Of Evil, Free will, and Fate (from 'Gollum')

[Legolas]

The discussion eventually reached a point where it was about free will, and good and evil. I decided to move it to a new thread. We were talking Gollum - evil or not? I mentioned him being ultimately good since he was part of Eru's design. You can catch up on anything we covered there if you'd like.

Kiara's last post in that thread:

I was using "ultimately" as a bad replacement for "inherently", sorry (need to define my terms better)! But, I do want to clear that up and say: though I believe Eru, as the creator of ME, had ultimate control (and therefore the good accomplished or the evil committed had the conclusion of "ultimate good", I also believe that he created the individuals to have their own wills as well (The Ainur being a great example of this). I think this was written as a reflection of Tolkien's own beliefs about Christianity (free-will and predestination) or have I misinterpreted? (highly possible).

So my next question is this: when someone does evil, and yet the end result is good, does that make the evil-doer good, or perhaps the Being who has authority over that evil-doer? And how does a being tainted by evil ever become "good" again (in the pure form of good, which is what I'm using throughout my comments, to define it appropriately)?

My reply...

You're right. Every being in Ea has free will.

About free will...

This quote from The Silmarillion (that I quoted earlier) shows exactly what you speak of. In part, the free will of his beings is what brings Eru's plan together.

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.

Tolkien wrote a lot about free will in Letter No. 153:

To conclude: having mentioned Free Will, I might say that in my myth I have used 'subcreation' in a special way (...) to make visible and physical the effects of Sin or misused Free Will by men. Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences. So in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation. Of course within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions. But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be', even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other 'rational' creatures like Elves or Men. They would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.) But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today. There might be other 'makings' all the same which were more like puppets filled (only at a distance) with their maker's mind and will, or ant-like operating under direction of a queen-centre.

Here we're told Melkor and all of the Ainur had free will. From Osanwe-kenta:

They are, of course, open to Eru, but they cannot of their own will "see" any part of His mind. They can open themselves to Eru in entreaty, and He may then reveal His thought to them.

Manwe could be considered purely good because he acted in accordance to the thoughts of Eru. From Osanwe-kenta:

Some say that Manwe, by a special grace to the King, could still in a measure perceive Eru; others more probably, that he remained nearest to Eru, and Eru was most ready to hear and answer him.

Manwe was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom. He was ever open because he had nothing to conceal, no thought that it was harmful for any to know, if they could comprehend it. Indeed Melkor knew his will without questioning it; and he knew that Manwe was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose.

Thus comes the matter of tainted evil becoming good again. In Osanwe-kenta, evil's repentance is possible:

Melkor had the right to exist, and the right to act and use his powers. Manwe had the authority to rule and to order the world, so far as he could, for the well-being of the Eruhíni; but if Melkor would repent and return to the allegiance of Eru, he must be given his freedom again. He could not be enslaved, or denied his part. The office of the Elder King was to retain all his subjects in the allegiance of Eru, or to bring them back to it, and in that allegiance to leave them free.

The release was according to the promise of Manwe. If Manwe had broken this promise for his own purposes, even though still intending "good", he would have taken a step upon the paths of Melkor. That is a perilous step. In that hour and act he would have ceased to be the vice-gerent of the One, becoming but a king who takes advantage over a rival whom he has conquered by force. Would we then have the sorrows that indeed befell; or would we have the Elder King lose his honour, and so pass, maybe, to a world rent between two proud lords striving for the throne? Of this we may be sure, we children of small strength: any one of the Valar might have taken the paths of Melkor and become like him: one was enough.

Later on, we're told how Melkor finally fell, which may be the ultimate good in him. He was such a vile spirit, capable of mass destruction and corruption in Middle-earth - yet he bound himself to his physical incarnation and weakened himself, providing a means for his own destruction.

Melkor alone of the Great became at last bound to a bodily form; but that was because of the use that he made of this in his purpose to become Lord of the Incarnate, and of the great evils that he did in the visible body. Also he had dissipated his native powers in the control of his agents and servants, so that he became in the end, in himself and without their support, a weakened thing, consumed by hate and unable to restore himself from the state into which he had fallen. Even his visible form he could no longer master, so that its hideousness could not any longer be masked, and it showed forth the evil of his mind.

So I pose Kiara's questions to you along with some others. I'm interested in your thoughts.

How can a tainted spirit become good again? More importantly, can a tainted spirit bring itself to repent and become good again? Does it require encouragement or special conditions? We saw Melkor fall, and told of his possible repentance and restoration. He chose not to take that route though. Did he think there was another way? Is there another way out of evil? Are there other examples from Middle-earth that come to mind?

We know all beings have free will - they can choose good or evil. For a being to fall in completely to evil from day one can't be innate. How does evil get it's start? Does characteristics tend to stir evil that could also yield good? Where does it go wrong? Again, are there examples of these in Middle-earth?

When someone does evil, and yet the end result is good, does that make the evil-doer good, or only the being who has authority over that evil-doer?

Was the Ring's evil irreversible? Were there ways around it? What flaws do you see in the characters (that are mentally) so affected by Ring that make them forget their goodness? Why did the evil take in Boromir when Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Gandalf, Merry, and Pippin weren't so notably affected by it? Why weren't they? Aragorn and Gandalf easily let the Ring away from them when Boromir and Galadriel could not. In each pair mentioned, there's a great soldier of Gondor and a very wise member of the White Council. How did the evil creep up in Boromir/Galadriel but not Aragorn/Gandalf?

I could probably go on forever, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts.