All those "Good" Guys

[Iarwain]

I just realized that a while ago when I started an (unpopular) thread on Bullies, I promised a series. A series does, of course consist of more than two bodies, and so here is part three.

In cosmic struggles between good and evil such as displayed in Tolkien literature, the reader is given the extraordinarily important job of differentiating between what is good and what is not. In this installment, the discussion will be about the nature of good character in Tolkien's writings and how certain properties are almost universal among the "good" of Arda. The term good will also be defined, as that is the most basic purpose of this thread.

We begin with a book definition of good, a fine place to start, but by no means a final solution. Here are a series of descriptions of goodness:
1) having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing,
2) Worthy of respect;
3) Honorable,
4) Competent or
5) Skilled,
6) Reliable,
7) Valid,
8)Genuine
9) Pleasant or enjoyable,
10) Of moral excellence,
11) Benevolent,
12) Kind,
13) Loyal, and
14) Socially correct.

Now we come to the applications of these definitions in Middle-Earth. For each definition I will pick a character (or object or thing) that accurately displays the qualities of goodness described:

Glamdring
Sauron
Elendil
Barliman Butterbur
Saruman
Samwise
The Gaffer's advice on Gardening
Bilbo
Pippin
Elrond
Gandalf
Theoden
Merry
Farmer Cotton

Of course, this list immediately poses problems with our ideas as to the definition of "good" in Middle-Earth. I'm sure very few people would consider Sauron good in any way. This is because we are looking in one part at the product, and in the other at the method. Definitions 1,2,4,5,7, 8 and 14 leave an almost infinite amount of room for personality, and the nature of the persons who fulfill those qualities. The rest begin to draw us nearer to the definition of "good" as we might perceive in/through Tolkien. Honor, reliability, authenticity, enjoyability, morality, benevolence, kindness, and loyalty are, then, more subjective definitions, but nevertheless much closer to the popular feeling of "goodness".

Now, again, it comes upon us to narrow the list once more. This time I will focus on individual words. Morality is probably the biggest of them all, and the others are mere extensions of it onto technically unrelated fields. It encompasses the ability to choose right over wrong, even to see the difference between the two. To copy Lewis's technique, we can look at the antonyms of morality to obtain an idea of its true definition. Here are some opposites of morality: wickedness, malice, evil, sin and malevolence. Now I ask you to look back at the fact that morality is a part of "goodness", and therefore any antonyms of morality should be at least in part antonyms of goodness. Perhaps we should put "goodness" as a whole through the same test. Here are it's antonyms: depravity, evil, cruelty, and immorality. Therefore, since it is a general characteristic of "goodness", as well as the opposite of evil, morality must be a necessary part of goodness in Tolkien's works. We could have, obviously, procured this conclusion though much more practical means, but now we have a sort of equation for determining the nature of goodness. For, if we try the same test with "genuine" or "competent", we arrive with definitions far from what might describe evil as we see it. Therefore, we can conclude that all "good" characters can be described by at least one of the following definitions: 3,6,9,10,11,12, and 13. I'm beginning to realize how shallow and purposeless this was, but it is a method to prove goodness by means other than our own instincts and without their actions, but by their personalities.


Enjoy *yawn*,
Iarwain

P.S. I just realized that this is really part three. Oh well.

P.P.S. Had to replace all the ?s with the quotations and apostrophes intended.

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Lady Alasse]

Hmm. Interesting. I mostly agree, but one of my fvorite characters- who I would think is a good guy was either Turin, Hurin, Tour, or Huor. (always get those guys confused.) I mean the one who married his sister. I guess he would still have pretty good morality though because he didn't know she was his sister.

[DaughterofVana]

Gack! Philosophical overload! ::runs away screaming::

Don't worry. I'll be back. You guys are just exhausting. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] , motions to other threads on morality and the like, then wanders off searching for mindlessness. "A HA! Middle Earth Mayhem!"

-----------

Sorry. That *doesn't* have any place in Books. Iarwain and X-Phial got it because I'm not one of those people who *always* make inane posts, and I had just finished with a huge debate (with them and others) in another thread. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Sorry again.

-'Vana

[ May 12, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[Iarwain]

Ridiculous, it is. Most definately. How could you come up with such a disjuncted system of prooving goodness, Iarwain?

Tom Bombadil

P.S. It is a bit odd, I could delete it if anyone would like.

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Aule]

My Lady i do believe you mean Turin. *Bows low*

[The X Phial]

An admirable approach to the subject, but I'm not sure how really useful it is. Does any of this help further the understanding of a group of characters? All of the characters in Tolkien have at least -ONE- good thing about them, even if it is just singleness of purpose (a quality admired in allies but not foes). Thus, saying "all those good people" translates into "all those people" and the term good becomes moot. On the other hand, it may be useful to look at good in the sense of carrying forward a "moral" rightness in the moral terms of Middle Earth (a very difficult thing to even begin to discuss) as opposed to good as in competent. If you wanted to, it would be possible to create a little chart scaling competence and morality and try to place individuals within it. I'm not really sure that such a thing would be to anyone's advantage and, personally, think that such a thing would be taking analysis over the line into silliness. But, it could be done.

[ May 08, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

[Bruce MacCulloch]

Gack! Philosophical overload! ::runs away screaming::

You do realize, of course, that posts like that are entirely uncalled for.

[The X Phial]

You do realize, of course, that posts like that are entirely uncalled for.

Kind of like that one [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img], or this one for that matter [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Iarwain]

Unnecessary, they may be, but I found Vana's post to be quite humorous. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] The real dissapointment was checking on my thread and finding that all but one of the seven posts were completely off topic. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Iarwain

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

If you'll excuse the pun, this is quite a good thread. It's gotten me thinking, and that may or may not be a good thing. Hmm... *tries, and fails, to make her thoughts more concise and understandable by the general audience*... Okay... I think I figured out my point. Let us go by some of the definitions as given by Iarwain:

1) having the qualities that are desirable...

The way I see it, leadership, organization, cleverness, practicality, intelligence, cunning, and many other such qualities are quite desirable.

2) Worthy of respect;

In my mind, worthiness (real word?) is relative. Who is to decide who is worthy of respect, or anything else for that matter? However, many people that aren't 'worthy' of respect have achieved it anyhow. Such as the person in my mind who will be revealed when I finish my brain-storming, if it hasn't already been made clear.

5) Skilled

My dictionary's definition of 'skilled' is this: 'Having skill; expert'. For 'skill' alone, it is this: 'ability; knowledge united with dexterity; aptitude.' The character I have in mind is quite skilled at a very large number of things, some things that very few others are even aware of the existence of.

10) Of moral excellence

This part of goodness is, to me, even more relative than 'worthy'. Every person has his own set of morals and it is really quite simple to be able to excel at something that you've created and is yours alone. So even if nobody else follows your particular set of morals, if you believe in your own code and follow it unconditionally, than you have achieved moral excellence.

So since the character in question has not only many desirable qualities, he's also very skilled, very worthy of respect, depending on who determines worthiness, and is of moral excellence to himself if nobody else, then would not the character be able to slip into a loophole of 'goodness'? So by my logic, would not Sauron be at least slightly good? And if he is good, even a little, than it is not possible for him to be evil, or even bad, simply a bit corrupt, or at most a little bit deranged, and this, my friends, would turn the War of the Ring from a war of Good versus Evil, to a war of Good versus Good, which makes no sense to me at all! And if you were to tell me that the ring was evil, I would tell you that an inanimate object can not take on human characteristics unless the characteristics are handed down by the creator of the object, and since by my reasoning, Sauron is not evil, nor can be the ring.

Well, I guess I'm done for now. How's this for a relevant post, Iarwain? As for all else, how about some thoughts in reference to my conclusion, or even to my reasoning?

Fea

[Iarwain]

Thanks a ton, Feanor. I thought this thread had fallen into slumber. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

First of all, a correction. By the end, I said that only definitions 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 were valid judges of the kind of "good vs. evil" struggle that takes place in ME. Here are more logical reasons of why four of the five you used are invalid:

1) this definition can be applicable to anything from a doorknob to a guillotine. It is anything that serves its function well. It's opposite is "having quailities that are undesirable", something that fits this description could hardly be termed as evil (i.e. a rusty hinge, a kind-hearted exocutioner).

2)Worthy of respect. Very neutral. Things that fit: Fidel Castro and (a bit cliche, but oh well) Osama bin Laden. The opposite of worthy of respect: worthy of disrespect. Examples: V.I. Lenin, Adolf Hitler. What's the difference? Point of view. As you said, respect is relative, and that is even more a reason to eliminate it from the factors of "good".

5) The same idea applies to this. Skill is a completely neutral term that has no trappings of good or evil.

10) Hehehe. I was hoping someone would take advantage of this potential arguement, now here is my chance. Never mind, I'll spare Legolas and leave it. However, I must say that when you really look into it, peoples actions are really the relative factors in morality. The idea of right and wrong itself is not relative at all. Read "The Abolition of Man", and then you'll come to a fuller understanding of Morality itself.

Thanks for the relevance, I'd given up hope. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I'm confident that the above will satisfy you as a commentary. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Iarwain

Having unintentionally stumbling upon this thread, I find myself pleasantly surprised at it's contents. Your antonyms with morality I found particularily interesting. Not being much of a... philosopher you might call it, I can't make any truely interesting or valid comments but I will let you know I am appriciating such threads which seem to pop up nicely all over the downs.

PS: Nice boots Iarwain

[DaughterofVana]

And if he is good, even a little, than it is not possible for him to be evil, or even bad, simply a bit corrupt...

But that *is* the definition of "bad," at least Tolkien-decreed bad. "Corrupt." The viewpoint of bad and good that I believe Tolkien had (and that he put forth in ME) is not that bad and good are two seperate, conflicting entities (that is Dualism), but that bad is corrupted good (that is... dare I say it?... the :cringe: Christian viewpoint).

Here's what I said about it in the other thread:

In the Sil, it says that Melkor could not create things of his own, only pervert and bend things to his will. I took it that Sauron, as a "disciple," per se, of Melkor, is the same. Therefore, there isn't *really* an either-or stance on the issue, because when you say that someone is for the "evil" side, they are in actuality for the side of the perverted good.
No, I'm not repeating myself. This is a drastic step away from the "Is it not only a dream? Is it not all relative?" philosophy that some might use to explain ethics. In the Christian stance, good was good and then part of it became bad; not that good and bad are two different things existing independently. That is dualism, and something that I tend to believe didn't exist in ME. For if it did, we would have a *good* Eru and a *bad* Eru, existing independently, who each created Their creations (Manwe, Melkor, etc.) independently from each other. If that happened, then ME would have been a very different place. But we didn't have that--we had Eru creating the Valar, and one of those going horribly wrong. We have the perversion of good into bad. (And just because he said he didn't use allegory, GaladrieloftheOlden, doesn't mean that Tolkien didn't express truth as he saw it in his books.)
The fact that we have a title for something "good" and a title for something "bad" expresses that there is indeed a difference between the two. When we call something "bad" (as aragornreborn alluded to), we *have* to have some sort of standard to apply it towards. Because if we didn't, then how would we know if good *was* good and bad *was* bad? I can only tell if this red is the same shade as that flower outside my window if I can see and compare. And, likewise, I know very well if something isn't red, because when I hold it up against something that is *already* red it looks blue instead. "Okay, so how do I know I'm calling "red" red and "blue" blue? How do I know that this flower is actually red in the first place?" Because that knowledge had to be there before the titles would make any sense. If I differentiate between red and blue, it *must* be because there are some inherent differences between the two, and not just a different way of looking at it. I would have called both red, then, to follow up with the metaphor, and not bothered calling something blue in the first place.
You can't just say that this is learned behavior, and that's why I think one thing good and another bad. Because from the same people I learned the definition of bad and good from are the same people I learned the pretty red thing outside my window is called "flower" (and that it is red). If you go *that* route--that maybe the people who taught me bad and good were mistaken--then you better not stop there. If good and bad is an illusion, then *everything* is an illusion. Therefore, life has no meaning. Not a very nice thought. "Excuse me, I'm going to go hide under the bed."
So. Good and bad *must* have some difference, then, because we have affixed titles to them that call them what they are. Okay, then what about the opinion that the titles affixed to "good" and "bad" can be interchangeable depending on the context? Well. Is there anyone here who genuinely believes, in his or her own heart of hearts, that war, murder, pillaging, etc. *isn't* bad in itself? Sure, we may say that in some *instances* it is okay, but that doesn't mean that it makes the actual *act* okay. It just means that, in that particular instance, the standards are dropped because something else is more important. The definition is not changed.

I feel really odd quoting myself, but since I would have ended up saying the same thing, then I decided to do this. Go to the "Tolkien and Killing" thread in books for more discussions on good v. evil. This thread is about whether the characters listed above are "good" guys or not... not an extreme difference, but one nonetheless.

-'Vana

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

"First of all, a correction.
By the end, I said that only
definitions 3, 6, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, and 14 were valid
judges of the kind of "good
vs. evil""

A confession, Iarwain, I saw your conclusion... and I ignored it. Cast it aside like an old shoe. I know I shouldn't have, but I really really wanted to take some of the original definitons of 'good' and to play with them to fit my needs. And it amused me to no end that I was able too, although technically I was wrong, since it had already been discerned that not all definitions are 'good' ones.

"I was hoping someone would
take advantage of this
potential arguement, now here
is my chance. Never mind,
I'll spare Legolas and leave it."

Come, come now, Iarwain... I'd love nothing more than to hear how Legolas and moral excellence fit logically into the same sentence. Your views are quite welcome to me.

"But that *is* the definition
of "bad," "

Yes, 'Vana, and bad is a definition of evil. But how can 'corrupt' be 'bad' be 'evil' if it is simply a bit of straying? It is like saying that an outside influence or a simple mistake can turn someone evil, but 'evil' in and of itself is purely wrongness, and although a mistake is doing something wrong, it does not make the person who made it 'evil'. At least not in my viewpoint, but then... never mind. Let us not get into my own opinion on the word 'evil'.

Actually, let's. Let us say, for instance, that corruption is bad is evil. Which means that straying is bad is evil. Which, in turn, means that a mistake is bad is evil. Let's say that a man makes a mistake and strays from "The Path"... he repents and is forgiven, living out his life back on "path". He is no longer corrupt/bad/evil. Correct? Yes. However the next man, let us call him Bob. Bob makes a mistake. Bob is a stubborn egotist and does not repent. He simply will not admit that he is 'wrong', so rather than repention, forgiveness, and living the 'right' way, Bob's life continues from his mistake.

Say Bob's mistake was that he heard a rumor and although he could have stopped it from ever continuing, Bob passed it on. This rumor upset many people and caused a lot of fighting. People died because of this rumor. People suffered because of this rumor. Bob however, doesn't know all of the trouble that his rumor caused, and even if he did, he wouldn't admit that he made a mistake. Because Bob was the cause of a very large amount of 'pain and calamity', does that make Bob 'evil'? Or does that make Bob stupid? Does it mean that 'evil' is the response of the stimulus 'stubborness'? Or does it mean that evil is simply a fleeting characteristic that can never be pinned down to any one thing because at any time, that one thing could repent and would no longer be evil... It seems to me that whether you know if you're 'evil' or not, your conscious decisions determine your nature...

Oh crap. My argument just stopped being opposition... I seem to have agreed that your choices reflect who you are. Yeesh. Well, at least let me throw in this: it seems that although corruption can be evil, there is a cure to evil: true repention. Which means if you aren't stubborn and know when you are wrong, you can't be evil. Wait a minute! A new arguement!!!!!!!!!! Is evil caused by stubborness or ignorance? And if ignorance, than nobody could truly be evil, because they don't know that their actions are wrong! Yippee...

Excellent. I made myself happy and *eep* thought very hard about this thread, even throughout school. I am really beginning to like it!

Fea

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Eep- sorry about that: that entire post was mine... I didn't realize that Keeper was still logged on my computer.

[DaughterofVana]

Is evil caused by stubborness or ignorance? And if ignorance, than nobody could truly be evil, because they don't know that their actions are wrong! Yippee...

Evil tendencies can be caused by both. Not willing to "repent" (a nice word for it) and admit that he or she is wrong is on the path to stop being "evil" and start being "good." Ignorance is another matter. I hold with the viewpoint that the knowledge of good and evil doesn't come from a particular society, because the basest definitions of "evil" behavior--murder, stealing, and the like--are univseral in all sorts of societies. It may be acceptable behavior in specific instances (war and the like), but the behaviors themselves are not qualified as "good." They are just "allowed" in specific instances. It is when the behavior gets more specific is when society really gets into it.

*So* (my God, she has a point), an entirely *good* person is someone who knows (acknowledges) what is good and what is evil behavior, and either does all good or does as much as he or she can that can be qualified as *good* and as little as he or she can that can be qualified as *evil*. Another problem presents itself... how likely is this person (we'll go with your Bob) to do *all* good? How likely is he to, when really pressed, to cast aside his own health and feelings for the "greater good," even when he doesn't "feel like it"?

To tie it to LOTR... Frodo. He steadfastly continues on his trip to Mt. Doom and his quest as the Ringbearer regardless of the danger to himself and those that he cares about. It was a different thing when he was safe in Rivendell, and filled with the words of the great, telling him how he, and only he, could accomplish this quest. A far different thing when he was in the depths of Mordor, glaring down the Eye, and under extreme physical and psychological strain from the journey and the power of the Ring. Still, he percerviered, and that is what makes him good.

But not fully good. At the end he put on the Ring, and tried to face down the Dark Lord. At the end he gave in. Is he still good? Yes. He was more "good" than "bad." But a fully "good" person would not have given in.

Till next time (my dad wants the computer now... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] )

-'Vana

[Iarwain]

Wonderful proof of the existence of Good and Evil, Vana. It sounded like it came straight from Lewis (a compliment from me, as I hold him above Tolkien [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ).

Well, Fea (I think), here's my view of the path metaphor. In my mind I've always expanded into a more familiar setting: a stadium, in the center of which is a soccer field. This allows the viewer to imagine more than one person in the course of a lifetime that have an effect on whether they're scoring for the white team or the black team (I'll presume that you understand the symbolism behind that, it's rather cliche, but oh well). In your mind draw up a map of this field, half completely white (with grey and white figures dotting the grass), and the other half black as death itself with an innumerable host of people struggling with each other and, in the end, themselves to reach the white side. We can find almost every kind of person in this region: among them are those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the white side, and are merely enjoying themselves while preventing others from reaching their destination. Also there are those who realize their goal but are too sluggish and lack the desire to reach it. A third group, the darkest, are those who acknowledge the existence of some sort of light and dark, but refute all suggestions of the white being superior. They love the darkness, and in the end they strive to reach the black goal where they become their deepest desire and are consumed. Then there are those who are striving to reach the white side, who believe that truth and peace rest there. As they near the borderline, and they become a lighter shade of black (eventually turning to grey) their numbers grow less and less. Encouraging each other, and trying to urge them forward, they draw nearer and nearer. Then, with a jovial leap they reach the white side. They run with perseverence the course marked out for them, casting aside all doubt and resistance. In the end, they reach the goal and are taken away...

I suppose that's a very pointed metaphore, but here we go for an explaination.

Group number one: Those who are absorbed in themselves, utterly self absorbed and lacking belief in morality.

Group number two: Those whe see the existence of a common moral code throughout humanity, but refuse to practice it.

Group number three: The "evil" ones. Those who strive to cause pain not only for others, but at the same time for themselves. Their pride and joy is hate and destruction.

Group number four: those who see morality, practice it, and strive to become morally correct (I believe that certain things are required to cross the line, in my mind the line is Christ himself but I won't say more unless someone asks).

This soccer field idea seems to represent a very dualist sense of reality. However, it does not. We see once we are in the white zone that it is unimaginably larger than the black; that the black is smaller that anyone could ever comprehend.

By the way, I was speaking about Legolas, our new moderator, not the character from the book.

It is finished,
Iarwain

[Bekah]

I'd ask, only I'm not sure whether people will let me.

I have this to make clear before I write - I believe that evil is corrupted good, as a few other people have said already. Not to mention Lewis, that wonderful theologian.

Which means if you aren't stubborn and know when you are wrong, you can't be evil.

This is a contradiction in terms, at least if I understand correctly what you actually mean by this.

If you aren't stubborn, and know when you are wrong, you are not in the wrong, or evil. That is correct. It is correct simply because to not be stubborn and to know your wrong-doing is to repent. To repent literally means 'to turn around'. To turn and face God the Almighty. Which means that you are again facing the original good.

(I'm taking the liberty of not ignoring God in my posts in this thread, as I usually do in order to stay in BD - if I was kicked out and not allowed in here again, what good would I do? It cannot be talked about from an atheist or a polytheist point of view, since we would have no basis for our morals.)

But if I am correct, what you meant (I could be very wrong here, so please forgive me if I am) is that to not be stubborn or ignorant is to not be evil, without turning around. (Which obviously doesn't make sense.)

No, on second thoughts I am probably wrong here. It doesn't make sense - you can't have meant this by your statement.

Is evil caused by stubborness or ignorance?

Evil is caused by blindness to the awesome goodness of the Light. It is caused by the rejection of pure and full life. It is caused by the defiance of God when he said that there was only One Way.

I do not believe, though others may disagree with me, that evil is ignorance. A wrong action may be taken if one takes one's eyes off God (as I, unfortunately, often do) - and as long as it is without perverted intent - maliciousness, anger, lust, the list goes on - it is not wrong. However, stubborn ignorance - the refusal to believe that their action was wrong - is 'evil'. Sooner or later the ignorant person will realize that they have done an unworthy - for lack of a better word - action. This is the climax. He - let him be called Fred - can either repent, or carry on, refusing to believe that it is wrong. The latter choice is corrupted and evil.

Stubborness is born out of pride. Guess why the archangel Lucifer descended to a place of his own invention. (Lucifer is commonly known as Satan, the Devil, Old Nick, or Beezelbub. There are probably many other names for him, but I'm sure you understand who I'm referring to. His place is often called Hell.)

But not fully good. At the end he [Frodo] put on the Ring, and tried to face down the Dark Lord. At the end he gave in. Is he still good? Yes. He was more "good" than "bad." But a fully "good" person would not have given in.

Mankind - and here I'm going to include hobbits - was born with the tempter within us. He - Satan - tempted Eve, telling her that to eat the fruit of the centre tree would give her the knowledge of good and evil. In other words, she would become God-like.

Ever since she succumbed to her desire for power over innocence and unity with God, her sons and daughters have been plagued by this evil one. Even Jesus was plagued by him.

I believe righteousness consists of the direction you are facing - towards God or away from Him - rather than the regretted actions made at times when one is facing the wrong direction for a spell.

So he is still 'good'. He made a bad choice, but he regretted it.

The only 'fully good' person on earth had no mortal father. He was the Son of God, the Messiah. He was Jesus of Nazareth, and he was Jesus the Christ.

He was Teacher and Lord, and he gave his life so that the sinners of the past and the sinners of the present and the sinners of the future could be reconciled with God. And He died the most painful death invented by human beings - crucifixion. He was abandoned by God for three days so that we might never be abandoned by Him. This is, quite simply, Hell. Hell is to be without God. No physical tortues, simply to be without God.

Perhaps I have gotten a little off-topic?

"Absolute Power corrupts absolutely."

And the Ring was power.

The good guys were the ones who loved goodness and honour and beauty - all that is good, and all that is perfect, and all that is wonderful.

Did you ever realize that both Gollum and Sauron ended up mere wraiths, obsessed and eaten up by their lust for the Ring? Money and power do the same thing...

~ Elentari II

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

"Which means if you aren't
stubborn and know when you
are wrong, you can't be evil."

Sorry that this caused confusion. I should have put it differently. What I meant was that if evilness is wrongness with (to coin the phrase) malicious intent, than if you do not know that you are wrong, you are not evil, but if you are well aware that you are wrong but are too stubborn to correct your mistakes, than you are. Better?

As to the rest of the thoughts, I quite like them. And it's most definately a nice idea to add a little LOTR reference to keep this thread from being taken away. Well here's some more: if Melkor could not create things of his own, only pervert and bend things to his will, and he had Sauron as his disciple, would it be possible that Sauron was really just a nice guy that had no choice in his actions and was simply being twisted and used by Melkor? That would still mean he's not evil. Hehe.

Correct me if I'm wrong however, because I really hate being wrong, misinformed, or corrupted by other people's thoughts. Hmm... guess I'm not evil, contrary to what my friend tells me!

[Iarwain]

Sorry to correct you, Fea, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Melkor did not create Sauron, and Sauron was not subject to Melkor's authority. He was perverted to Melkor's cause, but that doesn't mean that it was forced. So, you're right: he was twisted, but you're also wrong: it was of his own will.

Iarwian

[DaughterofVana]

Bekah:

A wrong action may be taken if one takes one's eyes off God (as I, unfortunately, often do) - and as long as it is without perverted intent - maliciousness, anger, lust, the list goes on - it is not wrong.

Eh. Maybe what you mean is that taking wrong actions doesn't make you necessarily "evil" in the way a person is who *intentionally* does wrong-doing. The actions are wrong in themselves--maliciousness, anger, lust. Mostly because the feelings themselves are perversions.

Maliciousness: a perversion of the want to correct a wrong

Anger: a perversion of not liking a wrong

Lust: a perversion of physical love.

To succumb to these wrong-doings doesn't make someone "evil"... refusing to correct the wrong, not having any guilt for the wrong-doing, not seeking repentance, and delighting in the wrong-doing is what makes a person have "evil" tendencies. Maybe you meant that and just phrased it wrong. Or maybe you meant it that way, in which I would love to hear your viewpoint. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

if Melkor could not create things of his own, only pervert and bend things to his will, and he had Sauron as his disciple, would it be possible that Sauron was really just a nice guy that had no choice in his actions and was simply being twisted and used by Melkor?

Possible, except for this statement:

that had no choice in his actions

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Everyone has a choice whether or not to be evil. Even Sauron. Since he chose to make Melkor his "god" instead of the Vala and Eru, then he chose his evilness. This is how it always works. A person will always chose to be evil or not--they may not *think* a choice is there, but there always is.

Anyone want to give their thoughts on the orcs, though?

(Bekah: you had a lot of guts to say what I think other people were wanting to say on this thread. The "J" word isn't taken too kindly sometimes. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

Sincerely and Fundie-ly,

-'Vana

PS: CS Lewis is the man!

[ May 14, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[Bekah]

I found that one out the hard way. I'm hoping that it nobody starts yelling at me for it. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Eh. Maybe what you mean is that taking wrong actions doesn't make you necessarily "evil" in the way a person is who *intentionally* does wrong-doing. The actions are wrong in themselves--maliciousness, anger, lust. Mostly because the feelings themselves are perversions.

Maliciousness: a perversion of the want to correct a wrong

Anger: a perversion of not liking a wrong

Lust: a perversion of physical love.

To succumb to these wrong-doings doesn't make someone "evil"... refusing to correct the wrong, not having any guilt for the wrong-doing, not seeking repentance, and delighting in the wrong-doing is what makes a person have "evil" tendencies. Maybe you meant that and just phrased it wrong. Or maybe you meant it that way, in which I would love to hear your viewpoint.

Yeah, I meant that, but I may not have been clear enough.

And I agree. Those actions are perverted good.

Got to go to school now.

Love,

~ Elentari II

[ May 19, 2003: Message edited by: Bekah ]

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Hmm... however can I slip Sauron into a loophole of goodness? I would really like to. This is becoming a type of mental marathon for me: my mind is getting tired of searching for loopholes, but I'm intent on trying to find one. Sadly, I don't think it will happen.

As for orcs, I will voice my opinion (so to speak) although I am sure it will be argued with, which oddly enough is my reason for making it public. Orcs are not evil. Orcs are not bad. To me, it's this nature/nurture thing that my science teacher is always on about. The orcs weren't raised to breed chaos, they were born to. The nature of the orcs in general is to pillage, plunder, kill, etc, but it's not a conscious decision on their part to do so. The orcs were created specifically to be implements of distruction, and the creation of them was done with evil intent, however the orcs themselves are not evil.

Think of what are commonly referred to as 'crack babies'. The mother used crack during the pregnancy causing defects at birth. The child may be born with (as an article we read in health class pointed out) 'no conscience'. Although the child shows no remorse for anything it does wrong, it is not the childs fault- it was born that way.

That is the way the orcs are. They do not choose to act evilly, they have no options, it is part of who they are. However my question seems to be one of a label. The orcs are not evil, but they cannot in good conscience be labeled as 'good'. They fit into few of the definitions of 'good' and they fit into none of the definitions that have been decided as reasonable ones. So what are orcs? Good or evil?

Fea

[Bekah]

Twisted elves. Read the Sil.

~ Elentari II

[Falagar]

Twisted elves. Read the Sil.

~ Elentari II

Or Men. Or beasts.

Sorry, I don't have time to come up with a long post right now, I'll try to sum up my views later (if I ever get the time...).

[Bekah]

I meant it. Orcs are elves that Melkor captured and mutilated, torturing them until they submitted to him. They still breed like the First-born. This was the act that Eru counted to be the worst of all.

~ Elentari II

[Falagar]

I mean it too. The Orc debate is a long one, and I will not take it here.
In short, Tolkien wrote three essays on the origin of orcs. Two of them concluded with orcs being Men, the last (but unfinished one) said they were beasts.

[Iarwain]

Funny. I intended this thread as a discussion of the properties of goodness, and now it has become a discourse on evil. I suppose as long as there is a related conversation going on (keep orcs out, except in mention) I'm fine. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Iarwian

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I didn't mean "what are they?" as what are orcs. I know what they are. I meant "Are orcs good or bad?" Sorry about the confusion.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Also Iarwain, is it possible to fully discuss and understand 'goodness' without a full understanding of what 'evil' truly is? I believe that goodness is the absence of evil, or the ability to 'just say no' to what you know is wrong, but it wouldn't be possible to understand my belief if it wasn't first clear what 'evil' even is. I think that's why this thread seems to be turning to a discussion of 'evil'. If we keep it going and argue more, it will probably turn back to your intended topic.

[Iarwain]

Orcs are evil. I believe Tolkien said so himself in the Letters. They weren't ment to have any sort of personality, they were just born evil and died evil without considering anything about morality at all.

Iarawin

P.S. You are correct, Fea. That's why I don't have (much of) a problem with the discussion being about evil, rather than good. They are opposites, so by defining one, we also define the other.

[ May 16, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Bekah]

Orcs did have a choice though. According to the Sil (I am aware this isn't very accurate) orcs are elves that Melkor mutilated and twisted, making them into orcs. They still bred like the First-born, though.

But yes, in order to understand your definition of good, we need to understand your definition of bad, Fea.

~ Elentari II

[Lyra Greenleaf]

This is a highly intelligent and philosophical debate. Let me steel myself to enter.

I was thinking of another definition of "goodness", that is "self sacrifice".
This would probably include:
2) Worthy of respect
3) Honorable
10) Of moral excellence
12) Kind
Is this another definition to add to the list? Or just an extension of the originals? After all, this is Frodo's goodness- going to Mordor to save the world. Sam is also self-sacrificing, only in his case it is simply due to loyalty. He doesn't go to Mordor for the greater good but just for Frodo. Does this make him less good? I wouldn't say it would make him "more evil" but is that necessarily the same thing? I can't imagine Merry and Pippin going to Mount Doom, are they more evil than Frodo? What about the Gaffer? Perhaps the black and white definition of good and evil is justified. Sometimes I think it can't be...

[DaughterofVana]

Didn't mean to create a stir with the orc mentionings. I did so because a discussion on another thread wavered into the realm of "Orcs are made to be evil," which sort of discounts my entire theory on nothing being evil by make; only by choice. [ Yet my scope is centered in the real world, and not the realm of fiction--in the world of ME, it *is* possible for something to be inheriently evil on the grounds that nothing in ME is really "real" in the first place. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ] Was just wondering on the opinions of my fellow BD-ers; thought it could be a nice (side) discussion.

However my question seems to be one of a label. The orcs are not evil, but they cannot in good conscience be labeled as 'good'. They fit into few of the definitions of 'good' and they fit into none of the definitions that have been decided as reasonable ones. So what are orcs? Good or evil?

Well, even men are not completely good--for some reason or another, they have the tendency to commit "evil acts." We will do good when our disposition aids us, and when it might further our social/self identity--yet really put to it, when we're in a contrary mood and feel as if doing some sort of self-sacrifice for our neighbor will do us no real gain... well, there are some people out there who would percervere, but they are few and far between. Even doing something to please another person isn't entirely self-sacrificing; doesn't a person feel good when he or she is thanked? (Not that this is bad, but oftentimes this want for this feeling is the driving force for the action in the first place) Sure, someone might do something for someone else for the sole reason it is the "right thing to do," but even then it isn't the all-encompassing reason for each and every action. Only when this is the case is when the person (man, hobbit, elf, what have you) is entirely Good. Not a possiblity on earth; and not, I venture to say, a possiblity in ME.

Will add more later, but my disposition is contrary to in-depth discussion right now (hunger might have something to do with it [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). Please note the (quite possibly) gaping holes in the above and note them, and I shall return in a better mood and defend them. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Also didn't mean to skip over the (on topic) post above mine.

-'Vana

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

"Orcs did have a choice though.
According to the Sil (I am aware
this isn't very accurate) orcs
are elves that Melkor mutilated
and twisted, making them into
orcs. They still bred like the
First-born, though."

I'm not seeing the choice. Does a test-tube baby have a choice? Am I completely missing the point? I'm really tired, so that's pretty probable. But if Melkor 'made them' and he made them 'evil', then how could they choose to be something besides what they are? And isn't it true that you can't change who you are?

Also, I agree that since ME isn't actually 'real', although it is real to so many... but since it's a fantasy world, it's hard to define things by the same standard as would be done on our Earth.

And one more question/thought thingy before I fall asleep in this chair: The Elves, who were (to me) the essence of goodness... some of them shown with the Light thing, right? Galadriel's phial was filled with light and was used when things were 'the darkest' and all. Frodo, at Rivendell after the whole stab thing and the will to continue type stuff, Gandalf thought to himself (if I'm remembering right) that Frodo could eventually end up like a light shing for those who could see it or something like that... I'm getting this strong connection to goodness=light and evil=dark. How on Earth did things as simple and beautiful as light and dark come to have such important meanings as good and bad? Where did this idea come from? Cheerio for now, all.

Fea

[Iarwain]

See, it's ironic, because with all of the extreme reality found in Middle-Earth, we can pick on something like the nature of Orcs and see that it does not truly reflect reality at all. Fea is right, I think: they didn't have a choice, but they ought to have had one. This is why a discussion like this is necessary. Because who said that there aren't any such natures in "Good" figures?

Iarwain

[DaughterofVana]

Right-o. Back now.

But if Melkor 'made them' and he made them 'evil', then how could they choose to be something besides what they are? And isn't it true that you can't change who you are?

You're right. A person *can't* change what he or she is. This is pertaining to things of morality, not to habits or the like, so don't try and use that excuse the next time your mother/sister/wife/husband tells you to pick up after yourself. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] That's why in the Christian religion there is so much of an emphasis on "redemption"--that no matter how hard a person tries, he or she is human and destined to "evil tendencies", because he or she is a perverted creature. (I think that was what I was getting at in my previous post.) And not only an emphasis on "redemption," but **outside** redemption--redemption from a Source not available within the person itself, and outside the scope of his or her efforts. It sounds trite and old, I suppose, but man cannot *make* themselves "good" without Help. They can attempt it if they choose, but it is ultimately a foolish enterprise. No matter how hard a person tries, they cannot be completely, utterly, and fully "good." Of course, the first step is for the person to realize that they are not completely and utterly "good," and then to attempt to **become** good under their own efforts. Only after this ultimate failure is the truth realized. So it's okay to be skeptical... that's part of our nature, too. But try it, and see what happens. You'll see that there is something missing. Not just because you miss the mark, but because... you see the mark in the first place. If complete "goodness" wasn't possible, you or I wouldn't really have even a feeling of what it is like and what comprises it. And we wouldn't know (ultimately) that we fall short of it.

Kind of got off on a tangent there. But think about it.

The Elves, who were (to me) the essence of goodness...

But they weren't *entirely* good, right? Read the Silmarillion lately? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] More killing and carnage in that than almost the whole of LOTR, and the lead characters were all elves. But yes--most of the elves of LOTR (well, maybe all of them... more likely that) were more good than bad. But *more* good than bad. That's why I am so hesitant to say that the orcs were completely bad, because there was really nothing in ME that was completely "good" to counteract it (like the elves). "Can't have the good without the bad" is essencial to a Dualist existance, which is what we would be talking about if there was something in ME which was competely good OR bad. But the more I think about it, I can't see ME as being a society like this, because Melkor (the "spiritual father" of Sauron) was not created as bad; he *became* bad. If ME was Dualist, both he and Eru would exist independently with their respective creations, battling against each other like some bizzare sports event. Eru would have his "good" elves, and Sauron his "bad" orcs. So it makes sense for the orcs to instead be corrupted creations of Eru's goodness, since ME is not a Dualist existance--it instead started with the Song and went bad from there. Orcs included. (Whether they were corrupted elves or men or what have you I leave up to the philosophers and their supporting "Letters." [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

I'm getting this strong connection to goodness=light and evil=dark. How on Earth did things as simple and beautiful as light and dark come to have such important meanings as good and bad? Where did this idea come from?

Right. Some might scream that I'm commiting the carnal sin of saying that JRRT's works contain allagory when I say my opinion on this. Perish the thought, good BD'ers! It's explained in Letters, explained in the forwards to (most) editions of the trilogy, and argued extensively in other threads by people a lot better at it than I. But like I said elsewhere, just because allagory wasn't intended by Tolkien doesn't mean that he didn't express truth as he saw it in his books. And having "light = good" and "darkness = bad" is an elemental belief of those of the (gasp!) Christian persuasion. And JRRT *was* a Christian, folks. Light pierces, shines through, illuminates; Darkness masks, confuses, and devours. Light and darkness aren't bad in themselves, but is used as a metaphor (something standing for something else). The knowledge of God (and Christ) is a light, because it gives form and meaning to things. And the absence of God/Christ, like the absence of light, leads to confusion, fear, and hopelessness. The main reasons why people are afraid of the dark is that they can't see what's really there.

Lyra:

After all, this is Frodo's goodness- going to Mordor to save the world. Sam is also self-sacrificing, only in his case it is simply due to loyalty. He doesn't go to Mordor for the greater good but just for Frodo. Does this make him less good? I wouldn't say it would make him "more evil" but is that necessarily the same thing?

"Less evil = more good" would only work in a Dualist viewpoint. Think of it as Taoism; the "ying" and the "yang." Both equal seperate 100 per cents, and so a being can't be entirely each. They are either 50 good and 50 bad, or 60-40, or 75-25, and so on. In the same way, they can't be anything past 99-1 either way. You can't have the bad without the good, right?

Eh. I can't figure into this viewpoint on good and evil in ME, because of what I said before about Eru being good and His creations being good as well, and the corruption of these creations being the "bad" of it all. If that's true, then the "ying and yang" is flawed, because the bad isn't a seperate entity. Frodo and Sam can both be good, then... but they can't both be entirely good. Frodo was good and self-sacrificing, yes, but he wasn't entirely good--after all, he put the Ring on in the end. And, like you said, would've Sam went to Mordor if it wasn't for Frodo?

[ May 18, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[Bekah]

First of all, I have to applaud Daughter of Vana on her posts. I find them very well-written and interesting.

I think it all boils down to the direction one is facing. Using the LOTR characters, and under the belief that no, Tolkien did not use allegory, but yes, the truth as he saw it seeped in anyway:

Frodo was trying to be good, and under severe pressure. He succumbed to it at the climax, when he attempted to keep the ring anyway, but after the madness of desire had passed, he regretted it and kept on moving forwards toward the good as much as he could, the example being Eru, or Iluvatar. He took the ring to Orodruin because he knew that it was the thing to do.

To explain what I'm trying to say (or to try to explain what I'm trying to say...)

In the movie, Saruman says that there are two choices, submitting to Sauron or fighting him and dying anyway. When Gandalf flew away, Saruman commented: "So you have chosen death."

This is not true; it is the reasoning of the deceived. There is a third choice. Although the chances of living through this journey were slight, they were still existent, as was proved later on.

"The last shall be first." Remember when Sam mused aloud to Frodo that the people who might have become heros and turned back out of cowardice were never heard of? Their chance of glory, which is a form of immortality, slipped out of their grasp when they refused it. So they would never have died in the eyes of the people. At least, the people who could get their heads around the thing that they undertook. Hobbits are an example of the kind of people who couldn't do that.

From the Bible, even for those of you don't hold with it much, there is a well-known story about 'Rack, Shack and Benny'. (I have obviously been influenced by VeggieTales.) Their real names were Shadrack, Meshack and Abednigo. I may have the spelling wrong, but anyway...

Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon was so infatuated with himself that he ordered a huge statue of himself to be erected, and all people to bow down and worship it at the opening ceremony. However, those three Hebrew dudes refused. Did I mention that the punishment of anyone who refused was going to be the burning furnace? These guys said that even if God didn't save them, dying was better than rejecting God. Nebuchadnezzer got so mad with these guys that he ordered the furnace to be heated seven times hotter, and to throw Rack, Shack and Benny in. (Easier to write.) The guards who did that were burnt to death. Nebuchadnezzer's councillors looked in and, seeing the Hebrew dudes walking around in the furnace together with a fourth person, asked how many Nebuchadnezzer had thrown in. The answer was three. In the end, Nebuchadnezzer ordered the three Jews to come out. They did so, not even singed. Their God had saved them.

Anyway, the point is that they faced towards the good, even if the good wasn't going to save them from a horrible death which could have been prevented by bowing down to the statue.

But if Melkor 'made them' and he made them 'evil', then how could they choose to be something besides what they are? And isn't it true that you can't change who you are?

Yes, but Melkor didn't 'make' them. I'm afraid I used the wrong word.

Melkor gave wonderful incentive to the captured elves for them to do his will - i.e. he would stop torturing them. But they still made their choice. In the end, their hearts were corrupted by Melkor and they became orcs, thinking evil thoughts and acting on them.

The corrupting of the elves would have continued over several generations, with the elves gradually becoming orcs as they continually saw only the dark ways of Melkor.

I think that is the main difference between them and the elves who went astray and killed so many, including their kinsfolk. That was clean killing. C.S. Lewis says something about this in 'Surprised by Joy'.

Have I been getting off-topic here? I didn't mean to...

Cheers,

~ Elentari II

[DaughterofVana]

I think that is the main difference between (the orcs) and the elves who went astray and killed so many, including their kinsfolk. That was clean killing.

You're absolutely right. And it was still killing, something that was still "bad". Maybe a "lesser sin," but a sin nonetheless, and it speaks to the elves being less than perfectly good. (That's really all I was trying to say.)

Melkor gave wonderful incentive to the captured elves for them to do his will - i.e. he would stop torturing them.

Hehehehe. That's enough, isn't it? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Still they had that choice, even though, as Bekah said, as the corruption progressed and the "new" orcs still saw only the ways of Melkor. Perhaps that could be construed as "the sins of the fathers are passed on to the next generations"...? There was still the inital choice. *AND*, in the same way, the Orcs couldn't get out of it on their own, after they had gone so far into darkness--they would have needed an outside force to "redeem" them somehow, and then the Orcs would have had to have made a consious decision to believe in or follow this path to redemption. It wouldn't necessarily make them back into elves/men/whatever right away--it's not like some sort of magic wand. I'm not going so far as to suggest that there could have been a Christ figure for the Orcs--that couldn't have happened, anway, for Tolkien said himself that he would never have put a Jesus-like figure in his stories ("Letters", which discounts the whole 'Gandalf = Jesus" idea as well as the last vain hopes of the allagory-ists). What I'm trying to get across is that redemption for the orcs, along the lines of "bad is a perversion of good" *could* have been possible under certain circumstances. What is corrupted can be un-corrupted.

That's a kooky idea. Redeemed orcs. I think I better check the meds.


-'Vana

PS: I just realized that there were no elvish characters in the discussion plans laid out by Iarwain. I'm sorry! [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] I guess I got a little carried away.

[Legolas]

The elves are definitely not "perfectly good" - I've posted on this in another thread today too.

Tolkien says this in his letters:

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only a fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron; as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. They wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal historical Middle-earth because they had become fond of it (and perhaps because they there had the advantages of a superior caste), and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it as a pleasaunce, even largely a desert, where they could be 'artists' – and they were overburdened with sadness and nostalgic regret. In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only 'hallows' were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other.

Orcs could rebel against Sauron, but it does seem that they have some inherent obligation to Melkor (and evil, consequently). This quote implies that:

Sauron is just another (if greater) agent. Orcs can rebel against him without losing their own irremedable allegiance to evil (Morgoth).

This quote gives orcs hope, though:

Melkor had the right to exist, and the right to act and use his powers. Manwe had the authority to rule and to order the world, so far as he could, for the well-being of the Eruhíni; but if Melkor would repent and return to the allegiance of Eru, he must be given his freedom again. He could not be enslaved, or denied his part. The office of the Elder King was to retain all his subjects in the allegiance of Eru, or to bring them back to it, and in that allegiance to leave them free.

If Melkor could repent and resume his role in the world, surely an orc could repent and turn from evil. There seems to be another quote about this somewhere, more specific to orcs - I'll have to keep thinking.

Also, from Letter No. 131:

The Enemy in successive forms is always 'naturally' concerned with sheer Domination, and so the Lord of magic and machines; but the problem: that this frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root, the desire to benefit the world and others - speedily and according to the benefactor's own plans - is a recurrent motive.

The boldface is especially worth considering when thinking about this subject.

All of the characters in Tolkien have at least -ONE- good thing about them, even if it is just singleness of purpose (a quality admired in allies but not foes).

Quite right - all beings 'are' by the grace of Eru, and coming from him and taking part in the music; being a part - just simply 'being,' and as such, they all have some ultimate good in them.