Monday, February 11, 2008

Is Sauron the Good Guy?

I'm having trouble with perspectives here... one moment we're the good guy- angry at Agamemnon and philosophizing the evils of war- and the next we're screaming our lungs out at the gates of Troy- but if Troy is called Heorot then we're not Achilles- we're Grendel's mom. Sauron (the bad guy) just wants his ring back, but Tolkien used this same set-up in the Silmarillion whereas the Elves (good guys though) just want their rocks back. However both will go to endless wars against anyone who keeps these possessions. Joy asked what separates the hero from the villian- is it a moment? a perspective? or is it just your name? I don't know... 'good is a point of view' (The Emporer from Star Wars) or is that just something the bad guy has to say?

11 comments:

Zack Ziaja said...

I think to understand the true meaning of evil, at least in this story, one must look at the motive behind the action. Though I have not read the Simalillion, I can use, through the views of the elves in the Hobbit and LotR, the elves were just going to war t get back their property. Sauron however, is going to war to get back his ring so he can rule Middle Earth. The difference lies in the intention for the war. DO I agree with this, maybe not, but what was the context of the rocks that the elves seek. Can the rocks be used for evil? and if so, are the elves trying to get them back to prevent such evil from befalling the world? Since I am not familiar with this story I cannot comment on it with any more declarative voice but I can only assume that the elves are not desiring power but are rather working in benevolence for the betterment of Middle Earth.
This topic brings a different tone to the context o this novel to our day right now to me. How can you compare the LotR or Beowulf to our times now? Was Saddom Hussein our Grendel or our Sauron? Conversely, are the US soldiers who are fighting, killing those "terrorists" for our safety seen as the Grendel or Sauron to those people? I don't mean to come of separatist but it is one of those topics I struggle with went contextualizing this novel and poem. What is the context for evil in your life and how can one relate to a character to decide if you or I can be good or evil?

becky said...

I believe good and evil can be most simplified by, yes, a matter of perspective and which side one is on.

Tim said...

I agree with both of the statements. It really does depend on which side your on that makes you 'good' or 'bad'. But as for the LotR's we can obviously see who is good and bad in both instances ( by that I mean the Silmarillion also ). In LotR we can see that Sauron is going to use the ring for 'evil' deeds of taking over middle earth. Similar to this, the silmaril's (magical rings of the elves) were controlled by Morgoth for evil purposes of power to take over middle earth. The elves were only trying to get them back to avenge their dead Lords and to take the power from Morgoth.

Rocky said...

I think that good and evil is determined by who wins. Would the Nazi's still be the bad guys if they won the war? Maybe to the losers, but most of them would be dead. Would Suron still be the bad guy if he conqured Middle Earth? History is written by the victor.

David Le said...

usually stories are mainly written on the side of the victorious and thus the other side is considered the evil side, if we were to write a book on a persons side or perspective it is usually one sided. one of the cases for the spoils of war are all the bragging rights as the heroes if you win the war.

Mike Pilato said...

If good and evil is a matter of perception, then what you have is moral relativism. There must be an absolute universal good as well as evil. If not, then neither aspect of the moral spectrum can be defined and/or weighed. Saruman tried to justify his intentions of joining Sauron by proclaiming that, "there need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means." Here Saruman distorts the truth of him turning evil by altering his perception of what he intends to do. In Saruman's eyes, he has convinced himself that he would still be doing good. Tolkien does a very good job in promoting moral objectivism. He makes this clear in how the various cultures of middle earth have "common" core perceptions of what good and evil are. As far as "history is written by the victors," I would not say that this was always the case. The European Christian Kingdoms of the First Crusade conquered the Levant, yet there were many Arab/Muslim historians who wrote their own accounts of that incursion and occupation. Their documents survived and were quite different than the chronicles of the Westerners.

Zack Ziaja said...

I somewhat agree with you Mike in that Tolkien makes a clear point for good and evil in this story but I don’t agree that there HAS to be a defined agreed morality. There is no such thing as absolute morality in a global sense. There is a universal belief in right and wrong but that is only relative to that person’s belief in what is wring at wrong. I believe that killing people is wrong regardless of your belief but in some extremist cultures killing is not only accepted but regarded as holy. Where is the absolute morality in that? I believe that bombing women and children is wrong but our country killed thousands of women and children in the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Where is the absolute morality there? The point being that right and wrong depend more on where you stand in a conflict than what is right and wrong.

Mike Pilato said...

If there is no such thing as objective morality then no culture on earth would have any common stigma of right and wrong. Most cultures on earth believe for instance that it is wrong to kill babies. Moral relativism is logically fallacious; morality only has weight if it is absolutely true. This obviously ties into the notion of a moral law-giver; God. The examples that you gave convey differences in cultures; just because certain polities have comitted atrocities that they tried to justify, does not mean absolute morality does not exist. However, this depends on whether you believe in a higher power and in turn that humanity has a common purpose set forth by said being. Evil actions committed by entire governments have been condemned on global scales; i.e. the Nuremburg trials and the Holocaust, Rwanda, Darfur, the Armenian Genocide, etc. The Christmas truce during World War I brought soldiers who were fighting against one another together for one day in peace and comradery all because of a common notion of good. An atrocity was committed during the First Crusade at the city of Ma'arra and both the Christians and the Muslims viewed it as wrong. The Council of Elrond in my opinion represents a pluralistic view of objective morality. They all establish that the ring is evil and that it must be destroyed and that Sauron is evil because of his actions and the actions of his servants.

Rocky said...

What if Sauron believes in god and he is acting in accordance of his god's wishes? Does that change how Sauron should be viewed? Does that make any of his actions any more ambiguous in the matter of right or wrong?

There were the creators of elves and men, and Sauron does obey the wishes of one such god. True this god if you will was deemed evil by the others, but who is to decide if one person’s god is better than another’s?

I do believe that right and wrong is determined individually. Because individuals are different, there can never be a set in stone rule book of what is right and what is wrong. No one will ever completely agree with everything. However, society does influence how individuals are shaped, and in this way, society can shape what could seem to be a sort of universal morality. But even this is subject to change. As society changes, so does it thoughts. What is morally right today does not hold true for the past and will not hold true for the future.

Mike Pilato said...

Those questions have weight only if polytheism is true. Plus if there was no objective morality then Polytheism would be logical, given that each "god" would have different moral attributes. That being said, my argument was on the basis of a common thread of moral values, however few they may be, which exist throughout all cultures in our world. Societies did not create a Universal Moral law because they are geographically separated. If morality is nothing but a social construct, or individual choice, then what you have is utilitarianism, or doing something right just on the basis of convenience. I firmly would argue that morality is timeless and changeless, just as God is transcendent and changeless. This is how the existence of a higher power is linked to objective morality. Of course not everyone will always agree with everything. But is morality bound to human perception? Imperfect, finite beings? People carry out acts of heroism all the time out of an intrinsic awakening to do what is right; not on the basis of naturalistic reasons, convenience, or cultural norms.

Bruce said...

The Elves' pursuit of Morgoth for the Silmarils was an evil act, which was in fact forbidden by the Valar. It stemmed from the pride and vanity of Feanor, who is, of course fallible. He wanted his gems back because of his hurt pride. He crafted them in the first place because he loved their beauty, which inspired all who beheld them.

Does character weakness equate to being evil? If that were true, every last being on Middle Earth (or the actual Earth) is evil.

Sauron, on the other hand, crafted his Rings specifically to dominate and rule over the races of Middle Earth. His intent from the beginning was to impose his will over all, and eliminate the basic right of freedom. This wholesale elimination of agency categorically defines Morgoth as evil.