Melkor: evil by will, nature or fate?

[HieroGlyph]

Hmmm...
So is Melkor evil? Evil incarnate? Or does 'evil' really exist? And is 'evil' simply a perspective we give things within Ea: that spectrum we stretch out to compare 'good' and its opposite?

The true downfall of Melkor isnt any pure evil 'thing'. I think its more his behaviour. His forever 'coveting'! To 'covet'. To want. To control, to own, to take away free will of others... Killing anything at all is a form of control and a brandishing of power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A powerful Being that desires and covets and wants to control everything... Is surely absolutely corrupted?
So Eru made Melkor. Eru did not create 'evil'. Melkor was immensely powerful. But that wasnt enough for him. He saught more. 'Couldnt get all the answers he wanted. Became the rebelious, unsatisfied child... And 'coveted'. And fell from grace.
By Will.
By Naure.
Becoming his own Fate.

(A bit like us humans, in many ways, eh?)

[Sinbearer]

Originally Posted by HieroGlyph

Hmmm...
So is Melkor evil? Evil incarnate? Or does 'evil' really exist? And is 'evil' simply a perspective we give things within Ea: that spectrum we stretch out to compare 'good' and its opposite?

The dictionary definition of evil is: anything causing injury or harm. By that definition Melkor is evil. And certainly not pure which is defined to be innocent and untainted by evil. That perspective you mention is critical to the creation of moral thought. Without it we lose the ability to discern between Hitler and Mother Teresa.

In good stories children are taught the attractiveness of virtue and the repulsiveness of evil not so much by abstract precept—and certainly not by school’s ‘values clarification exercises’—but by rooting for virtuous heroes and being inspired by a good story to emulate their behavior…imaginative wrestling with conflicts is exactly how stories teach morality and build character.

This happens dynamically with young boys and tales of knights and dragons. It is one of the most effective challenges a young boy could be given. It throws down the question, “How will you live your life?” It exclaims, “There is real evil and there is transcendent good—would you risk your life for good—for all that is noble, pure and honorable?” It gives him a thrilling glimpse of light.
This objective nature of truth—or contrast of darkness against light—is one of the greatest lessons we learn from Tolkien. Evil is real; and so is good. Tolkien didn't have any time for the amoral relativism that is so prevalent in much of what passes as modern literature and entertainment. The fact that his myths contain more truth than most of what passes as realism serves as a damning indictment of the false vision being presented in our world today.

As for Melkor becoming an inevitable rebel. To me that simply means that rebelion was the inevitable result of his decision or will. Not that he HAD to be evil.

[etburyan]

I have enjoyed reading your thoughts. Although I don't have my copy of Silmarillian with me, I am in China, I have thought about the connection between satan and Melkor. I love the way that Tolkein writes it. How even what Melkor intends for evil turns out to be in THE PLAN. In any case, if I am remembering correctly, Satan, in Jewish tradition, is the tempter. Hence, he is different from all other angels in that he has that which caused the original sin. He has knowledge of good and evil. To tempt is to know that which is good and convince others not to do it, or at least to know evil and convince others to do that. I know that this isn't what Tolkein wrote about Melkor, but I think that it is interesting to think about.

[etburyan]

Since I didn't give my thoughts on Melkor I will put them down now...

Inevitable is an interesting thought because it is based on a concept that no human could ever accomplish...forknowledge. For the same reason that time travel movies don't accurately show what would happen to the person in the future if the changed the past, we can't understand inevitability. Only a being living outside time could truly understand that concept. Humans can only understand it in the past tense. We can understand laws of science and their "inevitable" reactions, but this is truly not inevitability but it is the reaction that happened in all other cases and is almost definitely going to happen. Those are laws...it gets much more complicated with sentient beings

That said, the only one who can judge inevitability would be a being outside of time who could look at the possible actions and outcomes BEFORE any action happens. Therefore, as they say, only God knows.

[Boaz]

Wow, I don't know if I ever checked in on this thread since my last post.

In my opinion, Arda's theology and cosmology are tremendously inspired by Judeo-Christian writings but we must be careful of how transfer attributes of YHWH (God) to Eru and from Angels to Ainur.

Most Christian theology, if not all, depicts Lucifer and his followers being cast from YHWH's presence rather quickly... though time before time is fairly impossible to quantify. I think it's significant that after Melkor's two attempts to sabotage Eru's song Eru did not banish him to the Outer Darkness. It seems that Eru admonished Melkor and his followers but did not punish them. So I'm led to believe that the rebellious Ainur, including Melkor, could be forgiven by Eru... they could be forgiven and put again into a correct relationship with their Maker. In Christian theology Angels know better than to rebel... there is no second chance (and third, fourth, fifth, etc.) for them as there is for humans.

Melkor, still abiding in Eru's presence, decided to rebel again and went surreptiously to Arda. His original rebellion seemed forgiven so it does not seem like he was fated to be the Evil One for all time. He chose to go and be the corruptor of Arda. After finally being defeated and imprisoned by the Valar, Melkor was pardoned by Manwe. Since Manwe knows more of the mind of Eru than any other Ainur, I think that redemption for Melkor was still possible at this late date. Yet again, Melkor did not take the chance.

I think all this shows that Melkor was not fated to be evil. He chose repeatedly to be evil. So was it his nature to choose incorrectly? No, Melkor was the greatest of the Ainur. Eru made him to lead and guide as a governor for Eru. Eru made him for a good purpose. Melkor chose to do evil.

Osse was mentioned by a previous poster. He briefly joined Melkor before the awakening of the Quendi. But he repented of this and was allowed to rejoin the Valar and Maiar.

After the victorious Valar captured Melkor a second time, Eonwe asked Sauron to come back to be judged by Manwe. The Silmarillion says something to the effect of Sauron felt remorse and wanted to rejoin his kin in Aman, but that his shame and pride were too great.