Be Good for Goodness Sake

One aspect of class discussion I found intriguing was the question of what a good choice consists of and how Tolkien’s “good” characters knew what choices to make. I think the claim Le Guin addresses about the apparent moral simplicity of The Lord of the Rings can be countered by considering what “good” consists of in Tolkien’s world. The One Ring, as an embodiment of Sauron’s power, represents the purest evil existing in the Third Age. The power of the Ring is its ability to control other creatures and suppress their free will. If the suppression of free will is the goal of the Enemy it stands to reason that Free Will is of upmost importance and is necessary for Good.

As we discussed in class, free will is significant because good is something that must be chosen by individuals. The act of choosing is what makes goodness significant and active, rather than a passive static state of being put into place by God. However, if creatures with free will choose to be evil or good, what exactly does it look like to choose Good? Tolkien’s world does not seem to fit with the Jungian Fairytale definition Le Guin posits, that a “good hero” cannot be determined by reason but is instead a character that takes the appropriate action with certainty. Tolkien’s good characters frequently avoid the “appropriate” action and almost never act with certainty. The appropriate action for Sam to take in order to achieve the Cause would have been to shove Frodo into the Cracks of Doom the moment he claimed the Ring. If Sam had chosen to push Frodo in it would certainly not be a good choice and it would have ruined the ending. The struggle of characters to make the right choices and resist the temptation of Evil represented by the Ring makes the resulting Good meaningful. If incarnate creatures had an inherent knowledge of what is good or the right choice was obvious the existence of free will would be unimportant. A “good character” who makes easy and obvious choices is not significantly different than the rock or animal that Augustin considers, existing exactly and without change as God created, incapable of evil, but also largely incapable of positive good. 

I argue that although “Good” and making Right choices is necessarily complicated in the Legendarium, it consists generally of two components. Tolkien states in Letter 183 that there must be unalterable moral principles that judge a cause to be right or wrong regardless of individual actions. The attempt to destroy the Ring and counter Sauron’s plan to become a God-King and oppression of free will through absolute power is and always will be inherently Right and Good. Thus a Right choice for a good character should be in service of the right cause. Tolkien uses the example of Denethor to illustrate the importance of having the “right” goal, he is so focused on the political protection of Gondor that he would have become a tyrant had he not failed. If an Orc acted in a particularly Good way, by saving a life or an act of courage, they would not then be Good because their choice was in service of an evil cause. Similarly the reverse is true, Tolkien is clear that the rightness of a cause is unrelated to the morals of individual actions so being on the right side is not enough to make choices Right or Good. The individual level of the morality of choices is more complicated than the black and white division of causes. I think the primary features that characterize the right choices of Tolkien’s characters are resistance to the temptation of dominion and Mercy. Frodo is Good because he consistently chooses to resist the power of the Ring and acts with mercy towards Gollum, a choice that results in the return of divine Mercy to save the Cause. Tolkien frequently uses the example of mercy in his correspondences when talking about morally good actions. A clear example of a Good choice that employs mercy is Manwe’s treatment of Melkor in The Simarillion. He allows Melkor to plead for his freedom and grants it, despite the negative consequences his release brings, Manwe is close to purely Good so his actions are an example of Good actions. 

An aspect of the moral landscape of Tolkien’s characters that the Manwe example highlights is the emphasis on intention rather than result. The complexity and riskiness of every choice makes mistakes and failure common. Manwe does not cease to be good because his choice led to the destruction of the Trees and Frodo does not cease to be good because he failed against the superior power of the Ring. The important moral feature is the attempt to do and choose good to the upmost of one’s ability. In fact, Frodo’s ultimate failure only serves to highlight his Goodness and the rightness of his choices. Failure is inevitable for incarnate creatures with limited powers especially when facing a force as powerful as Evil. The fact of Frodo’s failure proves that he consistently chose good and resisted the Ring up to and through his breaking point, he literally did everything in his power to resist the Ring, but a hobbit will always have less power than the Ring. Even had Frodo failed earlier he would not be to blame for making the wrong choices, the Wrong cause is the initiator of evil and is to blame for all evil actions. The consistent struggle and inevitable failures that characterize the choice to be Good seem to soundly disprove the idea that Tolkien’s characters are morally simplistic or entirely “good.” They are wholly “good” because they are the characters who have stuck by the attempt to be good till the end of the story, if they had given in to temptation and ceased choosing good they would no longer be “good characters.” This does not simplify morality, it highlights its complexity. Every creature is capable of goodness and evil because it is a choice and the choice to be good is a constant and uncertain struggle. Even if the backdrop is a stark battle between Good and Evil Tolkien’s characters are each morally complex, unsure, and inherently fallible. 

-LBG