Sharing is Caring: Selfishness and the Origin of Evil

During our discussion of the role of the Valar and Free Will in the Silmarillion we raised the idea that the Valar are a metaphor made literal to explore the consequences of the misuse of free will and the origins of evil. The contrast between the forgiven willfulness of Aulë and the evil willfulness of Melkor raises an interesting question of what defines evil. I found Shippey’s observation that the Valar and elves seem to represent creativity in both its most positive and most negative aspects, and that their sins are thus those of possessiveness particularly compelling. I think the presentation of sin and evil in the Simarillion, as well as Tolkien’s emphasis on the theme of corrupting Power, support the idea that the defining characteristic of evil is not necessarily defiance of Eru’s will or Free Will itself, but selfishness and desire for control.    

It is hard to analyze a figure as vaguely defined as Eru Illuvitar without relying on assumptions based on other points of reference. Just as Sayer explains that it is impossible to describe God without relying on anthropomorphic metaphor. The most simple response to Eru is to think in terms of the Abrahamic God and assume omniscience, omnipotence, and inherent goodness, most of which are characteristics never  explicitly assigned to Illuvitar. This is the primary problem that I find with the idea that evil is merely any deviation from Illuvitar’s will. This answer about the origin of evil fails to satisfactorily explore the boundaries of the misuse of free will in my opinion. With no knowledge of what exactly Illuvitar’s will entails we have no way of knowing what defies it besides what is later characterized as evil, which sheds no light on the origins of that evil or its characteristics. All we discover from assuming that evil derives from deviance from Eru’s will is that evil exists and Eru can identify it. If the Valar can be seen as literalized metaphors used to consider abstract concepts such as the question of free will and the nature of evil, it makes sense that looking at the characters of the Valar is a useful way to analyze Tolkien’s view on these questions. 

Both Aulë and Melkor are Valar that exercise free will by attempting to create in ways that deviate from Eru’s original Song, and some characteristic of these actions makes Aluë’s actions forgivable and Melkor’s Evil. The significant differences described in the Simarillion seem to be their differing motivations and Aulë’s immediate repentance. I think the difference in motivation is more compelling to consider as a root of Evil than the lack of repentance. Repentance or lack thereof can be argued to result from the original motivator for the deviant action. Additionally the idea of Evil resulting from jealous desire for possession or control aligns with the themes and Truths Tolkien said are central to The Lord of the Rings in Letter 131. In describing the themes of the books he talks about the Fall as a possessive drive to become God of one’s own creations and “rebel against the laws of the Creator” leading to the desire for Power and use of talents and will for domination.

      As raised at the end of last class the primary difference of Melkor’s willfulness seems to be its selfish motivation. In the Ainulindalë, Melkor is described as wanting to drown out the rest of the Song with his trumpets, but is thwarted by Eru incorporating his noise. The problem with Melkor’s actions is not the contribution to the Song itself, that ultimately enriched the Song, but the desire to take control and drown out other contributions. Aulë’s deviation from designated sub-creation and attempt to Create is reprimanded as beyond his ability but is not treated as evil or any kind of Fall. He does not, however, attempt to Create out of a jealous desire to possess that talent or to control his creations as does Melkor. Aulë is impatient for the arrival of the Children of Illuvitar and attempts to copy their Creation for the purpose of having others to teach his craft. When Eru tells him that he could never truly bring the Dwarves to life and would only be able to puppet their bodies, Aulë is horrified and emphasizes his desire to communicate with full individuals separate from himself. His motivation is collaborative and his only sin is impatience rather than creation or sub-creation for selfish motives of control. Melkor clearly has no similar compunctions about dominating his evil creations, monsters and Orcs. Selfishness continues to be the central motivator for Melkor’s evil actions throughout the narration of the Simarillion. He is jealous of the other Valar and wishes to control Middle-Earth and wants to own the simarils and is willing to sow destruction to achieve his desires. Melkor uses his talents to spread Evil by inciting discord and possessiveness among the Noldor in order to secure the simarils. 

The primary characteristic of the creations of Illuvitar, the Vala and the Elves, is their creative power and role as sub-creators. The negative application of the ability to sub-create is the use of such talents to achieve selfish goals or to use one’s own sub-creative power to dominate or control the sub-creative will of others. In this view Melkor is evil not necessarily because he deviated from Eru’s plan, but because he chose to seek power and control for his own benefit. This in some way is still a violation of Eru’s will, if Eru’s will is the continual collaborative sub-creative addition to Creation then selfish motives and possessiveness defy that will. The defining feature we are given of Eru is his role as a Creator so perversion of the creative drive into selfish desire is a violation of the primary objective of Eru’s existence as a Creator God.  

 -LBG