The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 04-22-2002, 09:00 PM

As has been pointed out the idea of a "balance between good and evil", or "needing evil in order to appreciate the good", or "evil being created by Illuvatur / God", or any such variant, is explicitily antithetical to the traditional Christian morality of Tolkien. The notion of balance, oppositional harmony, oneness and so on are more likely to be found in non-Christian philosophies and faiths (Maril can probably illustrate this better than I). Both LotR and The Silmarillion are narratives containing the ultimate triumph of good over evil.

In fact, it is difficult to precisely reconcile the notion of 'evil' with any recent (or Western) philosophy or ethics (including Kant's categorical imperatives). To BE evil is not necessarily the same as doing an evil thing - for which one may repent, be forgiven and/or achieve redemption. "Evil" implies an essential state of being, or nature, within an unquestionable moral framework. And moral absolutism is philosophically unsound (as is all absolutism).

I think the point made earlier, that evil in Tolkien represented a kind of servitude - to the malicious will of a destructive force (Sauron, Melkor, Saruman etc.), or perhaps to selfishness etc. - is a good point. Tolkien wrote that his tales were partly concerned with a (the) Fall. This is certainly in line with the Biblical concept (but NOT ALLEGORY!!!!! [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] ).

The philosophical question is this - and I guess it can be applied both to Christian notions and to Tolkien ... if an omnipotent God (or Illuvatar) is the creator of everything, and all that exists is of His essence, and all is or that shall be is known by Him, then the Fall of Lucifer (or Melkor) must be deliberate (ie. "created"). Yet God (or Illuvatar) is angry with, and battles with, the fallen one ... and is generally seen as 'not responsible' for the evil, the loss of innocence (or Paradise) that results. It is man (or, specifically, woman) that is held accountable for Original Sin. In The Simarillion, Melkor is the most gifted of the Valar (created by Illuvatar), and when he creates discordant harmonies he is drowned out (sort of) three times by an increasingly wrathful creator, in which time the first Fall, the sowing of an evil seed, is accomplished. How can this NOT be the will of Illuvatar? Yet Melkor is not seen as a servant or agent of the Creator, and the Fall (and all its variants and implications) is a tragic concept. As above, the idea of yin and yang, or good and evil in harmonious opposition, is NOT what Tolkien (or traditional Christianity) seems to be about ... or is it?

Now, these are difficult issues to reason philosophically. But taking all this on board, the answer is yes. I mean, yes, hobbits can be evil in Tolkien's world. But they are generally not. Evil, that is [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Peace

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

04-22-2002, 09:00 PM	#40
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	As has been pointed out the idea of a "balance between good and evil", or "needing evil in order to appreciate the good", or "evil being created by Illuvatur / God", or any such variant, is explicitily antithetical to the traditional Christian morality of Tolkien. The notion of balance, oppositional harmony, oneness and so on are more likely to be found in non-Christian philosophies and faiths (Maril can probably illustrate this better than I). Both LotR and The Silmarillion are narratives containing the ultimate triumph of good over evil. In fact, it is difficult to precisely reconcile the notion of 'evil' with any recent (or Western) philosophy or ethics (including Kant's categorical imperatives). To BE evil is not necessarily the same as doing an evil thing - for which one may repent, be forgiven and/or achieve redemption. "Evil" implies an essential state of being, or nature, within an unquestionable moral framework. And moral absolutism is philosophically unsound (as is all absolutism). I think the point made earlier, that evil in Tolkien represented a kind of servitude - to the malicious will of a destructive force (Sauron, Melkor, Saruman etc.), or perhaps to selfishness etc. - is a good point. Tolkien wrote that his tales were partly concerned with a (the) Fall. This is certainly in line with the Biblical concept (but NOT ALLEGORY!!!!! [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] ). The philosophical question is this - and I guess it can be applied both to Christian notions and to Tolkien ... if an omnipotent God (or Illuvatar) is the creator of everything, and all that exists is of His essence, and all is or that shall be is known by Him, then the Fall of Lucifer (or Melkor) must be deliberate (ie. "created"). Yet God (or Illuvatar) is angry with, and battles with, the fallen one ... and is generally seen as 'not responsible' for the evil, the loss of innocence (or Paradise) that results. It is man (or, specifically, woman) that is held accountable for Original Sin. In The Simarillion, Melkor is the most gifted of the Valar (created by Illuvatar), and when he creates discordant harmonies he is drowned out (sort of) three times by an increasingly wrathful creator, in which time the first Fall, the sowing of an evil seed, is accomplished. How can this NOT be the will of Illuvatar? Yet Melkor is not seen as a servant or agent of the Creator, and the Fall (and all its variants and implications) is a tragic concept. As above, the idea of yin and yang, or good and evil in harmonious opposition, is NOT what Tolkien (or traditional Christianity) seems to be about ... or is it? Now, these are difficult issues to reason philosophically. But taking all this on board, the answer is yes. I mean, yes, hobbits can be evil in Tolkien's world. But they are generally not. Evil, that is [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Peace [ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]