[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

To say that Tolkien's characters are often morally ambiguous is a very different thing from saying that Tolkien's world is morally ambiguous. Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct. There is never any question of what ends should, morally speaking, be sought, though there is often some question concerning, first, how best to go about achieving those ends, and, second, whether a particular character will in the event seek that end or not.

This is a very good point, and it elaborates on what I was trying to say in my previous post. While there are morally ambiguous characters in Tolkien’s world, the world itself is not morally ambiguous. It is generally fairly straightforward to tell when a character is acting in the cause of good and when he or she is acting in the cause of evil. Boromir, for example, acts in the cause of good by joining the Fellowship and contributing towards its goal, yet acts in the cause of evil (assisted by the seductive wiles of the Ring) when he assaults Frodo. Subsequently, he redeems himself by acting again in the cause of good, when he gives his life attempting to protect Merry and Pippin and makes his deathbed confession to Aragorn.

Gollum is an interesting case in point, since his motives are mixed at one and the same time. He acts both in the cause of good (by guiding Frodo and Sam towards Mordor) and in the cause of evil (by luring them to Shelob’s lair). His intentions are both good (he willingly serves Frodo) and evil (he wants the Ring for himself). He is punished for his evil acts and intentions, but does he ultimately deserve redemption for his good acts and intentions? It was, of course, his final act which brought about the destruction of the Ring, albeit unwittingly so.

In my earlier post, however, I was particularly interested in the actions of those characters who are not generally considered to be morally ambiguous. Bilbo and Eowyn both commit “wrongful acts” (theft and disobedience to authority), yet they do so with good intentions and, ultimately, for the greater good. Where do these acts fit within the moral framework of Tolkien’s world?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I think that the quote I gave previously on post #6 applies in these cases; a deed is not a sin, depending on the intention of the doer.

Originally Posted by Raynor quoting Footnote to Melkor / Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

I am not sure that Bilbo was consciously serving Eru when he stole the Arkenstone, nor that Eowyn was doing so when she disobeyed Theoden. Might it not better be said that acts are not sinful when committed with good intentions? Given that Eru is the source of good, it has much the same meaning, but admits scope for good acts by those who are broadly unaware of the existence of Eru.

However, there is a problem. If wrongful acts may be committed, provided that they are committed with the intention of furthering the cause of good, does this not open up the scope for a philosophy whereby the end may be seen as justifying the means? And is that not how Saruman started off down his wrongful path? He genuinely considered what he was doing was for the greater good and that that end was justified by the means that he used. It might even be said that he did his best as he saw it with the conscious intent of fulfilling his mission to defeat Sauron and thereby serving Eru. Yet, he was misguided.