Quote:
|
It would seem that Good= freedom to choose (even to choose bad things) & evil is having no freedom, even if that lack of freedom means that you will do 'good' because that's all you are allowed to do. Yet if you do good won't you be assured of a reward? Wouldn't Gandalf actually be throwing open the gates of Paradise to his subjects by making it impossible for them to do anything that would get them sent to hell? So why would he be 'worse than Sauron' if he did that?
|
This line of thought reminds me of the argument my husband and I have over Gandalf's "abandonment" of the hobbits before they return to the Shire and begin the Scouring. Gandalf as Ring Lord could easily have wiped out the threat to the Shire without the hobbits having had to do anything. But then, the hobbits might sink into apathy and weakness, allowing Gandalf to "do good" for them, rather than them acting for their own and others' good by taking the initiative in the Shire.
Would this inaction, the 'Gates of Paradise' thinking of never having to fight for good again acually erode the people under its sway and turn them into idle subjects in an ordered Good Universe? And what happens to the idle? The peace of the Fourth Age under Elessar theoretically degrades into "Orc Cults" after his passing (according to the few pages of the draft Tolkien wrote of "The New Shadow" I think it was called, no references handy though). The idleness of peace has spread its own 'evil.' And that was not even an overly managed peace.
I'm not sure exactly what I am trying to say, but it does seem necessary as
davem points out, for an individual to have free will and to make a choice to 'do good,' or else it is not 'good' at all, but merely an adherence to a code for whatever reason. Perhaps it ties in with the idea of sentience being a necessary component for evil or good...perhaps.
Cheers!
Lyta