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

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

There's no actual objective standard of Good which can be defined & which beings, from Eru down, can be judged by?

In short, no, because it is humanly impossible to define such a standard or to apply it. Even if one would have such a desire, to judge God, which I personally don't, regardless the context, how could such a thing be possible? How could the finite devise any sort of system by which to measure morality at transcendental level? I don't see how. In our case too, only Eru could judge Eru; anything else done at human level would satisfy a barren curiosity, which, due to its unwarranted reductionism and severe lack of information, wouldn't meet our own standards of relevancy. If one wants to fallaciously "approximate" Eru as just another character and judge him as such then .... whatever. We are warned against judging even Manwe, (a finite being and thus inherently faulted) since we don't have his wisdom, his knowledge of the Music, and his recourse to Eru. I share Tolkien's opinion that we can't even judge a finite being (such as Gollum), at the absolute level, since this would be to investigate "Goddes privite". Going even beyond these seems ...

Maybe it can't be understood in the way he wanted it to be understood, but its simply nonsense to say LotR can't be understood (ie is nonsensical or meaningless) by a reader unfamiliar with The Sil.

Again, it all comes down to the personal standard of relevancy, doesn't it? But there are many references, spiritual or historical, in the text or the appendices, that require the larger story to be properly understood, even if the epic line in itself is accessible.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

In short, no, because it is humanly impossible to define such a standard or to apply it. Even if one would have such a desire, to judge God, which I personally don't, regardless the context, how could such a thing be possible? How could the finite devise any sort of system by which to measure morality at transcendental level? I don't see how.

So, if Eru tortured innocent people, even children, for no reason that would still be a 'Good' act, simply because Eru did it? Or would you argue that Eru, because he is 'Good' would not torture the innocent?

If the former, then 'Good' as a moral concept is meaningless, because it can be applied to any kind of behaviour at all if Eru commits it. 'Good' & 'Evil' would mean nothing at all in an 'objective' or logical sense, & morality, definitions of 'Good' & 'Evil', would have to be invented by Elves & humans, because it could not be drawn from Eru.

If the latter, then 'Good' is an absolute standard, which restricts (by choice on his part) even Eru. If this is the case then we can judge whether Eru acts outside this standard.Even if you argue that 'Good' is an aspect of Eru's nature & that he cannot act against the Good then you are still arguing that Good is an absolute which binds even Eru & determines his behaviour.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

If this is the case then we can judge whether Eru acts outside this standard.Even if you argue that 'Good' is an aspect of Eru's nature & that he cannot act against the Good then you are still arguing that Good is an absolute which binds even Eru & determines his behaviour.

I don't think that a human could approach this subject, just as we can't know when it is good for a person to die and in what way. We lack the perspective, authority, wisdom, and knowledge usually associated with an absolute being, capable of ensuring that even death can be superseded and more than compensated. We have little if any idea of how God would relate to a human, other than infinite compassion and capability to turn even a (or any) " divine punishment" into a "divine gift", as Tolkien mentioned in the letters. To talk in human terms, even in our system of justice, a minor theft of a rather insignificant object can be more than compensated; I personally hold this to be true all the more on the divine level, regardless the loss or suffering. This divine logic, whether it concerns birth, death or any other circumstance of life, is beyond us, and any approximation of it would be inherently human, limited, faulted.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

We have little if any idea of how God would relate to a human, other than infinite compassion and capability to turn even a (or any) " divine punishment" into a "divine gift", as Tolkien mentioned in the letters. .

So you accept that 'God' (or Eru in this case) will, by his nature, behave with "infinite compassion and capability to turn even a (or any) " divine punishment" into a "divine gift"". Hence there is a certain 'objective' standard by which we can judge the actions of Eru - if at any point he displays other than 'infinite compassion' he would be behaving out of character, & his behaviour would not be 'Good'. 'Callous disregard' is 'Evil'. Thus we can say that Eru is 'Good' because he displays, among other things, 'Infinite Compassion' & that Morgoth is 'Evil' because he displays 'Callous Disregard'.

And, apart from primacy of existence & innate power, we can say that Eru is 'morally superior' to Melkor/Morgoth because his behaviour corresponds to an objective standard of Goodness which includes 'Infinite Compassion', & that Morgoth is immoral because his behaviour corresponds to an objective standard of Badness/Evil which includes 'Callous Disregard'. Hence, an objective standard is being used to judge the Goodness of Eru & the wickedness of Morgoth, & we are not simply saying 'whatever Eru does is good because Eru does it'. We require Eru to display 'Infinite Compassion' if we are to accept him as 'Good' (even if we cannot fully understand the way that 'Infinite Compassion' works through in time). Or, in short, 'Infinite Compassion' is a standard of judgement we apply in judging Eru to be 'Good'.

Or to put it another way, if you were a Man, or Elf in M-e confronted by Eru & Morgoth, both claiming to be the Supreme Being, & with no knowledge of who they were, how would you determine which one was Good & which Evil if you could not apply an objective standard of Good/Evil?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

We require Eru to display 'Infinite Compassion' if we are to accept him as 'Good' (even if we cannot fully understand the way that 'Infinite Compassion' works through in time)

While you and I may agree to define good as infinite compassion, we would have no way to understand how this can be best achieved or applied in regards to one human or all humanity. In regards to what might have been the best marriage possible, Tolkien said:

Originally Posted by Letter #43

Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably to have married!

Likewise, I hold that judging whether what happened during lifetime is an expression of good is possible at most at the end of it, but even that may have little value, since one's relation to God most likely extends beyond one human life, maybe beyond all creation. And we hardly have any insight into that.

Or to put it another way, if you were a Man, or Elf in M-e confronted by Eru & Morgoth, both claiming to be the Supreme Being, & with no knowledge of who they were, how would you determine which one was Good & which Evil if you could not apply an objective standard of Good/Evil?

Men have already been deceived by Melkor once, and he was worshiped instead of Eru. Lacking (at least) infinite knowledge, such a tragedy is rather possible on the human level.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

While you and I may agree to define good as infinite compassion, we would have no way to understand how this can be best achieved or applied in regards to one human or all humanity.

No, but Good = Infinite Compassion, & if Eru didn't act with Infinite Compassion he would not be good. Hence Infinite Compassion is a standard by which Eru can be judged as Good. If it could be proven that the destruction of Numenor was motivated purely by anger & hatred on Eru's part & he displayed a callous disregard to the resultant suffering we would have to say that it was not a 'Good' act according to the criteria laid down by Tolkien. You seem, if I understand you, to be arguing that we have to accept that whatever Eru does is 'Good' in the sense that he can only do Good (whether that is clear to a creature or not) , not that 'anything' Eru does is 'Good' even of it is cruel, mean, petty or spiteful. But this is, to my mind, to argue that there is an objective standard of Good by which are judging Eru's behaviour - we are saying 'Eru's behaviour is in conformity with The Good' not Eru can behave like Morgoth & that behaviour would still 'Good' simply because Eru was the one behaving in that way.

Men have already been deceived by Melkor once, and he was worshiped instead of Eru. Lacking (at least) infinite knowledge, such a tragedy is rather possible on the human level.

Or more likely inevitable. If Eru is playing the long game, not appearing to men in a clear & unambiguous form & explaining what's going on then its inevitable that Men have to do their best, make the best choice they can in the circumstances. Moreso if Eru has decided to give Morgoth a free reign in Arda. Maybe that's necessary in the long run, but I don't see that having put Men in that position Eru can complain about their choices.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

If it could be proven that the destruction of Numenor was motivated purely by anger & hatred on Eru's part & he displayed a callous disregard to the resultant suffering we would have to say that it was not a 'Good' act according to the criteria laid down by Tolkien.

But no such thing is possible, regardless which human would write the story, or which person attempts to prove.

My point is that we cannot investigate beyond what is limited and created. If I were to venture a speculation, then even if Eru was supposed somehow to make an error and deviate from what would be the best application of infinite compassion (which I thoroughly disagree with), then, at least insofar as effects are concerned, he would have all that it takes to transform that and to make it more than worth it and thus any "mistake" would be at best temporary, achieving greater good in fact. Or, to try to better approximate the perfection we attribute to him, through all his actions he can achieve a greater good on a scale that may elude us, as limited beings.

Maybe that's necessary in the long run, but I don't see that having put Men in that position Eru can complain about their choices.

Well, the standard to which Men are apparently judged is more lenient than making the best possible choice:

Originally Posted by Note to 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.