|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Aug 20 2013, 11:25pm
Post #1 of 57
(1879 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Who, or what, is Evil, in Tolkien?
|
Can't Post
|
|
Having read several recent threads, and having been challenged and corrected,( Thanks Sador, Elizabeth, and squire!) I am forced to reconsider my personal view of Tolkien's Legendarium.
Please excuse the rant.
I had always viewed both Sauron and Morgoth as, unpardonable Evil. They were cruel, backstabbing fiends, fit to be despised and detested. They wanted the pain and suffering of others, they enjoyed it. My original view was that they WERE evil, but that opinion has to be revisited. Perhaps they are unpardonable, but was it always so?
I have stated, and with slight modification still believe, that Evil, in Tolkien, follows an Augustinian definition:
Corruption of Good
I had, however, made the unfair assumption, that the corrupted one would realize his own corruption. With the corruption of the good within, the moral standard would also be warped. This would allow for the 'evil' ones to pursue their own course in good(read: warped) conscience. This assumption had given me a biased view of Sauron and Morgoth.
Now don't get me wrong, they ARE the antagonists, and we are meant to dislike and feel a natural antipathy for them, but how much time do we give, to study those that we 'only love to hate'? We praise the protagonist(s), exalt their virtues, and call down fire and destruction upon the 'bad guy'. There are those few villains that we might like-- the witty, smart, well-dressed, or urbane, but why do we like them? Is it perhaps because we see the good that is still uncorrupted within them? What they might have been?
I will confine my philosophy to the world of Tolkien, so please do not take anything said, as a generalization for the real world,(though perhaps it might well fit)
There is no abstract evil. 'Evil' does not exist, save as a corruption of the Good. Without Good,'Evil' has no identity. Without good to corrupt, 'evil' cannot exist.
Melkor was good, he came from Eru, Eru, I think we can assume, is Good. Nothing that came from Eru can do otherwise, than serve him. It may change its form, but it will still follow his plan, if only waywardly. How did Melkor become 'evil', as we might say?
He sought good.
He saw the Void and was impatient, hardly a deadly sin, and he wished to fill the Void. His desire was in line with Eru's,(He too had plans for the Void) in all but the time of execution.
What was his error?
He had anticipated his Creator's plans, and began to forge his own. He had his own visions of what should fill the Void. Again, not totally wrong. Perhaps he held on to them too tightly--his first mistake.
When Eru put forth his plan, then Melkor had an internal conflict to resolve. Would he give up his long cherished plans, or would he persist in his own way?
Then Melkor made the first step toward 'evil'. What exactly he thought, we do not know, but in my interpretation, he yielded to a sophist argument.
I am come from the mind of Illuvatar. Illuvatar is good. Therefore I am good, and by extension, l can only do good.
In this scenario, all of the arguments will pass without close scrutiny, but if we look deeper we can see a flaw in this progression.
Each of the Ainur came from part of the mind of Illuvatar. Each knew only a portion of his mind; each only possessed part of that Good. Melkor tried to encompass the whole of the Good, within only the part he understood.
This is illustrated in the Music of the Ainur. The Ainur were meant to work together to accomplish the Theme of Illuvatar. Each had his own part assigned in the Great Music, and Melkor's error was to try to 'increase the honor and majesty of his part". He tried to push through his own limited view, as a completed whole.
Can you only paint in one color? Can one piece form an orchestra. You may get a simple representation of the pattern, but it loses its complexity and intricate detail.
Melkor did not have the whole of the Good within himself, if he had, he would be the All-Father. Without the influence of the others, tempering his gift of power, with wisdom. He is the expression of the power of Eru, as Mandos might be the expression of wisdom, and Varda -Beauty, and Aule- creativity.
He began to warp his own view of the Good, to his own narrowed vision of the power he had.
From then on Melkor's actions were driven by his personal vision of what was Good. He began to try to shape Arda, according to his own vision. Each new choice that he made further warped his moral compass, until he began to follow a twisted course that he believed to be 'good'. Much as the madman will try to walk on water, Melkor tried to force everything into his own mold, enjoying the same amount of success.
Then we have Sauron, an adherent of Aule, originally. He too was drawn to Melkor's personal vision. Perhaps he thought that he could use his talents to 'make' things right?
Tolkien, in his Letters gives us an outline of his intentions. Paraphrasing:
Sauron was not pure evil, no more than a revolutionary, for which change cannot happen quickly enough.
Impatience, again, being a motivation. Perhaps it is the downfall of both. The other Ainur were content in their own parts of the music, and found something that they loved within Arda. Of Melkor, nothing that he had seen did he love, though his influence of power could be seen, warping the good of the others. Maybe this is the root of evil in Tolkien?
Sauron was a revolutionary, following the vision of Melkor, so perhaps his guilt is somewhat less? Even after the fall of his Master, who was his guiding star and light, he did not step up immediately to claim the kingdom of the world. Instead he came in fair form to the Elves, perhaps wanting to shape them in accordance to the vision of Melkor? He did not at first , use force, but, being rebuffed by Gil-galad and Elrond, he was perturbed. He persevered though, and found ready ears in Eregion.
Here he found those who would learn and listen to him. They would not, though, listen to the vision, and conform to it. Then he must turn to force. His master was right--Force was the only means to shape them into the mold of good.
They did not set out to destroy or harm. I cannot imagine that they would want what had ultimately occurred. By slow degrees they were guided into their courses they followed, by their impatience and ignorance.
Now I'm not excusing their actions, they were wrong. They deserve and have earned their own rewards. I'm just suggestions that perhaps evil is not as simple as we might think.
No one I their right mind, sets out to do Evil. Neither did Sauron or Morgoth, they only set out to accomplish their own twisted version of 'Good'.
Evil is Good, albeit twisted, until it is unrecognizable.
Thought? Reactions?
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Aug 21 2013, 2:16am
Post #2 of 57
(1432 views)
Shortcut
|
Indeed JRRT says he does not deal in Absolute Evil, (#183) and in his estimation Sauron (NOT Morgoth) is the closest to the 'wholly evil' as possible. I think because of his angelic origins and gifts, that he was swayed by mere lust for domination to throw aside all of his innate power for good.
One might think Morgoth did this on a grander scale - but I think, as you wrote above, that his desire to create, to imbue life, somehow gives him less of an evil stamp than being driven by the more 'political' desire to simply take over, by whatever means expedient to oneself, all that one sees as Sauron did.
Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!
|
|
|
demnation
Rohan
Aug 21 2013, 3:31am
Post #3 of 57
(1425 views)
Shortcut
|
As Elrond says (paraphrasing): Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so.
"In the beginning the Universe was created.This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|
|
Nira
Lorien
Aug 21 2013, 4:02am
Post #4 of 57
(1423 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you for the interesting post. I like how Tolkien's "evil" isn't just superficial "bad." Depth adds realism, which adds to the fear of "evil" characters. For example, the fact that we (the reader) might be vulnerable to becoming evil ourselves like the elves that were corrupted into orcs, makes the characters transcend fiction. It is much more frighteneing to think that what is wrong with the world might be found within ourselves too, rather than completely within a defeatable outside source. Evil comes from good and vice versa.
"Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?" -Samwise
|
|
|
Meneldor
Valinor
Aug 21 2013, 4:07am
Post #5 of 57
(1428 views)
Shortcut
|
Have you read any of CS Lewis' non-fiction? There is a passage in Mere Christianity where he discusses the nature of good and evil. He posits that the goals of evil (pleasure, wealth, power, long life, etc) are all good things, and that what makes people evil is their method for achieving these good things. Of course CSL writes it much better than I just did! I really need to reread that book; it's been too many years.
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; These see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Aug 21 2013, 4:25am
Post #6 of 57
(1418 views)
Shortcut
|
Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Aug 21 2013, 6:05am
Post #7 of 57
(1425 views)
Shortcut
|
But I must complain, that you are giving me too much to respond to recently, and I just can't keep up.
Just two pointers:
Tolkien himself wrestled with this question quite a bit, and I don't think he ever came with an answer which completely satisfied him. He wrote some essays, or preliminary notes, regarding this, which could be found in the chapter Myths Transformed in HoME vol. X, Morgoth's Ring.
Prof. Tom Shippey discussed this question at length, a discussion which can be found in both The Road to Middle-earth and Author of the Century, in one of the chapters about LotR, under the subtitle "two views of evil" (IIRC). Shippey contends that a part of the moral strength of Tolkien's imagined world is the underlying tension between the Orthodox view of evil (which he names 'Boethian' after an early-Christian philosopher and martyr), according to which evil is just a result of our wrong choices, and the dualist, or Manichean view, which accords Evil an autonomous status, in extreme heresies an equivalent one to the Creator.
Shippey argues that while Tolkien himself surely and staunchly believed in the Boethian approach (I hope I am not mis-spelling!), the 20th century experience lends great force and appeal to the Manichean argument, which must be rejected but cannot be denied. This complex attitude, but honest and courageous, is one of the LotR's fortes. But you should read it in his words - he puts it far better than I can!
So I really love your post. I don't know anything about your biography and upbringing, but while Tolkien had faith in the Boethian approach while acknowledging the potency of the Manichean, you started out from one which accepted an absolute Evil, and have come to portray a quite convincing image of Morgoth and Sauron's Fall into becoming evil.
Well done!
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Aug 21 2013, 8:19am
Post #8 of 57
(1418 views)
Shortcut
|
...a reference to Shippey's discussions, which is directly addressing this issue.
An essential moral point here is that neither Eru nor the Christian God had any interest in creating puppets without free will (as illustrated in the example of Aule's "creation" of the Dwarves, whom he was incapable of endowing with independent life). If Eru's creations have free will, they not only can, they occasionally must violate Eru's will, or "sin".
Inasmuch as most of us occasionally have trouble discerning which path is consistent with Eru's will, we will occasionally err. In the Christian moral view, we should acknowledge this and seek forgiveness. But Melkor and Sauron do not do either (except for Sauron's brief spate of apparent accommodation with the Numenorians after being decisively defeated). It is tempting to ascribe persistent refusal to do so as being of some alternatively evil (Manichean) cause. Shippey concludes (in Tolkien, Author of the Century) that the deep-seated contradiction between "evil as absence" ("The Shadow") and "evil as force" ("The Dark Power") drives much of the plot in LotR.
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Aug 21 2013, 8:19am)
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Tol Eressea
Aug 21 2013, 8:19am
Post #9 of 57
(1410 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If we go right back to the beginning of creation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Or just after, the entire conflict with Melkor starts when he claims the world as his own to do what he likes with just after the Valar arrive on Earth. The other Valar disagree and Melkor departs in his own in a huff.
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Tol Eressea
Aug 21 2013, 8:25am
Post #10 of 57
(1409 views)
Shortcut
|
That Sauron does do some pretty nasty things during his existence. Even in the Silm if we look at Beren and Luthien he is not above having people ripped apart by his Werewolves, tortured and made into wraiths! Later he becomes a master of slaves in middle-earth, he destroys Elven dwellings, is the catalyst which brings an entire people to their destruction and look at his behaviour during the third age!
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Aug 21 2013, 2:40pm
Post #11 of 57
(1396 views)
Shortcut
|
He does put some pretty difficult concepts, into an understandable form. His words, though, only have full meaning if we accept his entire premise. This is one of the difficulties with philosophy.
We can state a principle that holds true in a few instances, but if we are to state it as a UNIVERSAL rule, we need to test it everywhere. Lewis certainly tried his, and found them to be true, but if we differ from him in a FEW points, his logic will fail, and we will be forced to reconsider the statement, if only in part.
Like my original thought, I believed that evil was corruption of good, but assumed that evil was self aware. My new theory takes into account, the deceptiveness of evil, and, while keeping a general premise, modifies part of it.
Now I am not making a philosophical judgement, I believe that is something that one must on their own, but I am bringing to light one of the issues we face, in shaping our philosophy.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Aug 21 2013, 3:47pm
Post #12 of 57
(1410 views)
Shortcut
|
Expanding on what you said, and giving some summary of the two philosophies that appear to be present:
Boethian- Evil is an internal entity, derived from choices that are irrational. Evil is irrational, and the decisions it makes are as well. The purest good exists, when we, as naturally rational beings, stay true to ourselves, and make the rational choice. Evil does not exist, except that is is not good.
Manichean- Evil is an external power, real, and having its own entity. Good and evil battle each other, and in this conflict they have no real differences, merely trying to destroy each other. We can only identify with one side, and their own stated aims and ideals. Evil exists as the opposite of good.
Is this a good summation?
One the one hand, Boethian appeals to the thought that we are naturally good. It is pretty flattering, we can't deny that. Now without making a judgement, I can show a situation that could challenge this view, or at least prompt a revision.
In a Boethian view, evil goes against reason.
In a murder on a desert island, a man might get away with it, he might kill the other for something that benefits him and guarantees his survival. He has still done evil, but is it logical?
Now this might work out logically, for a man who doesn't believe in a judgement in the Afterlife, and there is no fear of corporeal punishment, for him. It IS logical.
Now a man who believes that he will be repayed for his wrongs, after death, could follow the argument, stating that the murder is illogical, and he will be punished later. it is NOT logical for him.
Similar cases could be applied for the opposing view, but I have rambled enough.
When studying philosophy, we MUST take into account the base premises of the philosopher. Their theories, in their entirety, CANNOT be divorced from the underlying truths that they held. Boethius had to state several universal truths before he came to his conclusions, and so must we, to give our philosophy it's grounding facts. The rest may be taken on faith.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Aug 21 2013, 4:24pm
Post #13 of 57
(1393 views)
Shortcut
|
I do not believe, necessarily, that they MUST, transgress Eru/God's law/plan. Instead, with free will, they had the ABILITY to do it.
In the perfect order, envisioned by Eru/God, perhaps the highest fulfillment was that, in having free will, they CHOSE to follow His plan?
If Eru was there, present and visible, only a fool would defy Him. They would see the truth clearly, and act on it. There might, virtually, be no choice! They would KNOW the truth, and possibly serve, out of fear of punishment. They would be virtual salves.
With the constant vision of truth removed, faith and trust need to be expressed. It would require loyalty and virtue to stick up for the right, even when it is hard. The difference might be illustrated by a child-parent relationship.
A little child might 'obey' for a selfish reason. They don't want to be punished, or they want something quid-pro-quo. They can see the enforcer and perhaps fear the punishment.
Ex.
"I will not eat the cookie before dinner, because I don't want a time-out/tone grounded/etc...."
Obviously, this is not a healthy dynamic, and it might lead to a servant- master relation, more than a loving parent-child one.
An older, loving, more mature child might choose to 'honor' their parent. What is the difference between 'honor' and 'obey'? Honor encompasses obedience fully, but adds the dimension of love and respect. They obey because they WANT to, because they love their parent.
Ex.
" I will not eat the cookie before dinner, because it would be disobedient. I love mother/father so much, that I do not want to cause them pain by my disobedience.'
If there was an ever present law keeper, their would always be the fear, not necessarily wrong, of punishment. We would be held to a pattern of behavior by an enforcer that we couldn't love, but would begin to resent.
Who here LOVES rules? Who loves it when more rules are added?
No one. Nobody is excited when the government, teachers, parents, etc.. , come up with MORE rules. We HATE it, in fact.
In such a place, we would begin to scheme and plan, how to defeat the system of rules, without being caught. (Who didn't in school?)
This would lead to bondage and chains, not physical, but emotional. A web of fear that would force us into submission to the rulers. No matter how benevolent their rule, we would still resent it.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Aug 21 2013, 5:48pm
Post #14 of 57
(1395 views)
Shortcut
|
The reformer in him, moving too quickly. Compare this to the French Revolution. It started out well, but went too far.
I also think it telling, that Sauron did not immediately try force, to accomplish his objectives. He tried to befriend the Elves, and change their minds, before he went to full scale war. Tolkien did not see him as 'purely evil' but more of a misguided spirit. We must take this into account.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Aug 21 2013, 7:33pm
Post #15 of 57
(1411 views)
Shortcut
|
Expanding on what you said, and giving some summary of the two philosophies that appear to be present:
Boethian- Evil is an internal entity, derived from choices that are irrational. Evil is irrational, and the decisions it makes are as well. The purest good exists, when we, as naturally rational beings, stay true to ourselves, and make the rational choice. Evil does not exist, except that is is not good.
Manichean- Evil is an external power, real, and having its own entity. Good and evil battle each other, and in this conflict they have no real differences, merely trying to destroy each other. We can only identify with one side, and their own stated aims and ideals. Evil exists as the opposite of good.
Is this a good summation?
The problem is, choices are often unclear. Yesterday many Christians celebrated St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a 12thC cleric who was widely celebrated for his purity and asceticism as well as his brilliance and efforts in healing a schism in the Catholic church. But in reading his bio, I find that he backed the violent suppression of the Albigensian heretics and the disastrous 2nd Crusade, actions which many of us would consider evil.
Even today there are Muslims and Christians who want to slaughter each other and perceive such actions as noble. Is the definition of "irrational" a point of view?
Within the context of Tolkien's writing, he is usually fairly clear about choices that are bad (e.g. Fëonor's stubbornness and rebellion), and Melkor's "discordant" music deplored but tolerated. Though, in the musical context, nowadays it is far from clear when music is "discordant". Stravinsky's Rite of Spring set off a riot when it was first performed, but at its second performance only 6 months later it was acclaimed as a brilliant artistic achievement.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Aug 21 2013, 9:44pm
Post #16 of 57
(1381 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That would depend on you philosophical base
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In order to make that judgement, you would need to have a set of base premises. Boethius stated his in his book. Everyone has core beliefs, that they may not realize as such, but hold to be true. Their personal philosophy will be based off of these beliefs, their personal set of base premises. You need these premises in order to make philosophic judgements, as you need facts to make logical decisions.
Tolkien gives his in the book, and, depending on your personal beliefs, you will agree, or not. You might not be able to state the exact philosophical premise, with which you disagree, but you will know with what you agree, and disagree. We all have a personal view of the world, it is lens through which we see reality, and affects our perception and philosophy.
|
|
|
Terazed
Bree
Aug 21 2013, 11:27pm
Post #18 of 57
(1381 views)
Shortcut
|
I like what you are saying here and I think that a more nuanced idea of Sauron and Morgoth opens up some new doors to consider. What I want to bring up is whether this can be taken a step further and put it into a context more understandable in the modern world.
One topic for consideration that Tolkien himself brought up was: "Anyway all this stuff is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality, and the Machine...By the last I intend all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of development of the inherent inner powers or talents -- or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of dominating: bulldozing the real world, or coercing other wills."
Could it be that Sauron and Morgoth are representations of the dangers of the scientific/industrial revolution run amuck? The descriptions you have given of the two might fit this concept. Might it be that their original drive towards evil was that they saw only the ends with their knowledge and never considered the means? They each had a vision of the world and moved with single minded determination to achieve that vision by any means necessary. Certainly one of the prominent features of the "good" characters is that they are always focused on the values of the means to an end.
Tolkien was writing the the tail end of the age of romanticism. A key concern of the age was with how the scientific and industrial revolution would change the world. They looked at the changing world around them and saw the old literal truths of religion being thrown out at an ever increasing rate and wondered at the result. One thing they saw was that while the literal truth of religions and mythologies might not be essential their spiritual truths were fundamental to what it means to be human. Without those truths the world would plunge into a purely materialistic nihilism. It strikes me this is exactly the evil that Sauron, Morgoth, and their followers represent.
There is one other concept I would raise for your consideration. A year or so ago I came across a quote reading about another ring and ever since I have debated whether it applies to either that ring or Tolkien's ring. "The Ring of power [is a] metaphor for the power of the human mind. Accordingly, the products of the Ring’s power are also aspects of the human mind". The quote is from a very long essay by Paul Heise. His arguments have a persuasiveness but I have never felt have been conclusive. I will give his conclusion only to support the hypothesis: "..[it is a] metaphor for man’s existential dilemma, that man is torn between his quest for worldly power, attained through acquisition of objective knowledge of man and nature, as expressed in science, technology, and politics, and his counter-impulse to assert man’s transcendent value, as expressed in religion, ethics, and art. In this scheme, truth (the ultimate source of power) is incommensurable with the good and the beautiful (love)." Might this be an explanation why Saruman would be tempted and succumb to the ring and why Gandalf and Galadriel would fear to use it?
Have I gone to far in trying to advance your argument? I am just hoping to supply some food for future thought and maybe open up some new horizons for consideration. I am only at the mulling over stage myself and am certainly not set on them.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Aug 22 2013, 2:23am
Post #19 of 57
(1361 views)
Shortcut
|
Ends do NOT justify the means!
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Aug 22 2013, 2:30am
Post #20 of 57
(1369 views)
Shortcut
|
And is worthy of thought.
An important thing to notice, however, is that Tolkien did not want to set out an allegory. The truths we find are there, but do not necessarily reflect a conscious intent of the Author, any more than perfect symmetry in crystals, reflect a conscious decision of the inorganic material, to win a comparative beauty contest.
Truth might be there, albeit unintentionally, as we might say.
I am writing a quick reply before bed, so I hope to address the topic in more detail later.
|
|
|
Terazed
Bree
Aug 22 2013, 1:22pm
Post #21 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, I am definitely not talking about allegory, more of intuitions. Tolkien strikes me as someone who wrote frequently from intuition. In many of his comments on his works I am struck that he is looking back over his work and finding meanings in it that he had not suspected at the time he was writing it. I know what I wrote sounds a bit crazy at first especially the bit about the ring as knowledge. The first time I read it I laughed at it but it did make me think. What would be the effect of someone who was never supposed to have absolute knowledge of suddenly having that knowledge and power in their grasp? For one thing the coldness of it would kill off all dreaming and imagination. Might it drive someone insane? Might it kill off their compassion or pity? The evil character in a novel tends to have the most knowledge after all. This is the grounds that make me wonder if it is applicable.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Aug 26 2013, 12:48pm
Post #22 of 57
(1322 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The self vs the world; and strife as evil
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Another great essay, Rem! In reading through what others have said, one thing I would add is that a component of evil is selfishness and excessive ego, and in Tolkien's world, selfishness isn't always the result of evil but can cause it. Melkor's strife begins with the Great Music where he wants to impose his music for his own glorification. Feanor's hoarding of the Silmarils for only his sight is the germ of discord among the Noldor. Sauron initially wants to bring order to M-earth for its own benefit, then decides that he should be the main/only beneficiary of that order.
Contrast those attitudes with self-sacrifice. Finrod is clearly redeemed by his selflessness in saving Beren, and Boromir for the hobbits. Frodo is practically angelic after the quest from the sacrifices he made. Galadriel wants power for herself, but ultimately rejects its offer, a sacrifice in its own way.
The other thing I'd bring up is strife. It's one thing for people to advance their own interests. There are other ambitious, talented Elves than Feanor, and Melkor should have the freedom of thought to believe that Arda should be ruled in a different manner than the other Valar believed. Ulmo, for example, often fundamentally disagreed with the other Valar, but he didn't resort to violence or disrupt society over it. When Melkor's different viewpoint led to strife with the other Ainur and Feanor's led to the Kinslaying at Alqualonde, they have crossed a line into the evil zone.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Aug 26 2013, 12:52pm
Post #23 of 57
(1321 views)
Shortcut
|
That point is illustrated in Saruman's speech to Gandalf when trying to persuade him to join forces and impose order on the world, saying that there would be regrettably bad things done along the way, but it would all be for the greater good, so they'd have to be accepted. Though as you say, we have to be careful about extending truths to universal, one-size-fits-all statements. There are contexts where the end is justified by the means, but I don't think Tolkien's evil characters ever stumbled across any.
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Aug 26 2013, 7:12pm
Post #24 of 57
(1309 views)
Shortcut
|
We're stepping into a touchy area of discussion so please, everyone, be particularly careful with how you word your posts. If anyone finds anything offensive or which they believe oversteps the TOS, please alert an admin via Feedback rather than reply here in anger.
Also, if anyone wants the text of their removed post just send me a private message and I'll copy it to you.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
(This post was edited by Ataahua on Aug 26 2013, 7:17pm)
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Aug 27 2013, 1:54am
Post #25 of 57
(1279 views)
Shortcut
|
As you say, there might be some instances where someone could, in good conscience, say that 'The end justified the means.", but it is dependent on the judge's moral base. That is why we have disagreements, because we don't all think/believe alike. What may be 'justified' in one person's eyes, may not in another's. Now this is all well and good, we DO need different opinions and ideas to make the best choice, and that word, I believe, is the key to this whole issue- the BEST choice.
It is not always, the fun choice, the easy choice, the culturally acceptable choice, the politically correct choice, but (in our eyes) the best one. We are human, we mess up, and that's only up be expected, so we can all cut each other a bit of slack when we do. Sometimes when we disagree, (OK, I will make it personal) Sometimes, when I disagree with someone's decision, I am tempted to go ahead and tell them why they are wrong. But them I realize, most if the time I am just being selfish. Their decision made it harder for me, while leveling the playing field for everyone else. What is good for me, might not be so for another person. They say that motivation is 90% of the law, and I need to remember that, and take the motive of the decision maker into consideration, before I make a judgement. This is a perfect time to peer insure the decision maker's head.
In alot of cases, the decision makers are not given a perfect choice. Every choice is not Evil, doom and gloom on one side, and Good and happy sunshine and rainbows on the other. A lot of times, It really is 'the lesser of two evils'. If we wait for the kinds of decisions that only have positive effects for everyone, we will be waiting a long time. We need to have a strong moral base, a compassionate heart, and no small measure of strength, to navigate these treacherous waters.
So is any combination of means to an end justifiable?
You're the judge, Figure it out!!
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome Meneldor! //
[
1
