The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Throughout Tolkien's work killing another person (undeservedly) is an evil act.

Are you sure that that's not just humans' opinions? From the Athrabeth, it is made plain that Men, even the Edain, had fallen into a belief that Death was an "abominable" punishment brought on for evil deeds Men committed in their early history. There was almost no way they could find the strength of mind to look at it neutrally. It always carried an aura of punishment or "Doom" for them. So naturally this worked into their justice systems, which are human constructions.

Remember, Eru does not give anyone a moral or justice system to follow, nor does he announce any rules he has for his own conduct. All such systems are devices of his creatures, for dealing with life in Arda and in their societies. This hardly means they are "worthless"; they are extremely important in their context. But demanding that Eru be subject to one of these devised justice systems is taking it completely out of context.

The only promise, warning, or Doom Eru ever pronounces is that anyone who tries to rebel against him will not succeed, and that ultimately, rebellion itself is an illusion, since Eru's Will (Indómë, as I prefer to call it) is still being done through them. The evil of this "rebellion" is not that it works against Eru, but that it constitutes lying to oneself about successfully working against his Will.

(As an aside, these idea strongly hint to me that this mythology is not about a dualistic war of Good against Evil, with Good being the winner... someday. It's about learning. It's about moving from a state of ignorance to a state of enlightenment. It's about tearing down those comfortable illusions and self-deceptions and accepting the hard facts of Indómë. In the "Tale of Adanel", Eru tells Men that "eah of you in a little while shall come to me, to learn who is your Lord: the one ye worship, or I who made him" (my emphasis). People tend to forget that when the Children are deceived by Melkor, and when Melkor deceives himself, it is because they want that. Lies are so much easier to deal with than truth.)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

Remember, Eru does not give anyone a moral or justice system to follow, nor does he announce any rules he has for his own conduct. All such systems are devices of his creatures, for dealing with life in Arda and in their societies. This hardly means they are "worthless"; they are extremely important in their context. But demanding that Eru be subject to one of these devised justice systems is taking it completely out of context.

To understand this you (not you, but the reader in general of course) need to clearly separate out your own personal idea of God from what you read about Eru as the two are not compatible unless you happen to personally share Tolkien's view of Eru in your own conception of God. Of course God gave rules to people (if we take the notion that the Bible is the Word of God), but Eru does not. This is why it's important to take your own belief and put it into a little mental box while you consider how Eru works. I know I've had to, in order to understand Tolkien's literary creation. And while I personally find what Eru did to be bad within the bounds of my own morality, in the context of the world Tolkien writes about, it works.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To understand this you (not you, but the reader in general of course) need to clearly separate out your own personal idea of God from what you read about Eru as the two are not compatible unless you happen to personally share Tolkien's view of Eru in your own conception of God. Of course God gave rules to people (if we take the notion that the Bible is the Word of God), but Eru does not. This is why it's important to take your own belief and put it into a little mental box while you consider how Eru works. I know I've had to, in order to understand Tolkien's literary creation. And while I personally find what Eru did to be bad within the bounds of my own morality, in the context of the world Tolkien writes about, it works.

Exactly. This is to me why Eru is one of the most interesting conceptions in Tolkien's entire mythos. He seems like a humdrum monotheistic God on first inspection, but gradually you realize he is completely different.

I am not so sure that what Eru did with Númenor is bad, when one looks at the alternatives. Would leaving "innocent women and children" alone with Sauron have been any better of a solution!?

Originally Posted by Macalaure

TIf 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 cares because he made everything.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

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.

I'm not so sure that's a conclusion we can make at all. He gave Melkor the most attention after Melkor's discord. Eru sternly but kindly warned Melkor before he did anything else discordant that he would be unsuccessful in any attempt to rebel against him, but did not punish him, reprimand him, or take away his freedom. He let him act just as he let the other Valar do. Eru did not command Melkor not to lord himself over the Children or mar Arda, no more than he warned Manwë.

The reason why it's tempting to say Eru "prefers" one side is because of the behavior of the creatures themselves. Naturally, if you are concerned about keeping close to what you believe Eru's design to be, you will converse with him more and try to determine that will for you. If you don't care what Eru might want, you're not going to do that. Melkor didn't for precisely that reason. He tried to forget Eru's existence because of the misfortune it had for his plans (namely, that he could not be the supreme power in Eä).

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

Are you sure that that's not just humans' opinions? From the Athrabeth, it is made plain that Men, even the Edain, had fallen into a belief that Death was an "abominable" punishment brought on for evil deeds Men committed in their early history. There was almost no way they could find the strength of mind to look at it neutrally. It always carried an aura of punishment or "Doom" for them. So naturally this worked into their justice systems, which are human constructions.

Ah, I see I didn't make clear what I meant. Death itself is not evil, of course not. It's simply the fate of Men. Killing, however, is evil, unless the killed one is evil, because it violently severs hroa and fea, and this is not meant to be. There isn't even a difference between Elf, Man, Dwarf or whatever in this sense, I think.

Let's put it differently. Evil is defined as rebellion against Eru's will. Eru's will was so far that Men, or Incarnate Beings in general, shall not kill each other (again, only if innocent). Now Eru does kill innocent people. Does this now mean that Eru's will is inconsistent? Can Eru rebel against himself?
Just trying to understand this.

I am not so sure that what Eru did with Númenor is bad, when one looks at the alternatives. Would leaving "innocent women and children" alone with Sauron have been any better of a solution!?

I think Eru's goal in destroying Númenor was to eliminate the evil/rebellion that spread from it. If we agree that he wasn't omnipotent (bear with me, but why isn't almighty=omnipotent?), then it's quite possible that he wasn't able to sort out the innocent and the guilty ones in the process. Leaving anybody to Sauron isn't even a real alternative, I'd say.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Evil is defined as rebellion against Eru's will.

I define "evil" as the self-deception, and the effects that rise from it, of believing that such rebellion is even possible.

As for killing, it's wrong because it breaks the moral rule of: "what people can't re-create they shouldn't destroy without consent, because someone else might want it there" (the someone being that person's loved ones, etc.). The consent would be, of course, capital punishment, etc. But Eru is in the position of being able to create Incarnates, and so does not fall under this (again humanly-constructed) rule.

Also, killing falls under the Golden Rule of course. But since our "selves" are fundamentally different from Eru's "self", quite probably this social rule doesn't apply either. Also, if Eru didn't want "violent separation of hröa and fëa to take place, obviously he would never have bothered to place Incarnates into Arda Marred! Obviously, then, this is a poor assumption. I would rather think that such separation is indeed part of Indómë. Either that or abandon estel altogether and not bother believing in Eru.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I think Eru's goal in destroying Númenor was to eliminate the evil/rebellion that spread from it. If we agree that he wasn't omnipotent (bear with me, but why isn't almighty=omnipotent?), then it's quite possible that he wasn't able to sort out the innocent and the guilty ones in the process. Leaving anybody to Sauron isn't even a real alternative, I'd say.

My theory of the Downfall, which I have written and alluded to a few times above, is still that Númenor's destruction was a secondary aspect of the Breaking of the World, and hardly the main reason for that Breaking. When we consider Eru in that context, we can either assume that Eru chose (if he is not a moral figure) to ignore that the island was there when he broke the world, since its inhabitants had chosen to ignore him. If he is a moral figure, the island was allowed to be caught in the destruction both because of the people's deeds, but also to deliver them (and their children!) from Sauron.

(Keep in mind that this is a very complex and many-sided issue, and I haven't thought about every aspect of it. There may well be holes in my argument/presentation.)

As to almightiness vs. omnipotence:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, from the "omnipotence paradox" article

Y is almighty means that Y is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with Y in power, even unsuccessfully. In this account nothing like the omnipotence paradox arises, but perhaps that is because God is not taken to be in any sense omnipotent.

And that sounds exactly like Eru as he is presented in Tolkien's works: not stated to be omnipotent, but any attempt to rebel against him will in the end be unsuccessful.

Lastly, aside from the initial "miracle" of making a big crack in Arda, everything happened in accord with natural processes (the Faithful's escape may or may not have been the aid of the Valar). Númenor fell down into the Sea because that was according to the laws of physics. Sauron survived the Downfall because his ability to do so was part of his natural spiritual potency. Since Eru mostly decided (or was constrained) to let the laws of physics take place, it's no mystery why the innocent died as well in the huge catastrophe.

But I still think people's problem with this is to make Eru equal to God in their minds. Eru nowhere calls himself "good", "moral", or "right" that I know of, so he is not constrained to play nice. Eru is Sternness. That's the only attribute I've ever been able to ascribe to him consistently, anyway.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

(the Faithful's escape may or may not have been the aid of the Valar).

I don't feel like adding any long posts now, so I'll just add a little bit of my knowledge to this, because I remember it being written there:

Originally Posted by Akallabeth

But whether or no it were that Amandil came indeed to Valinor and Manwë hearkened to his prayer, by grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day.

[Bêthberry]

Other than Gandalf's words to Frodo about pity and staying his hand against Gollem, which, in terms of the chronology of the Legendarium, come much later than the Akallabeth, where in Middle-earth is there a specific commandment against killing?

[littlemanpoet]

There is much to respond to and I haven't the time right now. However, this much I have time to respond to now:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Problems only arise when we try to get our heads around the nature of what we read in Tolkien's stories.

On the contrary. Problems only arise when we fail to account for all the facts in the text. For example, an emphasis on "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" while ignoring "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought".

'Holy' means 'pure'. Perfect. Flawless. In the beginning even Melkor was holy. Thus, evil, in the Ainulindalë, is equal to 'flawed'.

Also, "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so." Elrond is one of Tolkien's primary truth tellers. He cannot be wrong without doing violence to the story of LotR.

Therefore, evil cannot have its origins in Eru. And "Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger" - - if Melkor is filled with shame, how can it be that Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion? If Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion, then Melkor would have no reason for shame.

So account for ALL the text.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

For example, an emphasis on "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" while ignoring "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought".

'Holy' means 'pure'. Perfect. Flawless. In the beginning even Melkor was holy. Thus, evil, in the Ainulindalë, is equal to 'flawed'.

Actually, "holy" has a bunch of different meanings. Most of them refer to being in the service of God. As the Ainur (which actually is not even a native Elvish word; it is adapted from Valarin) were his direct servants in bringing about the creation of Eä, wouldn't this be a better interpretation of the intended meaning of "holy" in this context? Especially since Tolkien directly contradicts the notion that the Valar were "perfect": "Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations" (Essay VI, "Myths Transformed"). This was in direct reference to the actions of the Valar upon Arda. Thus, I reject the notion that any of the Ainur were at any time "flawless". The explanation that they were holy because they were created to serve Eru directly seems to make much more sense.

And to me, that very imperfection of the Valar was something Eru used; it was part of how they served him, by being imperfect.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Also, "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so." Elrond is one of Tolkien's primary truth tellers. He cannot be wrong without doing violence to the story of LotR.

And what exactly is "evil" in this context? Doesn't it refer to incarnate-constructed notions of good and evil? Generally people aren't raising Orc-armies from day one of their being on earth, no. In that sense I would agree with Elrond. But if you use evil to mean "flawed", then "all finite creatures" are very much evil, by Tolkien's own statements. Being flawed is an intrinsic aspect of their finititude.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Therefore, evil cannot have its origins in Eru.

I won't bother quoting Eru's declaration about where all themes have their source, since you've already done that... and contradicted it with this statement.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So account for ALL the text.

Indeed!

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

And "Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger" - - if Melkor is filled with shame, how can it be that Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion? If Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion, then Melkor would have no reason for shame.

I might as well respond to this, too. Melkor's shame didn't arise as a result of anyone's responsibility. It came about because Eru matter-of-factly told him that his course of action would fail. Whether or not it was your fault that your desire to do something would fail, wouldn't you feel ashamed and angry about being informed of that in front of your peers?