Of course one may live in a world where everything is 'good for' one. But is a thing that is 'good for you' the same a a thing that is 'Good' in a moral sense? Vegetables are 'good for you' but they are not 'Good' in a moral sense - ie it is not immoral not to 'eat your greens'. In the same way smoking may be 'bad for you' but smoking (while it may be anti-social & harmful to others around you) is not an 'immoral' act like rape or murder or theft.
Quote:
|
There is the option to do evil, though he does not approve this. So there is no way of saying "but he made the evil..." Nope. So to make matters clear, for those who could think different, because this I think wasn't mentioned. So applying this on Melkor, he was on the "wrong side" - yes, evil.
|
But Melkor must exist & when he ceases to exist he is replaced by Sauron - because evil must have a name & a 'location'. From this perspective it would matter little whether Melkor/Sauron created the evil that found its way into Men's hearts or whether the evil in Men's hearts created Melkor/Sauron. Evil has to exist as a possiblity so that Men may choose the Good (rather than simply choosing what's 'good for them'.
You see, choosing what's 'good for you' may be the most selfish of acts & in fact be little better than narcisism, if it becomes an obsession. And one would have to ask 'good' in what way? Good for the body, or good for the spirit? One could ask whether Frodo did what was 'good for' him & find oneself arguing with oneself for a very long time. However, if one asks did Frodo do a 'Good' thing one would have to simply say yes. So doing a Good thing may be very bad for you. Hence, I suppose it must follow that some things which are 'good for you may actually be Bad, even Evil, because they demonstrate a self love & a lack of concern for, & interest in, those around you - or even a desire to force others to do as you wish, to control them 'for their own good'.