# Are Men inherently Good or Evil?



## Arvedui (Oct 14, 2003)

*In the context of Tolkien's legendarium, are Men inherently Good or Evil?* 

Another topic from the Debate-Tournament.

Enjoy


----------



## Celebthôl (Oct 14, 2003)

Men are neither 

They were made especially to change with the chances of the world, therefore they can be either depending on who gets to them first. 

But i believe that no matter what as this is how Ilúvatar created them they all go to him and turn out good after death. 


(P.S. Arvedui, i love that ur opening up LOADS of book subjects to save the forum  thank you )


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 14, 2003)

Why would the second children of Eru be *inherently* evil? I _cannot_ see the logic in that.

I think they basically good, but are simply very susceptible to corruption, greed and other 'evils' due to lesser natural stature (VS Elves). Perhaps in the beginning (before they fell under Melkor's influence and turned from Eru), they were less easily corrupted, but Melkor put his influence on them, as on everything else. Of course, in the legendarium we see heaps of evil men, who *are* evil (commiting deeds that would be considered evil), but not inherently.


----------



## Halasían (Nov 13, 2003)

in the beginning, neither, just ignorant. But the seeming neglect by the Valar, and the extreme interest by Morgoth turned many to evil out of fear. Some who had an inherent feeling of ill toward the evil, sought the light by moving west.


----------



## Bucky (Nov 13, 2003)

I am a Christian.
JRR Tolkien was a Christian.

Both our views on this subject come from the same 'source'.....

Men are 'fallen' in this world & unable to be perfectly 'good' & gravitate towards 'evil'. Fact (from a Christian viewpoint).

As Tolkien wrote the race of 'Men' in Middle-earth, they tended to gravitate towards evil.
There was no 'fall' persay, but they definitely had that same nature to do bad stuff.....

'Men are most often a grief to him' (Iluvator) as The Sil says.....


----------



## Celebthôl (Nov 14, 2003)

Can you direct me to that quote please?


----------



## Eriol (Nov 14, 2003)

I'm almost sure (hehe) that the quote about Men being a grief to Ilúvatar is at the end of the Ainulindalë, Thôl.


----------



## Inderjit S (Nov 14, 2003)

I think it is as Celebthol says, Men aren't inherently either, they are inherently Men.  

When they awoke they were inherently good, but this changed, over time. When they were corrupted by Melkor their life-span changed, death was seen as a punishment rather then a gift. It could be the imbedding of such a though in the Mannish pyhsce may make them inherently evil, their inability to see the good things and the gift of death. All Men were "fallen" with the exception of some. But Men had the chance to turn to evil or good, this basic capability will always be with them-choice. Take their choice away and then you can claim Men are inherently one thing or another, but the only thing you cannot take away from Men is their free will. 

Oh and I think it says they were a grief to Manwë not Eru, but they were of course a grief to Eru at times.


----------



## Celebthôl (Nov 14, 2003)

Well a grief to Manwë sounds more correct, as how could they be a grief to Eru? It just wouldnt happen as my understanding goes. . .  
They were marred right from the beggining because of Melkor, add to that they are set so be able to be good or bad, so being bad seems the only likely outcome for a large number of them.
I see it as Elves were all good, Orcs were all bad, and Men were inbetween!


----------



## Inderjit S (Nov 14, 2003)

Some of their decisions may have been a grief to Eru, but I think the same would apply to Manwë. 

Men weren't 'marred right from the beggining because of Melkor' there was a *short* time when they were unmarred. They couldn't have been marred from the start otherwise they would have been a inherently evil race.


----------



## Celebthôl (Nov 14, 2003)

How could they be a grief to Eru? He created Arda and watched with happieness, even at the works of Melkor. He knew all would turn out well. . .

I thought that all the hurts he did were before the awakening so then it was inherent in them?


----------



## Bucky (Nov 14, 2003)

Give me a break!

It was late, I had insomnia.....

So, I was going from memory & tried to recall if it was Manwe or Illuvator......

And, as Manwe is Illuvator's vassel & 'agent', ruling in his name as he sees fit, he IS speaking in his name, so....

As for how could Men be a greif to Illuvator, easy....
Tolkien writes it on a piece of paper & it's a fact. 
 

As for men being 'good' in the beginning, I don't think that beginning was at the time of their awakening. JRR uses the term 'Arda Marred' many times prior to Men arrising, so it was a 'fallen' world full of evil far before Men awoke into it.
Tolkien presents the 'Marring' by Melkor as Arda's 'fall' & the entering of evil, much like 'The Fall' in The Garden Of Eden in our world, so I don't think Men ever awoke with the ability to be perfectly 'good' in Middle-earth.......
Having Morgoth show up to further cast a shadow on things didn't help any either.


----------



## Celebthôl (Nov 14, 2003)

The world hadnt "fallen" because there was nothing to fall from, it just was, it was Melkor that was "fallen", he was causing the hurts to the world. As you say it was in the garden of Eden that the fall occured, and likewise it was in Arda that the fall occured.
Anyways, Men could be neither perfectly good or perfectly bad, neither could anything (except maybe Manwe and Eru), even Melkor was not perfectly bad.


----------



## Inderjit S (Nov 14, 2003)

> How could they be a grief to Eru? He created Arda and watched with happieness, even at the works of Melkor. He knew all would turn out well.



I'm saying their decisions, to turn their choice for evil or good use would have been a grief to him. Eru could not govern the choices of Men, and so if they made the "wrong" choice wouldn't it be a grief to him just like if your child made a wrong decisions which could effect his/her life for the worst? He knew Men would often go astray, and they wouldn't understand his gift of death but it would have grieved him to see them mis-using their gift. Or them worshipping Morgoth, Sauron or fighting each other, they all would have been grievous to him.

Obviously Men awoke in "tainted" Middle-Earth because if they were a inherently marred race from the start then they would be a inherently evil race, like Orks. Elves awoke in Middle-Earth too, they too were tainted but to a far lesser extent then Men. They were both Eruhini, and so they would not have been a 'bad' race or a 'good' race, in their primitve ignorance but their natures would have effected their decisions.


----------



## Celebthôl (Nov 14, 2003)

But he gave them the gift to "shape their lives about the chances of the world" this means either good or bad, the other races could not. He shouldnt be sad, as he gave them this gift like he gave them death. Now if Elves were doing evil things and fell that way, we could say he was grieved, because he would have failed in that instance.


----------



## Ravenna (Nov 15, 2003)

Eru, I believe would hardly have created a race that was completely inherently evil.
Mankind was created with the potentiality to be either considering the nature that he gave them.


> Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life amid the powers and chances of the world , beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all else.


He gave them the freedom and desire to choose. I would also say that this would mean that they cannot be a grief to Eru, as even when they turned to evil, it was, after all, He who had given them that freedom in the first place.


----------



## Inderjit S (Nov 16, 2003)

> He shouldn’t be sad, as he gave them this gift like he gave them death. Now if Elves were doing evil things and fell that way, we could say he was grieved, because he would have failed in that instance.



Yes, but they still made the "wrong" decisions, and took the wrong paths and misused their free-will and gift, which would have grived Eru. Tell me would Eru have been laughing like Sauron when Ar-Pharazôn challenged the Valar? He certainly wasn’t pleased when Men took up Melkor worship in the _Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth_ (HoME 10.)


----------



## Eriol (Nov 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Celebthôl _
> *They were marred right from the beggining because of Melkor, add to that they are set so be able to be good or bad, so being bad seems the only likely outcome for a large number of them.
> I see it as Elves were all good, Orcs were all bad, and Men were inbetween!   *



Crazy Fëanor lover! And even a Maeglin lover it seems!



This question is greatly dependent on the meaning attached to the word "inherent". Some people take it to mean "essential", others take it to mean "from the beginning", and others take it to mean "unchangeably".

I am essentially "Eriol", the person I am. I can't change that. Nothing can. My essence will remain forever and ever; even if I die. My essence was the same before I was born; my birth simply actualized a possibility, but it did not change the essence itself. Essence is not linked to existence. 

I was not the person I was "from the beginning", whether you take this "beginning" to mean the beginning of the Universe  or the beginning of my personal existence. Personhood is built over the years (in humans ). When I was a fetus I was not the person I am, when I was a kid of three I was not the person I am. I will be quite different in 20 years. None of this touches my essence, but it remains change. A flow. The situation "into which I was born and raised" is "from the beginning" in this sense.

Even though there are many things "in flow", there are some choices that we make in life that become "unchangeable". So I can't very much become a swimming champion or a world-class pianist anymore (even assuming I have the talent, which is doubtful ). That does not change who I am; but it shows that some properties (non-essential properties) become "fixed" by habit. And this involves personal choice, even if very feeble at the beginning and greatly influenced by outside events (like the piano example; I didn't brood over this question when I was 5 to decide whether I'd like to be a world-class pianist or not  ).

So, something may be essentially Evil, Evil from the beginning, or unchangeably Evil through choice; and the meaning in each of these things is different. It could be said that I am inherently the person who I am (essential interpretation); or that I am inherently a member of a family of 6 siblings with so many cousins, relatives, etc., which would be the "from the beginning" interpretation; or that I am inherently a biologist (the personal choice interpretation). 

The facts of the matter of the debate itself are quite clear, I believe:

1) Men were created good, and lived as good beings for a while;
2) They met Melkor;
3) They (ALL of them) worshipped Melkor;
4) Thus they forsake Eru's care and became troubled by Nature as well as Melkor (Andreth speaks of "the beasts turning against them", or something like that);
5) Some of them repented later, and tried to "heal" the wound made in their own beings.

Whether this account is taken to mean that men are "inherently" evil depends on the interpretation of "inherent".

"Essentially" evil is ruled out at the start, under (1). Men are essentially Good, and nothing can change that (or it wouldn't be their essence  ).

(Note that this same argument is appliable to Melkor; Melkor is _essentially good_. This is why I think the "essential" interpretation is feeble, it forces one to accept Melkor as inherently good, and that doesn't seem right.)

Evil "from the beginning" is also wrong, but for historical reasons. There was a time when men were completely non-evil. Ok, they were made of the stuff of Arda marred, but the 'evil' in the question addressed moral evil, not "corrupted nature", or so I think. They were not "born into evil" as a race. Compare that with the life of, say, an Easterling under Sauron. That guy _was_ "born into evil" (presumably), and so it could be said that his particular person, through the influences of the culture and birthplace and so on, was "inherently evil". But that couldn't be said of the race of Men under the "from the beginning" interpretation.

But "unchangeably" evil is open to question. Melkor could have turned a race into something unchangeably evil (Orcs are a prime example, and even without examples there is no _theoretical_ impediment to that). Men could, by their own choice (like me and the piano), have become unchangeably attracted to evil. A "shadow" over the race; like the shadow over the Noldor. This does not prevent individuals from being very good; just as a short man may be a good basketball player, better than a taller player. Trends are not irresistible. But just as the short man IS short, no matter how well he plays, Men could be "tainted", no matter how good some individuals are. Melkor could be said to have "attached some weights" to Men, therefore preventing them from reaching their full stature (ethical stature as good beings). And he could be said to have done that "unchangeably", short of Eru intervention; he is after all the most powerful guy around. At the Athrabeth, Finrod is shocked at the thought that Melkor could have done it; but there is no proof to the contrary, no proof that Melkor _couldn't_ have done it. And we have Andreth's testimony. We simply don't know.

There are other ways to look at it, like the question of "absolute" x "relative" goodness... "absolutely" evil is another interpretation of "inherently". 

That "inherently" word is a great recipe for confusion .

I think most people would instinctively lean towards the "essential" or the "absolute" interpretation in a first glance. But that would require acceptance of Melkor as essentially good. I agree with that notion. But it runs counter to the usual notions of "evil" to call Melkor essentially good. There is little doubt in my mind that Melkor, though essentially good, became "absolutely" evil, and "unchangeably" so, "from the beginning". 

The "essential" interpretation thus ends in the consideration that there is no "essentially evil" thing or being. I like that point of view; but it is very aloof and not very useful or convincing.

When we turn away from the "essential" interpretation to the other options, and particularly to the "unchangeable" option, the question becomes very arguable.


----------



## Earendil (Dec 8, 2003)

As I see it, men are born with nothing. There is a theory that men have no instinct when they are borna dn they onyl grow according to their enviroments. I don't believe anything is born evil unless they were possessed which i don't believe in either. In my idea anything has the potential to be good when they are born into the world...as well as a potential to be bad. It jsut depends on how they grow up, their enviroment, and how it effects them.


----------

