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

[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").