Absolute Good in Lord of the Rings

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Interesting that no one here has mentioned Galadriel. After all, we are given her temptation scene, just as we saw Gandalf refuse to be tempted by the Ring. I'm not saying that she's an example of "absolute good", but certainly in her wisdom, insight, tremendous hospitality, and prescient gifts she provides something very positive, helpful, and healing. She's the closest Tolkien gets to giving us a Goddess, verily an emissary of Light.

Yet dear ol' Galady had her faults. She did, after all, ignore the Ban of Mandos, being more interested in personal gain, tempted as she was by the oratory of Feanor (even though she disliked him, she still fell for the bad boy image).

Regarding the circumlocutious debate concerning Eru and his omniscience, to me he/she/it was neither good or bad, and resembled Yahweh of the Torah, who could be quite despicable at times, butchering enemies of Israel wholesale (like Yahweh, Eru did slaughter innocent folks -- the old and the infant -- on Numenor).

Aside from the Eru discussion, I do not believe there was any character exhibiting an absolute goodness, because the definition of 'absolute good' would preclude items like killing (even in battle) and lying (even little white lies); therefore, even Gandalf or Sam, who have been mentioned by others, did have their foibles and faults.
I suppose it is necessary for this dialogue to define what is meant by 'absolute good'. Here are some extracts from our friends at Merriam-Webster:

ABSOLUTE:
free from imperfection
perfect, pure
outright , unmitigated
having no restriction, exception, or qualification
positive , unquestionable
fundamental, ultimate
perfectly embodying the nature of a thing <absolute justice>

GOOD:
virtuous, right , commendable
kind, benevolent
competent , skillful
loyal

There are no characters who match these definors on a consistent basis, and actually the word absolute goes beyond mere consistency, it means, rather, always exhibiting certain characteristics, and free from imperfections.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Regarding the circumlocutious debate concerning Eru and his omniscience, to me he/she/it was neither good or bad, and resembled Yahweh of the Torah, who could be quite despicable at times, butchering enemies of Israel wholesale (like Yahweh, Eru did slaughter innocent folks -- the old and the infant -- on Numenor).

Yet for ten righteous soles would God have spared Sadden and Gomorra, the same thing can be seen with Numenor in the flight of the faithful. The Numenorean's, apart from the three houses of the faithful, were under Sauron's influence and worshipped Melkor, sacrificing the him those that were still faithful. Should the seed of that Satanism be allowed to endure? Should Eru have spared Numenor on the fact that women and children still lived there? I doubt that would have been very wise, the pride of man had grown to great to be pardoned. The faithful were spared and the evil worshippers were destroyed.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Yet for ten righteous soles would God have spared Sadden and Gomorra, the same thing can be seen with Numenor in the flight of the faithful. The Numenorean's, apart from the three houses of the faithful, were under Sauron's influence and worshipped Melkor, sacrificing the him those that were still faithful. Should the seed of that Satanism be allowed to endure? Should Eru have spared Numenor on the fact that women and children still lived there? I doubt that would have been very wise, the pride of man had grown to great to be pardoned.

I'm sorry, but since I consider 'original sin' an asinine theological doctrine (and one of the many reasons I parted ways with the Catholic Church and Christianity as well), I would have to define the murder of innocent infants, whose only fault was that their parents may have been on the wrong side of whatever religious imperative you care to name, as a despicable act by God/Yahweh/Allah/Eru.

I find it entertaining and humorous that many Christians will fight tooth and nail for the sacrosanct rights of an innocent human fetus, but will abandon babies outside of the womb to the torments of hell because their parents don't subscribe to a particular religious view. Why bother stopping abortions when these 'seeds of Satan' will only grow up to be carbon copies of their demonic parents? Don't answer, I was only speaking rhetorically.

So, on Numenor, could you tell which newborn infant was Sauronic or one of the Faithful? Were the Sauronic babies given knives so that they could join in on the human sacrifice, making it a family affair, like a picnic? Tell me, Groin, suppose your parents were from some Satanic group (like the Democrats, for instance). Does this guilt by association automatically make you a lifelong Democrat as well? Or is there such a thing as free will, which is a supposed tenet of many major religions? Could it be possible that you have an epiphany later on in life and become a Republican, thus joining the righteous select on the path to conservative Heaven rather than liberal Hell? Oh, sorry, you don't get to make that choice, God just wiped out your family in a thunderstorm of indignation.

[Macalaure]

Let me see…

For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it. ~ Of Feanor and the Unchaining of Melkor

If somebody is free from evil, he obviously has to be perfectly good, so we do have an absolutely good character in Arda.

But the question was about the LotR, so this doesn’t help an awful much. In LotR, evil is of course embodied by Sauron, with some special aspects manifested in the Nazgul, the Orcs, Saruman, etc. However,

For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so. ~ The Council of Elrond

Of course, just because he wasn’t evil in the beginning, doesn’t mean he was not absolutely evil at the later point we’re looking at. Luckily Tolkien clears it up elsewhere:

[Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. ~ HoMe 10, Myths Transformed VII

So, as others have already stated, there is indeed no absolute evil in LotR. An interesting question is whether it actually matters that he isn’t absolutely evil. Doesn’t it suffice that he’s evil enough, at least to meet the requirements of the author of that article?

Anyway, the thread is about the good (again, is absoluteness really necessary?). I would like to dismiss Bombadil immediately, because even though he could be a good candidate, the fact that he pretty much simply ignores the existence of evil (outside his small realm) disqualifies him. He’s not the “alternative” to Sauron that I think we’re looking for here. The fellowship (apart from Gandalf) are in fact the protagonists that struggle between good and evil. If one of those (Sam has been mentioned) doesn’t do anything wrong on his journey, it only means that his intentions and choices inside the storyline were always right, not that he is free from evil.

The characters that I would consider are Gandalf*, Elrond, and Galadriel. The latter two have important functions, but no more, while Gandalf is clearly the most active, even though, contrary to Sauron on the other side, he does not actually hold any power (apart from taking over the command of the forces of Minas Tirith briefly).

Now that I come to think of it, the fact that Gandalf is never in a real position of power might actually be a very significant difference. Even though very much is made of the position of the King, Gandalf (the White) is clearly on a level above Elessar (Gandalf crowns him, f.ex.). But he does not seem to fit in with the “overarching good figure who the heroes have to follow”. Maybe this exact thing was something Tolkien was uncomfortable with and therefore attributed to his evil overarching figure only.


* esp. Gandalf the White: Gandalf the Grey still has one foot in the category of the fellowship. If I’m right about all the stuff I’m saying, then it’s interesting, I think, that Tolkien chose to let his “overarching good figure” emerge and grow by the circumstances, even replacing an unworthy predecessor, and that he does not simply present him as a given.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

If somebody is free from evil, he obviously has to be perfectly good, so we do have an absolutely good character in Arda.

This does not necessarily follow, even if we are proceeding from an Augustinian view that evil is the perversion or lack of a good.

Absolute good would be the possession of all goodness. Manwë (and any other purely good character you might think exists in Arda) is not perfectly good, because he is not perfect. Although immensely powerful, he is still a limited being, and a limitation of power or knowledge is also a limitation of good, because it would be better (ie. "gooder") to have the power or knowledge that is lacking.

Furthermore, it is possible to lack goods that do not quite constitute evils. For example, I'm diabetic. This is a lack of a good (functioning islets of Langerhan in my pancreas), but it does not make me evil. (It is AN evil, but it does not make me evil...)

Beyond this general philosophic point, I really haven't anything to add... possibly because on the diabetic note, I'm in need of food.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Sadden and Gomorra

Hence the mortal sin of "Saddeny".

I'd like to contradict Mac slightly, and argue for Bombadil. He is the only character who is not even tempted by the ring, a character able to drive away the Barrow Wights with nothing more than song (which, in light of the Ainulindale, is kind of suggestive in itself).

The fact that he does not involve himself in the conflict central to LOTR actually underscores the way in which Tolkien's work differs from the "absolute good vs. absolute evil" model Pennington seems to be looking for. LOTR is driven by the struggle between good and evil within the characters. Sauron, who may be absolute evil insofar as he appears in LOTR, is not actually one of the "players" - he remains offstage. Bombadil appears long enough to depict the strength of "light", "good", or whatever you want to call it, but must remain outside the plot, or else ruin it. I actually see a bit of an echo of Eru's rather passive response to Melkor here - there is the possibility Bombadil has the power to change things, but allows them to unfold - so if Eru is good, Tom is, or rather, Tom is good in the way Eru is.

Eru himself is, of course, off-topic, since the question was on LOTR.