Was Melkor EVER good?

[Deimos]

I would also like to add that in Tolkien's universe good wins, while according to Manichaeism, the struggle between good and evil will lead to the end of the world, without bringing victory to either side.

That is my understanding of it (dualism) also.

 

[d4rk3lf]

Was Melkor EVER good?​

Of course.
As it was clearly shown in one of the first sentences in Silmarillion.:

But now Ilúvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws.

Up to this point, Melkor was good.
And in the next sentence is the turning point:

But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar;

 

[Olorgando]

Of course.
As it was clearly shown in one of the first sentences in Silmarillion.:

But now Ilúvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws.

Phew! Anybody want to hazard a guess how long in our terms a "great while" of the Music of the Ainur could have been? 😬😱🥶

 

[Deimos]

Phew! Anybody want to hazard a guess how long in our terms a "great while" of the Music of the Ainur could have been? 😬😱🥶

Half of "forever and a day".

 

[Aldarion]

Indeed. The central theme. Illuvatar is the "ultimate good". He is incapable of 'creating' evil. The very act of 'creating' evil would be an evil act, thereby destroying Illuvatar's 'ultimate good'. This (mis)understanding is pervasive in many places, and many try to separate the act of 'creating evil' from 'being infinitely good' or 'being evil'... but this simply cannot be done. (Or if it can, we are not talking about the Eru of Tolkien's works, or the God he held in his theology... but some other type of lesser being entirely.)

True. Yet if Eru 'created' Melkor as evil, other than the huge break with his fundamental theology, we would also say Gandalf is completely mistaken when he says "nothing is evil in the beginning."

Isn't evil a "necessary evil" of free will? Basically, if God did not allow evil in the world, he would have to take away the free will of his greatest creations (be it angels or humans) - which in and by itself would be an evil act. And because God is the ultimate good, he cannot do evil - and because he is incapable of doing evil, he has to allow the evil to exist.

 

[Deimos]

Isn't evil a "necessary evil" of free will? Basically, if God did not allow evil in the world, he would have to take away the free will of his greatest creations (be it angels or humans) - which in and by itself would be an evil act. And because God is the ultimate good, he cannot do evil - and because he is incapable of doing evil, he has to allow the evil to exist.

'Zactly.
Augustine said the same thing (about 1600 years ago).

 

[Ent]

And because God is the ultimate good, he cannot do evil - and because he is incapable of doing evil, he has to allow the evil to exist.

This is one (errant) theory. Comes from several misunderstandings.

To keep it in context with Tolkien's Catholocism and resultant demonstration in his works, Eru 'creates' from the position of infinite 'holiness' (i.e. 'separateness, difference, otherness') and creates his creations in that form/state of being. Good. Without inherent 'evil'.

But Eru gave to each creation 'choice'. And he gives his creations just 'One Command" they need to adhere to... represented by his declaration they are to 'adorn His themes'.... (in the Garden, the one command was 'do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. WHY was it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? because obedience was the knowledge of good... following the Creator's will... and disobedience was the knowledge of evil.... i.e. following my own decision and choice, determining 'my way is better than God's way.' Melkor, of course, by singing contrary to the command to sing in harmony with Eru's theme, was making the same self-willed, self-Eru choice as Tolkien's catholic belief.)

Does Eru tolerate the errant choice? does he "allow it to exist"? Oh yes... for a time.
But he also gives plenty of opportunity for 'space to repent'. Gandalf's encounter with Saruman at Orthanc where he gives Saruman his final opportunity to repent is such an example... and you'll see such chances are spoken to throughout Tolkien's works.

But a refusal to repent has eternal consequences, with no further association with the Good and separation forever - and Eru ultimately remakes everything as it should be.

So of course the evil is 'allowed to exist' but the purpose of it is to provide the opportunity (until Eru is simply done with giving chances...) for repentance and restoration.

Just as Eru is infinitely good, his infinite wrath against that which is evil/destructive/contrary, (as he is infinite in every one of his attributes) will, in the end, be both just and satisfied. It has no other choice.

But none of this really bears on whether Melkor was EVER good. It's been discussed and shown he obviously was created 'good', and remained good for some period of time learning to, and then during, the singing until he CHOSE his own path.

 

[d4rk3lf]

Phew! Anybody want to hazard a guess how long in our terms a "great while" of the Music of the Ainur could have been? 😬😱🥶

100 hundred billion years, and a little more.
Joke aside... probably time is not the same factor there (if it exist at all), and it's something we can't comprehend.

Isn't evil a "necessary evil" of free will?

If we do recreational running because of my idea to be more healthy, and you suddenly decide to take drugs and start to gamble, it doesn't mean you gain the free will that way. With free will you could do lot's of good stuff.
Melkor too.

if God did not allow evil in the world, he would have to take away the free will of his greatest creations (be it angels or humans)

Well... no.
I don't see God stopping us humans (even today) to make a paradise out of the earth, and we surely have more then enough recourses to do that. We don't do it because we are selfish, money grabbing, non-empathic, war driven beings. And we become like that out of our own free will, not because it was forced upon us.
We could be much better if we wanted to.. but... sure.. we could be even much more worse, then we are, at the moment.

 

[Aldarion]

If we do recreational running because of my idea to be more healthy, and you suddenly decide to take drugs and start to gamble, it doesn't mean you gain the free will that way. With free will you could do lot's of good stuff.
Melkor too.

No - what it means is that I already have free will, because I am free to choose whether to start doing drugs and gambling. It would be a bad choice, but it would be a choice.

Well... no.
I don't see God stopping us humans (even today) to make a paradise out of the earth, and we surely have more then enough recourses to do that. We don't do it because we are selfish, money grabbing, non-empathic, war driven beings. And we become like that out of our own free will, not because it was forced upon us.
We could be much better if we wanted to.. but... sure.. we could be even much more worse, then we are, at the moment.

Precisely. Without the free will, concepts of good and evil lose all meaning.

 

[Ent]

Precisely. Without the free will, concepts of good and evil lose all meaning.

Correct, with this small enhancement to understanding. Eru always was. So 'good' and its concept always was. There was no one else to have 'concepts' at that time, though he himself knew "about" evil.

All creation was originally 'good'. But they developed no concept of 'good' or 'evil' until they saw discord. Nor did they have a 'concept' of 'free will' until these things happened:

1. Eru gave them a command to 'adorn HIS theme' after they were sufficiently prepared/trained/educated.
2. Eru gave them a "choice" whether to participate in the adornment or not... yet here, either choice was "OK" as it had been granted by Eru himself.
3. One among them chose to disobey, and create discord instead.

Suddenly both choice, and by Eru's following doom spoken, its results, were fully understood by all.

The root question this all brings: Does Eru himself have "free will" or is he bound to "good and good alone" by the very nature of all his infinite attributes.

It is in this we come to the root: "Could Eru 'create' evil." If Eru has free will, of course he 'could' - and we leave it to the 'in the moment' fickleness of his momentary temper and 'choice' to be or do one thing or another.

However, if by his very nature he is incapable of doing other than 'good', his choice is removed, and the recipients of his actions and grace are forever secure.

This is that upon which Gandalf relied... his understanding of this ultimate central principle.

 

[HALETH✒🗡]

The root question this all brings: Does Eru himself have "free will" or is he bound to "good and good alone" by the very nature of all his infinite attributes.

Well, I think Eru has free will but never does evil. This curious question also applies to the Valar. Why don't readers assume that the Valar can fall like Melkor long afterwards Ainulindalё? Maybe this is because the Valar are associated with angels to some extent. And I've read somewhere that angels do their choice only once.

 

[Deimos]

Well, I think Eru has free will but never does evil. This curious question also applies to the Valar. Why don't readers assume that the Valar can fall like Melkor long afterwards Ainulindalё? Maybe this is because the Valar are associated with angels to some extent. And I've read somewhere that angels do their choice only once.

I read that about angels also...somewhere...can't recall where.
As far as the other Valar falling, I'm assuming that they could still fall at anytime, even in the "present ME", because of freewill.
But note that 'way back then, Aule being impatient with Eru, did go off and do his own thing.
But the difference between Aule and Melkor is that Aule repented of his disobedience and Melkor didn't.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

Just doing some archive browsing, I found this gem of an old thread. 10 pages on this subject if anyone's interested.

https://thetolkien.forum/threads/melkor-evil-by-will-or-evil-by-nature.1051/

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

Does Eru himself have "free will" or is he bound to "good and good alone" by the very nature of all his infinite attributes.

I think if Eru is the source of everything in existence, then he himself defines what is good and evil. So, 'good' is what is in accordance with his design, and 'evil' is what goes against it.

 

[Ent]

There is an interesting Greek word.... eimí
It is most often translated 'is'. It's meaning is "exists as.... exists to be... is the realm and sphere of". It expresses 'being'.

Eru IS Good. That is, he exists as good. He exists to be good. He IS the realm and sphere of good. He can be nothing else.
He doesn't really 'define' good, so much as he IS (exists as) good.

"Good" is his gift to all he created. it is not a thing in itself... and he is incapable of creating anything NOT good by definition of his "is-ness'.
Eru is the only existence with "intrinsic" goodness.

And all Eru's ways, paths, themes, objectives, and ends are by definition 'good'. His 'design' as you put it @Server Room Gremlin. You hit the nail with your head (as old Paul Harvey used to say.)

"Evil" is 'made' by rejecting his good. his 'design' as you put it. This is the theme from the beginning of SIL to the end of LoTR.

Eru himself EXISTS AS (is) absolutely bound to 'good' and has no 'free will' in the matter. He would be incapable of 'creating' or 'choosing' evil. His nature prevents it altogether.

So Ent thinks anyway, (Naturally, there are those who disagree... being infinite he CAN, some say... he simply chooses not to. But this goes to a deeper discussion, and I refrain from 'going there'. 😁)


.

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

You hit the nail with your head (as old Paul Harvey used to say.)

Good thing I'm wearing a helmet, then.

 

[Sword&Sorcery]

My interpretation has always been that “good” is subjective.

When Ilúvatar created the Ainur they were all of his mind, aspects of himself externalised, including Melkor. As with the balance of nature; death, destruction, decay, etc. are all part of the whole, wether it be the mind of Ilúvatar or Arda itself. “Good” and “bad” in this context depends on how these processes are perceived and from what point of view.

For me it is important to view the Valar as the forces of nature, and Melkor was neither negative nor positive in this regard. I’ve always sympathised with him and considered his being doomed from even before his creation. He drew the short straw among the Ainur… depending on how you look at it of course.