Belling the Ring

[Lyta_Underhill]

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

[Celuien]

A new theory:

• The Ring attempts to ensnare victims. It has no intention of giving it keepers access to its powers, but instead tempts them, only to abandon them when a better prospect comes along.
• The Ring, after it captures a weaker keeper, proceeds to devour its victim. Just look at Gollum.
• The Ring has no thought other than its own survival.
• While the Ring is semi-independent, it is an extension of Sauron (Sauce and davem put it very well). As long as Sauron is the main power around, it will follow him. However, if a new, stronger keeper were to come along and displace Sauron, it would enter the service of its new keeper.

What animal is wily, devious and at the same time meets the odd combination of independence and dependence enough to meet all of these conditions? The wolf. The Ring isn't a pack leader, but rather one of the higher ranking members, still subservient to the alpha wolf, but independent enough to act on its own when necessary.

(Just a cat-person's rambling thoughts...)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

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?

I think that the idea here is that to do 'good' the person needs to be proactive in doing good, not passive in that they have no choice but to do good. If there is no choice in the matter, then that person has never had the opportunity to weigh up right and wrong and come to the correct decision. Even though good is being done, it is effectively being carried out by a machine.

It has much to do with rights and responsibilities; we have things to which we are entitled, but to have those things we must also be responsible for our actions. Comparing this to the real world, a Gandalf in possession of the Ring would be a benevolent dictator; he would not have been chosen by the people, nor would he have necessarily earned the right to be the leader. He might indeed be very 'good' and have everyone's best interests at heart, but the simple fact that he had overwhelming power would be wrong as it would negate any sense of responsibility in the people. The closest example I have any experience of is the 'nanny state', where people are fined or punished for not doing 'the right thing', whether it be recycling their newspaper or only taking children on holiday outside term time. These are things which people ought to do, but removing the choice also takes away their freedom to choose to act in the right way.

We know that Gandalf has been sent to Middle-earth to help in the struggle against Sauron, but he has not been asked to take control of this struggle, he is there to advise, to offer counsel. With the Ring he would possibly succeed in the first sense of his mission in that he could overthrow Sauron, but he would also fail in the second sense of his mission, in that he would have done so by taking power, taking the decisions away from the leaders of the races of Middle-earth.

One of the strongest messages of the story is that there is no one, overarching power that can fight Sauron, it is the ordinary people who must do so, the Theodens and Aragorns and Frodos. Gandalf can only advise, and even though he is most persuasive in his arguments, he cannot force.

In that sense, Gandalf is the cat, using his wits and his powers of persuasion to get his way, to get his message across and achieve his mission.