# Akalabeth - Was The Destruction of Numenor an Immoral Act?



## adpirtle

Oh kay, so I just finished this book (again, since I read it once before) and something really struck me. As a child subjected to that frightening institution known as 'sunday school', I always found the story of Noah's Ark to be terribly unjust. What bugged me was the way god could just drown *everybody*. I mean, are all the men and women and children completely evil? Evil babies? 

So when I read that all the people of Numenor, including not just innocent children but explicitly innocent adults (like Míriel) were killed, it seemed like the first blatantly immoral act of the 'powers'. Is it ever justified to kill the innocent just to make sure you wipe out the guilty (especially considering you didn't have to, having godlike powers and what not)?

Thoughts?


----------



## Alcuin

I cannot stand in judgment of God – I have no such authority and am in no position to do so; besides, *dapence* would rightfully whack me for discussing religion. 

Let us focus instead upon Eru and see if we can address your question.

The Númenóreans were in open rebellion not against the Valar, the regents of Arda, but against their own _Maker_, Eru Ilúvatar. They took as their god Morgoth, the rebel Vala and enemy of Eru, and as their god-king his regent Sauron. Many who remained faithful to Eru they tortured and murdered in honor of Morgoth, so that the survivors fled to Middle-earth. The last of the Faithful Númenóreans were gathered on Elendil’s nine ships off the eastern coast of Númenor. The whole population of Númenor, all across the island, had enthralled itself to Sauron, or so we are told.

Atalantë was the Island of Gift, a gift not only from the Valar, but ultimately from Eru Himself. There the Dúnedain lived lifespans thrice those of the Men of Middle-earth, without disease, without fear of enemies assailing them, in peace, prosperity, safety, comfort, and bounty. 

Númenor was a gift to the survivors of the Three Houses of the Edain, who in the face of war, defeat, and devastation by Morgoth and his overwhelming might, had remained faithful to Eru throughout the First Age. From “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth” (“The Debate of Finrod and Andreth”) in _Morgoth’s Ring_ we learn that even earlier, the fathers of the Edain had fled west to escape Morgoth and his worshippers in Hildórien, who according to Andreth and the Wise (the loremasters of Men, not the “Wise” or White Council of _LotR_) had tortured and murdered those who remained faithful to Eru after Men awoke and succumbed to Morgoth’s temptations.

Eru did not destroy the Morgoth-worshippers who drove out the ancestors of the Edain. He did not destroy the Morgoth-worshippers who betrayed the Edain and Eldar in Beleriand. He did not, if you notice, destroy the Morgoth-worshippers who inhabited the rest of Middle-earth. 

But the Dúnedain of Númenor _knew_ the truth: they knew their own history, and how the island came to be theirs. They knew who Morgoth was, and they knew who Sauron was. Not only had they been unjustly warred upon by Morgoth and Sauron in the First Age, they had been at war with Sauron through the second half of the Second Age. 

They knew the Eldar. They met and spoke with and interacted with the Eldar and the emissaries of the Valar who came from the West to discuss with them about their nascent rebellion. 

Yet despite all this, they rejected the truth and willfully embraced lies. They turned their backs upon life and worshipped death. They abandoned freedom and instituted slavery, first for others, then upon themselves. They pillaged, murdered, and finally sought to overthrow the rule of Arda. 

The Númenóreans slaughtered whomever wherever they pleased whether guilty or innocent. When these rebels finally drove out the last of the Faithful and assaulted the Valar, their land was taken from them, and they were all destroyed. _*How is this unjust?*_ 

Are you arguing that the offspring of the wicked should replace the offspring of the good? That the wicked should multiply and prosper regardless of their deeds, and that there must be no punishment, no retribution? What a lovely outcome for evil! Do as you will! There is no need to fear recompense! Rape, loot, pillage and burn! No worry! The children of the weak and innocent may be torn and slaughtered and bled to death on altars to Morgoth, but you demand your babes must prosper? Is _that_ justice? 

The Downfall of Númenor _is_ terribly sad: so much that was good was lost, so much that might have been was not. The deaths of all the folk of Númenor is sad: but that is what a wicked, proud, unmerciful, and ungrateful people chose for themselves. Like a man who immolates himself, the King’s Men of Númenor chose Death, worshipped Death, and received Death.


----------



## adpirtle

Alcuin said:


> Are you arguing that the offspring of the wicked should replace the offspring of the good? That the wicked should multiply and prosper regardless of their deeds, and that there must be no punishment, no retribution? What a lovely outcome for evil! Do as you will! There is no need to fear recompense! Rape, loot, pillage and burn! No worry! The children of the weak and innocent may be torn and slaughtered and bled to death on altars to Morgoth, but you demand your babes must prosper? Is _that_ justice?


 
Wickedness is not a genetic trait. I think killing everyone who chose to attack the Valar would not be considered "no punishment". Killing their wives (at least the wicked ones, since as I said, we know they weren't all wicked) could easily have been accomplished also. Even the destruction of the island, but not its innocent inhabitants, would not have been out of the bounds of their power. Would all this constitute no punishment? I don't see how killing the innocent increases the justice of the act.


----------



## Alcuin

The Faithful had been driven out of Númenor. Elendil and his followers were the last of them. Those who remained were not innocent: they were the King’s Men, and they worshipped Morgoth.


----------



## adpirtle

Alcuin said:


> The Faithful had been driven out of Númenor. Elendil and his followers were the last of them. Those who remained were not innocent: they were the King’s Men, and they worshipped Morgoth.



We do know that not all of the adults who were on the island when it went down were "King's Men". At least one of the women, Miriel Ar-Zimraphel, the daughter of the faithful Tal-Palantir who was wed against her will to the new king, was left on the island, and her dying act was to attempt to reach Manwe's temple before it fell under the waves. Who can say how many more of the wives of the evil Numenorians were faithful but were left behind? After all, what the text says is that Elendil contacted the faithful and they put their wives and children onto ships, which implies that who Elendil contacted were the faithful men. And we still have all the innocent children of the unfaithful who were killed.


----------



## Edheldae

Its a good question. Setting aside my personal faith I'll try and pull a bit from the text itself.

The king turned to the worship of Morgoth and for the most part the people followed him thinking to escape death. Later, the land and weather itself began to turn against them, and signs were given showing the unnaturalness of their choice. Some would for a time repent then later recant. Finally as the fleet was setting out the king hardened his heart against the truth.

I think all these things show a degree of willfulness throughout the population and a period of warning. Was the consequence of their decision immoral?

I think not. You state that killing the innocent does not justify the act. Yet surely justice is a moral act? Would it be moral to allow the act of defying the ban and near wholesale worship of Morgoth go for the sake of one innocent? How do you feel about guilty by association? Should not the innocent have fled when their kinsmen turned to evil, as in fact, many did? The 7 ships of Elendil and his sons did not land on shores and found Arnor and Gondor solely with themselves ruling the so-called lesser men.

Is it it moral to allow a powerful evil to continue for the sake of one innocent?

Good question. Interested in what you think.


----------



## adpirtle

Edheldae said:


> I think not. You state that killing the innocent does not justify the act. Yet surely justice is a moral act? Is it it moral to allow a powerful evil to continue for the sake of one innocent?
> 
> Good question. Interested in what you think.



But thats my point. We have no reason to believe that the choice was (a) kill everyone including the innocent or (b) allow everyone including the guilty to survive. I think thats a false dichotomy, seeing as the Eru and the Valar were powerful enough to reshape the entire world. It would have seemed a trifle for them to scoop up the remaining innocents first and deposit them in Middle Earth. Instead, Tolkien goes out of his way to say that innocents were left to die. He explicitly mentions the children, and he explicitly mentions Miriel. I just find that interesting. As for whether or not the innocent should have fled, like I say Tolkien doesn't tell us they were told to do so.


----------



## Alcuin

adpirtle said:


> As for whether or not the innocent should have fled, like I say Tolkien doesn't tell us they were told to do so.


Tolkien does tell us the Faithful Dúnedain were killed or driven out of Númenor. That’s how Arnor and Gondor came to be populated before Elendil and his sons arrived in Middle-earth. The original settlers were colonists, but the later and more numerous settlers were refugees.



adpirtle said:


> But thats my point. We have no reason to believe that the choice was (a) kill everyone including the innocent or (b) allow everyone including the guilty to survive. I think thats a false dichotomy, seeing as the Eru and the Valar were powerful enough to reshape the entire world. It would have seemed a trifle for them to scoop up the remaining innocents first and deposit them in Middle Earth. Instead, Tolkien goes out of his way to say that innocents were left to die. He explicitly mentions the children, and he explicitly mentions Miriel. I just find that interesting.


You’re arguing that “Eru murdered the innocent, therefore Eru is either Evil or condones Evil.” The way your question is framed, Eru is evil either way. That _is_ a false dichotomy. It’s the philosophical equivalent of asking, “Do you still beat your wife?”

Tar-Míriel had decades to work against Ar-Pharazôn. She never did. When she saw she was doomed, she tried to save herself, but as Tolkien points out, it was too late: the critical time had passed. “Oh, Your Honor, I just realized that for that past sixty-four years, my husband has been worshipping Morgoth, making human sacrifices, murdering and pillaging our countrymen, and he might even be implicated in the murder of my first betrothed. But I’m innocent!” Right. What was she doing for the last sixty-three years? Tolkien is giving you a life warning: do something, don’t wait! 

If your “innocents” here are the children of Morgoth-worshippers, then you’re right on one point: they were destroyed because their parents practiced evil. But you’re very wrong on the core point: Eru isn’t unjust. The parents are. 

It is sad. It is horrible. But if it offends your sensibilities, think about the real world: if you drag your children off to someplace really bad because _you_ are doing something really bad, and you and your progeny are killed, that’s _your_ fault, not someone else’s. 

The Númenóreans were warned. The Faithful spoke against this destruction of their society. Even after they were dispossessed and marched off to internal exile, they spoke out until they were all killed or driven out of Númenor altogether. During the reign of Tar-Atanamir, the Valar sent an embassy to warn the Númenóreans about the course they were taking, and they continued to warn them as best they could until late the in Second Age when none of the Eldar dared to sail to Númenor. 

One group worshipped Life. The other worshipped Death. The people who worshipped Life found life. The people who worshipped Death found death. They each got what they wanted. Why is that unfair? How can it be? It is the only just outcome.


----------



## adpirtle

Alcuin said:


> You’re arguing that “Eru murdered the innocent, therefore Eru is either Evil or condones Evil.”



No, I'm saying that Eru murdered the innocent. I didn't say he is evil or that he condones evil. You can do something wrong without being evil. The book is packed full of examples of that.



Alcuin said:


> Tar-Míriel had decades to work against Ar-Pharazôn. She never did. When she saw she was doomed, she tried to save herself, but as Tolkien points out, it was too late: the critical time had passed.



We don't know what opportunity she had to do anything. She was taken in marriage against her will. The scepter was taken from her against her will. I'm guessing that, as the legitimate heir, she was kept under pretty tight wraps. And it doesn't say she was trying to save herself. Perhaps she wanted to plead for the lives of all those drowning children...speaking of which:



Alcuin said:


> If your “innocents” here are the children of Morgoth-worshippers, then you’re right on one point: they were destroyed because their parents practiced evil. But you’re very wrong on the core point: Eru isn’t unjust. The parents are...if you drag your children off to someplace really bad because _you_ are doing something really bad, and you and your progeny are killed, that’s _your_ fault, not someone else’s.



If you're a supreme being and you want to punish those parents, and you choose to kill those children even when you absolutely don't have to and they haven't done anything wrong, then you are as much to blame as their parents. Its not like the island fell into the sea as a consequence of their parents' actions. It was sunk to punish them by powers that absolutely didn't have to punish their innocent children, and did so anyway.


----------



## Edheldae

So by that logic - Eru is supreme. he allows Morgoth to take and enslave elves, warping them into a race of orcs. Orcs go on to pillage and destroy other innocents, so Eru is responsible for the death of elvish innocents?

No, I don't think is was immoral. It was a natural outcome of the choices of the people. There's a strong theme through the books of choices impacting the natural world, there is no separation. We are all part of the created world and that world has ways that is functions and ways that is doesn't.

The Numenoreans crossed a line, they were warned, they did not repent. I would not assume too much on what Eru should or should not do. he seems to give his creation a lot of free will. Where there is free will, there are innocent casualties.

We can have different opinions about it. I'm most interested to understand why you think the accidental destruction of innocent life is immoral.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Sorry I'm at work and don't have full resources to contribute to this but the following quote comes to mind:



> Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.



Basically in this instance (destruction of Numenor), even though innocents may (and probably were) killed as well as the guilty, the innocents will be judged accordingly. The worship of Morgoth here was part of Morgoth's theme, his desire to be a lord/ruler of the world and in the end, even though those innocents died with the guilty, in the same way, only good could come out of it because they would be judged in the end to be loyal to Eru.


----------



## HLGStrider

I think we are looking at this wrong because as mortals our view is scewed. I've always thought this when people ask, "Why does God allow innocents to die?" in any circumstance. My thought is always that death, from an eternal stand point is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. It isn't even the most final thing that can happen to a person. It is just the most final thing that we know for sure about.

Now afterlife within Tolkien's mythology isn't always clearly laid out, but if we are going by your logic that because Eru didn't miraculously intervene on behalf of Miriel and the children, then don't we have to look at every incident ever. Are we to assume that no child ever got trampled by a careless chariot? Was struck down by an unexpected disease? Even if they had grown up and led perfect lives they would eventually die. You can't just behave your way out of mortality. That's not how Middle Earth is set up. 

I understand that, because this was a specific act of Eru triggered by the violation of a rule he set, you think this one is especially unfair, but if we assume an all powerful Eru, doesn't he always have the ability to intervene in cases of sickness and accident or even the violence of other men. He very well could have saved the children in this incident, but he very well could've saved Nienor whose involvement with her brother was truly just really really bad luck (who gets amnesia??). And if not her, what of her unborn child who really couldn't help the whole inbred thing? 

I'm reminded of the end of one of Tolkien's friend's masterworks (though perhaps not his best well known), Lewis' "That Hideous Strength" which ends with the catastrophic (and somewhat confusing, if I remember, it's been about ten years since I actually read this book) destruction of a large number of people surrounding the evil complex of evilness (Being vague here because I don't want to give you a full plot summery) . Managed to find the quote I had in mind here, "You are all forgetting," said Grace, "that nearly everyone except the very good (who were ripe for fair dismissal) and the very bad, had already left Edgestow." 

My rambling point being, if we are assuming a just creator with a just set up for the afterlife, the truly innocent (such as infants) shouldn't fear death, because we can assume based on our earlier assumption of a just creator and a just after life that they will in some way get their share of justice as well. Perhaps Miriel did all she could and was there against her will and would've fled had she not been prevented by an evil, controlling spouse. Perhaps not. We can't possibly know. Only Eru does, and that's the point. With a world filled with accidental and intentional tragedy, there is no mathematical way for us humans to keep score, to make sure all the cosmic kharma adds up just right and to our liking. We'll never know all the details. We aren't even sure what happens beyond the great beyond. We can only sort of guess at that. 

So yes, in a temporary sense we are dealing with a great tragedy, but who knows, perhaps in death Miriel (just using her as an example again because she's the only one we know any specifics about) finally was free of a life filled with a whole lot of cosmic unfairness. 

For me faith isn't so much about whether or not I choose to believe a god exists. It's about whether or not I choose to believe that a god knows best. It's about whether I believe that the temporary sadnesses we humans face in the world, no matter how heartwrenching they might be, are over powered by an eternity we can't see and therefore can't quantify, about whether behind door number two there really is a million dollars (game show reference, I don't know if you are American and you may not get that if not, sorry). 

Rambling again. 

I'm just saying while I believe in justice and all, I don't particularly agree with Alcuin and Edheld's assessments that the answer can be found in laying blame on victims. I also don't agree with you that the answer can be found in laying blame with Eru, however. It's not really an issue of justice at all. I don't know what system Eru is using to sort it all out. Tolkien's work simply isn't specific enough, but if you are able to believe within the context of the story that Eru is just, he must therefore be in someway justified. Arguing that you know better than an omniescent being is going to keep you running circles for a long while. Life is never clear cut, and that's why I'm glad I don't have to judge anybody, not even myself.


----------



## HLGStrider

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Sorry I'm at work and don't have full resources to contribute to this but the following quote comes to mind:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically in this instance (destruction of Numenor), even though innocents may (and probably were) killed as well as the guilty, the innocents will be judged accordingly. The worship of Morgoth here was part of Morgoth's theme, his desire to be a lord/ruler of the world and in the end, even though those innocents died with the guilty, in the same way, only good could come out of it because they would be judged in the end to be loyal to Eru.


 
Ah, while I posted my long rambling thing, EA managed to say the same thing, more concisely and with a quote. I hate it when that happens.


----------



## adpirtle

Edheldae said:


> So by that logic - Eru is supreme. he allows Morgoth to take and enslave elves, warping them into a race of orcs. Orcs go on to pillage and destroy other innocents, so Eru is responsible for the death of elvish innocents?



The difference between the two situations is that Eru didn't create the orcs. Morgoth did. Eru did not take away Morgoth's free will, and Morgoth was punished for his wicked deeds. In the situation with Numenor, it wasn't an instance of Eru created men, men sank island and innocent people died. It was a situation of Eru sank the island, Eru acted directly to kill the guilty and innocent alike, and he didn't have to do that. 



Edheldae said:


> We can have different opinions about it. I'm most interested to understand why you think the accidental destruction of innocent life is immoral.



It wasn't accidental. Eru didn't accidentally sink Numenor. If he is a supreme being, he must have known there were innocents on the island. The fact that he sank it without removing them first...well if you want to see that as an oversight I think it diminishes him as a supreme being. But if he did it intentionally, then I don't think it was a moral act.


----------



## adpirtle

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Basically in this instance (destruction of Numenor), even though innocents may (and probably were) killed as well as the guilty, the innocents will be judged accordingly.



I don't think that 'kill them all and let god sort them out' is a very decent way to behave.


----------



## adpirtle

HLGStrider said:


> if we are going by your logic that because Eru didn't miraculously intervene on behalf of Miriel and the children, then don't we have to look at every incident ever. Are we to assume that no child ever got trampled by a careless chariot? Was struck down by an unexpected disease?



Only if Eru was driving the chariot or if he caused the disease, but Eru doesn't drive and Morgoth created plagues and illness. I don't hold Eru accountable for the actions of Morgoth or any of his other creations because I think free will is valuable. That Eru doesn't intervene every time someone does something wrong is a good thing. But Eru directly caused the sinking of Numenor, which means the consequences of that act are his responsibility. He killed lots of innocent people, and there is no reason to think that he had to do so in order to punish the guilty.





HLGStrider said:


> My rambling point being, if we are assuming a just creator with a just set up for the afterlife, the truly innocent (such as infants) shouldn't fear death, because we can assume based on our earlier assumption of a just creator and a just after life that they will in some way get their share of justice as well.



Again, kill them all and let god sort them out. I don't find that to be a convincing argument, especially when you don't have to kill them all. When you can kill only the guilty and instead choose to kill the innocent and guilty together, then you've done wrong. Otherwise, why should we judge anyone who killed anyone in this book to have done wrong?


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

You said it better Strider, I just did shorter.


----------



## HLGStrider

> Only if Eru was driving the chariot or if he caused the disease, but Eru doesn't drive and Morgoth created plagues and illness. I don't hold Eru accountable for the actions of Morgoth or any of his other creations because I think free will is valuable.


 
So if a man sees another man drowning and has a rope or a boat but doesn't particularly feel like rescuing that man, he isn't morally culpable for that man's death? I mean, a man who can't swim or doesn't have a boat might be expected to stand by and just hope for the best, but Eru is in the ultimate position to prevent pain of any sort, and he wouldn't be violating the freewill of the child about to be trampled. That child, if given a choice, would choose not to be trampled. His will would not be violated at all. The driver 's freewill might possibly be violated as he no longer will be responsible for another's death . . .oh but wait, Eru didn't make the Numenoreans sail on Arnor so wouldn't it be exactly the same to reach down and save the child from the results of a reckless charioteers as it would to save the child from the results of an arrogant, reckless king? There is a difference only in the number of people killed.

It's like blaming a man with a dangerous guard dog when the theif opens the gates and the dog gets out and bites the child the thief brought along to watch.

Now Eru could stop the child from getting bitten from the results of the robber's actions because he is all powerful and he could do that.

He could stop the chariot from running over the child due to the charioteer's actions because he is all powerful and could do that.

He could stop the child from drowning because of the kings actions because he is all powerful and he could do that.

I don't see any logical differences in these three statements. Emotional, yes. Perhaps Eru is more obviously aware of the results in the case of the king, just as the owner of the house might be aware that his guard dog has the potential to bite a child and might if the theif choses to bring a child along, but since Eru is aware of all, he really isn't less culpable in the other situations. Not really.



> When you can kill only the guilty and instead choose to kill the innocent and guilty together, then you've done wrong. Otherwise, why should we judge anyone who killed anyone in this book to have done wrong?


 
We cannot "kill all and let God sort them out" because we are not God, but God already does have them sorted out. You are missing my point. Eru did not punish the innocent; he simply allowed them to die. There is a huge difference. Death is only a punishment in that you (according to most religions, not all, and I'm not really sure about Eru's system.) are out of chances and you are stuck being the person you were at that moment for whatever judgment follows. 

It's the difference between an Angel of Death playing god and pretending to relieve suffering by taking out patients he sees as near death and a patient dying because it is his time, his role in this stage of life is complete, and he needs to move on to the next stage. Maybe he moves on to a better place. Maybe he doesn't. We don't know, but Eru does, and in the context of this story, Eru (while maybe not what we would consider fair, fairness as most humans see it is a logical impossibility) is just, therefore Eru's treatment after death will be just. 



> When you can kill only the guilty and instead choose to kill the innocent and guilty together, then you've done wrong. Otherwise, why should we judge anyone who killed anyone in this book to have done wrong?


 
This is the part that makes me think you are missing my point. By making human's mortal, Eru killed every human that ever existed in the books (with a few notable exceptions). That is simply his place as creator, to set the lifelines of those around him. 

Even Ar Pharazon's punishment wasn't death. It was the loss of the gift of Numenor, the beautiful island that allowed him to live within sight of Arnor. Death was just a biproduct of an island being taken away.


----------



## adpirtle

HLGStrider said:


> We cannot "kill all and let God sort them out" because we are not God, but God already does have them sorted out. You are missing my point. Eru did not punish the innocent; he simply allowed them to die. '
> 
> By making human's mortal, Eru killed every human that ever existed in the books (with a few notable exceptions). That is simply his place as creator, to set the lifelines of those around him.



Making men mortal isn't the same as killing them. Eru snuffed out their lives. He didn't allow them to die. He killed them. And saying that its ok for Eru to kill the innocent because death isn't a punishment, but its not ok for anyone else to do it because they aren't Eru is to say whats moral and whats not depends upon who's in charge. If its moral only because Eru did it, then you could have saved the rest of your argument and said destroying Numenor and killing all those innocent people was a moral act simply because Eru did it, and whatever Eru does is moral.


----------



## HLGStrider

But the morality of an act does often depend on who does it. Eru, as the creator, is in effect the owner of all life. It is his to will with and do with as he pleases. If I were to take a hammer to the computer in front of me (which happens not to belong to me as I am staying with relatives atm), it would be wrong because I am destroying something that does not belong to me. If the owner of it did so, than it's not wrong, just really really weird. 

Again, death is (in the context of Tolkien's work) not a punishment. Death is, in fact, referred to over and over again as a gift. How can it be a gift when granted to men through old age but a punishment when it happens to random people on an island due to a flood? If all these men were old would you accept it? Why or why not? 

Again, my point is that death in any form is Eru's will. Death will not happen if it is not Eru's will because nothing happens that is not Eru's will (even the spoiling of the song by Melkor was Eru's will, he saw it coming, he had a plan that included it). Eru determines Eru's will therefore every death is Eru's fault. These deaths were more of a dramatic example. Eru stepped out for a second, stopped being the man behind the curtain, and just did what he has been doing for years to thousands of people at the same time instead of in individual instances.

Your argument is based on the fact that you don't think Eru had a right to do what he wants with his creations. I know that phrasing it that way sounds cruel, but as I said before, I don't think death is cruel. I think death is the natural way life in Middle Earth progresses. You still haven't pointed out how it is different to me. You keep repeating, "Well this he did himself and everything else was done by others." But as I've said again and again, when we are dealing with an all-powerful, all knowing being, a being who knows exactly what Melkor is going to do to ruin his song ahead of time, and writes it into his own plan, a being who COULD stop anything, alter anything, really EVERYTHING is his fault. 

Again, do you think there is a moral difference between a man who pushes someone into the water to let them drown and a man who won't lift a finger to save a person who drowns?

Do you acknowledge that Eru sets the lifelines of all in Middle Earth or are you denying that he has this ability/knowledge and is therefore not omnipotent? If he isn't, why do you automatically assume that he had a method to rescue some and not others and this wasn't the only option in his arsenal? If he was, then again, isn't every death really his fault? 

Let's be more specific: Why isn't every death from natural causes (old age) his fault? 

Old age and mortality were his ideas, correct? Death is again and again refered to as his gift. This whole thing was his idea. Men have absolutely no control over it. It willl happen to them eventually no matter what they do. They can't opt out. They can't escape. In fact, as a gift Eru gives some the ability to opt in sooner rather than opt out.

That would be a funny sort of a gift if death were a bad thing. It's like saying, "Well, I'm going to give you forty lashes in the morning because you've been a mutinous crew, but since I really like you, I'll give you forty lashes now, if you'd rather." 

Instead, he granted a gift (which is made clear that good kings accepted and bad kings scorned) that allowed them to use their own wisdom to determine when their days were full. 

Most mortals do not have this gift, and simply have to trust that Eru has set the correct number of days. Every death is Eru's will, early or late, from a direct hand or not.


----------



## Parsifal

This topic in fact comes quite close to one I had recently posted:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?19965-The-interventions-of-Eru
For the destruction of Numenor is indeed one of these interventions, which I too have a hard time understanding.
Why does Eru intervene and fight evil in some spots, and let the world sort it out itself in others?
If Eru is Good, why not just destroy Evil, why not just splat Melkor like a fly right when he start rebelling in the Music? The thread I posted pretty much asked the question whether Eru can be called "Good", for Evil also came from him, and Evil is part of the World, and Sadness adds to its Beauty. As there is nothing besides Eru in the beginning, everything, including Evil, must come forth from Him, so he can not only be Good.

In this case I think, we could say Eru intervened because he had too. The main reason was not that the Numenoreans became Evil and threatened Valinor, for as said, the Valar should be able to easily crush this threat, and Eru doesn't strike down any other Evil men (what about Saruman, he was even wiser then the Numenoreans).
Instead, what forced Eru to intervene was the fact Men threatened to destroy his ordering of the world. Men were not supposed to become Immortal (apparently Elves becoming Mortal was ok), Men weren't supposed to live in Amman.

What doesn't work here ofcours is the simple fact, again, that the Valar could have crushed them themselves, and the fact some Mortals (Bilbo, Frodo and probably Gimli and Sam) did in fact turn up in Amman. Valar were obviously allowed to kill Men, for this could hardly have been avoided in the War of Wrath.

Another intervention by Eru, resurrecting Gandalf, perhaps could be because Middle Earth wasn't supposed to be covered in Darkness untill the End of Times, but he let ending the Darkness of Morgoth in the hands of the Valar too. Or maybe Gandalf would actually _die_, being send to Middle-Earth in the body of a Man, and Maia weren't supposed to die and leave Arda. But then, what happened to Saruman, and Sauron, and many others?

For myself, I still have a hard time with these parts of Tolkien's works, possibly because I've never been religious. Instead, I like to think these part of the stories are part legend as told from father to son by Elves or Men, and not neccesarily complete facts. (Some characters in Tolkiens works in fact spread false wisdom, so not everything said is supposed to be true.)
I like to think that the Valar were actually the ones destroying Numenor (and resurrecting Gandalf), but because they are not Powers of Fear, they never claimed this as their own action, which led to Elves of Middle Earth to believe it was Eru himself.

Edit:
In short, in my vision God/Eru can logically be one of several things:
1. Good, but not All-Powerfull, so he is not able to completely crush Evil. Would sometimes intervene, but can't fix everything.
2. Impartial, all the Universe comes from Him, and is part of Him. He would never intervene, for also Evil things are part of the "plan".
3. A kid with an antfarm. Sometimes changing/fixing something and watching what will happen next.


----------



## Mimzy

I relate it to Yahweh getting sick of humanity's wickedness and deciding just to kill all of them.

Personally, I don't think the destruction of every single Numenorean was justified, but perhaps they had become such an utterly corrupt society, it was for their own good.


----------



## Edheldae

It seems the debate turns on two points. What constitutes an immoral action and whether to the destruction of Neumenor was intentional.

Debating philosophy is fun, but in the meantime, someone please point out where Eru intentionally destroyed Numenor. Read the passage again, what was Eru doing? What was the direct end result and what were the secondary results?

I reiterate my earlier suggestion that the behavior of the people of Numenor had a direct impact on their environment, overturning the natural order of things.


----------



## Nikkolas

Edheldae said:


> It seems the debate turns on two points. What constitutes an immoral action and whether to the destruction of Neumenor was intentional.
> 
> Debating philosophy is fun, but in the meantime, someone please point out where Eru intentionally destroyed Numenor. Read the passage again, what was Eru doing? What was the direct end result and what were the secondary results?
> 
> I reiterate my earlier suggestion that the behavior of the people of Numenor had a direct impact on their environment, overturning the natural order of things.


 
Sorry to bump a few months old topic but I just finished reading The Silmarillion for the first time and I have two responses to your suggestion. (that the destruction of Numenor was a secondary effect)

1. If you truly believe in the omnipotence of God (Eru) then there *is no secondary effect.* Whatever He did, He intended to do.
It's also why Melkor was made evil by Eru Himself.

2. If Eru is NOT omnipotent than what right does He have to do the things He does? He is not all knowing and not all wise. The fate of the world should not be ruled by Him alone.

I think the real culprits behind all these tragic events are being overlooked.

It's the Valar. They have showed, time and time again, ineptitude in the ruling of Arda. Their pettiness is well documented throughout the story but it is their criminal incompetence that is immoral in this instance.

I am speaking of course about Sauron. About how, after they had defeated Morgoth's army, they left his most dangerous servant in Middle-earth. They let loose one of the strongest beings in existence so that he may corrupt and harm Elves, Men, Dwarves, and whoever else he pleases.

Had the Valar actually done their job properly and not released Morgoth's second-in-command, then the end of Numenor could have been averted.

Perhaps this is why they did not respond to brave and selfless Amandi. They let him die and refused to aid him because their own actions had led to the Fall of Numenor.


----------



## Prince of Cats

Is Eru explicitly told to be either omnipotent or moral? (requesting quotes) Remember that this is high fantasy; Eru is not the god of Abraham. 



> 2. If Eru is NOT omnipotent than what right does He have to do the things He does? He is not all knowing and not all wise. The fate of the world should not be ruled by Him alone.


What right do we have to do what we do? And if the fate of the world shouldn't be ruled by Eru ... then who?? What do you mean?

I liked Parcifal's insight here:


> Why does Eru intervene and fight evil in some spots, and let the world sort it out itself in others?
> If Eru is Good, why not just destroy Evil, why not just splat Melkor like a fly right when he start rebelling in the Music? The thread I posted pretty much asked the question whether Eru can be called "Good", for Evil also came from him, and Evil is part of the World, and Sadness adds to its Beauty. As there is nothing besides Eru in the beginning, everything, including Evil, must come forth from Him, so he can not only be Good.


This is a problem posed to all single sources of religion that identify a one god as the single source of creation. How could the god of love/good also be the purposeful source of harm/evil?

Elgee wrote:


> Again, do you think there is a moral difference between a man who pushes someone into the water to let them drown and a man who won't lift a finger to save a person who drowns?


Well, yes: I absolutely do. Regardless, Eru is assuming both roles here. 

And also:


> If I were to take a hammer to the computer in front of me (which happens not to belong to me as I am staying with relatives atm), it would be wrong because I am destroying something that does not belong to me. If the owner of it did so, than it's not wrong, just really really weird.


Perhaps it isn't wrong if an owner smashes his or her own property or creation ... as I read your words: Eru has the right to the death of man because he is responsible for their creation. The children of Illuvatar. Is tough love from a parent upon a child the right of the parent? What if that love is violent? If the mother or (is Eru identified as either maternal or paternal?) father believes that drowning part of them for a bit, either emotionally or in this case quite literally, will be to their benefit is it their right? Does the lesson taught by the parent, their 'gift', justify the scarring ordeal and redeem the suffering it created? Consider it if Eru is or isn't omnipotent. 

This can sanctify evil put upon others. How is Sauron evil if in his harm he is doing the work of good - delivering Eru's 'gift'? In this model if the Nazgul rode into Bree and burned all the hobbits and men alive there would be neither victim nor perpetrator of evil. The horror and pain of being attacked and watching your family's skin boil is completely excused; they should thank Eru for such an experience to receive the gift. The Nazgul are no longer the arm of evil but the angels of beneficence.


----------



## HLGStrider

> What if that love is violent? If the mother or (is Eru identified as either maternal or paternal?) father believes that drowning part of them for a bit, either emotionally or in this case quite literally, will be to their benefit is it their right? Does the lesson taught by the parent, their 'gift', justify the scarring ordeal and redeem the suffering it created? Consider it if Eru is or isn't omnipotent.


A. Parents are not technically the creators of their children in that they do not have any say as to what sort of child they get. That decision is made independent of them. Your parents didn't choose you. They just got you. 
B. Parents have no idea whether the death or pain of the child would truly be the best thing and if they assume they do they are generally acting upon a delusion. This is why most parents, even the best intended one, do screw up their kids just a little bit. My own parents weren't abusive, in fact you could call my childhood near idyllic, but I can still be brought to tears over things that happened to me due to my parents not understanding or assuming that they understood when in fact they didn't what was going on in my head or life.
All metaphors are imperfect. Fatherhood, motherhood, property and ownership, are all just methods we use to express something that is similar to but not identical in order to make relationships that we have no earthly model for a little easier to wrap our head around. That is why even the most well thought out metaphors lead to all sorts of logical quandaries. Property is simply the best way I can come up with to express the relationship between creator and creation in this case.
I don't have a copy of the Sil handy, but the first chapter seems to suggest an all-knowing Eru. If someone else has a quote that proves or disproves this, this would be a good time to trot it out, but without my copies, it isn't going to be me who does this.



> Well, yes: I absolutely do. Regardless, Eru is assuming both roles here.


See I don't, but I'm also not a big fan of putting different weights to different sins. I just don't see logically how breaking the law by knowingly not doing something is any different than breaking the law by knowingly doing something. 

Anyway, my main point is that pain and death are temporary inconveniences and the fact that Eru may have taken a more active hand in this case to bringing them about does not necessarily make them evil. 

When you bring up the Nazgul it changes the subject to free will of sentient beings. The tidal wave utilized by Eru was not a sentient being. It had no choice in being used. The Nazgul (or I guess Sauron wielding the Nazgul) had a choice. So in one case we are looking at Eru directly causing death so we can say that the death of those in Numenor was his perfect will. Assuming that he knows all and is just (which I think are implied within Tolkien's work, but I can't provide quotes, again pleading no copy of book) then logically it stands to reason that these deaths (and death is again and again referred to as a Gift within Tolkien's work) were not a punishment but a gift.

Now as you pointed out we are debating Eru not Jehovah or Allah or Jupiter or whatever other deity we could drag through this, so don't think about our world when I say death is a gift. No matter if you feel death is a gift in this world, I'm asking is death presented as a gift within Tolkien's cannon. Again, I'll do a qualification since it's my post and I can do that (mu ha ha ha, oh the power!), death in Eru's appointed time is a gift. Since Eru caused the wave which caused the deaths this is definitely Eru's appointed time. So how is it different from any other death by say a heart attack. A heart attack is sudden. I'm sure heart attacks existed in Middle Earth (I have no written examples of them existing, but it stands to reason that they did if humans there have our basic anatomy). So if Eru judges to strike one man down with a heart attack and then two days later strikes one down (or thousands down) with a tidal wave, how is there a moral difference? 

I suppose you could make an argument that if the man had eaten fewer Sauron Burgers or whatever the fast food of choice was in Middle Earth, he wouldn't have gotten the heart attack so that is free will again, but what about any other sudden death by natural means? What about a single bolt of lightning or a flash flood that instead of killing thousands happened to kill a small family on a picnic near the Brandywine one day? 

The fact that Eru decided to end multiple lives in one dramatic gesture is not morally different from him choosing to bring one man home in his sleep. 

Now back to the Nazgul, it can be argued that since Eru allowed evil into his plan, I wouldn't say he caused it, but by allowing free will he allowed for the chance of evil and knew it was going to happen and didn't actively stop it, that he indirectly caused every evil act within middle earth. Probably true. I've never morally had a problem with this though. I don't see a huge logical hurdle in the concept of a just being who allows temporary pain in the case that this just being also allowed a just reward/relief at the end of the pain. Now here is where we go on blind faith, but blind faith isn't illogical any more than blind-lack-of-faith because without proof one way or another they can't be illogical any more than me saying that there is twenty dollars in a wallet I have never opened and is illogical. It is completely logical. It could also be completely wrong. There could be nothing in that wallet. There could be $2000 dollars instead of $20. I'm not being illogical. I'm simply choosing to believe something that I cannot prove. Honestly, agnosticism is probably the most logical approach to anything theological, but going around not believing in anything because there is a chance I could be wrong isn't very appealing to me personally. 

So I'm choosing to believe that Eru has a set up after death that will make up for any pain that was endured before or during the process of death because to me this makes a logical full circle.

Of course, Eru could've chosen not to create creatures with free will who have the capability of evil. That would've possibly been the safer route. Wouldn't be much of a novel, though.


----------



## HLGStrider

I thought I'd hop back to add that I know I am totally neglecting the emotional impact of Eru's actions on those they effected. I'm not doing this because I think emotional impact has no value but rather because I don't think it can be measured or agreed upon and therefore cannot effectively be argued about. It's like trying to argue for the best music or the best movie. The answer is going to differ from person to person and while we can argue that the most typical response to a certain event is a certain emotion, it will not always be the emotion expereinced by any particular person.

However, as emotional beings (both in the real world and in middle earth) humans are going to be making a lot of decisions and judgment calls based mainly on emotions, so emotions are involved. I just don't see how we can argue that the emotional trauma you mentioned of seeing your family die at the hand of Nazguls outweighs the reward of a truely just afterlife when we can't really put a weight to it and when it might be completely different from person to person involved in such an event, and does the horror of seeing the approaching doom of Numenor somehow negate the fact that death is seen as a gift within Tolkien's universe and therefore should be accepted gracefully rather than feared?

There must be some emotional cost, but how do we debate it? If we define good and evil as concrete concepts then we can still continue to debate them. However, if they are relative concepts we cannot and this whole thing of trying to judge Eru as immoral or moral is about the same as trying to judge a song as good or bad. It's all opinion. I do think that the universe of Tolkien allows for a concrete sense of good and evil, more clearly than our universe does, mainly because we get the chance to look at it from the outside and since it is Tolkien's world we have to take Tolkien's word for it (as opposed to this world where so much more remains unwritten and there are differing holy texts and theories by secular philosophers about how it works.), we are left to debate whether or not Tolkien
A. Allowed a logical plot hole in this case.
B. If he didn't, if this is logical but not moral.
C. If it is moral and logical and just not easy to swallow from an emotional point of view.

I take C. I think you are trending towards B but perhaps you are suggesting A.


----------



## Illuin

> _Originally posted by Prince of Cats_
> 
> _This is a problem posed to all single sources of religion that identify a one god as the single source of creation. How could the god of love/good also be the purposeful source of harm/evil?_


 
That's a good question Prince. Because most people have limited knowledge on the subject, God's Love is poorly understood. God's love is revealed in a perfect balance between justice and mercy. Because God's character has both properties, it is sometimes difficult to reconcile these two attributes. No person can see everything that God sees so this limited view makes understanding the ways of an all-knowing God very difficult. God's love, God's willingness to let injustice abound, and God's own wrath appear to be in conflict, but these conflicting concepts properly align and make perfect sense once a person understands "the rest of the story" - (which is too long a story to post in TTF ;*)). This concept permeates Tolkien's legendarium as well; none more so than Akallabêth.

Cool discussion by the way :*up


----------

