, what Eddings describes is a conception of good and evil where there is no "balance", but the lack thereof. Instead of the world being in perfect continuous harmony, where evil is a necessity, in order to validate the existence of good, he paints a portrait where good and evil are really nothing more than alternate natures that cannot both be true. They are each the "soul" of the universe, and this reality isn't big enough for the both of them.

The main advantage of the forces of good is that they are able to work together. Where evil uses minions and henchmen, good draws on the full advantage of its resources in presenting a united, cooperative community. The main characters all care for each other, and protect each other, even as fate drives them towards a very uncertain end.

The "bad guys", which is an ironic notion for anyone who has actually read The Malloreon, tend to be a 'me first' kind of crowd. Selfish, arrogant, and prideful

Evil is a philosophy of selfishness, an embracing of the core "virtues" of death - that an unchanging state is to be sought and held at all costs. To maintain the status quo, to hold to 'perfection', is the utmost charge.

But, there is a logical flaw at the heart of evil's purview: though it is natural for we humans to seek stability in our chaotic world, it is an irrational desire. The world changes, and events continue on their course, whatever we might wish. The only certain escape is death, which makes the cure a good sight worse than the problem.

Good, on the other hand, embodies all the attributes of life: changing, growing, adapting, and spreading the ever-shifting chaos on to others. The philosophy of good means caring for others, and doing right by them - which means sacrificing of one's self. Be it a gift of time, money, or just love, a person must transfer something from himself to another in any act of compassion. This is anathema to evil's ways, as any person so doing not only violates the status quo, but actually makes himself lesser, a step back from perfection.

What those souls of evil nature don't understand, though, is that because good stands together, as a community, that giving of one's self to help another strengthens the whole. When a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, transferring strength from the strongest to the weakest is just basic sense; if the metaphorical chain breaks, all that extra strength won't do the powerful link any good.

[Alfirin]

I find Eddings description a little simplistic; there are an awful lot of things it leaves out. One that sticks out to me is that it fails to take into account a very simple truth, namely that good itself, if taken to its extreme becomes as destuctive as evil; a purely good individual is as incapable of functionally exisiting in the world as a purely evil one would be. Remember technically, "selfless" doesnt mean kind or noble or generous it literally means "having no self". A truly selfless individual basically couln't survive, he would be incapable of doing anything for his own benefit. He could never eat anything, becuse he would always have to give priority to anyone else, incuding theoretical people who are not thier (i.e. "I am hungry and need this food, but someone hungrier than I may at some point come by, and need this food more than me"). A truly purely altruistic individual (which is what Eddings seems to be sugessting to be a perfectly "good" indvidual) would have to give other desires, no matter how small and petty greater priority than his own, no matter how great, in fact he couldn't give his own needs any priorty at all. To Use an exmaple I once used in ethics class, if a perfectly altruistic person was walking down the street with a loaded gun, and met a person who wanted for whatever reason to kill him but who was unarmed, he would be obigated to give the person the gun so that he could use it to kill him, since fulfilling the other persons desire (to kill him) would be more important to him than his own desire (to stay alive). A truly "good" society under Eddings defintion would basically be like a beehive or ant colony, (if the hive/colony and the queen are considered interchagalbe one being the same as the other.) at least thats how I see it.

[Hakon]

Sadly I cannot post in every thread I want to today since I am busy. But I would like to note that good and evil are perspectives. It is an important thing that should be brought up in this discussion.

[davem]

What struck me was the similarity of Eddings concept of 'evil'

Evil is a philosophy of selfishness, an embracing of the core "virtues" of death - that an unchanging state is to be sought and held at all costs. To maintain the status quo, to hold to 'perfection', is the utmost charge.

as an 'unchanging state' - which seems to be the Elvish ideal in Tolkien's creation. Whereas change, flux, mutability is what they seek to escape, what they actually create the Rings to bring about

The world changes, and events continue on their course, whatever we might wish. The only certain escape is death, which makes the cure a good sight worse than the problem.

Yet, its more complex - Frodo, the great Elf-friend, conforms perfectly to Eddings 'good' person:

The philosophy of good means caring for others, and doing right by them - which means sacrificing of one's self. Be it a gift of time, money, or just love, a person must transfer something from himself to another in any act of compassion. This is anathema to evil's ways, as any person so doing not only violates the status quo, but actually makes himself lesser, a step back from perfection.

Frodo, surely, gives absolutely of himself in the ultimate act of compassion - until the end, when he gives in & becomes 'evil' - seeking, through the Ring, stasis, control, death - which is ultimately what the Ring is.

Yet, Tolkien is clear that evil cannot create, cannot come together, & in the end that is why Sauron & Saruman fall:

What those souls of evil nature don't understand, though, is that because good stands together, as a community, that giving of one's self to help another strengthens the whole. When a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, transferring strength from the strongest to the weakest is just basic sense; if the metaphorical chain breaks, all that extra strength won't do the powerful link any good.

In the end I don't know how different the two authors are philosophically - if at all. "Life is more than perfect because it is imperfect" is an interesting idea - Eru's original theme was 'perfect' but in its 'perfection' it is 'less' than it could be, & it is flawed beings who actually lift it beyond that divine 'perfection' into something 'more'. Elves seek to manifest that 'perfection' but that is their tragedy, because the end of that road is 'the long slow sleep of death embalmed'. Life, change, flux, imperfection, the lessening & weakening of the individual, rather than his/her attaining a spurious 'wholeness/perfection, is the superior state.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

In the end I don't know how different the two authors are philosophically - if at all."

Hugely.

I don't think Eddings is different, really, if one looks simply at his descriptions of how good guys behave versus the baddies. Certainly, regarding teamwork, consensus, and general compassion as opposed to selfishness, the paradigms of virtue in LotR would seem to fit, as would Sauron as the arch-paradigm of evil. It DOES occur to me, however, that in a sense this could be argued as not true for Tolkien at all--the "good guys" really don't get along at all: Boromir regarding the Ring, Denethor towards Gandalf and even Rohan, Elves and Men in general, Elves and Dwarves in general, all these seem to indicate a fractiousness on the part of the good guys, whereas--though we know, I suppose, that they work out of fear and dread of their dark lord, we don't get much intra-Evil quarrelling, except where the Orks are concerned, and that's quite far down the food chain, and somewhat muted.

However, the argument that Eddings is off there is a weak one, and I'm not making it--though I put it out there insofar as it certainly can be made. However, to return to philosophy.

Eddings' philosophy is laid out, really, right at the beginning of the quoted piece:

In short, what Eddings describes is a conception of good and evil where there is no "balance", but the lack thereof. Instead of the world being in perfect continuous harmony, where evil is a necessity, in order to validate the existence of good, he paints a portrait where good and evil are really nothing more than alternate natures that cannot both be true. They are each the "soul" of the universe, and this reality isn't big enough for the both of them.

Perhaps I'm a bit too convinced that the mentality underlying Tolkien's worldview (in ME as well as "real life") is Catholic, but... really... can you get any farther from Tolkien?

Eddings rejects the idea that good and evil can balance, but this doesn't mean that he doesn't take a fundamentally dualistic approach to Good and Evil as opposing forces. In Christianity, this is known as Manichean heresy, and it is certainly not what either Tolkien or Catholicism would present. Perhaps the only thing really distinctive about Eddings as opposed to Manicheans in general is that his stories tell of the triumph of one side (good) over the other, but perhaps I shouldn't give away the ending...

I apologise if this becomes yet another religion debate, but if one holds religion, it is at the heart of one's philosophy, and Tolkien's philosophy is precisely what we're talking about here, and very much influenced by his faith.

The idea that evil is an alternative plan for the world that cannot coëxist with good, suggesting that evil has a plausible chance of winning--indeed, even an equal chance of winning--is not at all borne out by the Ainulindalë. Quite the contrary! If I may quote Eru's words to Melkor:

Originally Posted by Ainulindalë

Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shall see that no them may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

This passage, one of my absolute favourites and one of the beautiful gems of the Ainulindalë, doesn't leave any room for an Eddingsesque view of Good and Evil. Perhaps, it is true, Good and Evil aren't compatible, and if Evil had it's way, Good would be destroyed. But Evil hasn't the slightest chance of ever actually winning. From all of his works on the subject, it should be splendidly clear that Morgoth is going to lose the Dagor Dagorath, and there isn't a thing he can do about it. What's more, Evil only gets its chance to fight Good because Eru lets it--because Eru let Arda be created according to flawed music of the Ainur. The implication in the passage is that NOTHING could come to pass, had Eru not permitted it.

With Eddings, evil always has a fighting chance. Indeed, what makes him philosophically different comes right down to the fact that Evil could, in fact, win the day. Good NEVER has the certain edge of victory that it has in Middle-earth, backed by Eru and the promise of Arda Remade or in Christianity. Evil, in both Middle-earth and Christianity, is the rebellion of created beings against an unimaginably greater Creator, whereas in Eddings' worlds it is just as potent an original force, only likely to fail, well, because Good has hit on the "better" tactics, or got luckier.

[Nogrod]

You Form surely know that christianity became a world-power with a few Roman caesars who just forced it to the people (closing all scientific academies and philosophical schools as heretical and thus turning the time backwards for a thousand years) and with it's two millenias of tradition all these different views have been considered. And that was not to the credit of the "going-to-be" mainstream christianity, as fex. the question of theodikea remains, thanks to the decision of one synod in the first centuries of our common era, into which fex. manicheanism has much more believable answers...

Looking back at Babylonian or Scandinavian myths one sees a host of open possibilities. Or looking at the Asian religions / philosophies, one gets a totally different answer where there is no winning or losing at all.

So we're dealing with western philosophy here; the philosophy of the winners of history who can write their own truths as universal ones? Even if there's tension between the orthodox-catholicism and say Lutheran doctrine on the matters... (not to talk of the African churches or the fundamentalist "new-borns" in America).

But how should we settle this kind of argument? People X say "There is evil in itself!" and others say "No, it's just the lack of good", and the third party says "It's just the balance between the forces" while the side Y says "It's just perspectives"...


But what strikes me in this comparison is the role of democracy as a backbone of European (North-American) thinking. And that bygone argument of Adam Smith about the invisible hand which will just settle all things for the common good. (He might have been right in a small industry perspective, in a small marketing area with knowledgeable consumers and no "branding", but... )

Now why should there be a logic of the universe which guides the goodies? Why the evil would be disarrayed and the good ones united? Wasn't it Martin Luther King's famous speech which approached us normal people saying that the evil is not what some evil people do but the fault of us good ones not doing anything about it? So making just the contrary point: we good are disarrayed and that's the problem.

And this sure raises the question of understanding the bad vs. punishing them...

And should we actually do something about bad things ourselves to make the world better? And how to do it?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

You Form surely know that christianity became a world-power with a few Roman caesars who just forced it to the people (closing all scientific academies and philosophical schools as heretical and thus turning the time backwards for a thousand years) and with it's two millenias of tradition all these different views have been considered. And that was not to the credit of the "going-to-be" mainstream christianity, as fex. the question of theodikea remains, thanks to the decision of one synod in the first centuries of our common era, into which fex. manicheanism has much more believable answers...

While I might question the veracity of the slant you're putting on the historical facts... I'm really not sure at all what your point would be. Whether or not Catholicism as such got where it was today--or, pertinently, in Tolkien's lifetime--by the hand of Divine Providence, as I would say, or by the cut-throat tactics of decadent emperors and backwards barbarians (ignoring, completely, the historical fact of civilisation being SAVED in the West--never mind the East for now--by said cut-throat religion) is hardly to the point. My point had nothing to do with why the Manichees are not more popular today, and everything to with the fact that Tolkien's philosophy, as it comes through in the Silmarillion and the LotR is NOT Manichean, but much more reminiscent of orthodox Catholicism. And no wonder, given which of the two Tolkien belonged to. Regardless of WHY he was Catholic, you're surely not going to tell me that he was not, in fact, actually Catholic?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Looking back at Babylonian or Scandinavian myths one sees a host of open possibilities. Or looking at the Asian religions / philosophies, one gets a totally different answer where there is no winning or losing at all.

So we're dealing with western philosophy here; the philosophy of the winners of history who can write their own truths as universal ones? Even if there's tension between the orthodox-catholicism and say Lutheran doctrine on the matters... (not to talk of the African churches or the fundamentalist "new-borns" in America).

But how should we settle this kind of argument? People X say "There is evil in itself!" and others say "No, it's just the lack of good", and the third party says "It's just the balance between the forces" while the side Y says "It's just perspectives"...


But what strikes me in this comparison is the role of democracy as a backbone of European (North-American) thinking. And that bygone argument of Adam Smith about the invisible hand which will just settle all things for the common good. (He might have been right in a small industry perspective, in a small marketing area with knowledgeable consumers and no "branding", but... )

Now why the evil would be disarrayed and the good ones united? Wasn't it Martin Luther King's famous speech which approached us normal people saying that the evil is not what some evil people do but the fault of us good ones not doing anything about it? So making just the contrary point: we good are disarrayed and that's the problem.

And this sure raises the question of understanding the bad vs. punishing them...

And should we actually do something about bad things ourselves to make the world better? And how to do it?

Perhaps I'm a touch vindictive here--and insofar as I'm capable of pulling myself back from that, I apologise--REALLY!--but what, exactly, does this have to do with either Tolkien or Eddings? To an extent, you seem to be agreeing with Hakon, who said that "good and evil are perspective"--a statement that, unqualified, I do not incline to agree with--you could perhaps be arguing that Tolkien, in fact, DOES have an Eddingseseque side, if you leave Eru out of the picture as pious legend of the Valinorean Elves (thus meaning that the REAL battle in Middle-earth is only between Melkor's and Manwë's parties, who really are comparable in power)--but you don't actually seem to be coming back to either Tolkien or Eddings at all.

Really... unless you're offering another analysis of Good/Evil that is not offered by either Eddings or, I guess, my admittedly Catholic-centric self, then I'm not entirely sure what you're doing.

[Boromir88]

The implication in the passage is that NOTHING could come to pass, had Eru not permitted it.~Formendacil

But would Eddings' definition fit within LOTR? Afterall, how much of a presense does Eru have in LOTR? There are vague hints of other powers working behind the scenes, but the decision to carry the Ring and the strength to carry it to Mount Doom was Frodo's, not Eru's.

And whether Eru intervened in Mount Doom is questionable, even if you agree with Tolkien saying in various letters about Eru's intervention, Letters muddy thing up. You can't tell from the LOTR text whether Eru caused Gollum's fall, or whether Sauron was defeated by 'good,' due to...well a lucky slip.

The way good and evil is presented in LOTR, I think one can find Eddings' definition. The defeat of evil rested on the destruction of the Ring, it was presented as an impossible, and perhas idiotic gamble by the good guys. So, Sauron certainly had a great chance, maybe even better chance, of 'winning.' And Sauron was defeated, because of his pride, his belief that no one had the strength of will to destroy the Ring - and he never bothered worrying about the Ring's destuction.

Boromir regarding the Ring, Denethor towards Gandalf and even Rohan

Yes, but are all the guys who fight against Sauron necessarily good? Saruman opposed Sauron, he was by Tolkien's definition - evil. Tolkien also laid down the law regarding Boromir and Denethor's downfall. As Tolkien would write to Christopher about WWII:

For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed.But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn men and elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are so clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side...~Letter 66

The same can be applied to LOTR, just because we can identify Gondor as the "good side," does not mean they do not have their own bad apples. Denethor's and Boromir's downfalls were due to the same thing as Sauron's...pride.

however, that in a sense this could be argued as not true for Tolkien at all--the "good guys" really don't get along at all:

But there is still a sense of aid and community amongst the good guys that we do not see in Evil. Rohan still rides to Gondor's defense. Erebor and Dale join forces in fighting off Sauron. But it is perhaps the individual examples which lead a stronger credence to Eddings' definition. Perhaps Tolkien was trying to set an example through individual examples and not by general relations amongst races (such as Elves and Dwarves).

Elrond and Galadriel both lend aid to Aragorn throughout LOTR, as well as the rest of the Fellowship. Sam's enduring friendship and sacrifice gets Frodo into Mount Doom. Gandalf's sacrifice in Moria insures the quest still has a chance. Faramir, not being tempted by the Ring, and letting Frodo go. Gimli and Legolas' growing friendship throughout the story. There is a lot of "community" throughout LOTR, maybe not on the "global" level, but on a character-to-character level there is.

Edit: crossed with Nog and Form

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Perhaps I'm a touch vindictive here--and insofar as I'm capable of pulling myself back from that, I apologise--REALLY!--but what, exactly, does this have to do with either Tolkien or Eddings? To an extent, you seem to be agreeing with Hakon, who said that "good and evil are perspective"--a statement that, unqualified, I do not incline to agree with--you could perhaps be arguing that Tolkien, in fact, DOES have an Eddingseseque side, if you leave Eru out of the picture as pious legend of the Valinorean Elves (thus meaning that the REAL battle in Middle-earth is only between Melkor's and Manwë's parties, who really are comparable in power)--but you don't actually seem to be coming back to either Tolkien or Eddings at all.

You're right in here. I have nothing to say of Eddings even if any dimming of a spark of life is a great loss in this universe crowded by nothingness.

May he be remembered well, even if I won't be one of those remembering him with real tears as I haven't read his books, looking at them by the covers as just that basic bulk-fantasy. So never a fan of his even if regretting his death - as anyones.

But I do not agree with Hakon that good and evil are "just" perspectives. Not at all. I think good is good and bad is bad nonetheless of your religion or your world-view.

Thinking one should be good because of one's own self interest (a place in heaven) - or being good to obey a higher call anyway because some authority wants it - is bad. One should be good for it's own sake. To be a human is to be good (and bye-bye the primordial sin). That's what I try to say on the subject of good and evil between Tolkien and Eddings... or on it anyway.

The world I believe is immoral or a-moral. The religions bring the good in with the God but I think we must be braver than that. There's no God to judge you. You should be good without a God; make it a hypothesis for a while and think how it would affect your thought! Then you're good if you choose right without orders or rewards. It's not easy to grow up from childhood's "please and be rewarded" attitude but we have hope. That's what we need to count on,

Originally Posted by FOrm

While I might question the veracity of the slant you're putting on the historical facts... I'm really not sure at all what your point would be. Whether or not Catholicism as such got where it was today--or, pertinently, in Tolkien's lifetime--by the hand of , as I would say, or by the cut-throat tactics of decadent emperors and backwards barbarians (ignoring, completely, the historical fact of civilisation being SAVED in the West--never mind the East for now--by said cut-throat religion) is hardly to the point. My point had nothing to do with why the Manichees are not more popular today, and everything to with the fact that Tolkien's philosophy, as it comes through in the Silmarillion and the LotR is NOT Manichean, but much more reminiscent of orthodox Catholicism. And no wonder, given which of the two Tolkien belonged to.

I never said Tolkien was not a catholic. Vice versa (and sorry if that interptetation was plausible). Surely Tolkien is a catholic par exellance here - that was my point indeed.

And it's a telling choice of words when you speak of "Divine Providence", which is how the catholics and the orthodox speak while treating history. Comfortable.

I'm not going into the Albigenses here... or other "non-desirables" who thought the theodikea needed a solving...

But to my eyes the main-story seemed to be a question of an independent evil vs, the good. A question so problematic for christianity because of the clausules of the early church fathers and the political climate they made their decisions in (which are ignored). And not being so holy anyway...

The LotR is not Manichean. Here we should agree and I think I never claimed it was. Not at all.

I agree with you that Tolkien has the catholic view about it with providence... (Gandalf's resurrection, the fate that guides the Ring to Frodo etc..) although I think there are bitter schisms between the protestants and the catholics (not to talk of the Orthodox) on the subject of mercy vs. deeds vs. intentions.

But that's another topic alltogether I think - and nothing that could be argued...

[Hakon]

But I do not agree with Hakon that good and evil are "just" perspectives. Not at all. I think good is good and bad is bad nonetheless of your religion or your world-view.

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.

[Gwathagor]

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.

Tolkien clearly portrays Saruman as a character who knew better, but fell into foolishness and evil. Unless you're willing to deny the importance of authorial intent, you can't really make a case that Saruman was other than a villain. I mean, would you try to argue that he was raised in a society where betrayal was considered the norm for social interaction? Of course not. Society had nothing to do with it. Saruman alone deceived himself and told himself that he was doing right when he was doing wrong - at least to begin with. The Saruman of "The Scouring of the Shire" hardly appears to consider himself a righteous martyr for a good cause, which he ought to if your assertion regarding the circumstantial nature of good and evil were correct. Right from the beginning of "The Silmarillion," Tolkien clearly delineates between what is the will of Eru and what is not. One is good. One is bad. Saruman, of all people, as a Maia spirit who had been about since the beginning of time, would have been thoroughly, thoroughly acquainted with this.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But I do not agree with Hakon that good and evil are "just" perspectives. Not at all. I think good is good and bad is bad nonetheless of your religion or your world-view.

Thinking one should be good because of one's own self interest (a place in heaven) - or being good to obey a higher call anyway because some authority wants it - is bad. One should be good for it's own sake. To be a human is to be good (and bye-bye the primordial sin). That's what I try to say on the subject of good and evil between Tolkien and Eddings... or on it anyway.

The world I believe is immoral or a-moral. The religions bring the good in with the God but I think we must be braver than that. There's no God to judge you. You should be good without a God; make it a hypothesis for a while and think how it would affect your thought! Then you're good if you choose right without orders or rewards. It's not easy to grow up from childhood's "please and be rewarded" attitude but we have hope. That's what we need to count on,

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?

[Gwathagor]

I don't understand what's being said in this first paragraph:

"In short, what Eddings describes is a conception of good and evil where there is no "balance", but the lack thereof. Instead of the world being in perfect continuous harmony, where evil is a necessity, in order to validate the existence of good, he paints a portrait where good and evil are really nothing more than alternate natures that cannot both be true. They are each the "soul" of the universe, and this reality isn't big enough for the both of them."

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.

[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.

[davem]

Yet Eddings' characters have the greater freedom & face the greater risk - in that no higher power is going to step in & save them if they cannot save themselves out of their own resources. There is no plan for the universe which says 'X' will happen in the end, whatever you do. (eg you can choose to be a Democrat or a Republican & work, struggle & sacrifice for one party or the other, & your effort will say a lot about you, the kind of person you are & the kind of world you want to live in....but some higher power has already decided that the Republicans are going to win so actually whether or not you get involved or bother to vote is a bit pointless in itself - but if you do decide to go Republican you will feel happier in the end result of course). In Tolkien's world everything is so pre-determined - &, even if we support the 'good' side & want them to win, knowing the ultimate victory will go to the 'good' is a little disturbing (or more than a little) because ultimately the inhabitants live in a world without ultimate freedom to decide their future.

In this Eddings seems more in line with Pullman - in Pullman's world the overthrow of the Magisterium doesn't guarantee anything - the Magisterium, in some form could reassert itself, but with the removal of 'god' & the heavenly hierarchy of supernatural powers the future is up for grabs & the responsibility falls on individuals. True democracy & individual freedom becomes possible, as it does in Eddings' world - but never in Tolkien's. Yet, Tolkien's world contains a guarantee of safety, of hope, of stability & a sense of belonging to something greater, which while it may be rejected, is always on offer to those who want it - & all those things, if present in Eddings' & Pullman's worlds are only present if the characters create them for themselves ...

- if that makes sense - & now the child calls.......

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

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

Haha! Echoing the naturalistic fallacy of G.E. Moore then?

Fine. And I do accept the challenge as a valid one. Saying that something is natural and therefore good is an argument that begs the question. Some of the socio-biologists went as far as to claim there is a "rape-instinct" in men who just don't get a mate. That is obviously wrong. It must be.

One can't say "success in the process of evolution" = good.

But if we discuss where morality comes from we can not shut our eyes to the fact that all the other primates act as we do - or that all the other gregarious animals do it. We have nice concepts of it and think it in elaborate terms but in the end we act similarly.

And no wonder the one rule that is common with all of the mankind and the different cultures - the "golden rule" as we know it - seems to be the one shared by all gregarious animals...

[Nogrod]

You Boro raise a thousand interesting questions. Let me try to give my two cents just on a few of them.

We see other people having an ice-cream in a hot day and suddenly we feel we would like to have one too. Or we see a good looking girl/man on the street (or television) and our sexual passions are aroused.

Aren't we like Max who just reacts to the world around him?


With self-interest it's clear every organism tries to stay alive. I'm not a great fan of Mr. Dawkins' "egoistig gene"-doctrine, but there is a point there: any organism will wish to prevail and have descendants. So we humans do too.

If Max thinks he has to guard the yard to be able to do what he should why would that motivation differ from ours? If not being a bit simpler? Looking at the chimps and Bonobos shows that other animals can have very complex systems of identifications and aims they wish to settle - and even dogs (I'm no dog fan myself but underestand why some people are) can seemingly "think" about them (not to talk of dolphins, whales, ravens, crows, magpies - which are much more clever than domesticated dogs even if we tend to love them more and relate to them more easily).

But anyway I don't see the difference between the self-interest and morals as you do Boro. Or I do have a different interpretation of it.

One wants to stay alive. Sure. And one wants to lead a good life. Sure as well. But one is also wishing to see others having a good life around her/him. Now why?

If we were purely egoistic what would it matter if other people perished? But it matters to us! We feel bad if our friends suffer, we cry when our relatives die, we feel bad if a person we only know through the internet loses his/her job. (Sorry about that but I couldn't resist it).

We care about others and that is our nature!

It's clear we do not worry as much about people on the other side of the planet. We may be moved by a catastrophe like the Tsunami in Thailand a few years ago or the earthquakes in Myanmar last year but still, until we have connections to people actually suffering from those, we tend to be just symphatetic to the victims.

But why are we even symphatetic? Because that is our nature!

Why do we love and get concerned of others? Because that is our nature!

Originally Posted by Boro

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.

Why be so pessimistic? Why don't you say that all we can really know for certain is life and happiness?

For every act of violence there are a thousand acts of kindness in this world. Just look at your everyday world!

Do not confuse the media (which only reports exceptions like beatings and murders and war) with reality where we all live in peace and love! (sorry, I had to let my old-hippie -spirit loose after all)

When someone getting it safely to her/his work is a front-page news I want to leave this humanity for things would be really bad then...

[Boromir88]

I know your post came before the message I sent you, so you may have already figured this out, based upon the PM, but it's relevant to the discussion here, and it can't hurt bringing up new things I did not send.

But anyway I don't see the difference between the self-interest and morals as you do Boro. Or I do have a different interpretation of it.~Nogrod

There's nothing wrong with wanting to live, wanting to survive, wanting have sons and daughters who would make you proud. But, what if many years from now, when I have little Boro's running around and in my own self-interest to see them succeed I decide to threaten, and coerce, their principal/teachers to give them "A's." Now granted this is a rather simple scenario, but some of the greatest atrocities can be committed out of love, love for family, love for those you care about. Or maybe even a tougher one to slam your head about, what if your child is the one who takes someone's life? And let me ask, would you be able to turn them in, if you knew they did it? Would you be evil if you did not, out of protection?

Let's just take a look at Grima, and this is where I disagree that LOTR is "not Manichaean" end of debate. Why does he betray Rohan? Saruman didn't beat him, or force him into it...not initially at least. It was money, but wasn't it also love? Love for Eowyn? Grima made the initial choice to deceive and betray. This is where the problem occurs when you take out free will, you displace blame to someone else. Eru is running things...right? So it must be his fault Grima betrayed! There is no personal responsibility in Grima's decision to betray, it's all Eru's fault, or Saruman's. As opposed to Boromir who consciously admits to doing wrong, but doesn't displace blame on the Ring, nor on Eru, or anyone else except himself.

"I tried to take the Ring from Frodo," he said. "I am sorry. I have paid."~The Departure of Boromir

That is where Boromir's redemption is...not because he believed in a Divine power, that was ultimately good. But that he is personally responsible for whatever choices he made - good or bad. That is where other characters like Saruman, Denethor, and Grima fail, in their justification for their actions and their blame of others.

Why be so pessimistic? Why don't you say that all we can really know for certain is life and happiness?

Whoever declared that death and pain were evil? Or something bad? I think there is a difference between death and pain, by nature, and death and pain, by humans.

Nature and life requires death. Trees drop their leaves so they can bloom again. Flowers age and die, but drop and spread their seeds to grow new ones. Like everything else, humans need to reproduce to survive. Pain teaches us valuable lessons, I mean I sure as heck done like feeling it, but like I said, I know now not to stick my head in a fireplace that is burning wood! Pain makes us stronger. If something is natural, how can it be evil?

I think what makes "death" and "pain" carry the negative weight with people, is the fact that humans have the ability to cause it (as do Chimps and other primates). Death and pain that is caused by people is what I would call evil. Death and pain occur naturally, but what gives us (as humans) the right to cause it and take away other living beings right to reach their own natural end? To use an LOTR example, I mean someone killing or enslaving people - you know like Sauron. I agree that we have the capacity to care, love, and be sympathetic, and there doesn't need to be a Divine power (or a 'hero' that provides a good example) to show us what is good, but we also have the capacity to hand out death and pain, and there doesn't need to be a Divine power (or a brutal oppressive dictator) who allows it. We have the capability to kill and inflict pain, without anyone forcing us or threatening our instincts to survive - and that is what I classify evil. We have the natural ability to be caring and loving, as well as the natural ability to cause death and pain, it is the the one we choose to act on that defines whether we are a good person...or well...not. (Of course this is just a rather simple and "major problems" explanation, I can get into talking about what are someone's intentions. We might say something, out of frustration or anger, that hurts someone we care about, but that doesn't make us evil...but anyway that might be suited for another discussion).

[davem]

Wish I had the time to join is properly - I just don't, but I am intruiged by many of the ideas brought forward - both on the thread & privately. Especially interesting to me is the idea of good intentions producing evil results - the desire to protect & support the community, even the sacrifice of oneself for the 'greater good', which actually results in evil - from the Nazi soldier who sincerely believed that the Jews were subhuman & a threat to his people & lays down his life on the battlefield to Sir David Pepper http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8087530.stm. Lewis words seem apposite

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience.

I think this is where Eddings' philosophical take on things collapses, because one can sacrifice oneself for the community - lessen oneself to make others greater, die for the cause, & still commit be wrong - if we use 'wrong' in the sense of causing harm & denying/taking away freedom. Sir David wants to severely curtail individual freedom in order to save lives (though it seems he has not thought about what quality those lives will have - you could also save lives, probably more lives, by confining everyone to a padded cell so no-one is placed at any risk at all.

And this, I think, is where Tolkien's world, ultimately guided & watched over by a source of ultimate 'good' makes such moral choices easier - if Eru or God is in ultimate control then one can trust him to take care of the bigger things & all the individual has to do is get the small, everyday things right - Frodo doesn't have to think 'If I let Gollum live he could get the Ring & bring about the rule of Sauron & everyone & everything I care about will suffer unimaginably' - I, simple little Frodo have the fate of the world in my hands at the moment! No, all he has to think is 'Is it right to kill this creature I have at my mercy? - in short, he only has to deal with issues, make choices, that are within his capacity to make - at no point is Frodo ever forced into a position where the fate of the world (in fact where the fate of anything but his own soul) is put at risk. The fate of the world is in greater hands. Simple choices are all simple folk are faced with. Trust in Eru/God to deal with the big things & simply do what's right in every circumstance - ie don't hurt someone if you don't have to at that particular moment. Act out of love & compassion - even if that seems like weakness.

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 -'The fate of the whole world depends on me alone - if I don't destroy the Ring everything will be lost! (er, better just cut his throat then, to be on the safe side). Remove Eru/God & the individual tends to find themselves in the position of having to take over his role Sir David clearly believes that if the UK Government don't completely rule our lives & curtail our freedoms then the terrorists will win.

So, things are actually easier for the believer than for the unbeliever, & the unbeliever is forced to make choices/take actions that the believer will leave in the hands of a higher power.

Which is fine if such a higher power actually exists - because if it doesn't then like the heroes of Pullman's & Eddings' worlds (& Sir David !), we actually are responsible for the fate of the world - evil, the Magisterium, 'terrorists' could actually win.

And I've spent way more time than I should have here.

[Boromir88]

I think this is where Eddings' philosophical take on things collapses, because one can sacrifice oneself for the community - lessen oneself to make others greater, die for the cause, & still commit be wrong - if we use 'wrong' in the sense of causing harm & denying/taking away freedom.~davem

And the opposite can be true too, if you think about "tough love." We can be selfish and demanding of our family, friends, and loved ones, because of the fact that we do love them. We do want them to grow, succeed, find love, and try to prevent them from making "wrong" decisions.

Which is fine if such a higher power actually exists - because if it doesn't then like the heroes of Pullman's & Eddings' worlds (& Sir David !), we actually are responsible for the fate of the world - evil, the Magisterium, 'terrorists' could actually win.

You've explained the strengths and weaknesses to Eddings' and Tolkien's world far better than I could. But I will just add too, that despite Tolkien wanting to give his characters as much free will as possible, which is something we can see, as he wrote about wanting to use the Eagles "sparingly" since they were "dangerous machines." I think with LOTR, he was trying to remove the Eru factor as much as possible, but the point still since Eru is unrivalled, and he is good, good will win in the end ,so it really does take away Frodo's (or anyone else's) ability to decide the fate of the world.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It was money, but wasn't it also love? Love for Eowyn?

Nonsense. It was lust, or at least the desire to possess. It's the 'love' of the stalker. Grima cared nothing in the least for Eowyn's desires or happiness as a fellow, equal, human being. He just wanted to own her: the literal objectification of another person.

And, no, Eru didn't 'will' or 'cause' it, as if he was pulling Grima's strings. Tolkien does make use of the Deus ex Machina, but only in indirect fashions.

Grima was selfish, and thus evil. He was so, chose to be so, on his own. All Men and even Elves are capable of so doing because all of Arda was Fallen from the beginning.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think with LOTR, he was trying to remove the Eru factor as much as possible, but the point still since Eru is unrivalled, and he is good, good will win in the end ,so it really does take away Frodo's (or anyone else's) ability to decide the fate of the world.

And the removal of Eru - or his inclusion - depending whether you read LotR as a stand alone work or in the light of the Sil, actually changes your experience of the story profoundly. Without Eru one is in Eddings/Pullman territory, where one's acts can determine the fate of the world as well as the fate of one's soul. Hence, the quest is given infinitely greater significance & meaning. So, the presence of Eru actually lessens the drama but increases the hope of the reader.

What's interesting is that for over twenty years people had to read LotR in one way, but now can read it in another way entirely (though its still not the case that all readers of LotR will read (or if they do, will take into account) the Sil. Without the Sil LotR can be read from an 'Eddings-esque'/Pullman-esque' perspective. Yet, what's interesting to me is that the idea of 'good' as self- sacrifice, love, compassion, making oneself imperfect,& 'evil' as seeking self-perfection, self-containment, rejection of weakness & attainment of some kind of Nietzchean ideal, is shared by all the authors. The real difference between Tolkien's & Eddings/Pullman's worlds is the presence of Eru (& the quality of imagination, of course).

[Pitchwife]

Great stuff and loads of engaging thoughts by everybody - thanks for a great read! Unfortunately, I haven't read Eddings myself, but anyway, here's my farthing's worth on some of the points that have been addressed up to now.

Originally Posted by davem

And the removal of Eru - or his inclusion - depending whether you read LotR as a stand alone work or in the light of the Sil, actually changes your experience of the story profoundly. Without Eru one is in Eddings/Pullman territory, where one's acts can determine the fate of the world as well as the fate of one's soul. Hence, the quest is given infinitely greater significance & meaning.

Indeed, and I think this goes to show once more Tolkien's wisdom in avoiding any overt statement on the religion/theology of Middle-Earth in LotR. Wouldn't it be boring if the characters had read the Ainulindale and knew that everything will work out fine in the end? It will, of course, but our friends (except, probably, Gandalf/Olórin) don't know and can't be sure of the outcome; they may get some fleeting glimpses and intimations of light and high beauty beyond the reach of the Enemy, but in general, they can only hope and do their best.
However, I can't agree that in Tolkien's world, the characters' actions affect only their own souls. For example, while Frodo's sacrifice may not have made any difference to the fate of the world in the long run, it made a huge difference to everybody living in Middle-Earth in the meantime. Maybe if Frodo had failed (e.g. by killing Gollum instead of having mercy on him) and Sauron had regained the Ring, the Valar or Eru himself would have intervened to prevent Sauron from gaining dominion over all Middle-Earth, but even in this case, what would have been the cost in human/elven/dwarven suffering, if another War of the Powers, another Drowning of Númenor had occurred?
As to your point about the Elves' 'embalming' desire for perfection being evil according to Eddings' standard, isn't it interesting that it was chiefly the Noldor (Galadriel!) who were obsessed with arresting change, much less the Sindar and Silvan Elves, and that they clearly caught the disease in Aman? They got hooked on changelessness in the Undying Lands and, as Boro has said, tried to reproduce the conditions they had got used to there in M-E. Moreover, the Valar themselves weren't entirely innocent of the desire to resist change, shutting their Earthly Paradise off from events in the rest of the world. I'm sure Tolkien wouldn't have gone as far as calling this desire 'evil', but I think I remember he censured the Powers for their fainéance.
As to good intentions producing evil results, my first thought reading that great quote from Lewis was - Gandalf, if he had taken the Ring.

Just a few more stray thoughts before I let my wife at the computer:

Boro: All I can really know for certain is death and pain.
Nogrod: Why be so pessimistic? Why don't you say that all we can really know for certain is life and happiness?

Isn't it obvious? Happiness is never certain; death always is - i.e. it's the only thing that's guaranteed to happen to all of us sooner or later; that's why life and happiness are so precious (no Gollumish pun intended). "The future is uncertain, the end is always near."

Gwath: 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

Sorry for philosophical nitpicking, but this is a perfect example of thought stumbling into the pitfalls of language. Just because 'good' can be used as a noun in most European languages, we tend to think of it as a thing or entity of some sort that 'exists' and, because it exists, must be 'made' by somebody; but good is nothing that exists, its just what we do - and so is evil.
But if you really mean where our standards for judging certain actions as good or evil come from, I find Nogrod's answer quite satisfying.

No time for more at the moment, but I hope this will go on for a while.

[davem]

However, I can't agree that in Tolkien's world, the characters' actions affect only their own souls. For example, while Frodo's sacrifice may not have made any difference to the fate of the world in the long run, it made a huge difference to everybody living in Middle-Earth in the meantime. Maybe if Frodo had failed (e.g. by killing Gollum instead of having mercy on him) and Sauron had regained the Ring, the Valar or Eru himself would have intervened to prevent Sauron from gaining dominion over all Middle-Earth, but even in this case, what would have been the cost in human/elven/dwarven suffering, if another War of the Powers, another Drowning of Númenor had occurred?

Of course, we don't know what Eru can or can't/will or won't do. Would Eru have permitted Sauron to win? Would he have permitted Frodo to fall if that would have allowed Sauron to win? Point being: if Eru's ultimate victory is guaranteed this not only sets out the end of the journey, but actually sets its general direction. The really interseting 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.

Clearly, once the Sil appeared LotR became a different work. An absolutely different work. Once you've read the Sil you can't read LotR in the same way again. For better or worse it becomes a different work - it has suddenly become a small part of a greater whole, & events take on a different meaning & significance. Actions are seen in a different light. What were originally odd (in both senses of the word) references to 'the One, the West, the Valar (interestingly appearing in Gandalf's speech at Aragorn's coronation only in the second edition of LotR) suddenly gain new relevance - in fact, in a way, come to dominate in the reader's mind. I'm reminded of the letter by Tolkien which has just been sold at auction, & which did not appear in the Carpenter collection

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/l...b-47091f3318ed

'A DREADFUL YEAR OF LOSS AND FRUSTRATION': on the death of C.S. Lewis and the 'simultaneity of different planes' in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien responds to a sympathetic letter from his correspondent to pour out a tale of 'a dreadful year': 'The loss reached for me its climax on Nov. 22nd, not for me the day Kennedy was murdered, but the day C.S. Lewis died'; then, Tolkien and his wife were so ill as not to be able to celebrate Christmas; the next disaster was in their son Christopher's divorce -- 'A shadow, only guessed by us, has been falling on my son Christopher and his wife ... soon after Christmas disaster came on them and us. His wife walked out ... I fear they have left their allegiance to our Mother [the Church]'. The letter continues with a detailed discussion of The Lord of the Rings, considering Mroczkowski's suggestion as to 'the simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another ... part of the deeply felt idea that I had ... Beyond that too I feel that no construction of the human mind, whether in imagination or the highest philosophy, can contain within its own "englobement" all that there is ... There is always something left over that demands a different or longer construction to "explain" it ... This is like a "play", in which ... there are noises that do not belong, chinks in the scenery', discussing in particular the status of Tom Bombadil in this respect. The letter concludes with apologies if this seems too earnest, and references to his wife's ill-health.

These mentions of events/characters from the Sil are very much like these 'noises that do not belong, chinks in the scenery', which 'demands a different or longer construction to "explain" it'., & when it is so 'explained', transforms the original work profoundly. The Sil is transformative of LotR - motives, values, the sruggles of the characters are shown in a diefferent light. The fate of the world is seen not to be in Frodo's hands, or Aragorn's, or Gandalf's (who are all capable of 'dropping' it) but in Eru's (who is not). In the 'limited' world (for all its apparently overwhelming size the first time we read it) of LotR is suddenly seen to be tiny in both time & space. The journey is longer than we could have imagined, greater, more meaningful....yet, it also becomes, in a sense, more 'limited' because we are given the beginning, middle & end, & so we know that all would have been well in the end anyway - even if Sauron had won the battle he would have lost the war. What's more, Sauron himself must have known that too. 'They cannot conquer forever!' is truer than we realised - its a simple statement of fact.

So, does the existence of the Sil detract from LotR, or add to it? Does it detract from the sacrifices made, the struggles undergone? Actually, shouldn't, mustn't, the bad guys be able to win, ultimately & for all time, if individuals are to be truly 'free'? The existence of a figure like Eru means absolute freedom, of choice & action, & moe importantly, absolute good & evil, are impossible. Only good is true, evil is a corruption of it, & 'good' therefore must win in the end. But then, why fight at all? Surely its only the battle that could really go either way that is worth the fight?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Of course, we don't know what Eru can or can't/will or won't do. Would Eru have permitted Sauron to win? Would he have permitted Frodo to fall if that would have allowed Sauron to win?

Given the remote and uninvolved character of Eru, I think the idea that he would directly intervene to prevent Frodo from failing is out of the question. Melkor ruled Middle-earth for many long ages and Eru did not intervene; why would he treat Sauron differently?

Moreover, even if one admits a small possibility that Eru would not let the quest fail (and I for one do not admit it), this is still a far cry from certain knowledge that he will intervene, so it certainly does not follow that the fight against Sauron is 'not worth fighting'.

Clearly, once the Sil appeared LotR became a different work.

I agree that the Silmarillion offers one a new way of looking at LotR. But I simply can't see how it could 'detract from the sacrifices made, the struggles undergone' as you suggest. There is certainly no assurance in the Silmarillion that good will defeat evil within the world, nor anything to rule out the possibility of Sauron's victory and dominion over Middle-earth.

The matter of Dagor Dagorath and Arda Remade concerns the end of the world, and that only. So yes, if one believes the Second Prophecy of Mandos then Melkor and his servants will at the end of time be defeated. In that sense, the final victory of good is certain. But this does not preclude the victory of evil within Arda; it does not preclude the immense death and suffering that would result from Sauron's victory. To suggest that Eru's final victory makes that suffering (and the heroic efforts to prevent it) irrelevant would be like suggesting that the eventual victory of the Allies in World War II made the Holocaust irrelevant.

Moreover, there are in Tolkien's writings no more than a few brief hints of the Last Battle and the final triumph of good; it is by no means assured. In the published Silmarillion there is no hint of it at all. Yes, the existence of Eru is stated there - but there is no hint, and certainly no assurance, of the ultimate victory of good over evil.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I can't agree with such a 'deterministic' interpretation of Tolkien's universe. The datum that ultimately good will prevail is merely an endpoint, not a prescribed path thereto. It's rather like a Bach tocatta- you know where it'll wind up, but you have no idea how or when it'll get there (and there are constant surprises on the way.)

Pitchwife is on the right track, I think. There are no guarantees short of the Great End. The Quest could have failed, and Gandalf the White makes clear that failure is always a possibility. Frodo gets the Divine Nudge only because he has pushed himself to the absolute end of his physical and moral endurance, and brought the Ring to the brink. But it didn't have to happen. He could have remained silent at the Council and not taken on the Quest- and then what? There have been many choices in Arda's history which made things worse, which fueled rather than diminished evil: Feanor's choices, the later Numenorean kings' choices culminating in Ar-Pharazon, Isildur's refusal to destroy the Ring. Even smaller choices, such as Earnur's pride leading him to death at Minas Morgul and the end of the royal line.

How many need not have died had Saruman not gone bad? How many had he repented at Orthanc? And ultimately hopeless as the War of the Jewels ultimately was, how much worse was it made by the dreadful Oath and the Kinslaying?

[Nogrod]

I'm in a hurry as well but just couldn't help commenting on this one.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Sorry for philosophical nitpicking, but this is a perfect example of thought stumbling into the pitfalls of language. Just because 'good' can be used as a noun in most European languages, we tend to think of it as a thing or entity of some sort that 'exists' and, because it exists, must be 'made' by somebody; but good is nothing that exists, its just what we do - and so is evil.

Exactly! There is also the way we tend to "ontologize" linguistic / conceptual differentiations (the difference between these two would call for a dissertation - many of which have been made already, beginning at least from the middle-ages).

Like we talk of different species of animals. But are there really "species" in the world in itself or are species just a way we conseptualise / talk about the variety of animals we find around us?

I'd be careful with saying that "good" (or "bad" to that matter) is something that exists as such in the universe, but I would say - following Pitchwife - that good is something we do and which defines us as human beings as a behaviour...

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

There is also the way we tend to "ontologize" linguistic / conceptual differentiations (the difference between these two would call for a dissertation - many of which have been made already, beginning at least from the middle-ages).

Like we talk of different species of animals. But are there really "species" in the world in itself or are species just a way we conseptualise / talk about the variety of animals we find around us?

I'd be careful with saying that "good" (or "bad" to that matter) is something that exists as such in the universe, but I would say - following Pitchwife - that good is something we do and which defines us as human beings as a behaviour...

I really should go to bed, but I'd better have a go at this anyway.

If we should be careful of saying that good or bad are things that exist in and of themselves, then we should be equally careful of saying that good and bad are nothing more than terms developed to indicate certain patterns of behavior. Both are ditches that lie on opposite sides of the road. Plato found his way into the first ditch, where the only real thing was the ultimate good (i.e. the Forms). The other ditch is just as bad, where the term "good" has been stripped of all vestiges of permanence or transcendence.

As always, truth lies at the point of balance between extremes.

And now I really have to go to bed, though there is a lot more I should say.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Davem wrote:
Given the remote and uninvolved character of Eru, I think the idea that he would directly intervene to prevent Frodo from failing is out of the question. Melkor ruled Middle-earth for many long ages and Eru did not intervene; why would he treat Sauron differently?

This is a point I've made numerous times - the remote & uninvolved nature of Eru - & been informed that he is constantly at work in the world 'in a hidden way'. But while he is so hidden in LotR that the reader of that work is not aware he is even there (or even actually necessary), The Sil places him firmly in the action - & most importantly in the mind of the reader. The whole universe is transformed by his presence, both its essential nature & its ultimate fate.

I agree that the Silmarillion offers one a new way of looking at LotR. But I simply can't see how it could 'detract from the sacrifices made, the struggles undergone' as you suggest. There is certainly no assurance in the Silmarillion that good will defeat evil within the world, nor anything to rule out the possibility of Sauron's victory and dominion over Middle-earth.

Yes, the whole 'long defeat' thing is there - but again, that's another change. From a reading of LotR as a stand alone (with TH tacked on) work, we know very little of 'Melkor', of any of the 'ancient history' of the world, so we have none of the context for events in LotR that the Sil provides (anyone want to argue that a reader of LotR who then comes to the Sil is able to retain their concept of Elves as heroic, beautiful, wise & good?). LotR is made smaller & more limited by the existence of the Sil in the reader's mind - the 'Great War against Evil!' becomes 'another war against evil'. 'Frodo's Great Sacrifice of Himself to save the World!' becomes 'another great sacrifice of another hero to save the world (again)'. Its difficult to argue (wrongly, of course, of course) that Frodo is a 'Christ' figure (which is possible after a reading of LotR) when one has read of the repeated sacrifices of heroes throughout the whole history of Arda. I repeat - Good & evil become choices which only affect the individual & his or her own time & place but cannot affect or determine the ultimate fate of the world.

Originally Posted by Gwath

If we should be careful of saying that good or bad are things that exist in and of themselves, then we should be equally careful of saying that good and bad are nothing more than terms developed to indicate certain patterns of behavior. Both are ditches that lie on opposite sides of the road. Plato found his way into the first ditch, where the only real thing was the ultimate good (i.e. the Forms). The other ditch is just as bad, where the term "good" has been stripped of all vestiges of permanence or transcendence.

I think it could be argued that in LotR while good & evil are not exactly stripped of all vestiges of permanence or trancendence, they are choices which can be made freely by any individual - & their reward or punishment is simply the kind of world they get to live in. They don't have any 'cosmic' significance. Characters make the kind of bed they want to lie in, & whatever choice they make is not going to please or anger any higher power, & either side can win. Good & evil as permanent/transcendent states (or good as truly permanent/transcendent/evil as its illusory shadow) only come in with the Sil. Building the 'Republic of Heaven' is the task for the victors of LotR as stand alone work - they have to make their paradise, as best they can, with the tools they have to hand. Bring in the Sil & the only option is the Kingdom of Eru (when he finally gets around to bringing it about).

[alatar]

Good thoughts, Nogrod and others. I was hoping to get time to post 'we are animals,' but ya beat me to it.

Though some many not agree, we are animals. Sure, we have credit cards and cell phones, but animals just the same.

But, for discussion, let's pretend that there is some gulf between us and the other inhabitants of this globe. So my question then is, is there good or evil in the animal kingdom? Animals 'murder' in that they do kill for non-sustenance reasons. Rape and incest exist there as well. So what's the difference between them and us?

At first I thought that it might be premeditation. Do animals think out their actions before acting upon them, or is it all instinct/gene-driven? In the case of apes, I would say that 'forethought' (darn Prometheus!) does happen, as observed here. If we have the same actions taking place within the animal world, how then do we then say that as humans, we have knowledge of 'good and evil' whereas the animals just do what they do?

So what is it? Do all animals, human included, have the ability to commit acts of good or evil? Or can only we humans act thus? Hate to sound all relativistic, but are these concepts just in the eye of the beholder?

And, if evil is 'selfish,' and if we cannot exclude animals from evil acts, then isn't this just 'survival,' and yet we want to call it something else?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

This is a point I've made numerous times - the remote & uninvolved nature of Eru - & been informed that he is constantly at work in the world 'in a hidden way'. But while he is so hidden in LotR that the reader of that work is not aware he is even there (or even actually necessary), The Sil places him firmly in the action - & most importantly in the mind of the reader.

To be fair, I'm not among those who have informed you that Eru is constantly at work 'in a hidden way'.

But I was actually thinking more of the Silmarillion. Eru is not invisible there, as he more or less is in LotR, but he is rather remote - certainly far more removed from worldly affairs than the God of the Torah, for example. Indeed, if one were to judge solely from his portrayal of Eru, without any biographical information, one would almost think Tolkien closer to Enlightenment-style deism than to traditional Catholicism. The point is that, even taking the Silmarillion fully into account, Eru is far enough removed from worldly events that the victory of good seems anything but inevitable. Or at least, it does to me.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by alatar

Good thoughts, Nogrod and others. I was hoping to get time to post 'we are animals,' but ya beat me to it.

Though some many not agree, we are animals. Sure, we have credit cards and cell phones, but animals just the same.

But, for discussion, let's pretend that there is some gulf between us and the other inhabitants of this globe. So my question then is, is there good or evil in the animal kingdom? Animals 'murder' in that they do kill for non-sustenance reasons. Rape and incest exist there as well. So what's the difference between them and us?

At first I thought that it might be premeditation. Do animals think out their actions before acting upon them, or is it all instinct/gene-driven? In the case of apes, I would say that 'forethought' (darn Prometheus!) does happen, as observed here. If we have the same actions taking place within the animal world, how then do we then say that as humans, we have knowledge of 'good and evil' whereas the animals just do what they do?

So what is it? Do all animals, human included, have the ability to commit acts of good or evil? Or can only we humans act thus? Hate to sound all relativistic, but are these concepts just in the eye of the beholder?

And, if evil is 'selfish,' and if we cannot exclude animals from evil acts, then isn't this just 'survival,' and yet we want to call it something else?

Well, in my darker moments I have always though that humanity is proably unique in our capacity for sadism and scadenfreude, that is, the we are likey the only cretures who are capable of taking pleasure in the pain and suffering of others (I would even in such a state, go so far as to say that that is the main way we are different than animals). Other animals may hurt and kill kill but we are likey the only ones who engagle in recreational torture for the sheer fun of it (well, maybe a cat toying with a mouse, but that's a grey area)

[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.