I have wondered for the most part of my life about what evil is. Is it the antithesis of good, or is it the absence of good? To paraphrase it in a religious manner: is evil the presence of Satan or is it merely the absence of God?
I tend to think the latter. Why? Look at it this way. There does seem to be a clear, universal idea of what is good, true and just. But opposite this, there is not a clearly defined limit for what is bad or false. Putting it simply: good is good… but bad can always get worse. Think about it. Whenever you think the worst possible thing has happened, whenever you think that man can sink no lower… something happens that makes the unthinkable reality. There simply is no limit when it comes to evil, because there is no such thing as absolute evil!
Another paraphrase? The colour white exists, in light and in other things in nature. Pure, bright, 100% whiteness. But blackness does not exist. Scientists can approach it closely, but a pure 100% black exists only in theory. In other words: white is white, but black can always get blacker. I admit that this seems like a very simple, almost childish way of explaining what I feel to be true, but trust me, if I were to go into the details of how I came to this belief I would be writing a very long essay indeed.
So, I think that there is such a thing as white, just as there is such a thing as good. I have no name for it; it’s simply the fact that the way things are the way they are. Call it God, if you must… but there is no Satan as counterbalance.
Now, to steer this thread back on topic, how does this relate to Tolkiens portrayal of evil? In his works, we see clearly defined protagonists of evil, like Sauron in LOTR and Morgoth in the Silmarillion. Is Melkor/Morgoth the same as Satan, and are Sauron, Saruman and others his minions (like Lucifer and Beelzebub)?
I actually think Tolkien’s view corresponds with my own. There is in his cosmogony one supreme being, one ‘God’, one all-powerful ruling principle of the universe: Iluvatar. He does not have an evil pendant, but Morgoth is just a manifestation of one of his aspects, just as the other Valar are. In a strange way, this corresponds more with Hinduism than with Christianity! Hinduism also sees the many gods –good and evil ones- as manifestations of the same one supreme being. It is even more in line with Plato than with the Bible.
So really… maybe Tolkien’s works are not as imbued with Christianity after all. Maybe they are more Platonic or even Hindu (!) in their approach of good, evil and the cosmic order of things.
What do you think? Is this far-fetched or am I on the right trail here…?
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
Evil and good are just relative.
For example, Englishmen say that the IRA are evil because they blow up innocent civillians. Irishmen of certain walks say that the IRA are good because they make people recognise the cause of Irish sovreignity and independence. Neither one is right in the strictest sense because the British government used to treat the Irish as if they should be thankful for being allowed to live like crap, while the Irish of today have a lot of innocent blood on their hands and are fighting amongst themselves in order to create a Catholic theocracy.
NOTE: Irishmen on this board, please don't take this as an attack, but as an outsider's understanding, simplified, of the situation, strictly for example purposes.
Good and evil are not absolutes, they are relatives, and even great authors like Tolkien seem unable to recognise this. If anything only authors like Tom Clancy, Thomas Harris, or Robert Heinlein, to name some examples I have read recently, seem to recognise this. Because evil is a matter of intent.
 --mentalcritic
"Ash nazg durbatulûk!"
|
|
|
I was actually trying to lift the issue to a more abstract level, and I think that there basically IS an absolute 'good' that needs no explanation and that is self-understood. Call it a grain of the universe that we've all got inside of us. Whatever. Certain things -like murder or war- are universally seen as bad things. Sure, sometimes these bad things are practiced anyway... but just look at the HUGE amount of explaining needed to justify them. Why is this needed? Because things like war, incest and murder go against our deepest feelings. On a superhuman level good and evil are obsolete terms. All there is is the way things are. That is neither good nor bad. It's just there.
Yes, on a human level, evil is a matter of intent, this much I agree with. There is no such thing as an evil person (not even in Iraq!) but there are a lot of people, good people, who are capable of tremendous evil given certain circumstances. I would even like to expand this and say that somewhere deep down in each of us lies the capacity for terrible evil. Look at what happened in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. Does anyone seriously think that all of Hitlers henchmen were evil people? Of course not. They were normal citizens like you and me and everyone and they were taught/manipulated/trained to switch off their humanity and become monsters. Now, 6 decades later, the surviving 'monsters' sit in the parks with their grandkids and feed the ducks like any other grandpa...
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
What I was trying to say is that there is a problem with the way we are being asked to define evil.
As children, when we are asked to describe what evil is, we often think of a big, ugly red man with a spaded tail who likes to stick a pitchfork into people's bottoms, and for many of us, getting past that point is not an option. However, some of us do get past it, and removal of personnified evil is often a side-effect of taking responsibility for one's own actions (or one's own soul, even).
There are some people who do evil things not because there is necessarily anything wrong with them, but because they are taught that these evil things are somehow good. And often they go past a point of being reclaimed. The Nazi commanders who ordered all those deaths, for example, genuinely believed they were doing something good. Himmler was a good example of this. He even claimed that the tribunal that tried him was ignoring facts when said facts didn't serve the claim that he was a sick, evil man (or rather that the things he did were quite evil). Because he perceived himself as being good.
--mentalcritic
"Ash nazg durbatulûk!"
|
|
|
Yes! My thoughts exactly... on the issue of human evil. I was actually more referring to the metaphysical sort of evil (like Sauron) in my original post, but I like the direction this train of thought takes... after all, human evil is a very tricky thing and a lot of it is defined by perception. After a war, it's the winners perspective that sets the boundaries, true.
You know, I have to think back to my childhood when we were warned of child molesters. We -as kids- were told that these were really scary men, very creepy... and we basically expected some sort of vampire to pounce on us at every streetcorner. A few years later we found out that our next-door neighbour was a paedophile. (He never laid a finger on my brother and me, btw) A handsome, charming, married man with two university degrees and a super job as a director of a large insurance company... the very opposite of the scary creep we had been told to expect.
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
Evil, unfortunately, is often cloaked in beautiful clothes, a comforting smile, and college degrees. The proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Although, I do think that once you have a heightened sense, as adults seem to develop, you can pick out those folks that give you the creeps. We expect too much of children if we want them to pick and choose between what is evil and what is good. They don't have that sense until they've been in the world a good long time and have it developed.
Sam's Diary:Rosie gone again. Note says she's gone to find White Wizard named Nick
|
|
|
We expect too much of children if we want them to pick and choose between what is evil and what is good
I would suggest that after a certain (young) age, children are capable of knowing "right from wrong" in general terms. However, the difficult part is to have them choose "who" is evil or good...
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
Right from wrong, yes, but good from evil, not necessarily. I think judging people is something that is very much learned.
Example: I have friends (we'll call them Bob and Mary) who have a single male friend (nothing against single males, just an example from my life - we'll call him Jack). Now, Jack, to me, has always seemed a little suspect. When Bob and Mary's young children are running around without clothes on (which, believe me, they are wont to do), Jack makes inappropriate comments that make me uncomfortable (such as posing for Playboy when they get older, etc). Jack will never be near my children alone, no matter how old they get. However, Bob and Mary seem to think he's harmless and their daughter doesn't know any better. She just thinks of Jack as a friend of the family. Is it all a matter of perception? Yes. Still, Jack rubs me the wrong way and therefore is shunned.
Evil is subjective. You see it or you don't. Depends on your personal radar and experience.
Sam's Diary:Rosie back again. Said wizard had powerful Oliphaunt. Looks tired.
|
|
|
No argument here.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
I was actually more referring to the metaphysical sort of evil (like Sauron) in my original post
Is Sauron a metaphysical evil, or a symbol/example of pure evil. Remember that there are very few absolutes in life, which is why we have these discussions, but in stories we encounter purity of good and evil which can be said to never exist in real life.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
removal of personnified evil is often a side-effect of taking responsibility for one's own actions
Right on target! I like that.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
Certain things -like murder or war- are universally seen as bad things
War is good or bad, depending on perspective.
Take WWII as the iconoclastic example. It could be argued that Hitler, due to his reign of terror, attempted Jewish genocide, and attempts to make all Europe submit to him were evil.
It can be argued that the Russians and English and Americans and others defending against Hitler, although ugly, and demanding a huge toll in life, was good.
Strictly an extreme version of what you say, the Vichy French were good, because they pretty much collapsed without a fight, and avoided war.
I know...that is a cold, extreme example, but it is simply to illustrate the point. As I mentioned in a post a few minutes ago, and as you mentioned in the post to which I am responding currently, I believe the action is frequently not so relevant as the motivation when determining what is good, and what is evil. Also, what one person may considering good when acting on their own behalf, others may judge as evil. Charles Manson is a great example of this.
The difference between us is that I do not believe in this "superhuman" level the way that you do. I believe that it is a practical matter. I can try to take it to a higher metaphysical level, but I have not yet had breakfast, so that will not happen now.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
I do agree, intent is everything. In the absence of good you have merely apathy.
"All that it takes for evil to flourish, is for good men to do nothing".
I think that is what Tolkien is showing us. If the good men do nothing, then the evil ones will have sway. If there were no evil beings, then life would just jog along quietly.
Vampires have risen from the dead, the grave and the crypt, but have never managed it from the cat.
|
|
|
Yes, but what is the driving force behind Tolkiens evildoers?
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
I would say that the driving force is typically revolving around a quest for greed, power, or both. What causes good to go bad in Tolkien's world, seems to revolve around excessive pride. My examples would be Feanor, Sauron, Morgoth, Saruman and Denethor. All were good at one point, but do to pride fell into vice.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
Hmm, interesting topic Wajz! I have to think about this some more, but I'll just make a few comments for now, (as shaky as some may be).
You say there's no thing as absolute evil. Alright, but is there such a thing as absolute goodness? I don't know. Is there moral perfection? If there is I can't conceive it.
And then I thought the Silmarillion was quite like the bible since Melkor can be perceived as a fallen angel just like Satan, right? I don't think Melkor is a manifestation of Eru. Eru created him, so perhaps in a sense that means he's a part of him, but I don't think it's the same as in Hinduism. My knowledge of Hinduism is very limited, but I always thought that indeed, like you said the Gods are basically manifestations of the same being. Like Vishnu and Shiva both represent Brahma. [Still, I don't believe they are fully interchangeable and equal since Brahma is sort of like the God that's the 'standard' (as in the rest is a manifestation of Brahma and not vice versa)]
To be continued probably...
'Shh! Gandalf's thinking.'
|
|
|
This is something I'll need to ponder, but my first reaction is that evil is the antithesis of good. In a strictly natural environment, where everything is governed by whim of fate, instinct and environment, there seems to be no good or evil, just "the nature of things." Good and evil may require intent (I'm still thinking about that).
When a cheetah eats, say, a wildebeast, is that good or evil. Good for the cheetah, but not necessarily good as I think you mean. Bad for the wildebeast, but not evil. It just seems to be balance/natural order of things. Some people may say that is goodness in the purest sense, but I think there is at least one wildebeast that would argue about that  ! In this absence of good, there is not evil, just a kind of natural neutrality.
last and proudest, Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth...
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
I don't think Melkor is a manifestation of Eru
Correct me if I am wrong Wajz, but what I believe was intended was a Hindu type of perspective, where all the Hindu gods are merely manifestions of one deity. Even Kali (the destroyer), because destruction is necessary for the cycle of growth. Without destruction and death, there will be no new life.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
Yeah, I believe this was intended too. So no confusion here... I was just saying that I thought that Eru and the Valar are more similar to God and the angels than to Brahma and other Hindu Gods (who are manifestations of Brahma). Because the Valar are lesser beings than Eru, whereas the several Hindu Gods are merely representing a side or personality trait of Brahma.
Satan also seemed similar to Melkor since they both got expelled for not wanting to dance to God's (or Eru's) tunes basically.
'Shh! Gandalf's thinking.'
|
|
|
So we agree. This is good.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
 by -
zoolooffs
(Thu May 22 06:14:01)
|
|
 UPDATED Thu May 22 06:15:47 |
okay
a few years ago, i developed a theory about good and evil.
it begins with an axiom: let universe be a function f, and let's mark evil with a collection X. function f is idempotent only in collection X, which means for all x from X f(x)=x is true.
axiom claims that everything in universe changes except evil.
and you won't believe it wajz, i connected evil with white.
futhermore, theory says goodness does not exist in it's essential meaning. there is always some percentage of evil that spoils it.
since we know so little about universe, let's examine the behaviour of people. is there completely good person in this world? i bet that everyone of us here did something mean to someone.
okay, my theory crashed. i admit it. a friend of mine asked me, what about babies? are they mean? are they evil? what percentage of evil do they have in them? unless someone proves to me that people are essentially evil when they're born 
|
|
|
unless someone proves to me that people are essentially evil when they're born
Now that's actually an important point, I think: Are humans essentially good or evil? (or neither maybe?) (If you would ask Stanley Kubrick, I think he'd say evil)
'Shh! Gandalf's thinking.'
|
|
|
| by -
zoolooffs
(Thu May 22 06:30:30)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 22 10:33:54 |
to be completely honest i spent some time trying to prove that people are essentially evil. i even had countless arguements with my friends that opposed me.
but then someone asked me, why would anyone being essentially evil ever try to be good? i had no answer to that ...
|
|
|
| by -
xTrinityx
(Thu May 22 06:39:50)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 22 06:41:44 |
Maybe because 'essentially' evil does not mean 'completely' evil as in there's something inside us all a desire or innate knowledge, in varying degrees that guides in knowing when we do something that is not good, despite having a predilection toward doing evil. In some this is strong, in others it might be completely absent  Other factors such as environment, upbringing, can affect how this manifests.
I don't know, just thinking...
Even though I lean toward this same vein of thought (man is essentially evil), for obvious reasons, that doesn't mean I don't have hope.
I think definitions of what is 'good' and what is 'evil' needs to be agreed upon first. (apologies if someone brought that up or already provided them, I'll read more carefully this evening {I hope})
Too bad Aule's thread "The Nature of Evil" got deleted.
Sarcasm
Just one more service I offer.
|
|
|
Yes, that "Nature of Evil" thread developed into three separate threads. I have the second only - does anyone else have the first and third?
Is man essentially evil? Perhaps man's basic condition is that he is essentially selfish and, to the extent that there is absolute good, the exercise of his actions predicated on his selfishness set him against this.
I think that definitions of good and evil will also lead to discussions about the exercise of free will, because intent must surely come into it at some point.
"in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing"
|
|
|
Check in with Athene...
I think on the board here, we are missing all three...
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
yes you're right
this is the spot where i went wrong
there is no essentiality of good and evil
but i was too stupid to see that 
it's like most of features in life. simply life isn't only black and white.
|
|
|
i bet that everyone of us here did something mean to someone
 I once heard that Mother Teresa bitchslapped a leper who had stolen her sandals, but I may be mistaken there!
Sorry, just had to drop the seriousness for one second...
Now, as for your interesting antithesis (that every thesis has): maybe good and evil are like a yin-yang symbol, with a black dot enclosed within the white and a white dot enclosed within the black...? If we take that as a model, then this is my "Tolkienist" take on it: Iluvatar is the WHOLE diagram, black AND white. There is no good or bad in nature or in the universe, just the way things are.
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
i've been reading about mother teresa ... found out some interesting (very juicy) things
i like your tolkienist approach!!! quite satisfying for me!
|
|
|
| by -
xTrinityx
(Thu May 22 06:48:24)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 22 06:50:28 |
Whatever it is, I probably heard it already at this atheist site I used to frequent. Some all but demonized her. They did bring up some interesting info that made me go , despite the slander. I'd be interested in seeing what you have found out and from where, even if it's in pm. I hesitated in forming an opinion about it because no one ever dropped their sources. (from what I can remember)
Sarcasm
Just one more service I offer.
|
|
|
| by -
zoolooffs
(Thu May 22 07:01:44)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 22 10:46:17 |
oh i just didn't want to mention it here because i believe i had it discussed with wajz before in some lost thread.
well, it's not much but ...
mother teresa was very fond of her young cadettes. as you may know, part of my country (vojvodina) was then under habsburgs (i'm from serbia and montenegro). so, young serbs went to habsburg army too (all along with all the others ... magyars, czechs, croats, slovenians, austrians ... etc). and some of them got unfortunate enough to be picked up by great empress and spend a night or two in her bed. but that would be maximum because the moment she discovered she was pregnant, this lucky 18yearold boy ended up dead the very same night.
after a few years of such practice, the number of deserters from cadette school was so huge they eve thought about closing the school :)
oh yes, she never had not one abortion. what a woman! 
[update] forgot to mention my sources: a book i've read in serbian national library (it's not allowed to take books with you), oh ... it's quite difficult to translate it ... ok. 'slavs under reign of habsburg monarchy' or something like that ... published by 'matica srpska' from novi sad by some team of serb historians which names i unfortunately forgot 
eerrr ... hope this doesn't offend you or something?!?!
|
|
|
There is no good or bad in nature or in the universe, just the way things are
True, but then where is our interesting discussion?
But yeah, the term 'good' is only relevant because there is such a thing as 'evil'. Like with every sort of dualism. What use is the word 'big' if there was no 'small'? Things cannot only be 'big'. The word would have become obsolete indeed. It just 'is'.
'Shh! Gandalf's thinking.'
|
|
|
If we take that as a model, then this is my "Tolkienist" take on it: Iluvatar is the WHOLE diagram, black AND white. There is no good or bad in nature or in the universe, just the way things are.
Does that mean you can have your cake and eat it, too?
Time for breakfast...
Bye for now!
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
There is actually a series of books out...I cannot think of the author offhand...set in a world where instead of good and evil you have Chaos and Order as the dominant forces. Chaos is symbolized as white, and Order as black, because white is all colors intermixed, while black (order) is the absence of chaos or color.
In terms of your formula...when you said "function", I lost you.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
| by -
zoolooffs
(Thu May 22 09:08:06)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 22 09:28:20 |
can you, please, if it's possible of course, provide me with some more info about those books. i'm really intrigued now  thanks!
yeah, those formulas ... my professional brain damage (finished maths and comp science on belgrade university ... eerrr something tells me that i told you this before in some other discussion!?!?!)...
well, a friend of mine tried to prove that i designed pure nonsense, by creating a theorem(!) which claims the following:
given x condomes one can have sex with exaclty 2x-1 women without any risk of getting any disease (women included).
and he proved it!
he put it on the board with his signature and one more line: 'see, schmee? (that's my nickname) you created a nonsense!'. and then he received tons of angry mail for being such a prick and women hater.
that's professional brain damage
|
|
|
I checked the old bookcases...
The series is called "The Saga of Recluce" and is written by L.E. Modesitt, Jr.
Just remember that I studied government and history for a reason...namely that I suck at math!
Talk you you soon, pal.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
thank youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!
always need something new!
thanks!
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
...I think you're onto something here!.....perhaps mathematics is indeed the way to explain this.....
"Yes - but what about Second Breakfast?"
|
|
|
well, maybe ... but i'm not clever enough to push it to the end.
and i fear what would happen to me if i succeed. i think i'm just not ready to go nuts
no, seriously, maths need more exact materia to deal with. good and evil are striclty subjecive notions. different people, different thoughts, different views. one just cannot (or so i think) define what's good and what's evil and make those definitions acceptable for everyone. usually, real life denies abstractions. it's sad, because i like abstractions. they're elegant, beautiful in their own way.
which direclty means that life ain't elegant nor beautiful, which, of course, is not true
|
|
|
........I see what you mean.... but do you think that math can express some fundamental truths about the nature of life, and that perhaps some of the truth released in math crosses over into religious thought and philosophy?
I started thinking about this when I first heard about fractals.....I must admit that I’m woefully ignorant in math...but - well - fractals make perfect sense to me, ignorant as I am.
.....my math education was not very good, and I was afraid of it as a child (common with women I suppose) but I've developed a renewed appreciation and respect for it in the last 10 years or so.
A while ago I went onto some mathematics message boards and read a few posts by mathematics practitioners about religion, philosophy and math.... the poor mathematicians were torturing themselves because they seemed to intuitively feel the religous and philosophical nature of their work, but they weren't allowed to express that.... I felt bad for them.
"Yes - but what about Second Breakfast?"
|
|
|
| by -
zoolooffs
(Fri May 23 11:37:09)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat May 24 07:54:42 |
ok
you made some good points here.
fractals are really amazing stuff. i even programmed some. fern leaf for example. true representation of nature. just complex numbers. true elegance.
if you have a chance, try to find a book 'statistical chronology' by anatoly fomenko (russian mathematician) http://www.ras.ru/local.docs/personal/Fomenko_Anatoly_Timofeevich.html
here's why ...
in that book he gives fantastic possibilities what is happening to this world. for instance, one conclusion may be that 600 years of human history doesn't exist at all. the second may be that human history is triple translation backwards, of our modern history starting with habsburg monarchy. and so on, the third, fourth whatever your imagination can do. the most interesting thing is how he did it.
examples:
#1
remember ptolomei? history says that he wrote the great encyclopedia of astronomy in 137th year. fomenko claims it is impossible and that that book must had been written in 10th century. he proved that star maps given in ptolomei's book could not happen in year 137, because it would make moon acceleration negative which means that moon would stop at certain moment, and even worse start moving in opposite direction ... this supports nonexistence of a period theory.
#2
he compared the duration of some monarch rule between different dynasties. he took habsburgs and compared them with the dynasty of kain. (and many others as well) he found so amazing similarities that their possibilities are less than 10^(-8) [sorry there's no superscript here  ]. this supports translation theory.
etc etc ...
sorry gotta go now
please, pardon my lousy english
sure, there are amazing stuff that maths can tell us ...
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Fri May 23 11:54:07)
|
|
Some time ago, in the now vanished "Nature of Evil" thread, we had a discussion about the similarities between mathematics and philosophy. Ever notice that many of history's great philosophers were also great mathematicians?
|
|
|
| by -
kiplingkat
(Fri May 23 12:00:17)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri May 23 12:00:52 |
Well if you remember the Greek Naturalists and the Pythogoreans, Theology/Philosophy and Science/Math started out as interrealted disciplines. I think after 3000 years, we're comming full circle.
"Boromir, quit trying to cut off Frodo's head ..." ~ Blatant favoritism most annoying.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Fri May 23 12:49:10)
|
|
Absolutely, but when many people think of math, they think of arithmetic, and not the abstract, theoretical side of it. Much the same thinking goes into both, and yet some people have problems with math but not with philosophy. I think it's a mindset thing.
|
|
|
Exactly right Aule! That's what I got from the message board I read and I think that's why the mathematicians were so tortured.
"Yes - but what about Second Breakfast?"
|
|
|
| by -
xTrinityx
(Thu May 22 06:32:04)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 22 06:32:33 |
Interesting..
I'll have to hit this up after work. Of course by then, this thread will be about 60 posts longer and everything worth saying probably will have been said by that point. Oh well...we'll see.
Sarcasm
Just one more service I offer.
|
|
|
Say it anyway!
It's been YONKS since I posted something serious here and it is so rewarding to see that so many of you have picked up on it already... Must try and be a bit more active...
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Thu May 22 09:38:04)
|
|
|
|
|
A fascinating discussion, Wjz. All I can say is that, if you don't believe in the concept of absolute evil, you obviously haven't spent any time visiting other boards on this site .
Seriously, though, this topic deserves a bit more time than I have at the moment, so I'll have to come back to it later. One opint I would like to make before going, though, is that I think people sometimes confuse the attribution of "good" to an act with "justified". To take mentalcritic's point above about the killing of civilians, I would suggets that the killer would not argue that the act was good, but rather justified when set against what was sought to be achieved.
This is of some importance, because justification involves setting something against a standard of what is considered to be good and making permissible an act which may otherwise be seen as evil. Which points again to the inherent understanding of good you alluded to above. More on that later, though...
"in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing"
|
|
|
Interesting point, veethree. Please do come back and expound on that.
All I can say is that, if you don't believe in the concept of absolute evil, you obviously haven't spent any time visiting other boards on this site
lmao.....
Sarcasm
Just one more service I offer.
|
|
|
Evil is not merely the absence of good, just as light is not the absence of dark. Tolkien's works are not imbued with Christianity.
|
|
|
Which is exactly the point I tried to make (using a lot more words)
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
| by -
Alizarin
(Thu May 22 07:31:38)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 22 11:26:09 |
I believe evil is a purely human concept - and so is good. They go hand in hand and represent two sides of the same coin. I am genuinely curious as to what you mean by there being such a thing as genuine good where evil cannot be defined. To my mind, this is just another fallacy of human self perpetuation - good is not necessarily good by its existence, but by its benefit to our species or existence in some way. When something contradicts that, we call it bad or evil. It's just a definition for 'the norm', not an actual thing that can be said to exist. When someone thinks that good exists it's because it is a justification for their actions, thoughts, emotions etc.
Think of it as a sliding scale with detriment at one end and benefit at the other. It's only natural that any living being be situated somewhere on that scale which allows its continued existence, is beneficial in some way, even if by failure to act. Humans think they are something special, and that their actions are representative of something more important than mere existence. If a man rescues a baby from a burning building he is a saint, a samaritan, a good guy - if a dog rescues a pup from a burning building it's just survival instinct, protection of species. It's a brave little animal, but no one says that dog has commited a rational act of selflessness, as they do with their own, us humans.
Why does the man rescue the child? Because he is good? Or because he can't help but act on instinct when he sees one of his own in danger?
To use your God analogy:
People believe God is good, so why then so much evil in the world of his creation? Ah but this is all part of the plan, you are given choice and you are judged by your choices. Well then, perhaps that choice is itself evil - to be designed by your own creator in such a way that freedom can allow you to sink so low on the scale says to me that if evil itself is part of the plan, then God himself is evil too, because it is his concept and design that allows its existence. Why bother with the existence of evil at all? Doesn't that say that evil exists within God? So man then would truly be a reflection of God as is often suggested - ultimately good, but capable of evil also.
Satan was created by God, as was man - evil must be a facet of God.
Tolkien's Illuvator then, would actually be quite an accurate representation of the Christian God. Christians defend evil acts by humans as a part of the plan - not defend in that they condone, but accept that it's somehow necessary for some unknown reason. In Tolkien, there is a plan which, though ultimately good, contains evil which exists because of that evil facet of the creator as represented by Melkor and the subsequence of his existence - the discordant note in the music - which results in the many atrocities which occur in ME before the plan is fully realised and good ultimately triumphs: the normal people who sit at the self perpetuating end of the scale of potential endure while the minority, those who go against the norm, fail.
I haven't read the entire thread, so if I've repeated anything, apologies.
Al
:)
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
|
|
|
Very good, Al, I think you touched on areas I was trying to head. I don't know if there really is good or evil, they seem to be based on perception. I feel this because, well, I don't think I've ever met a good or evil person in my life. Sure, I've known people who do "good" things, and I've know people who've done "bad" things. Hell, I've BEEN both! But during the act, I never felt any different than I always do. Maybe slightly guilty, but do you know what, it didn't really matter that much. So, was I "evil"? I don't think so. I give food to the hungry all the time! But does that make me "good"? Not really. Some people may see me either way, but I'm capable of both, or more! Or less, as are we all.
This now gets into stuff like redemption, salvation, forgiveness, change, everything. If there is "evil", are those who are evil capable of good? Are those that are good capable of evil? Is there perfection of either state? Is there a chance to cross the line, can one reform? Can a one-time serial killer become a minister? Has a saint ever lied? How would you know? And if so, does it change who they are?
That's part of why I don't believe in good or evil, I know I personally make decisions in my life based on what I feel at a particular time. There was a time in my life when I wouldn't think twice about pocketing something from a store, and there was a time when I couldn't be bothered with donating my time or money to the betterment of the outlaying community. But that's because I made those choices based on the snap-shots that were my life, that are my life even as I type this, basically stealing money from my employer by talking to you guys. So is my act inherently good or evil? I feel slightly guilty about it, and yet I type away. But how would people judge my act? I'm sure my employer has something to say about it! Yet, I'm sure also that I'd get a sympathetic vote from most of you.
There are choices, perceptions, and judgements, but there is no real good and evil.
I also am a steward.
|
|
|
To paraphrase it in a religious manner: is evil the presence of Satan or is it merely the absence of God?
I tend to think the latter. Why? Look at it this way. There does seem to be a clear, universal idea of what is good, true and just. But opposite this, there is not a clearly defined limit for what is bad or false.
This could get ugly, but here goes...
1. I understand why your phrase it in religious terms, or see several reason why you might, however, it might be more challenging to view it in nonreligious terms.
2. That said, here goes...i believe that the religious definitions of "good" and "evil" frequently reflect a series of mostly common sense rules that help people to live together in society. For instance, if you look at some of the Abrahamic Ten Commandments..."Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not bear false witness (ok...don't lie)". "Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The only two (to my memory) that is not something common sense in terms of allowing people to live together peacefully, are "Keep Holy the Sabbath," and "I am the Lord thy Gody. You shall have no other gods but me." This one seems to be a statement demanding that those laws, and no others be followed.
3. Since I believe in neigher a god, nor a devil, it makes the argument more difficult, but my answer less so. Obviously, for me, good and evil are not predicated on the absence or presence of a higher power, but on the character of humans.
4. I would also argue that evil is the antithesis of good, since in every person there is something good. Sometimes you may have to look very deep to find it, but it is there. For instance, just for the sake of the example, it could be argued that because Hitler (assumption) loved dogs, there was good in him, else he would not be capable of true love. This in no way is meant to diminish the evil he wrought, but to emphasize that in some way, there is some good in everyone, so there can be no true absence of good.
On the other hand, if evil is the antithesis of good, both can be in one person, it is just a matter of which takes precedence, how often and to what degree?
5. While there may be clear line of what is good, I want to know more about how there is an unclear line of what is evil. Is lying evil? What if it is a "harmless" white lie, to protect someone's feelings? Say, for example, you are sitting in a bar, and a woman you find less than attractive comes over to you to "make a pass". You tell her that you find her very pretty, but that you are married, and "where were you 5 years ago?" You do not find her pretty, and are not yet married, but she is going off to do something else feeling complimented, and "let down gently". Is this an act of "good", because you were kind and did not hurt her feelings unnecessarily, or "evil", because you lied?
I do not believe that you can have such fine lines in determining "good" and "evil" actions, because the important thing about actions is the motive, sometimes.
For instance, is it evil to kill someone? To me, that depends upon why you killed them. If you show a short temper by walking down the street, come across some little old lady who is slowing you down because she cannot keep the pace, and you break her neck and keep going...I would vote that that is "evil." However, if someone draws a gun on your wife, threatening to kill her, and you fight with that person, and in the struggle, the gun goes off and kills him, that is done accidentally, and in the act of protecting a loved one from an aggressor. To me, that is "good."
On the other hand, is there an argument that stealing is ever "good"?
6.
The colour white exists, in light and in other things in nature. Pure, bright, 100% whiteness. But blackness does not exist.
Light vs. Dark/white vs. black.
This is a difficult analogy, because white can be proven to be a combination of all of the colors of the spectrum (remember a guy named ROY G BIV?), while black is the absence of all color.
Is Melkor/Morgoth the same as Satan, and are Sauron, Saruman and others his minions (like Lucifer and Beelzebub)?
I do not believe so. This is likely obvious since I have already stated that I do not believe in a god or a devil, but...
I believe that in a Tolkienian world, for a story like his, there have to be clear "good" and "evil" lines drawn. For the most part, you can say that "Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits are good, but not perfect. Orcs, trolls and demons are evil. Men bridge the gap, but tend to be good, unless under the dominion of evil." This allows some realism, with a system of deification which is clear cut, so the messages can be clear.
What do you think? Is this far-fetched or am I on the right trail here…?
Yes.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
I would have to disagree with you here. I don’t believe that Evil is simply the absence of Good. I think to be Evil you must have malicious intent. Apathy certainly aids an Evil cause more than a Good one but this is the nature of Good and Evil. Good is constructive whereas Evil is usually destructive,
For example, rebuilding of the walls of the Pelennor is a Good act. Riding through the gaps in the walls with a murdering army is an Evil act. Not helping in the rebuilding of the walls is not an evil act, but it does not help the Good. Not opposing the invading armies is not an evil act, but it helps the Evil.
I don’t think that Tolkien ever paints someone as Evil who is merely apathetic, or non-involved. I think he condemns their soft-headedness as a character flaw (like the Hobbit sheriifs) but they are not thrown in the pile with the damned.
|
|
|
Excellent topic, Wajz!
I can see the relation to Platonic ideas in Tolkien’s writing. Plato’s “ideal world” of perfect forms can be seen as the second Music of the Ainur after the end of the world and the great battle to overthrow Melkor (is that post still around?); whereas the first Music (resulting in the Middle Earth of the Silmarillion and LOTR) is the present, physical world, which has been marred by Melkor’s will.
Tolkien is saying that evil is manifest in Middle earth because Melkor’s will is embodied within it, just as Sauron’s will is embodied in the Ring. But it is only in striving to overcome that evil that Eru’s true intent can be discovered by the essentially “good” elves and men of ME – at the end of all things, they are then able to witness the Second Music and participate in the paradise that it creates: a paradise that has not been marred by evil, and therefore in which evil cannot exist. I see this as Tolkien’s mythological equivalent of the Christian heaven – a place that is closed to Satan, and therefore unmarred by evil.
As far as the real world is concerned – as an atheist, I do not view “good” and “evil” as entities in themselves, but as aspects of the human psyche. We all have the potential for both, but our own experiences, societies, and conscience determine both our behaviour, and our perception of that behaviour.
...diving for dear life, when we should be diving for pearls...
|
|
|
Wajz, how about my "ecological" theory on color?
White -- includes all colors in the spectrum, therefore symbolizing diversity. In nature, a wide diversity of plant and animal life seems to represent a healthy ecosystem, or, to nature, goodness. In Middle Earth, there are a wide diversity of peoples, and Tolkien seems to characterize that as "good."
Black -- The void. The absence of color, the absence of diversity. This is Sauron territory. He's like an extremely invasive weed who destroys the biodiversity of Middle Earth, leaving it blackened and pretty much an ecological desert.
So perhaps Tolkien saw blackness as the void, the place where there is no color and no diversity. Sauron's empire is the land of shadows, rather than of rainbows.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Thu May 22 09:33:12)
|
|
I enjoyed the previous discussions in this vein, and I always wanted to delve further into the topic. It lends itself to many more questions, and inevitably branches off into a myriad of interesting debates. Bravo!
I think, first of all, we need to separate good/evil and good/bad. Good and bad are results - good being beneficial, or a positive effect - bad being harmfull or a negative effect.
Good and evil are values involving intent vis-a-vis moral imperatives. Good is the willfull intent to produce a positive result. Evil is the intent to cause harm.
Something can be bad without evil being involved. A Tornado destroying a village and killing people is bad, but not evil, unless of course, some entity caused the tornado in order to destroy the village. Evil can exist without anything bad happening. It is the intent that is evil. Even so, it is all relative, and like anything, there are varying degrees and even the absence of either good or bad, good or evil.
As Alizarin said, the concepts of good and evil are human concepts, developed from experience and instinct. We instinctively want to survive, to protect our young, etc. Doing so is considered good. Beyond that, cultural influences determine what is considered good or evil. Was it evil for the Aztecs to sacrifice human beings? We consider human sacrifice to be evil, but they didn't. To them, it was appeasing their gods, and therefor good.
Evil cannot simply be the absence of good, since that implies that we are always engaging in one or the other. There are plenty of times when we are doing something (or not doing something) that is neither beneficial nor harmfull. There are also times when not doing something is a conscious choice that is either good or evil. Apathy and/or fear can be evil, but not necessarily so. It depends on the circumstances and from what perspective it is being judged.
Does good equate to God, and therefore evil is the absence of God? I cannot imagine how this is the case. If God created the universe and everything in it, then God created evil as well. Therefore, God is either both good and evil, or neither - something that we cannot comprehend. That is, assuming that God exists. I think neither, since I believe that good and evil are human constructs.
Light and dark are not values - they are physical conditions. White and black are also physical conditions. Good and evil are not. I don't think we can apply the same logic to these very different things. Opposites can be distinguished by absence of a characteristic in some cases, and in others by a very different and opposing characteristic. Stupidity is the absence of intelligence. It is relative to what we consider to be intelligent. A person can be relatively intelligent compared to some, but relatively stupid compared to others.
Evil is not relative to good in this way - it is the opposite of it. Someone doing a less good thing is not evil in relation to someone doing something more good. Evil involves a negative connotation.
With Tolkien's works, it is much clearer. Evil is often somewhat tangible. Sauron isn't a being that the denizens of Middle Earth just believe to exist. They know he exists and that the threat is real. Apathy isn't necessarily evil - just foolish. It results in evil winning.
I really don't think there is much difference between God/Angels and Illuvator/Ainur. Illuvator created the Ainur just as God created the Angels. I guess the only difference I do see is that the Ainur were actively involved in creation.
|
|
|
| by -
kiplingkat
(Thu May 22 10:30:37)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 22 10:53:45 |
I've loved the responses, still reading through them, but I just wanted to jump in here and go off half cocked the way I usually do. 
I don't think there is any form of Absolute Good or Evil in this world. You say murder is universally considered wrong. Yet many cultures did, and some still do today, expose infants to get rid of them because for whatever reason society deemed the child to be "unfit". Judging Good and Evil to a human moral standard is impossible. Who's moral standard?
It could be argued, and probably has been by some philosophers, that "Good" is simply the absence of the violent and destructive forces of "Evil".
So you have to distill the concepts of Good and Evil into concious intent, and even then there is an argument for both sides of your issue. Let's take a look at some basic types of murders.
One can be simply an amoral sociopath. Complete lack of abilty to empathise with another living creature. They cannot see other people as human beings as they are, leading to the worst results. It is the comlpete abscence of the human qualities we consider good.
On the other hand, you have a murder who kills for greed or hate. They may be a completely capable and feeling human being who loves his friends and family, yet he is overwhelmed by his or her "desire" for something. Then it is not the abscence of good that is the problem, it's the overwhelming prescence of something else.
The human mind is a very complex playground with some very individualized dynamics. How "good" and "evil" plays out in each phsyche and experience set varies greatly from person to person, let alone from culture to culture. You can look at two identical "acts of harm", but those two people could have come at the same result from completely different pathways.
As for the abstract concepts of Good and Evil. I don't know. I don't think the human mind can really wrap itself around the totallity and scope of these concepts. I have never belived in Satan, or a anthropomorphic personalification of evil. I have found that evil is "force" that can live in the most innocuous human being, like a vegetarian artist, or even in me. Whether that force is a prescence or abscence...I don't know. But I also belive that every human being also contains the presence of good. Two sides of the coin. One cannot exist without the other. Whether it is that one throws the other into relief so that we can see it, or that they are actually two dynamic forces in symbiosis is another question to ponder.
I would also like to note that many people automatically equate "Order" with "Good" and "Chaos" with "Evil". These are not synonomous, but two set of different concepts.
"Boromir, quit trying to cut off Frodo's head ..." ~ Blatant favoritism most annoying.
|
|
|
Thanks! And yes it is great to see so much food for thought compiled in just a few dozen replies... what a special community this is...!
I like the distinction you make between Order/Chaos and Good/Bad. Very platonic as well, I might add. Maybe this is where my original post got confusing (not that I'm gonna edit it though) To me, the cosmic order represents some kind of super-truth; the standard by which all is measured. It is neither good nor bad, it just IS. However, since a fraction of this supreme BEING exists in all of us, why not assume this is some kind of universal GOOD?
Sure, it sucks when a tornado wrecks your house. Sure, it sucks when you happen to be a wildebeest that walks into a crocodile feeding frenzy... but only on a superficial, ephemeral level. The big picture is always the same, unchanging... ORDER.
I think Iluvatar represents this cosmic order, with all the good and bad trimmings that come with the package. Somehow, it is beyond good or evil. That is what I was trying to say in the first place... that above the usual good/evil distinction there is a higher level of perception, which -to me anyway- represents another level of goodness and truth.
Jeez this is so hard to put into words! And yet it is so rewarding to try and do so!
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
| by -
lacedemonians
(Sat May 24 19:19:03)
|
|
| UPDATED Mon May 26 01:14:30 |
You made some excellent points that touched on several principles. They were also very well stated. You have a definite talent for clarity and distinctiveness!
[I don't think there is any form of Absolute Good or Evil in this world. You say murder is universally considered wrong. Yet many cultures did, and some still do today, expose infants to get rid of them because for whatever reason society deemed the child to be "unfit". Judging Good and Evil to a human moral standard is impossible. Who's moral standard? ]
Principle: Good and Evil presume transcendent moral standards. (which I believe people do not create so much as they choose).
Example: The Lacedemonians exposed infants judged "unfit" (uh oh!)
[One can be simply an amoral sociopath. Complete lack of abilty to empathise with another living creature. They cannot see other people as human beings as they are, leading to the worst results. It is the comlpete abscence of the human qualities we consider good. ]
Principle: Lack of Empathy with others is frequently at the heart of committing acts of evil. This is so very true.
[The human mind is a very complex playground with some very individualized dynamics. How "good" and "evil" plays out in each phsyche and experience set varies greatly from person to person, let alone from culture to culture. You can look at two identical "acts of harm", but those two people could have come at the same result from completely different pathways. ]
This was extremely well stated. I remember having an argument about this very thing with my college professor. (many years ago)
Principle: You can’t pigeonhole individuals into little boxes.
[On the other hand, you have a murder who kills for greed or hate. They may be a completely capable and feeling human being who loves his friends and family, yet he is overwhelmed by his or her "desire" for something. Then it is not the abscence of good that is the problem, it's the overwhelming prescence of something else. ]
Principle: "bad acts" frequently stem from psychological reasons - not necessarily from evil intent.
[As for the abstract concepts of Good and Evil. I don't know. I don't think the human mind can really wrap itself around the totallity and scope of these concepts. I have never belived in Satan, or a anthropomorphic personalification of evil. I have found that evil is "force" that can live in the most innocuous human being, like a vegetarian artist, or even in me. Whether that force is a prescence or abscence...I don't know. But I also belive that every human being also contains the presence of good. Two sides of the coin. One cannot exist without the other. Whether it is that one throws the other into relief so that we can see it, or that they are actually two dynamic forces in symbiosis is another question to ponder. ]
Principle #1: Good and Evil are easier to see in concrete forms than to ponder in the abstract.
Principle #2: Evil can become a psychological "force".
Example: People who abuse children were frequently themselves abused as children.
[I would also like to note that many people automatically equate "Order" with "Good" and "Chaos" with "Evil". These are not synonomous, but two set of different concepts. ]
Principle: Chaos and Order are inherent to the natural world - independent of the notion of Good and Evil:
Example: The concentration camps were supremely orderly.
Example: Untamed nature, such as in the deep forest, is full of chaos (and yet there is order too!)
|
|
|
| by -
MatrixMaster
(Thu May 22 11:08:04)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 22 12:59:25 |
Hmm, the return of the "nature of evil"?
Ok. Random thoughts.
Ethics: a discipline attempting to analyze the difference among choices.
Some become good.
Some become bad.
But how do we know the difference?
To illustrate: murder is considered wrong in every moral system I know of.
So a key question: If you could go back in time and kill Adolf, would you?
Or a more contemporary question (taken from the deadzone): If you knew a minor politician, would eventually become the man who starts armageddeon (and thus is directly responsible for the deaths of millions) ... would you do everything you could to stop him, up to and including murder?
Clearly, I think there is no easy answer to these questions.
Which leads me to conclude ... that whether an action is good/bad, right/wrong .. is based on what its ultimate consequences are.
Now being that even the very wise cannot see all ends ... how can we, the not so very wise, accurately judge an action to be good or bad?
Alas, I think we cannot.
But, maybe Illuvatar/God CAN "see all ends" ... and thus judge right/wrong.
Which brings me to why we (humans) need Illuvator/God (be him real or imagined). We are incaple of assessing the accuracy of our ethical/moral systems without this highest of standards by which to judge by.
Now then? What does the Illuvatar/God see? ... Good question. We don't know .. well at least, I'M willing to admit I DON'T KNOW.
So what those this leave us with? A journey, a path ... an attempt to undestand.
Is there an absolute good? You might as well ask, is there an aboslute truth? Well is there?!
I don't know. But we MUST presume that there is. Otherwise, how else are we ever going to make any sense out of anything.
Therefore, I will humbly declare that there IS a good and an evil. Just don't ask me to define with absolute certainty, what they are.
Besides, don't we have people like Tolkien to give us some sound answers ;)
The Matrix has you!
|
|
|
"Boromir, quit trying to cut off Frodo's head ..." ~ Blatant favoritism most annoying.
|
|
|
The true essence of what is good or evil is a remarkably dynamic and inventive exposition on the nature of human moral ethics. Because we have for years made moral, aesthetic, religious demands on the world, looked upon it with blind desire, faith, obsession and dread.
The world we live in has become so stunningly variegated, unpleasant, important and soulful, it has acquired color. To take your thoughts in a slight shift of direction Wajz. We have been the colorists or manipulator, interesting enough in color theory, white and black are not color but contrasts…. it is the human intellect that has made concepts of good and evil appear and transport its basic impressions into rationalized ends. Which is the hallmark of a brilliant question! Not only about the concept of good and evil. But more about the drive of the probing intellect of mankind for answers to a difficult question.
Perhaps the essence of good and evil will always elude us, because we are like props in a play that are continually arranging, revealing or illuminating the supposed qualities we feel are in order to deceive or reveal about our observations and ourselves. I propose good and evil could be compared to a theatre of ideas. Not unlike the dynamic philosophical concepts of Nietzsche’s monumental work on ethics "beyond good and evil"- a prelude to a philosophy of the future. Or taking it one step further in the human process.
Is evil the absence of good, or its antithesis?
I would say that it is the absence of good because of the delusions of egocentric thinking.
|
|
|
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
hey bigV
glad you made it, sir!
|
|
|
oh well,
i see it was very well deserved
haven't seen bruce almighty yet but i'm sure you won't burn in hell.
god, how can some people be so ... eeerr (i have to improve my english, can't find the word ... how i hate this  ...) ... narrow minded(?) about religion ... i'm not religious but at least i think i have some common sense.
take care sir bigv!
see you around...
|
|
|
I do not expect to burn...there would have to be a Hell, first.
Yes, "narrow minded" is the expression you are looking for.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
I apologize if I cover things already brought up by others. I haven't had a chance to read everything that has been posted on this thread already.
In order to really answer your question, a definition of good and evil is needed. And definitions change with the person and the mood. A general definition of good is that good is anything that improves, gives, or helps life. Evil is the taking, removing, a worsening of life. These are the general definitions that I've noticed over the years, and pretty much sum up most good/evil issues. But take this a step further, and ask why would anyone do anything good? General human instinct is to serve yourself first before others, and acts of good generally indicate doing something for someone else. So, for someone to help someone else, generally something bad happened to them in the past so that they now feel pity and a desire to help others who have suffered or are suffering. In this light, evil creates good. But reverse that, and another human emotion creates evil from good. People see all these good deeds that another is doing, gets jealous, and does something evil in a fit of rage. Now good creates evil. I realize this doesn't always happen, but it can and it does happen.
But is there any real good and evil? Death and destruction, essentially evil things going by the definitions above, are the beginning and the end of almost everything. After many discussions, I begun thinking that maybe good and evil don't exist. Are all these acts that we despise so much really evil? Well, if there is a God, how do we know that this is not his master plan? God could have everything laid out before us to give us a great life but we must endure hardships before we see how great we truly have it. Or, if there is no God, how do we know that there isn't just Nature, which has its own laws and rules?
Trying to put good and evil into any definition is extremely difficult. Depending on what you point of view is, you could look at this any number of ways. And, lately, my view has shifted from good and evil to things just being. Right and wrong, good and evil, they are all just human creations to try to better our civilization and allow us to survive as all living creatures try to do. Chaos may not always be fun, but it is a necessity of life.
|
|
|
Interesting question. I'm glad to see it because I entirely missed the "Nature of Evil" discussions.
This is terribly simple compared to the replies I've been skimming through, but I'd like to join in. The issue that came to mind immediately was whether indifference was actually evil or an entirely different concept. I mean, consider three people. One pushes another person off a cliff. One watches as another person hangs off of the edge of the cliff and falls. One pulls up a person who is hanging off the cliff. Are those people evil, indifferent, and good respectively? Or are the first two evil and the first good?
But you were speaking on a more theoretical level. In my personal opinion (today), "good" and "evil" are not independent entities. They are just qualities in a person's actions. You can do something good, you can do something evil. Any person is capable of both. Therefore evil cannot be only the absence of good because good can be present where evil also exists.
I'm not really satisfied with this response. I'll think it over and maybe come back with something more to say.
The North Wind may have heard the horn of the son of Denethor.
|
|
|
Wisdom is not the purchase of a day.
|
|
|
"I'm afraid the strain was more than he could bear"~Doc Holliday, Tombstone.
|
|
|
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
