...

[Andeon]

nicely done tinki, and very well summarized.

[Lennidhren]

Yes, well put, Tinki! I heartily agree, and you've really hit on some key points.

This discussion puts me in mind of Tolkien's fellow Inkling, C.S. Lewis, and his book "The Great Divorce"...been a while since I last read it so I'm not sure I could coherently summarize the point of the story, which is basically a dream/allegory about the separation between heaven and hell, but it keeps coming to mind in this talk about the nature and meaning of evil. Also this quote from the book:

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell chose it."

I submit that Aule, making the dwarves in his impatience but then repenting of it and surrendering them to Iluvatar's ends, is the first kind of person. Melkor, since he doesn't respond to such warnings as the one quoted in Tinki's post two before this one, is the latter sort. It isn't as much a question of the motive from which they act but the way they respond to conviction when confronted by Iluvatar. And if Melkor/Morgoth seems to go on unchecked once he gets to Middle-earth and starts really wreaking havoc...well, (1) there's a limit to how many times one can refuse to respond to conviction and still get the opportunity to do so, and (2) yes, his evil *is* kept in check by Iluvatar. He does so through his servants, the Valar. They are sometimes slow to act from the point of view of the Children of Iluvatar...but they are the instruments in place for that purpose. That's why it's Sauron we're facing in game now, and not Morgoth himself, whose evil was finally checked. :-)

[`Tinki`]

Ah! Impatience! What a foreign concept.:) I dug out my Silmarillion last nite for a fresh reread.

[CGriffin]

Laerlenn wrote:

Wow, Tinki, I think you've hit the nail on the head! Evil HAS to exist or else we would not have the choice of free will. We would be robots.

Take that a step further... If evil and good are opposite sides of the same coin, one cannot exist without the other. Evil HAS to exist in order for good to exist.

[`Tinki`]

According to both the Silmarillion and the Bible, GOOD did exist without evil for a time anyway. But as far as mortal beings are concerned it always was one and the other.

According to my interpretation, they are not even of the same "coin". One simply cannot draw anything at all from the other. And to do so negates both it and its opposite. Kinda like matter and antimatter:) You just do not pour the two into the same container.

Since there has been a whole spectrum of "GREY" created because of the infinitely huge gap between perfect good and perfect evil it is hard indeed to imagine what the PERFECT end of each could be like. I paint cars, among other things, for a living and once you mix in a smidgen of black into a gallon of pure white, it is no longer pure white.

PS. If my discussion is getting too far into a particular area I apologize. I do love this kind of discussion .

[Galenhir]

Well now, discussion of Tolkien's lore inevitably veers to this topic; the nature of Good and evil and it's implications in the lore as well as in our own real world. I think that this topic comes up so often, because really, in effect, it is at the core of what Tolkien's legendarium is about. Thankfully, among Lonely Mountaineers and the majority of Tolkienistas or Tolkien Society members, it is not that nervous and forbidden subject that comes up at the holiday dinner table with relatives, or on LOTRO forums! ;) How far have we fallen indeed that we cannot discuss weighty matters among friends and family without judgement and mocking tones. So it is quite nice to see this topic discussed here so honorably, and intelligently and most importantly, without insult to those who might disagree with this or that view.

This subject really plagues the mind of just about every person since the dawn of thought, regardless of your philosophy, world view or religion. Are we really free? And Andeon to answer your question of there being a pre- to destined, or is that redundant? I think we can all agree on the potential for reaching any given destination, but was that destination pre-ordained? I will answer by confusing the matter even more and saying; in some cases. Bilbo was MEANT to find the ring. But all had not been decided for him. In the Judeo-Christian faiths, good works are created ahead of time for people to complete, but people must make the choice to complete those works. Gandalf asks Bilbo, Surely you don't disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don't really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit?" I think this quote clearly shows Tolkien's concept of certain elements of our world or history pre-planned, yet free space for free beings to act and make their own decisions. So while their is quite a bit of freedom in the universe, it is not unlimited, and decisions are not without consequence. Total freedom is an illusion. You are free to jump off a bridge, but you are not free to survive the fall. We are not free from the constraints of nature, and other laws that govern our days.

To the original post; was Melkor good? Undoubtedly he was good at his original creation. We know this because he was given the chance to repent of his deeds; and the Valar would not have suffered this chance had he been originally evil. I submit the proof text to you:

"Before the gates of Valmar Melkor abased himself at the feet of Manwë and sued for pardon, vowing that if he might be made only the least of the free people of Valinor he would aid the Valar in all their works, and most of all in the healing of the many hurts that he had done to the world. And Nienna aided his prayer; but Mandos was silent. Then Manwë granted him pardon; but the Valar would not yet suffer him to depart beyond their sight and vigilance, and he was constrained to dwell within the gates of Valmar....and it seemed to Manwë that the evil of Melkor was cured.
For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Iluvatar, Melkor had been even as he; and he saw not to the bottom of Melkors heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him forever. But Ulmo was not deceived, and Tulkas clenched his hands whenever he saw Melkor his foe go by; for if Tulkas is slow to wrath he is also slow to forget. But they obeyed the judgement of Manwe; for those who defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel." - Pages 65,66 of the Silmarillion

This also answers the question of whether or not Illuvatar created evil. He did not. The first evil being, simply had free choice to rebel. Melkor's rebellion is much different than Aulë's impatience for 'children'; the father of Dwarves discussed in this thread above. In addition, Aulë repents at his first deviation from Illuvatar's plan. It could be simply stated that Aulë wanted to hurry Illuvatar's plan, while Melkor wanted to be Illuvatar.

It does seem clear from this explanation given by Tolkien, that the Valar can fall to a place that is beyond repentance. This is an echo of what is explained about fallen angels in the New Testament;

"God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;..." 2 Peter 2:4

And again in Hebrews 2:16 - we see men being offered help instead of angels:
"For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham."

Although in the bible, while we don't ever see any angels being offered a second chance, in the apocryphal book of Enoch, we can read of some of the angels trying to repent for their horrible deeds. They are ultimately denied, because they should have known better given their already glorified position in the courts of Heaven. In addition, they they gave up their eternal glory to have intercourse with women; a crime of which there was no going back for angels it seems. This fallen state mentioned in Genesis 6, is hinted at with Melkor, in his twisting of Elves and Men to make orcs and all manner of monsters in the dungeons of Utumno.

The duality of evil and good is another issue altogether, and duality does not exist in Tolkien's mythology, nor in Judeo-Christian thought. Evil is alway a corruption of good, and cannot create, but only mock and mimmick. Darkness cannot overpower or seize light, but light no matter how small, always chases away some measure of darkness. The Dark Lord is named so, because like Melkor "...all love had departed from him forever...".

Sadly, all too often in our own world as in Tolkien's mythical one, men love darkness rather than the light.

[`Tinki`]

Thank you Galen! The eloquence of your argument and the references quoted bring much (to me) concrete proof to this discussion of Good and Evil.

It has always been interesting to me how people think and reason differently and yet can come to much the same conclusions.

[Lindorieh]

Galenhir, I have read your post several times. It is brilliant! Perhaps you and Dr. Olsen should discuss this topic. I bet he'd be up for it.

Lindorieh

[Galenhir]

Thanks friends. The ancient lore of Tolkien's legendarium is some of my favored areas to discuss, so I'm always up for a chat about it. And yes, I'm sure it will come up in a future chat with Dr. Corey Olsen (Tolkien-prof) - we are about to release a 3 hour podcast chat in 3 parts. There are plans for other discussions as well. We are also working on 2 other big projects together which are really, really exciting - and I cannot wait to announce at some future point.

[Ulfinn]

I love this Kin! Just the fact that you are all having this discussion makes me feel welcome. Great incites from all but Galenhir's is just great!

I look forward to more discussions like this!

Tarfin Hunter of Lindon
Rassyk Guardian of the Blue Mountains
Ulfinn Captain of Rohan

[Tamirien]

`Tinki` wrote:

To have choice, one must have more than one element to choose from. As a Christian and trying to interpret Biblically, here is my take on this.

Yes and no. The choice may be as simple as "do" or "not do". But Tolkien and the religious try to discriminate actions into "good" and "evil". That works great in books that are trying to make a point, but not so well when thinking about free will. With free will there is no good and evil; there is only final result. If these things happen then this will be the result.

`Tinki` wrote:

Who is now in control? Iluvatar is Omnipotent, Melko is a fallen Valar. Melko is under the grand control of Iluvatar, but is left to implement his deeds to make that new thing called choice have some substance.

Once free will is given there is no control. Control implies fate. i.e. this is the end result I want and while it will take a very intricate and confusing path to get there, in the end it will get there. That kind of control is impossible with free will. All it takes is not doing to throw it off kilter.

That can go all the way back up to the music played by the Valar. Melkor had a choice: stay with the theme or add his own theme. With free will, Iluvatar could not know the path that would be taken. He could forsee the endings along either path depending on the choice, but which ending it would be he could not until the choice was made. If the music was fated to end a certain way then that would have been his theme from the beginning and thus Melkor did not, could not have free will to choose.

Now we get to the rub of the story. Iluvatar, after the music had reached its end, unveiled Middle Earth and he showed with that what had been wrought by the music of the Valar. The end of that story was fated to happen. There was no free will involved in it even though Tolkien mistakenly tried to show that free will was given. It couldn't be. The story had to unravel as it had been played. Elrond was right "... by chance if chance you can call it ..." No, you can't call it chance. There was no more modification to the music since it had already been played. The Valar (and the reader) are presented with a stage play. It would be like picking up your copy of the Fellowship of the Ring and expecting a different outcome than the splitting of the Fellowship. Can't happen.

[Andeon]

well, to be fair, its not *just* tolkien and the religious - a fairly large portion of the population has notions about good and evil, although those notions may not be consistent amongst each other (or even within themselves, sometimes) - but, Tolkien's particular stance seems to be along the lines of a fairly common religious theme, where, like someone mentioned, "good" and "evil" are more or less defined by action whose intent is "in-line" with authority, or "against" authority.

in short, presented with a "plan" as handed down by the "ultimate-authority", actions that attempt to obey the "authority's" efforts are considered "good", while efforts that intend to contravene the "authority", regardless of whether they fit with the plan or not, are "evil".

but the second part of your argument is the one that I find more difficult to understand. I have no issue at all with the idea that Illuvatar can know the outcome of a persons/entity's choice/activity and simultaneously not have control over it. Knowing an outcome ahead of time is NOT equivalent to control of the action. I've never understood that point of view. Knowledge of which choice is made, including or not the outcome of that choice, is not CONTROL over that choice. The person making the choice still has control over which choice they make and why...the entity that KNOWS which choice they're going to make, just needs to try to look surprised when it happens :)

the folllowup to that is a little more difficult to grok, i'll admit - but the idea that a *plan* can have an intended outcome, with participation of independent agents, and still go where the *plan* is meant to, despite the contravention of one (or a portion) of the independent agents, also doesn't bother me, although I can see why it might be a little hard to wrap your brain around. Plans are large, complex things - i've laid a few modest plans of my own, that included multiple people, and while I had no control over the individual events that were placed in the hands of my agents, the *point* of the plan, the reason for its existence, still held true. Now, I've also had my plans DESTROYED by my free agents *rolls eyes* - but then, I'm not Illuvatar, or God, or anything close to such, so having free agents destroy my plans doesn't really surprise me all that much.

But, if you accept the concept of an overall supreme being, the idea of a grand design that is fueled by the participation of independent agents that still holds true despite those independent agents best efforts to the contrary, I myself, do not find such a thing impossible, especially considering my own, admittedly limited, experience with such.

I do not control my friends, but I can put into motion *plans*, that require their participation, that succeed, sometimes, despite their unknowing lack of participation, or their deliberate attempts to undermine it. admittedly, my own plans lack the subtlety, complexity or grandeur of a supreme being's plans, but I still don't see a problem with having a plan AND free will.

[Tamirien]

Andeon wrote:

well, to be fair, its not *just* tolkien and the religious - a fairly large portion of the population has notions about good and evil,

Let's not delve into that particular dungeon. There's another "bane" awaiting its chance to be awakened. Suffice to say its society's interpretation of actions.

Andeon wrote:

but the second part of your argument is the one that I find more difficult to understand. I have no issue at all with the idea that Illuvatar can know the outcome of a persons/entity's choice/activity and simultaneously not have control over it. Knowing an outcome ahead of time is NOT equivalent to control of the action.

Iluvatar didn't just know ... he created all. If he created all and knows the ending, then that in itself negates any free will at all. I don't think Iluvatar actually knew the ending because he gave the Valar free will.

Andeon wrote:

I've never understood that point of view. Knowledge of which choice is made, including or not the outcome of that choice, is not CONTROL over that choice. The person making the choice still has control over which choice they make and why...the entity that KNOWS which choice they're going to make, just needs to try to look surprised when it happens.

That is the paradox of prophecy. If you know ahead of time, everything that will happen then where is the free will? If everything is predestined to happen, then where is the choice? If you know the future then what of your free choice? Are you predestined to decide not to interfere? If you know you do interfere then you'll also know the result ahead of time because it can't be changed.

And how do you account for unthinking calamity? So far we've just focused on the decisions made by people. What about earthquakes and tornados and collapsing bridges, caves and buildings? You haveto know those things ahead of time as well. This isn't just an individual, psychological profile on people or the choice of right and wrong. This could be simply a choice of which way to take to work.

In such an existence you only have the illusion of free will. It only feels like free will due to ignorance of the future. There is no randomness. Everything is going to happen as it happens. Even the creator has no free will since the creator's decisions are accounted by the knowledge of what will be. Go back a step. The pure existence of that universe was known before it existed.

If you can know what will happen in the future, then there is no free will. Knowledge, it would appear, is the ultimate control.

[`Tinki`]

If I understand the arguement, Free will is not evil by itself, no. But it gives choice. Now choice doesnt have to be evil either. but making a choice in opposition to what was understood to be Good becomes an evil choice. If thats what you mean, then I agree that the end result is what we are talking about.

I cannot imagine what it would be like without that thing called free will. Do we ever take it for granted! Choice does come directly from it. But what good is choice if there are no standards set to give it its bounds? (By bounds, I mean within the ultimate ends of each pole.) How can there be ultimate ends without a Spiritual concept of what the ultimate ends are? What other standards can there be but Good and evil? And how does one who lives in the grey middle ground decide what constitutes degrees of each?

Which is worse, thievery or lying or is doing both twice as bad as each separately? Thats what laws and courts do and if laws and courts do not know what the ultimate ends of Good and evil are they can surely lose perspective themselves. I think Tolkien had a good sense of what Good and evil are in order to flesh out his story. I dont believe he could have fleshed out any story with out this concept.

Literary works of mankind seem to me to have a common theme throughout. I cannot imagine any literary work or movie presenting any tale involving life forms who do not fall into a "Good - evil" line of thought and yet make the story resonate. Regardless of ones moral beliefs.

About choice and the implications of destiny and control.

I have always liked this analogy; When a computer game is coded and released the team who made the game knew how it would end. The player has not seen the end yet. And a good computer game will have alternate endings based on choices the player makes. But all the endings are known to the makers of the game and ultimately player choice ends up under the grand control of the game creator/s.

I dont know based on my beliefs whether fate and choice and control are bound into one. I tend to think as I read both Tolkiens stories and other books on that concept that the ending is clear enough, but the game is still underway and no one who is playing knows the final score.

EDIT: Sorry Tam I didnt see your followup post. I dont want to create hard feelings based on my thinking.

[Tamirien]

`Tinki` wrote:

If I understand the arguement, Free will is not evil by itself, no. But it gives choice. Now choice doesnt have to be evil either. but making a choice in opposition to what was understood to be Good becomes an evil choice. If thats what you mean, then I agree that the end result is what we are talking about.

Good and evil, in my opinion, are entirely relative. A cat that is a good mouser would appear to me to be "good" since it keeps my home free of vermin. To the mouse I would think the cat appears as evil incarnate.

`Tinki` wrote:

EDIT: Sorry Tam I didnt see your followup post. I dont want to create hard feelings based on my thinking.

You won't! Debates aren't "evil"! =D

<editorial>
I think people, and all living things for that matter, have free will. It's the force of life so to speak. I think Tolkien meant to give his peoples free will too, but from his writings I see that he thinks fate and free will are able to coexist. This is where I differ with him. However, that does not diminish his work in my eye! I love what he has produced.

I also don't agree with how Turbine has implemented Middle Earth nor how Peter Jackson has interpreted the Lord of the Rings. On the other hand I enjoy the game and I enjoyed the movies. That's just distinguishing thought from feelings :)
</editorial>