Akalabeth - Was The Destruction of Numenor an Immoral Act?

[Parsifal]

This topic in fact comes quite close to one I had recently posted:
http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?19965-The-interventions-of-Eru
For the destruction of Numenor is indeed one of these interventions, which I too have a hard time understanding.
Why does Eru intervene and fight evil in some spots, and let the world sort it out itself in others?
If Eru is Good, why not just destroy Evil, why not just splat Melkor like a fly right when he start rebelling in the Music? The thread I posted pretty much asked the question whether Eru can be called "Good", for Evil also came from him, and Evil is part of the World, and Sadness adds to its Beauty. As there is nothing besides Eru in the beginning, everything, including Evil, must come forth from Him, so he can not only be Good.

In this case I think, we could say Eru intervened because he had too. The main reason was not that the Numenoreans became Evil and threatened Valinor, for as said, the Valar should be able to easily crush this threat, and Eru doesn't strike down any other Evil men (what about Saruman, he was even wiser then the Numenoreans).
Instead, what forced Eru to intervene was the fact Men threatened to destroy his ordering of the world. Men were not supposed to become Immortal (apparently Elves becoming Mortal was ok), Men weren't supposed to live in Amman.

What doesn't work here ofcours is the simple fact, again, that the Valar could have crushed them themselves, and the fact some Mortals (Bilbo, Frodo and probably Gimli and Sam) did in fact turn up in Amman. Valar were obviously allowed to kill Men, for this could hardly have been avoided in the War of Wrath.

Another intervention by Eru, resurrecting Gandalf, perhaps could be because Middle Earth wasn't supposed to be covered in Darkness untill the End of Times, but he let ending the Darkness of Morgoth in the hands of the Valar too. Or maybe Gandalf would actually die, being send to Middle-Earth in the body of a Man, and Maia weren't supposed to die and leave Arda. But then, what happened to Saruman, and Sauron, and many others?

For myself, I still have a hard time with these parts of Tolkien's works, possibly because I've never been religious. Instead, I like to think these part of the stories are part legend as told from father to son by Elves or Men, and not neccesarily complete facts. (Some characters in Tolkiens works in fact spread false wisdom, so not everything said is supposed to be true.)
I like to think that the Valar were actually the ones destroying Numenor (and resurrecting Gandalf), but because they are not Powers of Fear, they never claimed this as their own action, which led to Elves of Middle Earth to believe it was Eru himself.

Edit:
In short, in my vision God/Eru can logically be one of several things:
1. Good, but not All-Powerfull, so he is not able to completely crush Evil. Would sometimes intervene, but can't fix everything.
2. Impartial, all the Universe comes from Him, and is part of Him. He would never intervene, for also Evil things are part of the "plan".
3. A kid with an antfarm. Sometimes changing/fixing something and watching what will happen next.

 

[Mimzy]

I relate it to Yahweh getting sick of humanity's wickedness and deciding just to kill all of them.

Personally, I don't think the destruction of every single Numenorean was justified, but perhaps they had become such an utterly corrupt society, it was for their own good.

 

[Edheldae]

It seems the debate turns on two points. What constitutes an immoral action and whether to the destruction of Neumenor was intentional.

Debating philosophy is fun, but in the meantime, someone please point out where Eru intentionally destroyed Numenor. Read the passage again, what was Eru doing? What was the direct end result and what were the secondary results?

I reiterate my earlier suggestion that the behavior of the people of Numenor had a direct impact on their environment, overturning the natural order of things.

 

[Nikkolas]

It seems the debate turns on two points. What constitutes an immoral action and whether to the destruction of Neumenor was intentional.

Debating philosophy is fun, but in the meantime, someone please point out where Eru intentionally destroyed Numenor. Read the passage again, what was Eru doing? What was the direct end result and what were the secondary results?

I reiterate my earlier suggestion that the behavior of the people of Numenor had a direct impact on their environment, overturning the natural order of things.

Sorry to bump a few months old topic but I just finished reading The Silmarillion for the first time and I have two responses to your suggestion. (that the destruction of Numenor was a secondary effect)

1. If you truly believe in the omnipotence of God (Eru) then there is no secondary effect. Whatever He did, He intended to do.
It's also why Melkor was made evil by Eru Himself.

2. If Eru is NOT omnipotent than what right does He have to do the things He does? He is not all knowing and not all wise. The fate of the world should not be ruled by Him alone.

I think the real culprits behind all these tragic events are being overlooked.

It's the Valar. They have showed, time and time again, ineptitude in the ruling of Arda. Their pettiness is well documented throughout the story but it is their criminal incompetence that is immoral in this instance.

I am speaking of course about Sauron. About how, after they had defeated Morgoth's army, they left his most dangerous servant in Middle-earth. They let loose one of the strongest beings in existence so that he may corrupt and harm Elves, Men, Dwarves, and whoever else he pleases.

Had the Valar actually done their job properly and not released Morgoth's second-in-command, then the end of Numenor could have been averted.

Perhaps this is why they did not respond to brave and selfless Amandi. They let him die and refused to aid him because their own actions had led to the Fall of Numenor.

 

[Prince of Cats]

Is Eru explicitly told to be either omnipotent or moral? (requesting quotes) Remember that this is high fantasy; Eru is not the god of Abraham.

2. If Eru is NOT omnipotent than what right does He have to do the things He does? He is not all knowing and not all wise. The fate of the world should not be ruled by Him alone.

What right do we have to do what we do? And if the fate of the world shouldn't be ruled by Eru ... then who?? What do you mean?

I liked Parcifal's insight here:

Why does Eru intervene and fight evil in some spots, and let the world sort it out itself in others?
If Eru is Good, why not just destroy Evil, why not just splat Melkor like a fly right when he start rebelling in the Music? The thread I posted pretty much asked the question whether Eru can be called "Good", for Evil also came from him, and Evil is part of the World, and Sadness adds to its Beauty. As there is nothing besides Eru in the beginning, everything, including Evil, must come forth from Him, so he can not only be Good.

This is a problem posed to all single sources of religion that identify a one god as the single source of creation. How could the god of love/good also be the purposeful source of harm/evil?

Elgee wrote:

Again, do you think there is a moral difference between a man who pushes someone into the water to let them drown and a man who won't lift a finger to save a person who drowns?

Well, yes: I absolutely do. Regardless, Eru is assuming both roles here.

And also:

If I were to take a hammer to the computer in front of me (which happens not to belong to me as I am staying with relatives atm), it would be wrong because I am destroying something that does not belong to me. If the owner of it did so, than it's not wrong, just really really weird.

Perhaps it isn't wrong if an owner smashes his or her own property or creation ... as I read your words: Eru has the right to the death of man because he is responsible for their creation. The children of Illuvatar. Is tough love from a parent upon a child the right of the parent? What if that love is violent? If the mother or (is Eru identified as either maternal or paternal?) father believes that drowning part of them for a bit, either emotionally or in this case quite literally, will be to their benefit is it their right? Does the lesson taught by the parent, their 'gift', justify the scarring ordeal and redeem the suffering it created? Consider it if Eru is or isn't omnipotent.

This can sanctify evil put upon others. How is Sauron evil if in his harm he is doing the work of good - delivering Eru's 'gift'? In this model if the Nazgul rode into Bree and burned all the hobbits and men alive there would be neither victim nor perpetrator of evil. The horror and pain of being attacked and watching your family's skin boil is completely excused; they should thank Eru for such an experience to receive the gift. The Nazgul are no longer the arm of evil but the angels of beneficence.

 

[HLGStrider]

What if that love is violent? If the mother or (is Eru identified as either maternal or paternal?) father believes that drowning part of them for a bit, either emotionally or in this case quite literally, will be to their benefit is it their right? Does the lesson taught by the parent, their 'gift', justify the scarring ordeal and redeem the suffering it created? Consider it if Eru is or isn't omnipotent.

A. Parents are not technically the creators of their children in that they do not have any say as to what sort of child they get. That decision is made independent of them. Your parents didn't choose you. They just got you.
B. Parents have no idea whether the death or pain of the child would truly be the best thing and if they assume they do they are generally acting upon a delusion. This is why most parents, even the best intended one, do screw up their kids just a little bit. My own parents weren't abusive, in fact you could call my childhood near idyllic, but I can still be brought to tears over things that happened to me due to my parents not understanding or assuming that they understood when in fact they didn't what was going on in my head or life.
All metaphors are imperfect. Fatherhood, motherhood, property and ownership, are all just methods we use to express something that is similar to but not identical in order to make relationships that we have no earthly model for a little easier to wrap our head around. That is why even the most well thought out metaphors lead to all sorts of logical quandaries. Property is simply the best way I can come up with to express the relationship between creator and creation in this case.
I don't have a copy of the Sil handy, but the first chapter seems to suggest an all-knowing Eru. If someone else has a quote that proves or disproves this, this would be a good time to trot it out, but without my copies, it isn't going to be me who does this.

Well, yes: I absolutely do. Regardless, Eru is assuming both roles here.

See I don't, but I'm also not a big fan of putting different weights to different sins. I just don't see logically how breaking the law by knowingly not doing something is any different than breaking the law by knowingly doing something.

Anyway, my main point is that pain and death are temporary inconveniences and the fact that Eru may have taken a more active hand in this case to bringing them about does not necessarily make them evil.

When you bring up the Nazgul it changes the subject to free will of sentient beings. The tidal wave utilized by Eru was not a sentient being. It had no choice in being used. The Nazgul (or I guess Sauron wielding the Nazgul) had a choice. So in one case we are looking at Eru directly causing death so we can say that the death of those in Numenor was his perfect will. Assuming that he knows all and is just (which I think are implied within Tolkien's work, but I can't provide quotes, again pleading no copy of book) then logically it stands to reason that these deaths (and death is again and again referred to as a Gift within Tolkien's work) were not a punishment but a gift.

Now as you pointed out we are debating Eru not Jehovah or Allah or Jupiter or whatever other deity we could drag through this, so don't think about our world when I say death is a gift. No matter if you feel death is a gift in this world, I'm asking is death presented as a gift within Tolkien's cannon. Again, I'll do a qualification since it's my post and I can do that (mu ha ha ha, oh the power!), death in Eru's appointed time is a gift. Since Eru caused the wave which caused the deaths this is definitely Eru's appointed time. So how is it different from any other death by say a heart attack. A heart attack is sudden. I'm sure heart attacks existed in Middle Earth (I have no written examples of them existing, but it stands to reason that they did if humans there have our basic anatomy). So if Eru judges to strike one man down with a heart attack and then two days later strikes one down (or thousands down) with a tidal wave, how is there a moral difference?

I suppose you could make an argument that if the man had eaten fewer Sauron Burgers or whatever the fast food of choice was in Middle Earth, he wouldn't have gotten the heart attack so that is free will again, but what about any other sudden death by natural means? What about a single bolt of lightning or a flash flood that instead of killing thousands happened to kill a small family on a picnic near the Brandywine one day?

The fact that Eru decided to end multiple lives in one dramatic gesture is not morally different from him choosing to bring one man home in his sleep.

Now back to the Nazgul, it can be argued that since Eru allowed evil into his plan, I wouldn't say he caused it, but by allowing free will he allowed for the chance of evil and knew it was going to happen and didn't actively stop it, that he indirectly caused every evil act within middle earth. Probably true. I've never morally had a problem with this though. I don't see a huge logical hurdle in the concept of a just being who allows temporary pain in the case that this just being also allowed a just reward/relief at the end of the pain. Now here is where we go on blind faith, but blind faith isn't illogical any more than blind-lack-of-faith because without proof one way or another they can't be illogical any more than me saying that there is twenty dollars in a wallet I have never opened and is illogical. It is completely logical. It could also be completely wrong. There could be nothing in that wallet. There could be $2000 dollars instead of $20. I'm not being illogical. I'm simply choosing to believe something that I cannot prove. Honestly, agnosticism is probably the most logical approach to anything theological, but going around not believing in anything because there is a chance I could be wrong isn't very appealing to me personally.

So I'm choosing to believe that Eru has a set up after death that will make up for any pain that was endured before or during the process of death because to me this makes a logical full circle.

Of course, Eru could've chosen not to create creatures with free will who have the capability of evil. That would've possibly been the safer route. Wouldn't be much of a novel, though.

 

[HLGStrider]

I thought I'd hop back to add that I know I am totally neglecting the emotional impact of Eru's actions on those they effected. I'm not doing this because I think emotional impact has no value but rather because I don't think it can be measured or agreed upon and therefore cannot effectively be argued about. It's like trying to argue for the best music or the best movie. The answer is going to differ from person to person and while we can argue that the most typical response to a certain event is a certain emotion, it will not always be the emotion expereinced by any particular person.

However, as emotional beings (both in the real world and in middle earth) humans are going to be making a lot of decisions and judgment calls based mainly on emotions, so emotions are involved. I just don't see how we can argue that the emotional trauma you mentioned of seeing your family die at the hand of Nazguls outweighs the reward of a truely just afterlife when we can't really put a weight to it and when it might be completely different from person to person involved in such an event, and does the horror of seeing the approaching doom of Numenor somehow negate the fact that death is seen as a gift within Tolkien's universe and therefore should be accepted gracefully rather than feared?

There must be some emotional cost, but how do we debate it? If we define good and evil as concrete concepts then we can still continue to debate them. However, if they are relative concepts we cannot and this whole thing of trying to judge Eru as immoral or moral is about the same as trying to judge a song as good or bad. It's all opinion. I do think that the universe of Tolkien allows for a concrete sense of good and evil, more clearly than our universe does, mainly because we get the chance to look at it from the outside and since it is Tolkien's world we have to take Tolkien's word for it (as opposed to this world where so much more remains unwritten and there are differing holy texts and theories by secular philosophers about how it works.), we are left to debate whether or not Tolkien
A. Allowed a logical plot hole in this case.
B. If he didn't, if this is logical but not moral.
C. If it is moral and logical and just not easy to swallow from an emotional point of view.

I take C. I think you are trending towards B but perhaps you are suggesting A.

 

[Illuin]

Originally posted by Prince of Cats

This is a problem posed to all single sources of religion that identify a one god as the single source of creation. How could the god of love/good also be the purposeful source of harm/evil?

That's a good question Prince. Because most people have limited knowledge on the subject, God's Love is poorly understood. God's love is revealed in a perfect balance between justice and mercy. Because God's character has both properties, it is sometimes difficult to reconcile these two attributes. No person can see everything that God sees so this limited view makes understanding the ways of an all-knowing God very difficult. God's love, God's willingness to let injustice abound, and God's own wrath appear to be in conflict, but these conflicting concepts properly align and make perfect sense once a person understands "the rest of the story" - (which is too long a story to post in TTF ;*)). This concept permeates Tolkien's legendarium as well; none more so than Akallabêth.

Cool discussion by the way :*up