Lord Melkor Rightful Master of the Fates of Arda

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

The ainur used their free will to compose their music, so they must have had conscioussness. That they were good before Melkor's discording music is an fundamental idea in the Legendarium. I don't know of any 'evidence' concerning the level of their happiness, but even in this 50/50 situation, I believe it is safe to speculate they were doing quite alright. Ainulindale speaks of them experiencing amazement, harmony, communion, awe, even if only in relation to the music.

No. They were innocent befoe Melkor's discord - which is not the same thing at all. They could not have been 'good' because a) to be good is a moral choice, not a default position & b) they couldn't have known what 'good' actually was, since no alternative position existed. they didn't know they were happy because they had no experience of unhappiness. They didn't know what harmony amazement or communion was either, never having known disharmony, bordom or isolation. In short they didn't actually know much of anything till Melkor intervened & made them aware of other options.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

They were innocent befoe Melkor's discord - which is not the same thing at all.

I am not sure what notion of good and evil you apply here. If being good means using free will in accordance with the stated and perceived intent of Eru, then they were good; and if they had reason, then they were able to differentiate this from its opposite, which would constitute evil.

Originally Posted by davem

they didn't know they were happy because they had no experience of unhappiness. They didn't know what harmony amazement or communion was either, never having known disharmony, bordom or isolation.

These would be true if we assume that they cannot experience different degrees of these feelings, and thus unable to discerne, from relative difference between such degrees, their scale. The phrasing of the Ainulindale indicates otherwise. Although this announces to be an interesting speculation, I am not sure that we can apply human psychology to them. We are bound by our own human limitations; plus, I believe it is safe to assume that they experienced communion with Eru on various levels, and that they learned much through empathy from Him - not just from His music, or, later, from their actions.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not sure what notion of good and evil you apply here. If being good means using free will in accordance with the stated and perceived intent of Eru, then they were good; and if they had reason, then they were able to differentiate this from its opposite, which would constitute evil.
.

Then 'good' is simply what Eru decides it is, not some objective standard. In which case all the Ainur could know is what corresponds to the intent of Eru & what does not. How they can make a moral choice on the basis of such limited knowledge is beyond me. They could not even know that Eru was 'good' until they had Melkor to compare him to.

[Bêthberry]

Memory's a bit foggy this morning--not had the requisite jolt of java yet--but wasn't there that Void wherein lay Ungoliant, even before Melkor?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Then 'good' is simply what Eru decides it is, not some objective standard.

However, to imply the opposite would mean either that Eru Himself does not know this objective standard, which would go contrary to His presumed status as ultimate possible being, or that He knows it, but He is deceitful - which would also go against what we know of Him as the ultimate source of good.

Originally Posted by davem

In which case all the Ainur could know is what corresponds to the intent of Eru & what does not.

Hm, you lost me here, perhaps you could rephrase, so that I can answer this and the rest of the post.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Memory's a bit foggy this morning--not had the requisite jolt of java yet--but wasn't there that Void wherein lay Ungoliant, even before Melkor?

You are referring to the void around Arda, which is different from the original void:

Originally Posted by Of the darkening of Valinor, Silmarillion

The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwe, and that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service.

Originally Posted by Footnote to Notes on motives in the Silmarillion, iii, Myths Transformed, HoME X

...the minds of Men (and even of the Elves) were inclined to confuse the 'Void', as a conception of the state of Not-being, outside Creation or Ea, with the conception of vast spaces within Ea, especially those conceived to lie all about the enisled 'Kingdom of Arda' (which we should probably call the Solar System).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

No. They were innocent befoe Melkor's discord - which is not the same thing at all. They could not have been 'good' because a) to be good is a moral choice, not a default position & b) they couldn't have known what 'good' actually was, since no alternative position existed. they didn't know they were happy because they had no experience of unhappiness. They didn't know what harmony amazement or communion was either, never having known disharmony, bordom or isolation. In short they didn't actually know much of anything till Melkor intervened & made them aware of other options.

Well, this is actually what I think is the root of the problem people have with opinions on good. The dualistic view, like you are presenting in the above, counts with that good cannot be known without its opposite in evil. However, there is the other point of view, where good can stand for itself. And here it is, I think, mainly about what we do imagine under the term "good". The first problem is, that a thing like "THE good" (unless you agree with Plato) does not exist. This is the trouble that has risen from the Greek philosophy, which was (in difference to its priors) able to - due to Greek language - make a noun out of an adjective simply by putting an article before it. Ask a philosopher, he could probably tell you more about it. But for our purposes, let's just say for example that I can have a good meal, see a good film, have a good time. Adjectives, we know what it is if a meal is good for me. But "the" good probably no one of us can imagine.
This I wanted to make clear in order for what I want to say now to be understandable. So: there is nothing such as "the good" or "the evil" (using the articles to make it understandable that I am speaking of nouns, of some principles), and when in the following text I am using the terms "good" or "evil" as stand-alones, it means "sum of all good things" and "sum of all bad things".
So, let's move on with the example used. I can have a good meal, and now the question is, can I say I had a good meal without knowing what a bad meal is? Davem presented here the point that I cannot. Let's now make clear if we are talking about words or real things now. If "good" for me defines merely the opposite of "evil" (rather "bad" in the case of a meal), then davem's right. However, if I take "good" not as a word, but as a state (i.e. "good=something healthy, useful etc. for me"), then I would say it can exist without opposite. I can eat only good food for all my life, realize it tastes well (I don't have to have anything to compare with it - anything "better" or "worse" - it is just good, it is good for my taste buds), is healthy for me, helps my growth, provides vitamines or whatever... and I don't necessarily need to compare it. So, if you want to say that "good" is better than "evil" (or that it is "the best alternative"), you have to have evil (or at least something worse than that good thing) to compare with it. But the sole existence of good things, even their attributes of being good (not in the meaning as "better" but in the meaning as "good"=healthy and so on, as shown in the example above) does not necessarily need the existence of evil or bad things as well.
Now to the possibility of choices. There might be an opinion, and with very good reason, that when I have only the "good" things, I don't have any choice. Well, that's not the whole truth. If I return to my example with food, then I can eat healthy food all my life (it's an example, so we are not assuming any negative parts in any of the food, so let's assume we have some really "ideal food" - old Plato would've been pleased) and still I can choose whether to eat X or Y for breakfast. It's both good, but I have the choice.

So, the Ainur could have been good - for example in the sense that they were good for the world. You could choose whether here would be a nice sea or here would be a beautiful forest, and nothing of that was bad in any sense of the word. This is a model situation, mind you, but I think it shows what I had in mind.