Sauron vs. Your Mama - A Discussion of Power in Middle-earth

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I said Adam and Eve were created with free will.

My bad, I misread

Originally Posted by alatar

But if you lived in the south, far from Morgoth's reach, did the more powerful evil even enter into your daily life?

Well, it's not like Melkor and the balrogs went from door to door converting good people, up in the north . Balrogs exited Angband only for the greatest battles, while Melkor came out of his will only to battle Fingolfin (he might have waged many battles himself previous to getting imprisoned the first time, but that was prior to the coming of Men). However, it is likely that, during his reign, many, if not most, of all Men were still subdued by him, doing his will - due to fear, some curses of fear (as with Maeglin, for example), sheer corruption, or whatever other means he found available. Later on, with no such power figure around them, Men were increasingly capable to part from evil. I'll try later to elaborate more on this.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, it's not like Melkor and the balrogs went from door to door converting good people, up in the north . Balrogs exited Angband only for the greatest battles, while Melkor came out of his will only to battle Fingolfin (he might have waged many battles himself previous to getting imprisoned the first time, but that was prior to the coming of Men).

What were Melkor and the Balrogs doing all day shut up in Angband? If they strove to promote their agenda, what were they doing...licking stamps?

Dear Sir or Madam,

Are you:

• Tired of being pushed around by those pesky arrogant elves?

• Hating having to move every time some Valar or Maiar gets an itch?

• Feeling left out - forgotten - in the grand scheme?

• Bored with the everyday grind and looking for something?

If you've answered yes to any of these questions, then we can help. We're Mel-Corp®, a leading business enterprise specializing in changing the world. You may have heard of us; we're located up far north past Ard-galen. We're sending you this invitation for a special seminar that we're having that will be of help to you.

Leave your checkbook at home! You might want, however, to wear any jewelry you have and bring along any interesting artefacts... This free seminar will show you how Mel-Corp is striving to set the world back on track for you.

Looking forward to meeting you!

Regards,
Morgoth Bauglir

CEO, Mel-Corp
Angband
North ME

just follow the dragon tracks

Another thought: In Middle Earth, Melkor, Sauron and Saruman exit the stage after their time, and so even if they retain a little of their 'evil' (as considered by Bêthberry's Conservation of Evil), there is less in this age. In Tolkien's Christianity (methinks), the same Lucifer that tempted Adam and Eve still roams the Earth like a lion (1 Peter 5:8), albeit on a leash. Why did Tolkien have his origin of evil leave, and how does this work with those seeing a 'message' in his work?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

Why did Tolkien have his origin of evil leave, and how does this work with those seeing a 'message' in his work?

Well, as we know from the Ainulindale, the true source of Melkor's actions still resides with Eru; moreover the last paragraph of the Silmarillion states that the evil seeds planted by Melkor still give fruit. In a sense, this is what made it possible for him to be defeated - he dissipated his power, he diminished himself so that he may perpetuate his works through an long lasting corruption of Arda. In a sense, the Marrer did not leave Arda; Melkor might be gone (he might even repent ), but his essence of evil is ever at work.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, as we know from the Ainulindale, the true source of Melkor's actions still resides with Eru; moreover the last paragraph of the Silmarillion states that the evil seeds planted by Melkor still give fruit. In a sense, this is what made it possible for him to be defeated - he dissipated his power, he diminished himself so that he may perpetuate his works through an long lasting corruption of Arda. In a sense, the Marrer did not leave Arda; Melkor might be gone (he might even repent ), but his essence of evil is ever at work.

I think you're seeing the glass as half empty. As I pointed out in post 35 above, Melkor's slow self-defeat may be a foreshadowing of the gradual mending of Arda itself. The Melkor element is not necessarily evil. True, the way in which Melkor behaved as Morgoth, when he had become physical himself, was evil according to those laws of morality that govern physical beings. But wasn't Melkor's mar actually effected when his voice disrupted and overpowered those of the others during the Music? That spiritual event is what Iluvatar brought into physical existence and it continues to unfold: there are eruptions of discord and epochs of dissonance, but Iluvatar himself is its ultimate source, and if we could view it all at once, as only Iluvatar can, we might see the "grand design." The healing of Arda may not be just in spite of Melkor's efforts, but may actually be made possible only by the power of his essence and how much of it he invested in Arda, which is surely more than any other Power.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Melkor element is not necessarily evil.

I wouldn't take an utilitarian approach - that his element is not evil because it worked out for good. Also, Tolkien states in his letters that the free will of the valar was guaranteed by Eru - and Eru setting up all available options and Melkor choosing one them are different aspects. I would paraphrase Tolkien on Gollum:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him...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.

[obloquy]

I wouldn't take an utilitarian approach - that his element is not evil because it worked out for good.

Well that's not what I'm saying, either. Melkor's power was not evil power. I express my thoughts on this more completely in another thread:

Classifying Melkor as "evil" is questionable. He sought to further his own purposes, and since those were in disharmony with the other themes in the Music they were resisted and this caused strife. What's interesting is that, while the Valar did not know what physical manifestation their music would have, Iluvatar did and still he did not condemn Melkor. Instead he declared that ultimately his will would be accomplished, with Melkor as his instrument.

At this point it had all been laid out for Iluvatar to see. This suggests to me that Melkor had not done anything "evil"--at least in the absolute sense--in the eyes of his father. The corruption of Arda becomes minor on this universal scale, and the "big picture" had not been altered from Iluvatar's original purpose. Melkor, at the time when he had already wrought all his corruption, was above (or outside the jurisdiction of) the concepts of "morality" or "good and bad" that we and the Children of Iluvatar are familiar with and use as guides to make our decisions. Melkor merely resisted the vision of his Creator, which he was created with the will to do and this action was apparently still within his rights. Iluvatar did chastise him, but then made it clear that the beauty of his vision had not been compromised:

Obviously. That's the point. All of Melkor's discord did not corrupt Iluvatar's plan, so how can we call it evil without maligning Iluvatar himself? He didn't fix the Music or remove Melkor's contribution.

....
[Iluvatar] didn't oppose it, he contained it. He humbled Melkor and silenced him when he saw fit, but he did not oppose the theme Melkor had sung. Had he opposed it, he would not have claimed to be its "uttermost source."

....
I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

Good post, and it echoes my feelings on the definitions of good and evil. God isn't just "good" because he never makes an error that leads to bad, he is the ultimate good because that's what he chooses to define himself as. He is the arbiter on a tier above the two sides. Since Melkor and the rest of the Valar were installed as creators and gods of Arda, they had a similar right to do what pleased them without moral constraint. As far as I can remember Iluvatar does not provide a moral structure to guide their actions, apart from his direct communication with Manwe. Morality is designed to guide physical beings. Similar to the Biblical account of the origin of the demons, once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation.

[alatar]

I'm somehow drawn to the thought that, in Arda, Tolkien skirts the problem of evil that is an issue in his Christian religion (as I understand it). In short, in Christianity it is posited that evil exists in the world as (1) the result of man's fall and (2) a consequence of free will - you can't choose God if there is no other choice. God allows evil - or the turning away from him - in order to have free will. Skeptics consider that, at the end of all things, there will exist a heaven in which followers will have both free will and live in Paradise. If this is possible at the end, why could not God have created Eden with choice yet Perfection, where all was truly and forever good?

Anyway, in Arda we have evil, yet the world is far from perfect before humans show up. Melkor goes his own way, he thinks, and yet simply does the work of Eru. Presumably all creatures are granted free will, or at least the illusion thereof, regardless of whether they exist within or outside of Arda, yet I don't think that it was necessary for a Melkor to appear for free will to be granted. Evil is, but technically wasn't a necessity.

Make sense? I'm trying to wrap my thoughts around it as well.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

This suggests to me that Melkor had not done anything "evil"--at least in the absolute sense--in the eyes of his father.
...
I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

That Iluvatar didn't remove the corruption of Melkor is due to the laws inherent in this universe:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.

There does seem to be a system of judgment, which can be applied even to every finite creature:

Originally Posted by Melkor Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

This is pretty much the same rule as applied to Gollum above, only in reverse, demonstrating the same principle: it is intention that defines the morality of an action. Gollum's actions may lead to good macrocosmically, but he did them out of wickedness, so he still is evil. On the other hand, even if one errs, but with good intent, it is not a sin.

Cf. Osanwe-kenta, we also have the existence of the axani, 'law, rule, commandment; as primarily proceeding from Eru'. According to this text, Melkor repudiated all such rules coming down from Eru. In the Later Quenta Silmarillion, there is a definition of the root of evil:

Originally Posted by Of the severance of marriage, HoME X

... trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

Melkor is defined countless times as the Enemy; is he simply the enemy of the elves, or of the Men? I doubt that. From the beginning he fought against Manwe and Co, but even he is merely a vice-regent of Eru; this opposition to Manwe is in fact an opposition to Eru.

Originally Posted by obloquy

[Iluvatar] didn't oppose it, he contained it. He humbled Melkor and silenced him when he saw fit, but he did not oppose the theme Melkor had sung. Had he opposed it, he would not have claimed to be its "uttermost source."

I don't think that there is much difference between containing and opposing Melkor's discord. Manwe is specifically said to be "the chief instrument of the second theme that Iluvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor", so the opposition between Melkor and Eru was definitely not one-sided. There is further evidence of Eru's disapproval of Melkor deeds when Tolkien reffers to the corruption of the elves into orcs:

Originally Posted by Of the Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor

This it may be was the vilest deed of Melkor, and the most hateful to Iluvatar.

Could anything, in fact, not have its uttermost source in Eru - esspecially when we are talking something as fundamental as a moral category, evil? I doubt that. As I mentioned previously, Eru setting up all available options and Melkor choosing one them are different aspects.

Originally Posted by obloquy

As far as I can remember Iluvatar does not provide a moral structure to guide their actions, apart from his direct communication with Manwe. Morality is designed to guide physical beings. Similar to the Biblical account of the origin of the demons, once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation.

Besides the axani I already mentioned, I believe that this distinction does not take into account the fact that the valar can act without being embodied

Originally Posted by Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor

For the Valar may work many things with thought rather than with hands, and without voices in silence they may hold council one with another.

We also know that Aule also overstepped his boundaries, he broke a rule, when he tried to make the dwarves:

Originally Posted by Letter #212

Aule, for instance, one of the Great, in a sense 'fell'; for he so desired to see the Children, that he became impatient and tried to anticipate the will of the Creator... When he had made thirteen, God spoke to him in anger, but not without pity : for Aule had done this thing not out of evil desire to have slaves and subjects of his own, but out of impatient love, desiring children to talk to and teach, sharing with them the praise of Iluvatar and his great love of the materials of which the world is made.

The One rebuked Aule, saying that he had tried to usurp the Creator's power; but he could not give independent life to his makings...

- Behold, said the One: these creatures of thine have only thy will, and thy movement. Though you have devised a language for them, they can only report to thee thine own thought. This is a mockery of me.

Originally Posted by alatar

Presumably all creatures are granted free will, or at least the illusion thereof, regardless of whether they exist within or outside of Arda, yet I don't think that it was necessary for a Melkor to appear for free will to be granted. Evil is, but technically wasn't a necessity.

I think we should make a difference between evil as a moral category, and Melkor as the most powerful agent of evil; indeed, the two of them exist independently. And since evil is a prerequisite of free will, and if all the valar had free will from the beginning, then evil precedes even Melkor (who, on the other hand, in the beginning at least, was pictured to be good; he fell "afterwards").

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I think we should make a difference between evil as a moral category, and Melkor as the most powerful agent of evil; indeed, the two of them exist independently. And since evil is a prerequisite of free will, and if all the valar had free will from the beginning, then evil precedes even Melkor (who, on the other hand, in the beginning at least, was pictured to be good; he fell "afterwards").

Think that this is what I was getting at. If, in heaven, there will be free-willed spirits/souls, and, by definition, being in the presence of God cannot contain evil, why could not the Creator create a world with free will and not evil (or, again as some posit, so much)? Why the "prerequisite?"

Regardless, as I don't want to start another brouhaha, but how does evil differ in the world that Tolkien created? To me it seems that the free will - evil connection is not to the same degree, if it exists at all in Arda.