"I put the fear of fire on him..."

[TrackerOrc]

I most respectfully disagree....
The ring enhanced the more dominant character traits the wearer already had.
Gollum (I will posit) already possessed mostly a "not very nice" character. The Ring brought all his worse traits to the fore.
Cf. Boromir ... just knowing about the Ring AND being in close proximity to it brought all his ambition of his character (zeal for Gondor's fame but also for himself) to the fore.
When Sam donned Ring after he thought Frodo had died (at Cirith Ungol) he had visions of himself striding though the thoroughly desolate Mordor making a garden of it.
Cf. Frodo a very decent "the best of Hobbits" in donning the Ring never did evil with it. Even in his deception of Gollum to trick him into being captured by Faramir's men, he deeply regretted that the deception was necessary to save Gollum's life. That is, despite having worn the Ring several times, he did not become evil, because he wasn't of bad character to begin with.
WHich is exactly what Gandalf meant when he said the Ring did little damage to Bilbo because he began his ownership of it with an act of mercy in sparing Gollum's life even as he knew Gollum would kill him the first chance he got.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it 😉

And I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement, and look forward to many more such discussions...
If the ring simply enhances the wearer's dominant trait, then why would Gandalf or Galadriel not take it? They both basically say that they would do things for good at first, but would not stop there. I believe that they knew the ring would utterly corrupt them.
Boromir, Sam and Frodo all knew exactly what the ring was, who made it, what had happened to the previous ringbearers; Gollum has no such knowledge. Perhaps Smeagol wasn't 'very nice'; does this mean he was always going to be a murderer, or does the corruption of the ring hit him full on?
I know that Bilbo has no idea of the power of the ring, but I think one salient point here was that it was already (by 'accident') in his possession; Smeagol was overcome with a lust to own it; who knows what would have happened if he had been fishing on his own that day?
The ring did little damage to Bilbo, but he was never exactly truthful about it was he?
And did Frodo never do evil with the ring? What was he going to do with it when he refused to throw it into the Cracks of Doom? (I'm absolutely not blaming Frodo here; I think it's the most interesting part of his story)
And that's the story I'm sticking to
Unfortunately being rather a computer illiterate I have no idea how to do the emoji things!

 

[Radaghast]

And I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement, and look forward to many more such discussions...
If the ring simply enhances the wearer's dominant trait, then why would Gandalf or Galadriel not take it? They both basically say that they would do things for good at first, but would not stop there. I believe that they knew the ring would utterly corrupt them.

It doesn't just enhance, it corrupts. There was little to corrupt in Bilbo or Frodo, not to say they wouldn't become corrupted in time. Indeed Frodo finally does succumb and even Bilbo was defensively possessive of the Ring and also lied about how he procured it. But otherwise there isn't a whole lot to fear from either Baggins. Gandalf on the other hand has a lot to corrupt, namely the desire to do good which would be warped into something abominable. Tolkien believed he'd be an even worse Dark Lord than Sauron.

• The Letters of JRR Tolkien, #246

Sound basically like Big Brother.

Boromir, Sam and Frodo all knew exactly what the ring was, who made it, what had happened to the previous ringbearers; Gollum has no such knowledge. Perhaps Smeagol wasn't 'very nice'; does this mean he was always going to be a murderer, or does the corruption of the ring hit him full on?

Who knows? The key thing is he didn't need to kill his cousin

 

[Deimos]

It doesn't just enhance, it corrupts. There was little to corrupt in Bilbo or Frodo, not to say they wouldn't become corrupted in time. Indeed Frodo finally does succumb and even Bilbo was defensively possessive of the Ring and also lied about how he procured it. But otherwise there isn't a whole lot to fear from either Baggins. Gandalf on the other hand has a lot to corrupt, namely the desire to do good which would be warped into something abominable. Tolkien believed he'd be an even worse Dark Lord than Sauron.

View attachment 35487

• The Letters of JRR Tolkien, #246

Sound basically like Big Brother.


Who knows? The key thing is he didn't need to kill his cousin

Thank you for posting that Letter.
@TrackerOrc ...I didn't present my argument very well... the letter says what I was trying to say.
If a person wasn't evil to begin with, the ring doesn't MAKE them evil, it corrupts them, which is not quite the same thing.
To use the example of Galadriel or Gandalf possessing the ring: they both would use it to "do good" but in order to do good that MAY have to do an evil act. They would then justify their evil by saying it brought about a good.**

A close example of this (tho' I still have problems with it) is in the MCU when Thanos "dusts" half the universe of people.
He justified this by saying his act made life livable for the remaining half, because now resources wouldn't be depleted which, if they were, everyone would suffer. He was utterly convinced he was acting morally. But it was a thoroughly evil act.

Your mention of how Bilbo lied about how he came to possess the Ring is a good example of corruption, yet without the person becoming evil.
Still it was working on him as further evidenced by his difficulty in giving it up.
Frodo not throwing the Ring in Mount Doom, not an evil act per se, yet the beginning of corruption.
No way to know if Bilbo (had he kept the Ring) or Frodo (who would have kept the Ring had Gollum not taken it by force) would have progressed in the manner that Gandalf and Galaldriel feared they, themselves, might become.


** The difference between Galadriel/Gandalf vs Melkor/Sauron is the person's self knowledge... the latter two embraced the philosophy "Evil be thou my good". Galadriel and Gandalf even in their corruption would protest that they were not evil, only acting in the manner of choosing (should it be necessary in their reasoning) "the lesser of two evils".

 

[TrackerOrc]

It doesn't just enhance, it corrupts. There was little to corrupt in Bilbo or Frodo, not to say they wouldn't become corrupted in time. Indeed Frodo finally does succumb and even Bilbo was defensively possessive of the Ring and also lied about how he procured it. But otherwise there isn't a whole lot to fear from either Baggins. Gandalf on the other hand has a lot to corrupt, namely the desire to do good which would be warped into something abominable. Tolkien believed he'd be an even worse Dark Lord than Sauron.

View attachment 35487

• The Letters of JRR Tolkien, #246

Sound basically like Big Brother.


Who knows? The key thing is he didn't need to kill his cousin

But doesn't the fact that he did kill Deagol, an extraordinary reaction in itself, show how horribly powerful the ring was?

 

[TrackerOrc]

Thank you for posting that Letter.
@TrackerOrc ...I didn't present my argument very well... the letter says what I was trying to say.
If a person wasn't evil to begin with, the ring doesn't MAKE them evil, it corrupts them, which is not quite the same thing.
To use the example of Galadriel or Gandalf possessing the ring: they both would use it to "do good" but in order to do good that MAY have to do an evil act. They would then justify their evil by saying it brought about a good.**

A close example of this (tho' I still have problems with it) is in the MCU when Thanos "dusts" half the universe of people.
He justified this by saying his act made life livable for the remaining half, because now resources wouldn't be depleted which, if they were, everyone would suffer. He was utterly convinced he was acting morally. But it was a thoroughly evil act.

Your mention of how Bilbo lied about how he came to possess the Ring is a good example of corruption, yet without the person becoming evil.
Still it was working on him as further evidenced by his difficulty in giving it up.
Frodo not throwing the Ring in Mount Doom, not an evil act per se, yet the beginning of corruption.
No way to know if Bilbo (had he kept the Ring) or Frodo (who would have kept the Ring had Gollum not taken it by force) would have progressed in the manner that Gandalf and Galaldriel feared they, themselves, might become.


** The difference between Galadriel/Gandalf vs Melkor/Sauron is the person's self knowledge... the latter two embraced the philosophy "Evil be thou my good". Galadriel and Gandalf even in their corruption would protest that they were not evil, only acting in the manner of choosing (should it be necessary in their reasoning) "the lesser of two evils".

But if a good person becomes corrupt to a great enough extent, wouldn't that, by definition, make them evil?

Thanos is convinced that what he does will end up causing the greater good, but as you say, it was a thoroughly evil act; so how would Gandalf or Galadriel differ if they held the ring? Both of these supremely wise beings, although tempted, know what the ring would do to them, namely, corrupt them utterly, thereby surely making them evil?

 

[TrackerOrc]

** The difference between Galadriel/Gandalf vs Melkor/Sauron is the person's self knowledge... the latter two embraced the philosophy "Evil be thou my good". Galadriel and Gandalf even in their corruption would protest that they were not evil, only acting in the manner of choosing (should it be necessary in their reasoning) "the lesser of two evils".

In a strange way, aren't Melkor/Sauron actually being more honest here? They are being true to themselves whereas Galadriel and Gandalf are being hypocritical - they protest that they are doing good whilst knowing all along that the power of the ring can only be evil. Let's not forget that the lesser of two evils is still evil in itself.

 

[Deimos]

But if a good person becomes corrupt to a great enough extent, wouldn't that, by definition, make them evil?

Thanos is convinced that what he does will end up causing the greater good, but as you say, it was a thoroughly evil act; so how would Gandalf or Galadriel differ if they held the ring? Both of these supremely wise beings, although tempted, know what the ring would do to them, namely, corrupt them utterly, thereby surely making them evil?

I was using Thanos as an example of a person like Galadriel or Gandalf who believes that it is ok to perform an intrinsically evil act if it accomplishes a "greater good".
Neither Melkor nor Sauron ever intended they were accomplishing a greater good by doing evil.

Yet, let's bring this a bit closer to home.
HAve you ever done a bad thing? lied to someone? Belittled someone? lost your temper with someone who didn't deserve your anger? made rash judgment about someone, only to find out later you were mistaken?
Having done these evil (not good) things are you an evil person?
If not, why not?

 

[TrackerOrc]

I was using Thanos as an example of a person like Galadriel or Gandalf who believes that an evil act is accomplishing a "greater good".
Neither Melkor nor Sauron ever believed they were accomplishing a greater good by doing evil.

Yet, let's bring this a bit closer to home.
HAve you ever done a bad thing? lied to someone? Belittled someone? lost your temper with someone who didn't deserve your anger? made rash judgment about someone, only to find out later you were mistaken?
Having done these evil (not good) things are you an evil person?
If not, why not?

So Melkor and Sauron are actually being honest; they are evil and they don't deny it. Gandalf and Galadriel might believe that they are doing a greater good but this is self-delusional at best and hypocritical at worst as they know quite well what the ring will do to them.
And, like so many things in life, evil is a matter of degree. Telling the odd lie, doing the odd bad thing is one thing which just make us human; evil, however, to my mind anyway has to be conscious and deliberate and unrelenting.

 

[Deimos]

So Melkor and Sauron are actually being honest; they are evil and they don't deny it. Gandalf and Galadriel might believe that they are doing a greater good but this is self-delusional at best and hypocritical at worst as they know quite well what the ring will do to them.
And, like so many things in life, evil is a matter of degree. Telling the odd lie, doing the odd bad thing is one thing which just make us human; evil, however, to my mind anyway has to be conscious and deliberate and unrelenting.

THanos defended what he did. He never once admitted it was evil because he didn't believe it was evil.
This makes him different from Sauron and Melkor.
I can see G &G rationalizing the same way, which would make them different from Sauron and Melkor.

btw ... you just imparted "degrees" to evil acts by an arbitrary judgment (your own); you have declared that certain acts don't make a person evil.
What if I disagree with you and say all those acts which you have [hypothetically] committed are in fact evil, that makes you evil.
Who is right? who gets to draw the line , and where?
And if you reply that the individual gets to make that determination, how can you have order in a society?
How can you have a law, which is the agreed upon standard of behaviour, when there is no standard because every man makes his own law?

 

[TrackerOrc]

THanos defended what he did. He never once admitted it was evil because he didn't believe it was evil.
This makes him different from Sauron and Melkor.
I can see G &G rationalizing the same way, which would make them different from Sauron and Melkor.

btw ... you just imparted "degrees" to evil acts by an arbitrary judgment (your own); you have declared that certain acts don't make a person evil.
What if I disagree with you and say all those acts which you have [hypothetically] committed are in fact evil, that makes you evil.
Who is right? who gets to draw the line , and where?
And if you reply that the individual gets to make that determination, how can you have order in a society?
How can you have a law, which is the agreed upon standard of behaviour, when there is no standard because every man makes his own law?

So the evil that Thanos does is evil because of what we see it as; in my mind that would make him delusional as he thinks he is doing good. He is wrong, as we believe that his acts are evil
Sauron and Melkor are different from Gandalf and Galadriel in that the former never pretend that they are not evil. G and G, crucially, know all about the power of the ring (which is why they won't take it), so anything they did - even while they were trying to do good - would end up being evil; they would rationalise and justify their actions but we would still see them as evil in the end.

I didn't explain my self very well in the second part of the post.
I think telling the odd fib, upsetting someone etc are not in themselves evil. The degrees part comes when someone does something so deliberately, consciously bad that society calls it an evil act.
Order and law in society comes from the collective will of the majority of people who are law-abiding; criminals can break the law and still not be evil. To me, being evil means committing extraordinarily bad deeds.

 

[Deimos]

So the evil that Thanos does is evil because of what we see it as; in my mind that would make him delusional as he thinks he is doing good. He is wrong, as we believe that his acts are evil
Sauron and Melkor are different from Gandalf and Galadriel in that the former never pretend that they are not evil. G and G, crucially, know all about the power of the ring (which is why they won't take it), so anything they did - even while they were trying to do good - would end up being evil; they would rationalise and justify their actions but we would still see them as evil in the end.

I didn't explain my self very well in the second part of the post.
I think telling the odd fib, upsetting someone etc are not in themselves evil. The degrees part comes when someone does something so deliberately, consciously bad that society calls it an evil act.
Order and law in society comes from the collective will of the majority of people who are law-abiding; criminals can break the law and still not be evil. To me, being evil means committing extraordinarily bad deeds.

And who gets to define what is "extraordinarily" bad as opposed to just "bad"? The Collective will of the majority?
The "collective will of the majority" of the Antebellum South thought slavery was a good.
The "collective will of the majority" of the Antebellum North thought slavery was an evil.
Now what?

 

[TrackerOrc]

And who gets to define what is "extraordinarily" bad as opposed to just "bad"? The Collective will of the majority?
The "collective will of the majority" of the Antebellum South thought slavery was a good.
The "collective will of the majority" of the Antebellum North thought slavery was an evil.
Now what?

You have a civil war.
The North wins and slavery is abolished.
Today, in the world we live in now, it's unthinkable that we would support slavery, that women were denied the vote, that we sent kids up chimneys; in the past this was allowed to happen.
In fifty years time who knows what laws will have changed?
The collective will of the majority - democracy, for want of a better term - is probably the best (but by no means perfect) way that good and evil can be managed at any one stage in the life of a particular society.

 

[Deimos]

You have a civil war.
The North wins and slavery is abolished.
Today, in the world we live in now, it's unthinkable that we would support slavery, that women were denied the vote, that we sent kids up chimneys; in the past this was allowed to happen.
In fifty years time who knows what laws will have changed?
The collective will of the majority - democracy, for want of a better term - is probably the best (but by no means perfect) way that good and evil can be managed at any one stage in the life of a particular society.

This is where we likely will have to agree to disagree.
I personally would not want to live in a society where (for example) the collective will has said one human cannot own another, but 5 years from now, decides that such ownership is OK.
I believe that there are some (not too many) unchanging standards of good and evil that apply to all men, everywhere at all times.
The most basic one is the Golden Rule. It is [apparently] applicable in ME as well.

But to get back to the question of evil in a person, Melkor and Sauron sought to disorder all that Eru had brought about and for no other reason than to show dominance, i.e., a refusal to be bound byf Eru's laws, a "non serviam".
Neither Melkor nor Sauron was corrupted by the Ring. Both simply preferred they will to Eru's; Melkor first, then Sauron following Melkor.
They became (chose) evil by a freely conscious decision.
This is not the potential situation (and fear) of either Galadriel or Gandalf, or, even (so far as I understand the MCU in universe situation) with Thanos.

 

[Radaghast]

But doesn't the fact that he did kill Deagol, an extraordinary reaction in itself, show how horribly powerful the ring was?

Yes, but note it doesn't have the same effect on Bilbo who might actually be excused for killing Gollum. Yet Bilbo, actually wearing the Ring, chose mercy over execution. Tolkien himself did not seem to hold a high opinion of Gollum and also did not seem to solely blame the Ring for his downfall:

• The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #181

 

[Radaghast]

In a strange way, aren't Melkor/Sauron actually being more honest here? They are being true to themselves whereas Galadriel and Gandalf are being hypocritical - they protest that they are doing good whilst knowing all along that the power of the ring can only be evil. Let's not forget that the lesser of two evils is still evil in itself.

I'm not getting the hypocritical part. They are being hypocritical for refusing the Ring?

 

[Radaghast]

This is where we likely will have to agree to disagree.
I personally would not want to live in a society where (for example) the collective will has said one human cannot own another, but 5 years from now, decides that such ownership is OK.
I believe that there are some (not too many) unchanging standards of good and evil that apply to all men, everywhere at all times.
The most basic one is the Golden Rule. It is [apparently] applicable in ME as well.

But to get back to the question of evil in a person, Melkor and Sauron sought to disorder all that Eru had brought about and for no other reason than to show dominance, i.e., a refusal to be bound byf Eru's laws, a "non serviam".
Neither Melkor nor Sauron was corrupted by the Ring. Both simply preferred they will to Eru's; Melkor first, then Sauron following Melkor.
They became (chose) evil by a freely conscious decision.
This is not the potential situation (and fear) of either Galadriel or Gandalf, or, even (so far as I understand the MCU in universe situation) with Thanos.

Also, I'm not sure either Melkor or Sauron were "mustache twirlers" so to speak. Each might have thought their cause righteous. Both may have been blinded by envy, wrath and other "deadly sins".

 

[Deimos]

Also, I'm not sure either Melkor or Sauron were "mustache twirlers" so to speak. Each might have thought their cause righteous. Both may have been blinded by envy, wrath and other "deadly sins".

Sauron, perhaps not (a mustache twirler), but (imo) I think he was a Snidely Whiplash/Simon bar Sinister.
Melkor, most definitely as he was the ME mythology's Lucifer. Note that I say 'Lucifer' and not 'Satan'.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Sauron is described as "repenting" and "ashamed" after Morgoth's overthrow, which at least implies a sense of morality. And I'm not sure the Elves would have fallen for his arguments, had there not been some kernel of sincerity in his desire to heal the damage from the war.

The big flaw was egotism*, the desire to "order all things as he would", to paraphrase Saruman. This was of course also the case with Melkor, which is exactly the reason the Ring was refused by "the great".

*Tolkien would no doubt prefer "pride".

 

[Deimos]

Sauron is described as "repenting" and "ashamed" after Morgoth's overthrow, which at least implies a sense of morality. And I'm not sure the Elves would have fallen for his arguments, had there not been some kernel of sincerity in his desire to heal the damage from the war.

The big flaw was egotism*, the desire to "order all things as he would", to paraphrase Saruman. This was of course also the case with Melkor, which is exactly the reason the Ring was refused by "the great".

*Tolkien would no doubt prefer "pride".

Pride, the proto-sin in Christianity.

I Just read this:
"What is Lucifer? He is a brilliant intelligence, the most gifted of all, but an intelligence discontented with God and his Order.
The mystery of iniquity is nothing but this discontent manifested in as many ways as possible. Lucifer, as far as lies in his power,
wishes to leave nothing in the state in which God has ordained and placed it. Wherever he penetrates you will always find
the work of God disfigured."

If this doesn't describe Melkor to a "T" beginning with the Ainulindalë I don't know what does.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Yes, it's certainly one of the sources Tolkien drew upon.