# If Melkor was allowed to create living beings, could he have created good, or beautiful things?



## Lynn-bennet (Jun 4, 2020)

As I understand it, Melkor/Morgoth corrupted life and made evil things out of spite and jealousy because he was not allowed to create beings of his own for his own glory. 
If he had been allowed to create a world of his own beyond Arda, in exchange for aid in crafting Arda perhaps, could he have created something good? His intentions for creating life seems to be not far removed from the average expectation of a parent in regards to children (love, honor, obey). 
I ask because, rather than create evil things because he himself was evil, he instead corrupted good and perverted life as a REACTION to his dissatisfaction with his role and it's limitations. From what I've read, and seen, I don't get the impression that he was simply flat out evil. Proud and and arrogant, but not criminally insane/evil.
Or maybe I'm wrong. But I just don't believe that he's that 2 dimensional. 
I understand that there likely nothing in the official cannon clearly answering this question, I just want to see what the consensus is.
Than


----------



## Tulukastaz (Jun 4, 2020)

I don't know about that.

Cursing Húrins children was an act of cruelty.









Cruelty and Pettiness = Weakness.
Kindness is often found in True Strength.



Lynn-bennet said:


> As I understand it, Melkor/Morgoth corrupted life and made evil things out of spite and jealousy because he was not allowed to create beings of his own for his own glory.
> If he had been allowed to create a world of his own beyond Arda, in exchange for aid in crafting Arda perhaps, could he have created something good? His intentions for creating life seems to be not far removed from the average expectation of a parent in regards to children (love, honor, obey).
> I ask because, rather than create evil things because he himself was evil, he instead corrupted good and perverted life as a REACTION to his dissatisfaction with his role and it's limitations. From what I've read, and seen, I don't get the impression that he was simply flat out evil. Proud and and arrogant, but not criminally insane/evil.
> Or maybe I'm wrong. But I just don't believe that he's that 2 dimensional.
> ...



Maybe he could have created something good in the indirect way of strengthening Eru Illúvatar and his Music. There is yet to come the Second Music of the Ainur - including Elves and Men. 

(Excluding Morgoth? if Tûrin son of Hûrin slays him?)
*-Dagor Dagorath*

As Illúvatar told Manwë - I don't remember what chapter in Silmarillion. Manwë was concerned about Melkors "evil deeds" but Illúvatar assured that it will only make his music stronger.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 4, 2020)

Lynn-bennet said:


> As I understand it, Melkor/Morgoth corrupted life and made evil things out of spite and jealousy because he was not allowed to create beings of his own for his own glory.



_Then Ilúvatar spoke ...... "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 intrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined" _

In other words, any evil that was in Melkor came from Ilúvatar, and Melkor's works were part of Ilúvatar's plan. It follows that Melkor did not corrupt life and make evil things out of spite and jealousy, he did it because he was an instrument of lúvatar. Evil was part of the plan.


----------



## Alcuin (Jun 4, 2020)

Melkor _could_ have made good or beautiful things. The other Valar did. Melkor _chose_ to destroy the works of his brethren, to foul Arda and the designs of Eru as best he was able.

The Ainur were all under some restriction from making copies or facsimiles of the Children of Ilúvatar. When Eru called out Aulë for making the Dwarves, and Aulë repented and prepared to destroy them, Eru gave them Free Will for Aulë’s repentance, but required that the Dwarves not precede the awakening of the Elves. 



Ealdwyn said:


> ...any evil that was in Melkor came from Ilúvatar, and Melkor's works were part of Ilúvatar's plan. It follows that Melkor did not corrupt life and make evil things out of spite and jealousy, he did it because he was an instrument of lúvatar. Evil was part of the plan.


I don’t believe you can assign responsibility for Melkor’s rebellion to Ilúvatar. As with Aulë and the Dwarves, had the Dwarves no Free Will, they would not have recoiled when Aulë prepared to smash them with his hammer. Free Will means that the creature can have desires and motivations _in contravention_ to those of his creator. That is the very essence of Free Will. What good is love if it is _required_ of another? A doll is not a replacement for a companion: it is only a doll, and can make no decisions or choices of its own. Even a dog can reject its owner, if its owner beats or mistreats it. Children sometimes reject their parents, and parents (sadly) sometimes reject their children; siblings quarrel; and friendships sometimes fall asunder. Melkor chose to reject the plan of his Creator, to substitute his own designs, to attempt to overwhelm and replace those of Ilúvatar. The tale is told in “Ainulindalë” in _Silmarillion_, and further expounded upon in “Notes on motives in the Silmarillion” in the section “Myths Transformed” in _Morgoth’s Ring_:
​[A]s “Morgoth”, when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence...​​


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 5, 2020)

Eru created Melkor.
My EOM.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jun 5, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Eru created Melkor.
> My EOM.


He created Sauron too but they were good in their beginnings, as we all are.

CL


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 5, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> He created Sauron too but they were good in their beginnings, as we all are.
> 
> CL


Yes.
But Melkor went bad *very* quickly, In the Ainulindalë.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jun 5, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Yes.
> But Melkor went bad *very* quickly, In the Ainulindalë.


True...


CL


----------



## Elthir (Jun 5, 2020)

The One liveth outside time. Careth he for quick? Could be. In any case, I focus foremost on free will, no matter Melkor's might!

🐾


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 6, 2020)

The One created both good and evil - _"no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me"_
And no indivuidual can act contrary to his nature, as it is determined by the One -_ "nor can any alter the music in my despite"_

So although Melkor had free will, he could only act according to his (evil) nature, because his nature was determined according to Eru's will. He cannot alter his fundamental nature, as it is part of the "music".

So he has free will, as does every individual in Arda. But it's not unlimited free will, as he cannot act against his nature.


----------



## Elthir (Jun 6, 2020)

"Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so" Elrond

In Tolkien's poem _Mythopoeia,_ he writes:

Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see
that all is as it is, and yet made free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden nor gardener, children nor their toys.
Evil it will not see, for evil lies
not in God's picture but in crooked eyes,
not in the source but in malicious choice,
and not in sound but in the tuneless voice.

In my opinion we might be in an Augustinian mode here, that evil does not exist in God's picture, and is not in the_ source_. St. Augustine proposed that “the loss of good has been given the name 'evil’” (City of God, XI:9, 440), and that "evil has no existence except as a privation of good, down to that level which is altogether without being” (Confessions, 43).

Or something 🐾


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jun 6, 2020)

Elthir said:


> In my opinion we might be in an Augustinian mode here, that evil does not exist in God's picture, and is not in the_ source_. St. Augustine proposed that “the loss of good has been given the name 'evil’” (City of God, XI:9, 440), and that "evil has no existence except as a privation of good, down to that level which is altogether without being” (Confessions, 43).


Catholic here, can confirm.


CL


----------



## Alcuin (Jun 7, 2020)

Ealdwyn said:


> So although Melkor had free will, he could only act according to his (evil) nature, because his nature was determined according to Eru's will. He cannot alter his fundamental nature, as it is part of the "music".


I believe Tolkien’s reply would be that only Eru could not act against His nature: All creatures _can_ choose to pervert themselves and act against their natures. Thus _evil_, which is contrary to nature. _That_ is the meaning of Free Will; what you suggest is not Free Will, but Determinism. They are diametrically opposite one another.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 7, 2020)

If that is the case, then it directly contradicts the Ainulindalë, where it clearly says that the music cannot be altered,. By a creature perverting themselves they are altering the music - unless, of course, that perversion was already part pf the music?


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jun 7, 2020)

Ealdwyn said:


> If that is the case, then it directly contradicts the Ainulindalë, where it clearly says that the music cannot be altered,. By a creature perverting themselves they are altering the music - unless, of course, that perversion was already part pf the music?


I see it as more of Tolkien saying Eru, like the Catholic God, can bring ultimate Good out of someone's evil, _ultimately. _



CL


Basically, Tolkien putting that bit of Theology into his stories.


----------



## Alcuin (Jun 7, 2020)

Tolkien did put Catholic theology into his stories, but let’s leave that aside for the moment and concentrate on the story.


Ealdwyn said:


> If that is the case, then it directly contradicts the Ainulindalë, where it clearly says that the music cannot be altered,. By a creature perverting themselves they are altering the music - unless, of course, that perversion was already part pf [sic - what is this?] the music?


Are you misinterpreting or reinterpreting the story? Melkor refused to follow the theme Ilúvatar set forth.
​But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar, for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself. … [D]esire grew … within him to bring into Being things of his own… But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.​​Some of these thoughts he now wove into his music, and straightway discord arose about him…​​Then Ilúvatar … lifted up his left hand, and a new theme began amid the storm, like and yet unlike to the former theme, and it gathered power and had new beauty. But the discord of Melkor rose in uproar and contended with it, and again there was a war of sound more violent than before… . Then again Ilúvatar arose, and … his countenance was stern; and he lifted up his right hand, and … a third theme grew … . And it seemed at last that there were two musics progressing at one time before the seat of Ilúvatar, and they were utterly at variance. The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came. The other had now achieved a unity of its own; but it was loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated; and it had little harmony, but rather a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice, but it seemed that its most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern.​​Melkor was not _made_ to rebel: he _chose_ to rebel. Had Ilúvatar _made_ Melkor in order to have rebellion, Melkor would essentially be nothing more than a sophisticated robot or machine: that’s _Determinism_, not Free Will. This is the double-dealing of philosophers opposed to the notion of Free Will, double-dealing with which I struggled for years in university: they constantly change definitions and terms without saying so, asserting that because it happened it _had_ to happen. No, not so: that’s _begging the question_, assuming the truth of a conclusion instead of supporting it. It’s circular reasoning. You’re arguing for a mechanistic outcome (i.e., Determinism) by assuming it. Where’s your basis?

Where do you find a claim in _Silmarillion_ that the Music of the Ainur cannot be altered? Melkor altered it! That was the problem! You are misinterpreting Ilúvatar’s statement,
​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.​​In this case, Ilúvatar is clearly saying _that none of the Ainur can force an outcome in the music contrary to Ilúvatar’s intent;_ but they can, and Melkor (with others) does, work to pervert the intentions of Ilúvatar, damaging the music. Even Melkor’s braying, repetitive, disruptive cacophonies were assembled from broken pieces of Ilúvatar’s themes. But to blame Ilúvatar for Melkor’s misdirection and rebellion by claiming that Ilúvatar made Melkor in order for that to happen is to deny Free Will.

Now, if you want to argue against Free Will, the way to do that is to first argue for omniscience, then claim that since an all-knowing God already knows that such-and-such creature will rebel (e.g., the Devil), then God is responsible for evil because He made the Devil, even though the Devil was not evil in the beginning, because He knew ahead of time the Devil would rebel. Again, that’s circular reasoning, begging the question, but it’s a lot more difficult to refute. The refutation is Ilúvatar made Melkor and endowed him with Free Will anyway. He made all the Ainur and endowed all of them with Free Will because without Free Will, none of them could “freely _choose_” to love and commune with Ilúvatar: they would simply be robots, machines. That all of them _can_ choose to rebel and some of them _do_ choose to rebel is part of the price of endowing creatures with Free Will. If you then proceed to ask why Ilúvatar, God, would do such a thing, despite knowing the consequences of His decision beforehand (“beforehand” is a time-oriented term that is, if you will consider it, most inappropriately applied to a Being outside Time; but we are time-oriented creatures), you leave Tolkien behind, you leave philosophy behind, and you enter the world of theological inquiry into the nature of God: Is God Love, as Christians claim, or is He of some other nature? That’s probably outside the scope of the forum, but I’ll be happy to discuss it with you outside the forum.


----------



## Elthir (Jun 7, 2020)

What CL and Alcuin said (my long-winded version of a "like").

"He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate [ . . . ] Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! [ . . . ] Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint [ . . . ] Behold the height and glory of the clouds, and the everchanging mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth!"

Behold now the Prints of Cats 🐾


----------



## Tulukastaz (Jun 7, 2020)

Ealdwyn said:


> The One created both good and evil - _"no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me"_
> And no indivuidual can act contrary to his nature, as it is determined by the One -_ "nor can any alter the music in my despite"_
> 
> So although Melkor had free will, he could only act according to his (evil) nature, because his nature was determined according to Eru's will. He cannot alter his fundamental nature, as it is part of the "music".
> ...






Ealdwyn said:


> If that is the case, then it directly contradicts the Ainulindalë, where it clearly says that the music cannot be altered,. By a creature perverting themselves they are altering the music - unless, of course, that perversion was already part pf the music?



This is my view on the music. The music that is altered is "perverted" from the first source origin of the music - that's why Eru Illúvatar communicated this:
_"no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me"_


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Jun 7, 2020)

I must confess it's bothered me, and one of the reasons I never did penetrate all too far in "Silmarillion," except to look up things about Galadriel, etc. I do get Tolkien's point, how the root of evil is deviating from harmony to do your own thing, but... hmm. The Romantic in me doesn't much like that at all. Tolkien was himself a rebel against the tastes of his day... the academic ones... and likely was a little bit "of the devil's party without knowing it," as Blake said of Milton. 

That may be why I find his depiction of Saruman so disappointing... I've said it before, but he really does shrink from making him impressive in any real way. I mean, I know he's fallen in evil, but wouldn't the Chief of Wizards exude a certain majesty even in ruin? Again, I get the moral point of making him a petty, petty liar, but imaginatively that just doesn't really satisfy me. Rather like Tolstoy trying to make Napoleon a man without charisma, just a conduit for his day's social forces. Napoleon is more than that. 

So Melkor wants to make his own music... as Lynn Bennet implied, it's more a question of WHAT KIND of music. The cosmology of Middle-earth is a little harder for me to get into than the actual tales, with the hobbits as focus. But that may be my own limitation there. I adore William Blake, but reading through "Jerusalem: An Emanation of the Giant Albion," I was left with not one memory of anything in it but the final apocalyptic page.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 8, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> I do get Tolkien's point, how the root of evil is deviating from harmony to do your own thing,


 


Tulukastaz said:


> This is my view on the music. The music that is altered is "perverted" from the first source origin of the music - that's why Eru Illúvatar communicated this:
> _"no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me"_



Then as all the music of the Ainur is a deviation from the original music, it must all be a perversion. 
How do we define which perversions are good and which are evil? Is it merely conflicting ideologies? Does Melkor, for example, see himself as evil? Or does he view his cause as just and take the view that those who seek to thwart him are the evil ones? 

It would be interesting to consider Arda from Melkor's point of view: branded as "evil" for being independent, persecuted by religious zealots who repeatedly make war on him and try to oust him from Middle-earth. All he wanted was to keep a few Balrogs as pets. Maybe the occaional dragon. But they wouldn't let him live in peace. 😜


----------



## Alcuin (Jun 8, 2020)

Ealdwyn said:


> Then as all the music of the Ainur is a deviation from the original music, it must all be a perversion.


No, only the portion Melkor and his followers fouled was twisted. Hence Arda was “Arda Marred”.



Ealdwyn said:


> How do we define which perversions are good and which are evil? Is it merely conflicting ideologies?


Murder, rape, and theft are universally considered “evil”. Some ideologies and religions argue that these are acceptable in one circumstance or another; but no one wants them committed upon himself! There is one religion, however, that teaches, _As you would that men would do to you, do to them likewise._ And the contrapositive, which is the principle underlying Anglo-American common law as first set forth by Alfred the Great in his Doom Book, his reform of the Anglo-Saxon law code (“dooms” being laws or judgments; not to be confused with William the Conqueror’s Doomsday Book, the Norman census of England prepared for purposes of taxation and escheatment), _What you do not want done to you, do not do to others._ The first statement is the Golden Rule, the second the Silver Rule; I note that the Wikipedia article for the Silver Rule has been eliminated at some point: apparently, Wikipedia’s Leftist editors prefer to sweep it under the rug, perhaps in hopes that it will never bite them in the a**; but the Silver Rule is at least as old as the Golden Rule, or was considered so until Wikipedia conveniently downgraded it.



Ealdwyn said:


> Does Melkor, for example, see himself as evil? Or does he view his cause as just and take the view that those who seek to thwart him are the evil ones?


There are philosophical and psychological arguments that those committing acts considered evil do not see themselves or their acts as evil, but I do not believe them. I understand Carl Jung took the position that people committing evil understand that what they are doing is wrong, but do it anyway, justifying it with any number of arguments. That has been my experience: I am not guiltless in all my ways.



Ealdwyn said:


> It would be interesting to consider Arda from Melkor's point of view: branded as "evil" for being independent, persecuted by religious zealots who repeatedly make war on him and try to oust him from Middle-earth. All he wanted was to keep a few Balrogs as pets. Maybe the occaional dragon. But they wouldn't let him live in peace. 😜


Ah! I see your perch at the Golden Perch keeps you properly propped! Please do have one (or more) for me. And remember, if you are in a region in which bars can only serve one-third their normal clientele and you cannot drink for three, leave it to the professionals. You should do fine, though!


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 8, 2020)

Alcuin, I think you've missed my point (or I've not explained myself sufficiently well). I was thinking more of a Nietzschean viewpoint, which would be entirely inkeeping with the philosphy presented by Tolkien. I thought this would be an interesting premise for discussion. 

However, you seem very fixed in your opinions, and not open to discussion of other philosophies beyond your own established dogma.



Alcuin said:


> There is one religion, however, that teaches, _As you would that men would do to you, do to them likewise._



You're wrong. There's actually several.
And you might not want to rely on Wikipedia for your knowledge of history, either.


----------



## Alcuin (Jun 9, 2020)

Ealdwyn said:


> Alcuin, I think you've missed my point (or I've not explained myself sufficiently well). I was thinking more of a Nietzschean viewpoint, which would be entirely inkeeping with the philosphy presented by Tolkien. I thought this would be an interesting premise for discussion.
> 
> However, you seem very fixed in your opinions, and not open to discussion of other philosophies beyond your own established dogma.


I don’t think Nietzsche and Tolkien saw eye to eye: those that saw Nietzsche eye to eye were more likely to be Tolkien’s detractors on the Oxford faculty and among the _literati_. As for “other philosophies”, I’m old. As a young man, I examined many philosophies (I have a minor in philosophy, 24 semester hours) and several religions. I wandered through agnosticism and the desert of atheism. I was trained in the sciences (chemistry, chemical engineering, and molecular biology) and have a degree in mathematics and graduate work on top of all that. I think I’ve found what makes sense, holds together logically, is spiritually enlightening, uplifting, and satisfying. No, I am no longer interested in trading gold for rust: Been there, done that. But perhaps you have not: Knock yourself out! but try not to knock yourself senseless. I’ll leave you to your search: Good luck!

Your explanation is fine. I understand it well: it is most familiar! Any Philosophy 101 student has encountered it: for me, it was faith-shaking, destroying my worldview. Since then and over many decades, it has reconstructed. Don’t take this as an insult, because it’s not: but your presentation, which is not without philosophical merit, is well-known and well-travelled, like a much-rutted Roman road.

I had hoped to avoid any discussion of religion: I am one of the reasons religion is not a topic at TTF. (I earned a … _reputation_ as a younger poster.) So I will politely bow out of the thread and leave you to it. That being said, I think I have answered your posts _as regards Tolkien’s literary corpus and milieu._ And as a final, parting observation, the questions you raise are:

The Problem of Evil,
Free Will, and
Predestination.
They are well-known, as I’ve said: You have simply encountered someone, seemingly for the first time, who is familiar with them and knows the correct replies. It’s like encountering the Sicilian Defense the first time, or watching your ingenious queen-side opening transform into something that looks more like scrambled eggs. I’ll leave you alone – in this thread, anyway. But be aware that there are many people quite well-equipped to sensibly reply to this line of argument, often much better-equipped than I, a mere amateur.



Ealdwyn said:


> You're wrong. There's actually several.


Yes, I know: I am well aware of it.



Ealdwyn said:


> And you might not want to rely on Wikipedia for your knowledge of history, either.


Only for convenience. Blatant bias makes Wikipedia worse, and editors who don’t know what they’re doing make it unreliable. But it’s online, it’s well-known, it’s free, and it’s easy and quick to find with Google.

Is there an extra Perch at the Golden? I thirst.

───◊───

And publicly: *Absolutely no ill-will on my part!* Just old routine.


----------



## Tulukastaz (Jun 10, 2020)

Ealdwyn said:


> Then as all the music of the Ainur is a deviation from the original music, it must all be a perversion.
> How do we define which perversions are good and which are evil? Is it merely conflicting ideologies? Does Melkor, for example, see himself as evil? Or does he view his cause as just and take the view that those who seek to thwart him are the evil ones?



That particular deviation was due to dis-chord. Dis-chords of Melkor.


----------



## pippin le qer (Jun 18, 2020)

Melkor/Morgoth was the creation of a staunch Catholic writer. Tolkien did not took Raven The Trickster of Loki as inspiration, but Lucifer the fallen angel. And in his mind the devil could only corrupt not create as LIFE only comes from GOD. Tolkien sort of shot himself in the foot with that when it came to the origin of the orcs, he wrote several versions of it, but none was very satifying.
Would maybe have been different if he had wrote that Melkor, like Prometheus stealing the fire from the gods, had stolen the power to create from Iluvatar.


----------



## Elthir (Jun 18, 2020)

I would say that once Tolkien abandoned the idea of Melkor creating Orcs, he wrote several version about how orcs came into existence, predominantly based on the corruption of already living beings -- also containing a measure of corrupted maiar with respect to early, and more terrible, orcs.

And in the end, JRRT (arguably) appears to land on Men for the original "stock" of orcs, adjusting the timeline somewhat, but also introducing a number of Orc-formed Maiar (as found in other musings), which need not await the awakening of Elves nor Men.

🐾


----------

