Redefining Good & Evil

[davem]

As many of you probably know David Eddings, fantasy writer of epics such as the Belgariad & the Mallorean, died yesterday. I read the Belgariad many years back & enjoyed it but haven't been back to any of his other work. However, googling Eddings today I found this essay which struck me as worth a read - if not a discussion. Its about Eddings' take on good & evil

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...g4.html?cat=38

a few bits

In short, what Eddings describes is a conception of good and evil where there is no "balance", but the lack thereof. Instead of the world being in perfect continuous harmony, where evil is a necessity, in order to validate the existence of good, he paints a portrait where good and evil are really nothing more than alternate natures that cannot both be true. They are each the "soul" of the universe, and this reality isn't big enough for the both of them.

The main advantage of the forces of good is that they are able to work together. Where evil uses minions and henchmen, good draws on the full advantage of its resources in presenting a united, cooperative community. The main characters all care for each other, and protect each other, even as fate drives them towards a very uncertain end.

The "bad guys", which is an ironic notion for anyone who has actually read The Malloreon, tend to be a 'me first' kind of crowd. Selfish, arrogant, and prideful

Evil is a philosophy of selfishness, an embracing of the core "virtues" of death - that an unchanging state is to be sought and held at all costs. To maintain the status quo, to hold to 'perfection', is the utmost charge.

But, there is a logical flaw at the heart of evil's purview: though it is natural for we humans to seek stability in our chaotic world, it is an irrational desire. The world changes, and events continue on their course, whatever we might wish. The only certain escape is death, which makes the cure a good sight worse than the problem.

Good, on the other hand, embodies all the attributes of life: changing, growing, adapting, and spreading the ever-shifting chaos on to others. The philosophy of good means caring for others, and doing right by them - which means sacrificing of one's self. Be it a gift of time, money, or just love, a person must transfer something from himself to another in any act of compassion. This is anathema to evil's ways, as any person so doing not only violates the status quo, but actually makes himself lesser, a step back from perfection.

What those souls of evil nature don't understand, though, is that because good stands together, as a community, that giving of one's self to help another strengthens the whole. When a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, transferring strength from the strongest to the weakest is just basic sense; if the metaphorical chain breaks, all that extra strength won't do the powerful link any good.

[Alfirin]

I find Eddings description a little simplistic; there are an awful lot of things it leaves out. One that sticks out to me is that it fails to take into account a very simple truth, namely that good itself, if taken to its extreme becomes as destuctive as evil; a purely good individual is as incapable of functionally exisiting in the world as a purely evil one would be. Remember technically, "selfless" doesnt mean kind or noble or generous it literally means "having no self". A truly selfless individual basically couln't survive, he would be incapable of doing anything for his own benefit. He could never eat anything, becuse he would always have to give priority to anyone else, incuding theoretical people who are not thier (i.e. "I am hungry and need this food, but someone hungrier than I may at some point come by, and need this food more than me"). A truly purely altruistic individual (which is what Eddings seems to be sugessting to be a perfectly "good" indvidual) would have to give other desires, no matter how small and petty greater priority than his own, no matter how great, in fact he couldn't give his own needs any priorty at all. To Use an exmaple I once used in ethics class, if a perfectly altruistic person was walking down the street with a loaded gun, and met a person who wanted for whatever reason to kill him but who was unarmed, he would be obigated to give the person the gun so that he could use it to kill him, since fulfilling the other persons desire (to kill him) would be more important to him than his own desire (to stay alive). A truly "good" society under Eddings defintion would basically be like a beehive or ant colony, (if the hive/colony and the queen are considered interchagalbe one being the same as the other.) at least thats how I see it.

[Hakon]

Sadly I cannot post in every thread I want to today since I am busy. But I would like to note that good and evil are perspectives. It is an important thing that should be brought up in this discussion.

[davem]

What struck me was the similarity of Eddings concept of 'evil'

Evil is a philosophy of selfishness, an embracing of the core "virtues" of death - that an unchanging state is to be sought and held at all costs. To maintain the status quo, to hold to 'perfection', is the utmost charge.

as an 'unchanging state' - which seems to be the Elvish ideal in Tolkien's creation. Whereas change, flux, mutability is what they seek to escape, what they actually create the Rings to bring about

The world changes, and events continue on their course, whatever we might wish. The only certain escape is death, which makes the cure a good sight worse than the problem.

Yet, its more complex - Frodo, the great Elf-friend, conforms perfectly to Eddings 'good' person:

The philosophy of good means caring for others, and doing right by them - which means sacrificing of one's self. Be it a gift of time, money, or just love, a person must transfer something from himself to another in any act of compassion. This is anathema to evil's ways, as any person so doing not only violates the status quo, but actually makes himself lesser, a step back from perfection.

Frodo, surely, gives absolutely of himself in the ultimate act of compassion - until the end, when he gives in & becomes 'evil' - seeking, through the Ring, stasis, control, death - which is ultimately what the Ring is.

Yet, Tolkien is clear that evil cannot create, cannot come together, & in the end that is why Sauron & Saruman fall:

What those souls of evil nature don't understand, though, is that because good stands together, as a community, that giving of one's self to help another strengthens the whole. When a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, transferring strength from the strongest to the weakest is just basic sense; if the metaphorical chain breaks, all that extra strength won't do the powerful link any good.

In the end I don't know how different the two authors are philosophically - if at all. "Life is more than perfect because it is imperfect" is an interesting idea - Eru's original theme was 'perfect' but in its 'perfection' it is 'less' than it could be, & it is flawed beings who actually lift it beyond that divine 'perfection' into something 'more'. Elves seek to manifest that 'perfection' but that is their tragedy, because the end of that road is 'the long slow sleep of death embalmed'. Life, change, flux, imperfection, the lessening & weakening of the individual, rather than his/her attaining a spurious 'wholeness/perfection, is the superior state.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

In the end I don't know how different the two authors are philosophically - if at all."

Hugely.

I don't think Eddings is different, really, if one looks simply at his descriptions of how good guys behave versus the baddies. Certainly, regarding teamwork, consensus, and general compassion as opposed to selfishness, the paradigms of virtue in LotR would seem to fit, as would Sauron as the arch-paradigm of evil. It DOES occur to me, however, that in a sense this could be argued as not true for Tolkien at all--the "good guys" really don't get along at all: Boromir regarding the Ring, Denethor towards Gandalf and even Rohan, Elves and Men in general, Elves and Dwarves in general, all these seem to indicate a fractiousness on the part of the good guys, whereas--though we know, I suppose, that they work out of fear and dread of their dark lord, we don't get much intra-Evil quarrelling, except where the Orks are concerned, and that's quite far down the food chain, and somewhat muted.

However, the argument that Eddings is off there is a weak one, and I'm not making it--though I put it out there insofar as it certainly can be made. However, to return to philosophy.

Eddings' philosophy is laid out, really, right at the beginning of the quoted piece:

In short, what Eddings describes is a conception of good and evil where there is no "balance", but the lack thereof. Instead of the world being in perfect continuous harmony, where evil is a necessity, in order to validate the existence of good, he paints a portrait where good and evil are really nothing more than alternate natures that cannot both be true. They are each the "soul" of the universe, and this reality isn't big enough for the both of them.

Perhaps I'm a bit too convinced that the mentality underlying Tolkien's worldview (in ME as well as "real life") is Catholic, but... really... can you get any farther from Tolkien?

Eddings rejects the idea that good and evil can balance, but this doesn't mean that he doesn't take a fundamentally dualistic approach to Good and Evil as opposing forces. In Christianity, this is known as Manichean heresy, and it is certainly not what either Tolkien or Catholicism would present. Perhaps the only thing really distinctive about Eddings as opposed to Manicheans in general is that his stories tell of the triumph of one side (good) over the other, but perhaps I shouldn't give away the ending...

I apologise if this becomes yet another religion debate, but if one holds religion, it is at the heart of one's philosophy, and Tolkien's philosophy is precisely what we're talking about here, and very much influenced by his faith.

The idea that evil is an alternative plan for the world that cannot coëxist with good, suggesting that evil has a plausible chance of winning--indeed, even an equal chance of winning--is not at all borne out by the Ainulindalë. Quite the contrary! If I may quote Eru's words to Melkor:

Originally Posted by Ainulindalë

Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shall see that no them may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

This passage, one of my absolute favourites and one of the beautiful gems of the Ainulindalë, doesn't leave any room for an Eddingsesque view of Good and Evil. Perhaps, it is true, Good and Evil aren't compatible, and if Evil had it's way, Good would be destroyed. But Evil hasn't the slightest chance of ever actually winning. From all of his works on the subject, it should be splendidly clear that Morgoth is going to lose the Dagor Dagorath, and there isn't a thing he can do about it. What's more, Evil only gets its chance to fight Good because Eru lets it--because Eru let Arda be created according to flawed music of the Ainur. The implication in the passage is that NOTHING could come to pass, had Eru not permitted it.

With Eddings, evil always has a fighting chance. Indeed, what makes him philosophically different comes right down to the fact that Evil could, in fact, win the day. Good NEVER has the certain edge of victory that it has in Middle-earth, backed by Eru and the promise of Arda Remade or in Christianity. Evil, in both Middle-earth and Christianity, is the rebellion of created beings against an unimaginably greater Creator, whereas in Eddings' worlds it is just as potent an original force, only likely to fail, well, because Good has hit on the "better" tactics, or got luckier.

[Nogrod]

You Form surely know that christianity became a world-power with a few Roman caesars who just forced it to the people (closing all scientific academies and philosophical schools as heretical and thus turning the time backwards for a thousand years) and with it's two millenias of tradition all these different views have been considered. And that was not to the credit of the "going-to-be" mainstream christianity, as fex. the question of theodikea remains, thanks to the decision of one synod in the first centuries of our common era, into which fex. manicheanism has much more believable answers...

Looking back at Babylonian or Scandinavian myths one sees a host of open possibilities. Or looking at the Asian religions / philosophies, one gets a totally different answer where there is no winning or losing at all.

So we're dealing with western philosophy here; the philosophy of the winners of history who can write their own truths as universal ones? Even if there's tension between the orthodox-catholicism and say Lutheran doctrine on the matters... (not to talk of the African churches or the fundamentalist "new-borns" in America).

But how should we settle this kind of argument? People X say "There is evil in itself!" and others say "No, it's just the lack of good", and the third party says "It's just the balance between the forces" while the side Y says "It's just perspectives"...


But what strikes me in this comparison is the role of democracy as a backbone of European (North-American) thinking. And that bygone argument of Adam Smith about the invisible hand which will just settle all things for the common good. (He might have been right in a small industry perspective, in a small marketing area with knowledgeable consumers and no "branding", but... )

Now why should there be a logic of the universe which guides the goodies? Why the evil would be disarrayed and the good ones united? Wasn't it Martin Luther King's famous speech which approached us normal people saying that the evil is not what some evil people do but the fault of us good ones not doing anything about it? So making just the contrary point: we good are disarrayed and that's the problem.

And this sure raises the question of understanding the bad vs. punishing them...

And should we actually do something about bad things ourselves to make the world better? And how to do it?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

You Form surely know that christianity became a world-power with a few Roman caesars who just forced it to the people (closing all scientific academies and philosophical schools as heretical and thus turning the time backwards for a thousand years) and with it's two millenias of tradition all these different views have been considered. And that was not to the credit of the "going-to-be" mainstream christianity, as fex. the question of theodikea remains, thanks to the decision of one synod in the first centuries of our common era, into which fex. manicheanism has much more believable answers...

While I might question the veracity of the slant you're putting on the historical facts... I'm really not sure at all what your point would be. Whether or not Catholicism as such got where it was today--or, pertinently, in Tolkien's lifetime--by the hand of Divine Providence, as I would say, or by the cut-throat tactics of decadent emperors and backwards barbarians (ignoring, completely, the historical fact of civilisation being SAVED in the West--never mind the East for now--by said cut-throat religion) is hardly to the point. My point had nothing to do with why the Manichees are not more popular today, and everything to with the fact that Tolkien's philosophy, as it comes through in the Silmarillion and the LotR is NOT Manichean, but much more reminiscent of orthodox Catholicism. And no wonder, given which of the two Tolkien belonged to. Regardless of WHY he was Catholic, you're surely not going to tell me that he was not, in fact, actually Catholic?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Looking back at Babylonian or Scandinavian myths one sees a host of open possibilities. Or looking at the Asian religions / philosophies, one gets a totally different answer where there is no winning or losing at all.

So we're dealing with western philosophy here; the philosophy of the winners of history who can write their own truths as universal ones? Even if there's tension between the orthodox-catholicism and say Lutheran doctrine on the matters... (not to talk of the African churches or the fundamentalist "new-borns" in America).

But how should we settle this kind of argument? People X say "There is evil in itself!" and others say "No, it's just the lack of good", and the third party says "It's just the balance between the forces" while the side Y says "It's just perspectives"...


But what strikes me in this comparison is the role of democracy as a backbone of European (North-American) thinking. And that bygone argument of Adam Smith about the invisible hand which will just settle all things for the common good. (He might have been right in a small industry perspective, in a small marketing area with knowledgeable consumers and no "branding", but... )

Now why the evil would be disarrayed and the good ones united? Wasn't it Martin Luther King's famous speech which approached us normal people saying that the evil is not what some evil people do but the fault of us good ones not doing anything about it? So making just the contrary point: we good are disarrayed and that's the problem.

And this sure raises the question of understanding the bad vs. punishing them...

And should we actually do something about bad things ourselves to make the world better? And how to do it?

Perhaps I'm a touch vindictive here--and insofar as I'm capable of pulling myself back from that, I apologise--REALLY!--but what, exactly, does this have to do with either Tolkien or Eddings? To an extent, you seem to be agreeing with Hakon, who said that "good and evil are perspective"--a statement that, unqualified, I do not incline to agree with--you could perhaps be arguing that Tolkien, in fact, DOES have an Eddingseseque side, if you leave Eru out of the picture as pious legend of the Valinorean Elves (thus meaning that the REAL battle in Middle-earth is only between Melkor's and Manwë's parties, who really are comparable in power)--but you don't actually seem to be coming back to either Tolkien or Eddings at all.

Really... unless you're offering another analysis of Good/Evil that is not offered by either Eddings or, I guess, my admittedly Catholic-centric self, then I'm not entirely sure what you're doing.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Perhaps I'm a touch vindictive here--and insofar as I'm capable of pulling myself back from that, I apologise--REALLY!--but what, exactly, does this have to do with either Tolkien or Eddings? To an extent, you seem to be agreeing with Hakon, who said that "good and evil are perspective"--a statement that, unqualified, I do not incline to agree with--you could perhaps be arguing that Tolkien, in fact, DOES have an Eddingseseque side, if you leave Eru out of the picture as pious legend of the Valinorean Elves (thus meaning that the REAL battle in Middle-earth is only between Melkor's and Manwë's parties, who really are comparable in power)--but you don't actually seem to be coming back to either Tolkien or Eddings at all.

You're right in here. I have nothing to say of Eddings even if any dimming of a spark of life is a great loss in this universe crowded by nothingness.

May he be remembered well, even if I won't be one of those remembering him with real tears as I haven't read his books, looking at them by the covers as just that basic bulk-fantasy. So never a fan of his even if regretting his death - as anyones.

But I do not agree with Hakon that good and evil are "just" perspectives. Not at all. I think good is good and bad is bad nonetheless of your religion or your world-view.

Thinking one should be good because of one's own self interest (a place in heaven) - or being good to obey a higher call anyway because some authority wants it - is bad. One should be good for it's own sake. To be a human is to be good (and bye-bye the primordial sin). That's what I try to say on the subject of good and evil between Tolkien and Eddings... or on it anyway.

The world I believe is immoral or a-moral. The religions bring the good in with the God but I think we must be braver than that. There's no God to judge you. You should be good without a God; make it a hypothesis for a while and think how it would affect your thought! Then you're good if you choose right without orders or rewards. It's not easy to grow up from childhood's "please and be rewarded" attitude but we have hope. That's what we need to count on,

Originally Posted by FOrm

While I might question the veracity of the slant you're putting on the historical facts... I'm really not sure at all what your point would be. Whether or not Catholicism as such got where it was today--or, pertinently, in Tolkien's lifetime--by the hand of , as I would say, or by the cut-throat tactics of decadent emperors and backwards barbarians (ignoring, completely, the historical fact of civilisation being SAVED in the West--never mind the East for now--by said cut-throat religion) is hardly to the point. My point had nothing to do with why the Manichees are not more popular today, and everything to with the fact that Tolkien's philosophy, as it comes through in the Silmarillion and the LotR is NOT Manichean, but much more reminiscent of orthodox Catholicism. And no wonder, given which of the two Tolkien belonged to.

I never said Tolkien was not a catholic. Vice versa (and sorry if that interptetation was plausible). Surely Tolkien is a catholic par exellance here - that was my point indeed.

And it's a telling choice of words when you speak of "Divine Providence", which is how the catholics and the orthodox speak while treating history. Comfortable.

I'm not going into the Albigenses here... or other "non-desirables" who thought the theodikea needed a solving...

But to my eyes the main-story seemed to be a question of an independent evil vs, the good. A question so problematic for christianity because of the clausules of the early church fathers and the political climate they made their decisions in (which are ignored). And not being so holy anyway...

The LotR is not Manichean. Here we should agree and I think I never claimed it was. Not at all.

I agree with you that Tolkien has the catholic view about it with providence... (Gandalf's resurrection, the fate that guides the Ring to Frodo etc..) although I think there are bitter schisms between the protestants and the catholics (not to talk of the Orthodox) on the subject of mercy vs. deeds vs. intentions.

But that's another topic alltogether I think - and nothing that could be argued...

[Boromir88]

The implication in the passage is that NOTHING could come to pass, had Eru not permitted it.~Formendacil

But would Eddings' definition fit within LOTR? Afterall, how much of a presense does Eru have in LOTR? There are vague hints of other powers working behind the scenes, but the decision to carry the Ring and the strength to carry it to Mount Doom was Frodo's, not Eru's.

And whether Eru intervened in Mount Doom is questionable, even if you agree with Tolkien saying in various letters about Eru's intervention, Letters muddy thing up. You can't tell from the LOTR text whether Eru caused Gollum's fall, or whether Sauron was defeated by 'good,' due to...well a lucky slip.

The way good and evil is presented in LOTR, I think one can find Eddings' definition. The defeat of evil rested on the destruction of the Ring, it was presented as an impossible, and perhas idiotic gamble by the good guys. So, Sauron certainly had a great chance, maybe even better chance, of 'winning.' And Sauron was defeated, because of his pride, his belief that no one had the strength of will to destroy the Ring - and he never bothered worrying about the Ring's destuction.

Boromir regarding the Ring, Denethor towards Gandalf and even Rohan

Yes, but are all the guys who fight against Sauron necessarily good? Saruman opposed Sauron, he was by Tolkien's definition - evil. Tolkien also laid down the law regarding Boromir and Denethor's downfall. As Tolkien would write to Christopher about WWII:

For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed.But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn men and elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are so clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side...~Letter 66

The same can be applied to LOTR, just because we can identify Gondor as the "good side," does not mean they do not have their own bad apples. Denethor's and Boromir's downfalls were due to the same thing as Sauron's...pride.

however, that in a sense this could be argued as not true for Tolkien at all--the "good guys" really don't get along at all:

But there is still a sense of aid and community amongst the good guys that we do not see in Evil. Rohan still rides to Gondor's defense. Erebor and Dale join forces in fighting off Sauron. But it is perhaps the individual examples which lead a stronger credence to Eddings' definition. Perhaps Tolkien was trying to set an example through individual examples and not by general relations amongst races (such as Elves and Dwarves).

Elrond and Galadriel both lend aid to Aragorn throughout LOTR, as well as the rest of the Fellowship. Sam's enduring friendship and sacrifice gets Frodo into Mount Doom. Gandalf's sacrifice in Moria insures the quest still has a chance. Faramir, not being tempted by the Ring, and letting Frodo go. Gimli and Legolas' growing friendship throughout the story. There is a lot of "community" throughout LOTR, maybe not on the "global" level, but on a character-to-character level there is.

Edit: crossed with Nog and Form