Good and evil

[Boromir88]

Can evil exist without good? Generally, all evil is, is a rebellion against good. Morgoth and Sauron are set up as the 2 primary evils. Why were they the main evils? Because they were the 'satanic rebels' against Eru as Tolkien says:

But in this ’mythology’ all the ’angellic’ powers concerned themselves with world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the Absolute Satanic Rebellion of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the faineance of some of the other higher powers or ’gods.’~Letter 156

Just a quick question to mull over, with some thoughts to consider before I get into my reply here.

Beanamir, your post definitely was not a lonely one, but I am going to point out the one thing I disagree with:

Tolkien certainly personifies the Ultimate Evil, i.e. evil deeds performed with no end other than the dominion of evil itself, in Morgoth and Sauron. Yet nowhere does he singly personify the Ultimate Good

I agree that there is no 'ultimate good' in the stories, but disagree with the statement there is ultimate evil.

’In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any ’rational being’ is wholly evil.'~Letter 183

Tolkien talks about that even Sauron had 'relics of positive purposes' (his love for order and co-ordination)...and he would go on to say in Letter 183 that Sauron 'represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.'

One thing I love about Tolkien's stories is the way he portrays what good and evil is. In Letter 131, he defines evil as 'rebelling against the thoughts of the Creator' and the 'bull-dozing of others free wills.' So, those are 2 clear definition of evil in the story...however, what is not so clear to readers is what makes a person evil and what doesn't? This is the tricky question to answer and Tolkien also hated the criticism that his books were 'all these pure good guys' against 'all these pure bad guys':

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right…In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.~Letter dated 25 September 1954

Which sadly seem to reflect Tolkien's thoughts on WW2 in Letter 66:

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...

That is the thing that interests me about Tolkien's books. He defines what is good and what is evil, but as far as what makes somebody good or evil is less clear and up to the reader. As, it's not so simple as 'you do good things you're good and you do evil things your evil.' Intent/motive plays a major role:

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.~Letter 181

Simply because good came out of Gollum's actions does not make him a 'good' person. In fact, Tolkien calls him wicked, and showing persisten wickedness. I think motive plays a major part in determining who is truly good and who isn't. Isn't it just so convenient that in a Letter when Tolkien was talking about magic in his stories he comes out and says what is the 'supremely bad motive'?

The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other ’free’ wills.~Letter 155

And I think this is what sets up the Morgoth's and the Sauron's as the prime evils in the story...their intent to dominate, enslave, or simply flat out destroy.

Let me conclude with making a comparison between Radagast and Saruman. Tolkien remarked that both wizards had failed their mission. The Istari's mission was to unite the Free People's of Middle-earth to guide resistance against Sauron. Both Saruman and Radagast fail at this mission, but they fail in different ways, and it's motive that makes Saruman the 'evil' wizard and Radagast a good, yet simply idle one:

Radagast was fond of beasts and birds and found them easier to deal with; he did not become proud and domineering , but neglectful and easygoing, and he had very little to do with Elves or Men although obviously resistance to Sauron had to be sought chiefly in their cooperation. But since he remained of good will (though he had not much courage) , his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments.~From: Tolkien Papers, Bodleian Library found in Hammond and Skulls LOTR Companion

Where Saruman on the other hand no longer resisted and flat out accepted Sauron's goal:

Saruman fell under the domination of Sauron and desired his victory; or no longer opposed it. Denethor remained steadfast in his rejection of Sauron, but was made to believe that his victory was inevitable, and so fell into despair.~Unfinished Tales; The Palantiri

This also just so happens to bring up a little nifty comparison between Denethor and Saruman as well.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I find this lack of religion very strange, especially considering Tolkien's Christian point of view and the very Christian themes in his work.

I'm not entirely sure what "Christian themes" you mean by this (though baseline societal mores could certainly suffice), but honestly? I have this feeling that Tolkien was attempting separate specifically Christianity from his works with Middle-Earth. Raynor gave lots of citations about Iluvatar as an active God, and frankly, if I were in Tolkien's place, creating an entirely new gods, goddesses, and hierarchy of power, I would try to leave existing religious frameworks out entirely. Given, as Boromir88 proved with a whacking direct quote, I don't quite think the same way as Tolkien but all the same...

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

The world of Harry Potter features the devil but no god - and the thought of a world with Satan but without God is frightening.

This is such a horrible digression, but after all, I started it: the powerful problem I have with the Harry Potter series (in terms of good and evil) lies in the fact that not a single person fighting against Voldemort is without an ulterior motive. Voldemort fights solely for possession of the magical world and the death of Muggles: yet even Dumbledore, our Good character, had ulterior motives.

In relation to Harry Potter/Dumbledore, I take back my comments from my last post, in light of Boromir88's introduction of the Istari and my brain waking up:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The Istari's mission was to unite the Free People's of Middle-earth to guide resistance against Sauron. Both Saruman and Radagast fail at this mission, but they fail in different ways, and it's motive that makes Saruman the 'evil' wizard and Radagast a good, yet simply idle one.

Gandalf, the third Istari, comes pretty darn close to a definition of "the Good who fights for only the dominion of Good." Gandalf seems to have no ulterior motives whatsoever, in terms of his own life or power. He does not wish to supplant Denethor for the power of the Istari; only to bring Aragorn to his rightful place. Gandalf gives his life to save the Fellowship in their quest against Sauron; he doesn't even hesitate when Frodo chooses the Mines of Moria over the Gap of Rohan, though he must know it will take his life.

One thing that convinces me of this is that Gandalf is definitely not my favorite character. I much prefer the Men of Gondor, with all their failings. The fact that Gandalf, to me, is an emotionally neutral character, does even more to convince me that he is about the closest we get (strictly in The Lord of the Rings, anyway) to a purely Good character.

[Boromir88]

Beanamir, good points about Gandalf, and I think he is as close to 'ultimate good' as is possible. As he points out time and time again, he's not doing this for himself, but for Eru and the Valar:

'I am a servant of the Secret Fire...'~The Bridge of Khazad-dum

And his words to Denethor about being 'a steward.'

"Yet the Lord of Gondor is not to be made the tool of other men's purposes, however worthy. And to him there is no purpose higher in the world as it now stands than the good of Gondor; and the rule of Gondor, is mine and no other man's, unless the king should come again."
[...]
"But I will say this the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor, nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything else passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I am a steward. Did you not know?"~Minas Tirith

Denethor's idea of his 'Stewardship' of Gondor, is a position of Rule. Gondor is his Rule, his command, and no one else's. Then he throws out this little 'well it's mine unless the King comes back.'

But, Gandalf has a very different view of what 'a steward' is to do. A steward is not a position of ruling, but one of caring, and that also makes Gandalf a steward. Gandalf makes clear, as a steward, he rules nothing, but he cares for 'all worthy things that are in peril.'

Gandalf implies time and again, he is not out for himselr (or any ulterior motives as you say) he is a servant, he is a caretaker for the 'higher powers.' It's really interesting how Saruman starts calling Gandalf power hungry:

Saruman’s face grew livid, twisted with rage, and a red light was kindled in his eyes. He laughed wildly. ’Later!’ he cried, and his voice rose to a scream. ’Later! Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dûr itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now.~The Voice of Saruman

In Saruman's anger and contempt he makes lofty claims that Gandalf is becoming too power hungry. Gandalf wants power over Sauron (The Keys of Barad-dur) he wants power over the Istari (The Rods of the Five Wizards), and he wants the power of Kings...the power over the people of Middle-earth.

I say this is interesting, because Saruman is making the lofty claims that Gandalf has become power hungry, yet it is Saruman himself who became obsessed with power, and who wanted to 'Rule' over the weak Middle-earthians. We can see exactly how foolish and silly Saruman's claims are because Tolkien ends Saruman's big rant with a silly remark that we all are familiar with:

'have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now'

Hmm...strikingly similar to someone saying 'you have become too big for your own boots.'

Saruman makes these lofty claims that Gandalf wants power over everything, but ends with a weak, silly comment, showing that Saruman's rant is simply that...a rant 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'

And after all this I got to thinking, why isn't Gandalf the 'ultimate good.' I mean there doesn't seem to be a blemish on his record, as everything he does is arguably in the name of the 'Valar' and 'Eru.' He is their servant, their steward. I guess it would have to do with something about how when Olorin was chosen as one of Istari to go to Middle-earth, at first he begged not to go, because he feared Sauron's power. That's the only thing I can think of.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

The only reason Gandalf didn't come to my mind at first, I think, is because of that Steward-like quality or position. Morgoth was second to none in his quest for Evil; in the Third Age, Sauron was the same. Both wanted to rule all. Gandalf, however, was more than happy to serve the King, as long as that King is on the side of Good. So we don't immediately think of Gandalf in terms of Eru, God, the Omnipotent.

Probably that's why Gandalf might be the greatest example of Good in Tolkien's works: because the Good does not wish for power, only the ability to use it properly, if it is offered. (I hate to draw too many Christian parallelisms, buuuuuut now that Sir Kohran brings it up...)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

If I can meddle in, with the Gandalf-thing, that's exactly the "ultimate good" in its, well, real basis, or how should I call it. You can define Ultimate Good (like a, let's say, concept) as something that does not harm anyone. That can be Radagast, who in fact, did not harm anyone: he stood out of the other's way, did not desire for anything, did not hunger for power... even (as far as we know, but let's presume that it is like that, at least in my mind that's my image of him) whatever he did just for himself, did not harm the others. You see: you can have a person who does not hunger for power or anything else, but indirectly harms someone: let's say a rich man sitting in his palace, who does not wilfully harm anyone, but does not care that people out there starve. I think Radagast was not that far to just "not care" of anyone, but still he could have been a lot more active - he surely spent quite a lot of his time just by being idle. Had he not been given his mission, it won't be considered as "failure". The trouble is that he could also do something somewhere else. So just "meaning no harm" is not close enough to the "Ultimate Good", no way.
The closest to Ultimate Good is, therefore, shown for me in Gandalf. He gave his hand wherever he could, but he was not aggressive. He had these moments of "righteous anger", but I don't recall a moment when this anger would be wilful and evil-doing. It was always perfectly in place, helping in the circumstances. And, again, it was not meant to harm anyone. Gandalf heeded his own words about taking life (FotR II). Gandalf did not have a permanent home, so that he was not bound by anything - unlike Saruman (or even Radagast). Wherever was need, he could go. That's one part of the "ultimate devotion", not as easy as it seems when you just skim-read it. I also don't recall that he would ever do anything just for himself. Except for smoking a pipe, and that, as well as rare and short "regenerating" visits of the Shire, I think was the most comfort he ever gave to himself, and as he himself said, he only did it to relax and refresh because, as any living being, he needed it. In other words, he did this to prevent himself becoming a workoholic. (And not to speak of that even his visits of the Shire turned to be important for his mission - what do I say - even the most important of all! Isn't that wonderful? And now who says there was no power behind the events in LotR, look at this!)

And, to somewhat "step out" and answer (or react) to the very first post. I think, as it was said here, that Middle-Earth is influenced by "outer good power". Eru is not mentioned as giving the Elves or the Númenoreans any divine direction or law, however, it just may be that something like this is just manifested differently here - like many other things. Speaking of the divine guidance in general: The fact that it is not seen does not mean it is not there. And I'm convinced that sometimes you can indeed see it working behind. As for the counter-Morgoth figure that you say we are lacking, do we need it? Maybe it will make sense in some sort of dualistic universe which (and also for this reason) Middle-Earth surely is not. Even in Christianity, as you brought it up, the power of God does not show in having one Ultimately Good figure representing it and fighting all the battle for Good. Before you interpretate it wrong, see what I mean: Even Jesus, from the "wordly" point of view, does very little in his life on Earth. He does not go and persuade the Roman Emperor to lower taxes, free slaves or whatever, or claim his throne (and based on what we know, something like that is what many of the Israelites expected the Messiah to do!). Although, from some point of view, yes, God directs everything - but as in Tolkien's works, most of it cannot be seen (cf. f.ex. Luke 17,20n). And even what is seen, is often hidden from the eyes of those who do not believe (Matthew 13,11 and parallel). The Kingdom of Jesus Christ "is not of this world" (John 18,36), it is more like the "kingdom" of - yes - Gandalf. Jesus rejects Satan's offer of rulership of the world (Matthew 4 and parallel), which is from my point of view the exact image of what Saruman did not do - speaking metaphorically, he accepted this offer! But the humble characters are the ones who make the real difference. Big kingdoms rise and fall - Maedhros' Union, Gondolin, Doriath, even Númenor - but the true - yes, if I can use that name, "Kingdom of Eru" remains and builts its way through Bilbos and Frodos and Gandalfs and little changes that cannot be seen, but are.

[Boromir88]

Legate, I'm glad you brought up Radagast. It reminds me of what well-respected politician once said (and I'll keep it an unnamed politician to avoid any sort of political discussion ). Anyway he said:

'When good people sit back and watch evil happen; that is the greatest evil of all.'

It reminds me of Radagast, because as Tolkien remarks Radagast had always stayed 'good-willed'...and it is because of Radagast's good will that he is able to help at Gandalf:

But since he remained of good will (though he had not much courage) , his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments.~Hammond and Scull's LOTR Companion (taken from Tolkien's Papers; Bodleian Library - Radagast the Fool)

Radagast always remained good and I think it's echoed in Gandalf's words that it would have been useless for Saruman to try and 'win over the honest Radagast to treachery' (The Council of Elrond).

The failure of Radagast must therefor be that he isn't 'evil,' he still fails, but it's a different failure from Saruman's. Radagast fails precisely because of his 'idleness.' He becomes fond of the birds, beasts, and plants of Middle-earth and starts neglecting the very reason he was sent to Middle-earth:

"Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful, and he was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures."~UT; The Istari

Radagast gave up and pretty much said 'forget you Elves and Men.' When as I think Gandalf points out not only for himself, but the task for all the Istari (note Gandalf says he is 'a steward' not 'the steward.') was to care for everything that 'lies in peril.' And to especially guide the resistance of Elves and Men against Sauron. Radagast does not do this and that is where he fails. That is also where I agree he is not a good figure of 'ultimate good,' eventhough Radagast always remained good.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

You precisely elaborated on what I had in mind about old Radagast.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The failure of Radagast must therefor be that he isn't 'evil,' he still fails, but it's a different failure from Saruman's. Radagast fails precisely because of his 'idleness.' He becomes fond of the birds, beasts, and plants of Middle-earth and starts neglecting the very reason he was sent to Middle-earth

I would only note one thing. Someone may take it like that Radagast was actually doing something good: that he was caring of the animals instead, someone could say "Hey, and so what? Everyone cared of the people, but Radagast cared of the nature, he was a 'Good Greenpeace Guy'." But the point lies in that a) he was not actually much active (from what we know), he was just fond of beasts and plants, and mainly, it was more like being idle - a hobby, nothing more. He would of course care of those he liked, if for example Orcs attacked them, he will probably protect them - but nothing widespread, he did not wander the Middle-Earth and make animal reservations or something like that. It was not even his job to do so. Even if he did that, it will be - well, yes - procrastinating And that's b) he was just idle, collecting bugs or with similar hobbies, but doing nothing really constructive. Though, it is said (UT) Yavanna probably talked Saruman to take him so that even the animals and plants are cared about, but it was not the main reason... it would sort of crystalize itself if all the Istari did all what they were sent for; they would make a harmonic whole.
Imagine it: the White Council, and (good) Saruman comes with an idea of defeating Sauron with the use of force by making all these forges at Isengard and everything... and Radagast is there, as is his job, and warns him that he can't just do it, that he will disturb the Ents. Bingo! And the Wise sit and think of something else...