Is Melkor's evilness a reflection of Iluvatar's true nature?

[scotsboyuk]

Sorry for the double post.



I don't think Iluvatar created good per se. Iluvatar is Good, and he can transfer that goodness to another. Things like existence and motion and free-will would be good things.

Why should they be good things? What makes them good?

Iluvatar does not need to create evil in order for there to be evil. I would say that evil is not a thing, but an absence of a thing. For example, war would be the absence of peace.

Equally good can be described as the absence of evil or peace as the absence of war. Continuing in your logic, Iluvatur need not have created good in order for there to have been good.

If Iluvatar created the choices of the creations made by Iluvatar, if you say when Saruman turned to evil Iluvatar created that evil, then you are denying free will.

Not at all. If you say that Illuvatur need not have created 'evil' for 'evil' to have existed then following that logic Illuvatur would need to have created 'good'. If Illuvatur did create 'good' then it stands to reason that that creation by definition would have created 'evil' along with it as 'good' can only be defined against 'evil'. Continuing in this line of thought we can see that by your logic someone who turns to good would be considered to have no 'free will' because it came from Illuvatur, yet if we see Illuvatur as having created both 'good' and 'evil', or at least both steming from Iluvatur then we can see that free will does indeed exist as Iluvatur is therefore providing a choice.

 

[JPMaximilian]

Good and evil are human concepts, which do change over time and with different cultures.

I don't think that good and evil are human concepts. I believe that they are objective. If I believe that 2+2=13 then that doesn't make it true.

You consider goodness to be perfection, but that raises two very important points. As Gothmog said above, some people do not consider any extreme, good or bad to be perfection, rather they prefer balance, seeing that for good to exist evil must also exist.

I don't think that personal preference (for balance) has anything to do with objective reality. If they have a good reason for believing this than its worth considering.

That brings me onto my second point, if you believe that goodness is perfection then you also require evil to define that goodness, one cannot have perfection without also having an idea of imperfection.

I don't think that you need evil to define goodness. But even if it did the idea of imperfection does not mean that imperfection actually exists anywhere. The idea of evil does not mean that evil exists anywhere.

Each is good but when there is too much of either they become their opposite. And before saying that these are extreme examples, They are so to illustrate the point of something taken to the extreme becoming its opposite.

That does make sense, however, I would say that the sun is not good or bad, but some of the effects of the sun are good.

 

[JPMaximilian]

Why should they be good things? What makes them good?

Iluvatar makes them good. If Iluvatar is good, and that goodness drives him to create more goodness.

Equally good can be described as the absence of evil or peace as the absence of war. Continuing in your logic, Iluvatur need not have created good in order for there to have been good.

The absense of evil could be neither good nor bad. If I sit down, then I haven't commited a good or evil act, its morallly neutral.

Not at all. If you say that Illuvatur need not have created 'evil' for 'evil' to have existed then following that logic Illuvatur would need to have created 'good'. If Illuvatur did create 'good' then it stands to reason that that creation by definition would have created 'evil' along with it as 'good' can only be defined against 'evil'. Continuing in this line of thought we can see that by your logic someone who turns to good would be considered to have no 'free will' because it came from Illuvatur, yet if we see Illuvatur as having created both 'good' and 'evil', or at least both steming from Iluvatur then we can see that free will does indeed exist as Iluvatur is therefore providing a choice.

I don't quite follow all of this. Can you explain why you have to define goodness against evil, besides saying that "If Illuvatur did create 'good' then it stands to reason that that creation by definition would have created 'evil' along with it as 'good' can only be defined against 'evil'. " I see no reason why Goodness cannot exist on its own.

 

[scotsboyuk]

I don't think that good and evil are human concepts. I believe that they are objective. If I believe that 2+2=13 then that doesn't make it true.

How can they be anyhting but human concepts? We have existe don this planet for a fraction of its total age and an even smaller fraction of the age of the universe. Did dinosaurs have a concept of good and evil? Would alines have the same concepts of good and evil as we do? For good and evil to be objective universal laws they need to viewed exactly the same everywhere in the universe at all times. The fcat that this doesn't even happen on Earth invalidates this theory.

I don't think that personal preference (for balance) has anything to do with objective reality. If they have a good reason for believing this than its worth considering.

But then this would invalidate your idea that good and evil are objective, if you are evn prepared to consider a different viewpoint.

I don't think that you need evil to define goodness. But even if it did the idea of imperfection does not mean that imperfection actually exists anywhere. The idea of evil does not mean that evil exists anywhere.

Then define goodness without any reference to evil.

That does make sense, however, I would say that the sun is not good or bad, but some of the effects of the sun are good.

You described the actions of a storm that kills hundreds as being 'evil', what makes the death of hundreds as a result of the sun any different?

 

[Gothmog]

That does make sense, however, I would say that the sun is not good or bad, but some of the effects of the sun are good.

This is the very point I am trying to show. Too much of any thing ceases to be "Good"

 

[JPMaximilian]

How can they be anyhting but human concepts? We have existe don this planet for a fraction of its total age and an even smaller fraction of the age of the universe. For good and evil to be objective universal laws they need to viewed exactly the same everywhere in the universe at all times. The fcat that this doesn't even happen on Earth invalidates this theory.

I think that they are concepts revealed by God. If you don't believe in God, I'll have to try and convince you there is before I can talk about Good and Evil. Even still, if I don't believe in God, a vote or opinion of others around the world wouldn't change the objectivity of Math. Without God I don't think there is Good or Evil.

Did dinosaurs have a concept of good and evil? Would alines have the same concepts of good and evil as we do?

I'm willing to say that Dinosaurs can't reason. I don't know of any Aliens (I assume that's what you meant) so I don't know if they could reason/understand what good and evil are.

But then this would invalidate your idea that good and evil are objective, if you are evn prepared to consider a different viewpoint.

Objectivity is not my opinion, but a truth revealed by God. If I didn't believe it, it would still be true, (math example)

Then define goodness without any reference to evil.

Goodness is doing the will of God.

You described the actions of a storm that kills hundreds as being 'evil', what makes the death of hundreds as a result of the sun any different?

That wouldn't be any different. I don't think that the sun is good or bad. Some (as in not all) effects of the sun are not good, some are.

 

[JPMaximilian]

This is the very point I am trying to show. Too much of any thing ceases to be "Good"

For many things, excess does lead to an evil, eating is good, but eating too much is not, (gluttony). I don't think that this applies to everything or "any thing," however, some things are limitless and are always good. Love is always good.

 

[scotsboyuk]

I think that they are concepts revealed by God. If you don't believe in God, I'll have to try and convince you there is before I can talk about Good and Evil. Even still, if I don't believe in God, a vote or opinion of others around the world wouldn't change the objectivity of Math. Without God I don't think there is Good or Evil.

If twelve is divided exactly in two, which number are you left with?

Objectivity is not my opinion, but a truth revealed by God. If I didn't believe it, it would still be true, (math example)

That is only valid if one belives in God. Something, which is reveale dby God is only true if one belives in God. For centuries those who believe din God refuted that the world was round, yet mathematics shows us that it is. The word of God is interpreted by flawed human beings, to ascertain that that word is perfect is therfore foolish.

Goodness is doing the will of God.

Interesting answer.

Let me respond with a question; how would you describe killing thousands of innocent people? Good or evil?

 

[scotsboyuk]

For many things, excess does lead to an evil, eating is good, but eating too much is not, (gluttony). I don't think that this applies to everything or "any thing," however, some things are limitless and are always good. Love is always good.

What of unrequited love that leads to obsession?

 

[Gothmog]

Mod's Comment.

Please keep the posts related to the Works of Tolkien. Discussions of "Real World Religion" are not allowed on TTF.

Thanks.

 

[JPMaximilian]

I sense traps, but I'm interested in hearing your arguments so here goes:

If twelve is divided exactly in two, which number are you left with?

If you mean 12 divided by 2 then 6.

That is only valid if one belives in God.

I agree that if you don't believe in God you can't define good and evil except by social constructs, which would be useless to me personally.

The word of God is interpreted by flawed human beings, to ascertain that that word is perfect is therfore foolish.

Religious were wrong about the world being flat. They weren't making a decision on faith or morals, so they have no credibility to say that the world is flat. I don't know where in the Bible it says that the world is flat either. As far as flawed human beings, I believe that the magisterium interprets scripture and guided by the holy spirit, will not go astray.

Let me respond with a question; how would you describe killing thousands of innocent people? Good or evil?

Evil.

 

[JPMaximilian]

Please keep the posts related to the Works of Tolkien. Discussions of "Real World Religion" are not allowed on TTF.

Thanks.

I think that is unwise, but I will comply. Apparently I was writing the previous post when your message was posted.

 

[Gothmog]

I think that is unwise, but I will comply. Apparently I was writing the previous post when your message was posted.

You were doing so.

Thank you

 

[scotsboyuk]

I sense traps, but I'm interested in hearing your arguments so here goes:

You must have the intuition of an elf.

If you mean 12 divided by 2 then 6.

XII divided in half leaves VII, silly I know, but it still goes to show that not everything is always as it seems.

I agree that if you don't believe in God you can't define good and evil except by social constructs, which would be useless to me personally.

Belief in God is a social construct. You believe what others in your doscourse believe, unless you are outside that discourse you will see it as being fact.

Religious were wrong about the world being flat. They weren't making a decision on faith or morals, so they have no credibility to say that the world is flat. I don't know where in the Bible it says that the world is flat either. As far as flawed human beings, I believe that the magisterium interprets scripture and guided by the holy spirit, will not go astray.

They were 'doing the will of God' in supporting a flat world theory. They honestly believed that they were, we know that they were wrong, but they didn't, to them the world was flat, there was no proof to the contrary. Yet we now know that just because something appears a certain way does not make it true.

Guide dby the Holy Spirit? If one looks to the Tolkien once could argue that both Gandalf and Saruman are guided by something similar to a Holy Spirit, one works for 'good', the other for 'evil'. This is important because it demonstrates the idea I have bene trying to put across, duality. How can Gandalf be guided by the Valar to do good if someone isn't doing evil for him to respond to? If Sauron and/or Saruman weren't perpetrating evil then Gandalf would have no need to do 'good' in relation to them. Equally, Sauron would have no need to do 'evil' if the Valar didn't promote 'good'. The two are dependent on one another.
[/quote]

Evil.

Yet King Richard I the Lionheart, arguably the greatest of all the Christian crusaders did just that. He belived he was enacting God's will in fighting the Muslims for control of the Holy Land. Who are we, as humans, to decide what is and what isn't God's will? At the time of the crusades those actions were God's will, sanctioned by the highest auhtorities of the Church. Today we look on them as evil, why? If good and evil are objective and timeless, as you say, why have those opinions changed? Why does the Church now want closer ties with Muslims when it once saw them as evil?

If killing is wrong, is Gandalf evil for participating in battles were people are killed? Is he evil for instigating such battles in the first place? He is a servant of the Valar, the force sof good in Tolkien's world, yet he participates in events, which can be described as evil?

Is Frodo evil for giving into the Ring inside Mount Doom or is it a case of frailty? Were Frodo's actions predetermined by the Valar, in which case none of his actions can be described as evil since they were the will of the Valar? If, on the other hand, the Ring wanted to find Frodo, then can his actions be described as evil since it can be argued that he was carrying out the will of the Ring?

 

[Elemmire]

Wow... guys... I really don't know what to say. This morning when I last checked this thread was half as long as it is now. I read through everything, but I'm still slightly lost. So I'll wait a little while before getting really involved.

For the most part, I agree with scotsboyuk, except I think you have to take the theology of ME into consideration, instead of fighting over the philosophy of the "Real World."

XII divided in half leaves VII, silly I know, but it still goes to show that not everything is always as it seems.

Actually, there's a better way to do it.

How about 1+1 doesn't always equal two?

If you put 1 female of an animal species with 1 male, then you don't know what number you're going to end up with.

Likewise, 1 male Siamese fighting fish + 1 male Siamese fighting fish=
well, usually 0.

 

[scotsboyuk]

@Elemmire

When looking at 'evil' in the context of Tolkien is becomes apparent to me that one must recognise a central theme that runs through his work; eternal evil. Throughout Tolkien's works there is an evil force to be be opposed by whomeve ris championing good at the time.

Even when evil is defeated it isn't a true defeat as that evil returns to face the forces good time and time again. Even Melkor, beng banished into the void, is not a true defeat of evil for two reasons; firstly because Sauron takes his place as the evil force in the world and secondly because Melkor will not be truly destroyed until the end of time.

This continuity of evil is actually very important because it allowed Tolkien to define a force for good in the world, which embodied those characteristics he felt were best. By constantly having an evil presence running through his works, which had to be opposed he could also have a force for good, which he could use to demonstarte all that is good and worth fighting for in, not only Middle Earth, but also the real world.

 

[Elemmire]

Very nice, scotsboy. And wow! You're really quick with responding!

Gyaaa! I don't know how much of that can be debated, and your "detractors" are not currently online, I think.

I can't argue with you! I agree with you!

So.....

How do you think Morgoth became evil in the first place? That hasn't been covered yet, has it?

 

[scotsboyuk]

@Elemmire

Now that is an interesting question!

How does any evil begin? Does it not say that Melkor tried to dominate the song and that his chastisement from iluvatur caused the shame from whence his anger originated. On the surface this would seem to be the classic tale of the son rebeling against the father and wanting to emulate, if not surpass the father. Pride and shame are a potent mixture and Melkor, as the mightiest of the Ainur, would have had both in abundance.

Tolkien at his simplictic best?

 

[Elemmire]

Mmm. Simplistic, yes. But it still leaves questions:

But why? And why Melkor? Why not Aule, for example? In many ways, they were similar (it says that somewhere. I'm too lazy to pick up the book and look right now, even though it's sitting right next to me). Why was it that Melkor was doomed, one might say, and Aule spared this?
Was it something in Melkor's nature that made him crave domination over the Music?

If so, was it not Eru who created him with this nature?

And if Eru did create him this way, did he not doom Melkor to be evil?

I don't believe this has been touched on too much yet...

 

[scotsboyuk]

@Elemmire

It is a common theme to have the strongest and mightiest rebel against the established order, it adds to the tragedy of it that the greatest of the Ainar should rebel.

Interestingly both Sauron and Saruman are Maiar of Aule.