|
There's an argument which I read several time so far, that death was maybe a good thing for the children of Númenor. I don't agree with this. Throughout Tolkien's work killing another person (undeservedly) is an evil act. Even though death is the Gift of Eru to Men, I think this moral standard should also hold for him, regardless of the quality of the afterlife and regardless of whether life for the children would inevitably become very bad.
If indeed Eru is beyond good and evil, then obviously it doesn't hold for him. But I doubt this. Like Břicho said, if Eru has no preference for good or evil and just is, then why does he care at all. He created both good and evil beings, but he clearly seems to prefer the good side. So no matter if he was entirely good or also somewhat evil, the standards of good and evil should apply to himself as well.
The contradiction remains. Innocent children (though parents are responsible for their children, children are not responsible for their parents - and I don't buy the argument that they were too strongly influenced by their evil parents in the short span of their upbringing (we're talking about young children)) died in the Drowning, no matter whether it was a punishment or 'collateral damage'. This happened at the hands of Eru, who in turn, by the standards Tolkien's work gives, cannot be entirely good.
But maybe, at the time, the Drowning was simply the best choice that was left to Eru? This is possible. In fact, it would perhaps solve our dilemma. However, I think it leads to another question: Is Eru omnipotent or not? If he is, then he must have had the possibility to punish the evil and/or remove Valinor while sparing the innocent Númenoreans (I confess I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with this black-and-white painting of the society of Westernesse). Is there any textual support for either one of the positions?
|