Equal Forces Of Good And Evil example essay topic

Intentionally Wicked: Thoughts on The Lord of the Rings and Our Motivation in Committing Evil Acts The Main Point: The following analysis deals with the nature and source of evil and whether, given our innate motives and moral obligation, we willingly choose to succumb to our desires or are slaves of our passion. From this argument, I intend to show that our human nature requires that we play into our desires in order to affirm our free will. This is not to say that our desires are necessarily evil, but quite the opposite. In some sense, whatever people actually want has some relative value to them, and that all wanted things contain some good.

But given that there are so many such goods and a whole spectrum of varying arrangements among them, that there is no way we can conceive anything as embodying an overall good just because it is to some degree wanted by one or a group of persons. In this light, there arises conflict which can only be resolved by a priority system defined by a code, maybe of moral foundations, which allows us to analyze the complexities of human motivation. I do not intend to set down the boundaries of such a notion, nor do I want to answer whether it benefits one to lead a morally good life, but rather want to find out how the constructs of good and evil affect our freedom to choose. The Starting Point: Free will can be wholly responsible for my motivation to write this paper.

I was really hoping for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to come out in time to be used as the film for analysis, but to my disappointment, it opened in theaters the day this paper was due. So, I chose to write instead on The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. The films, though not really about our freedom to choose, inspired me to look into the topic of whether it is in our nature to willingly choose the path of evil to gain personal fulfillment. Our motives are not as clear cut as the archetypes portraying good and evil are in the film, but part of me thinks their embodiment in such fantastical creatures as elves, hobbits, orcs, and demons say something about the human desire to approach our weaknesses with understanding and strengths with humility. For if we learn from our mistakes we may grow stronger, while withdrawing from our arrogance, might we refrain from ruling out perfectly possible and desirable changes as impossible.

This is the essence of our freedom. The Assumptions: My assumptions are few and hopefully essential. Firstly, the sciences do not attack our freedom in their efforts to administer predictability in a world where events are causally determined, random, or at the will of a higher, unknown power. Secondly, our actions are no more than effects of our prior desires, and changes result from some pre-existing motives, thus preserving continuity in our personal identity. Thirdly, we cannot live without some kind of morality, and every human culture functions with one. And fourthly, every subject brought up by fantasy stems from reality.

The Argument: Lord of the Rings conveys the longstanding struggle between good and evil and delves into its relationship to the power of personal free choice. The novel by J.R.R. Tolkien has been brought to life by the magic of computerized special effects as almost every element of the author's vision is recreated in the film. Although Tolkien intended his reader to imagine through his words the fantasy in which Lord of the Rings takes place, film allows us to hear and see more vividly the story, and more importantly, "gives us the freedom to choose, to select one detail over another". As such, whereas words are always the same in Tolkien's novel, the image on the screen changes continually as we redirect our attention to different images each time we watch the film.

Although, the film can never be a substitute of the rich and complete experience of the novel, it complements it in ways that we " ve anticipated for some time, and for Tolkien, would be unimaginable. The story follows the journey of a hobbit, Frodo Baggins. When presented with the formidable task of destroying the One Ring, Frodo learns that casting it into the fiery pits of Mount Doom is perhaps more difficult an undertaking than assuming the voyage to Mordor itself. Furthermore, the pivotal scene in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King depicts Frodo finally giving into the temptation to claim the ring for himself, and the audience recognizes that, in that moment, evil prevails.

Frodo's quest, and subsequent internal struggle to keep the ring, parallels our nature when faced with temptations in our own lives. This posits the first essential point as to whether the nature of evil is an independent force in our world, and our fight against it or our willingness to embrace it. The presence of the dual, yet equal forces of good and evil is presented as Manichean ism, which postulates that good and evil are locked in an eternal struggle for world domination. As they are equally balanced, it remains questionable which force will prevail, yet Manichean believe it was possible for things to be wholly good, wholly evil, or somewhere in between.

Consequently, we observe the world in the ebb and flow conflict between good and evil, and take part in the impulses of both sides. However, is that to say there is a truly independent evil principle? Defining evil as an opposing force to good provides that evil exists as a value, though negative, in relation to the positive value of good. Yet, another way to define evil is to assume that it feeds off the existence of good. Here, goodness becomes necessary for evil, but the inverse does not hold true.

Furthermore, goodness retains its primacy and independence, whereas evil becomes secondary and dependent on goodness. This view is more succinctly debated by the Christian philosopher, St. Augustine, as he writes: Wherever you see measure, number, and order, you cannot hesitate to attribute all these to God, their Maker. When you remove measure, number, and order, nothing at all remains... Thus, if all good is completely removed, no vestige of reality persists; indeed nothing remains. Every good is from God. There are many illustrations of this concept in The Lord of the Rings with the most evident one being the contrasting depiction between the Shire and Mordor.

The Shire represents real purity and vivacity as its residents follow simple, yet fulfilling lives. They are half men, but represent the decent half. This is reflected in the lush green setting of a village where its creatures, the hobbits, complement their surroundings with homes built in grass hills as well as in their gatherings as in such joyous celebrations as Bilbo Baggins' birthday. In contrast, nothing remains in Mordor. It is a desolate, barren wasteland, where no sun shines, and nature does not exist. Here, the Eye of Mordor scours for invaders across its bare plains, which represents the idea that evil is a lack of goodness, as darkness is a lack of light.

Yet, Mordor exists due to its parasitic nature on goodness, not because of its opposition to it. As Frodo journeys to Mount Doom, the closer Frodo approaches to its nothingness and the more internal and external evil forces surround him and feed on his good intention to deliver the ring to its fiery pits. Yet, while there, there still shows to be some symbolic reference towards goodness. As Sam loses all hope in the mission, he looks into the night sky to see a star shining down on Mordor. Its beauty and purity compel Sam to continue onward and manifest a goodness that exists, even in Mordor. Furthermore, Frodo brings with him the Star of Are ndi, a gift from the elf goddess, Galadriel.

"May it be a light for you in dark places when all other lights go out", she advises him. Sam uses it to rescue Frodo from the clutches of the giant spider. However, in the end, as Frodo stands on the cliff of Mount Doom, he turns to the desire of the ring and no longer lives for his self. His will works off the existence of the ring as he puts it on and vanishes, only to be caught by Gollum who bites off his finger. It is by chance that the ring is destroyed, identifying that Frodo's desire for the ring violates the rightful order of both his and the external world. Thus, evil can arise even when good creatures, like Frodo, want to have more than their share of good things in the world.

This desire serves as the root of all evil, and by succumbing to it, evil is born. St. Augustine further writes: Neither the goods desired by sinners, nor the free will itself... are evil in any way... evil is a turning away from the immutable goods and a turning toward changeable goods. This turning away and turning toward result in the just punishment of unhappiness, because they are committed, not under compulsion, but voluntary. For St. Augustine, the source of evil comes from free will.

Furthermore, evil actions in the measure of good actions affirm free will in that good acts alone would make the world devoid of moral responsibility. Emotionally, we are capable of vice because we are capable of virtue, and virtue would be unreal if it did not have an opposite alternative. "The vices are the defects of our qualities. Our nature provides for both. If it did not, we should not be free" If we take the will to power as the one all-explaining basic motive, one could conclude, as Nietzsche does, "that nobody ever refuses power willingly, and that those who do refuse it are in the wrong because they have failed to understand their own basic needs". The flip side to this argument is that the whole generalization from which he starts is illicit and unwarranted as it disrupts the balance of morality.

Does Frodo's situation to wield the power of ring support Nietzsche's conclusion? To support this claim, one can draw a parallel to Plato's Republic in which Glaucon brings up the story of Gyges ring. He concludes that even a just man would give in to the power of the ring: No one could be found... of such adamantine temper as to persevere in justice and endure to refrain his hands from the possessions of others... though he might with impunity take what he wished... and in all other things conduct himself among mankind as the equal of a god. In the end, Plato's argument is for the sake of morality as he concludes the immoral life ultimately corrupts the soul of the immoralist, but can we hold Frodo responsible for his own action? This confronts the Paradox of Moral Responsibility. What causes Frodo to wear the ring, and can he be blamed for putting it on?

Within Frodo, 'dangerous' motives seep into him in their most simple form and bring out his animal instincts. The times Frodo chooses to wear the ring drastically compel him to determine what motives to pursue in terms of the 'powers' of good and evil, and create a psychological conflict. While he finds the power within himself to resist the ring, he also uses it consciously to escape danger and acquire knowledge. The Paradox states two premises: some of the world's events are governed by determinism and the remaining events occur as a result of random choice, and; persons are morally responsible only for those of their actions that they will autonomously.

In the realm of determinism, the argument holds that people may perform acts, but those acts are predetermined and ultimately, they could not have willed differently from how they did, thus their will was not free. To the extent that their will to perform an act is not governed by determinism, they could have willed differently from how they did will. However, since the first premise holds that events that are not governed by determinism occur as a result of random chance, "the will of person is no more under their direct control in the absence of determinism than in its presence". Yet, if we confine will to the construct of morality, it breeds corruption. It is apparent that within Frodo exists the potential of evil, for he is tempted, but he never experiences temptation until he wears the ring. Like in Gollum, the ring found within Frodo his darkness and causes him to rationalize between his innate motives and previously indistinct ones.

This aligns with our own free will as Frodo in essence must play into the paradox of moral responsibility, and shows how our will is confined not to determinism, but the constructs of good and evil. In the following argument, I am interested in the nature of how determinism plays on our right to choose, and if it threatens Frodo's, and subsequently, our own freedom of choice. Let us assume that the ring serves as an external force that embodies everything, including every act, which causes Frodo to lose his real free will and yield to its power on the cliff of Mount Doom. It is this denial of innate causes that is often phrased as a defense of free will against determinism. But is determinism to blame for threatening Frodo's free will, and more importantly our own? According to determinism, as Stent states, [T] here exists a seamless web of casual connections that governs whatever happens in the world.

Hence, any event would be an effect of (or necessitated by) a chain of prior events that were themselves necessitated by yet earlier events. This belief in determinism is not a mere superstition, in that it provides the rational foundation for our intuitive concept of an orderly world and thus for our scientific understanding and highly successful manipulation of nature. The final sentence in this definition is an important one as it concludes determinism is not a superstition, but rather in accordance to the laws of science and nature. There is no mention of an almighty power involved; 'determine' relates more to 'make known' than it does to 'force'. It is "the belief in natural regularity which makes modern science possible". Events must be viewed from a logical standpoint occurring according to laws, meaning that, given proper evidence, they could be predicted in advance.

For instance, if a cultivator understands the laws of gravitational 'force' as the way things properly move the tides rather than a power that erratically causes flooding, he may in time change his planting habits by using his increased understanding of water movements and willingness to accept certain limits. Now, there's a great difference between explaining one's troubles by blaming the will on a supernatural being, say the malevolent power of Sauron, and explaining them by natural law. The will of Sauron cannot be deflected in the same way as to avoid disaster, and eats away at Frodo, whatever his efforts to escape otherwise. It is this force of fatalism, rather than determinism that shows Frodo's efforts as useless, indeed, self-defeating. In the end, Frodo succumbs to the temptation of the ring and to the superstitious acceptance of unnecessary evil, based on his false belief in the helplessness to do anything about it, thus allowing Sauron's power to control his destiny in the end. It is only by chance the ring is destroyed, and consequently Sauron, by the coincidental collision of three evil impulses: Frodo's desire to keep the ring, Gollum's desire to take it from Frodo, and Sauron's skewed focus on world domination, "made possible by his confidence that nobody would ever try to destroy the ring".

Thus, the acceptance of unnecessary evils as inevitable is the menace to our freedom, not determinism, which should only relate to practical assumptions of order in the name of science. "Our tendency to dramatize such notions into threats, and personify physical forces as entities, is natural but misleading". Criticism: Earlier, I mentioned the Manichean balance of good and evil, and here attempt to refute the argument. To begin with, does the ring in Lord of the Rings exemplify something that can be completely devoid of any good? Although the elf, Elrond calls the ring 'altogether evil,' it only embodies the powers of evil because of its creator's, Sauron, intentions.

Therefore, Sauron himself should typify a completely evil being. Sauron represents corruption in its highest form, and his essence could parallel even the most malice men of our own world, like Hitler, for instance. Yet, both are human creatures with powers and capacities that are not evil in themselves. In his book The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Erich Fromm explains his analysis in the motives of members of the Nazi party, whose destructive tendencies have been cause for the debate of evil will: I still had another aim; that of pointing to the main fallacy which prevents people from recognizing potential Hitlers before they have shown their true faces.

This fallacy lies in the belief that a thoroughly destructive and evil man must be a devil - and look his part; that he must be devoid of any positive quality... Much more often the intensely destructive person will show a front of kindliness... he will speak of his ideals and good intentions. But not only this. There is hardly a man who is utterly devoid of any kindness, of any good intentions. If he were he would be on the verge of insanity, except congenial 'moral idiots'.

Hence, as long as one believes that the evil man wears horns, one will not discover an evil man. As Hitler is to Sauron, so the Lord of the Rings does not convey the Manichean view of the nature of evil, and more importantly, both examples show it to be rather impossible for someone or something to be completely evil, thus negating the idea that evil exists as a completely independent principle. The motives that challenge Frodo embody our own natural motives, which I labeled before as animal instincts. Treating such motives as natural brings up the charges against the dilemma of morality, for there develops the fear of fatalism and the fear of power-worship. Frodo succumbs to these fears, but is that to assume that we would as well? If we accept these motives as natural, critics suggest that we would be committed to accepting bad conduct as inevitable.

But this is not wholly necessary. True, if we treat a complex motive, such as aggression, in its simplest form we would arrive at the invariable outcome of murder. But we must recognize a whole range of natural 'dangerous' motives, including aggression, competitiveness, and dominance, as having good aspects as well as bad ones. Yet, there is still the formidable question as to why people do bad things. External causes, such as fatalism, cannot fully explain it, although it may define other people's inconvenient conduct as the source cause. Yet, this rules out personal responsibility.

We are only left to assume that good and evil work together in driving our motives, and its forces are relative to each individual. This may lead to a better understanding of the relation between all causes and free will, but surely does not supply reason to how good and evil define our freedom to choose. Conclusion: I set out writing this essay with ambitious goals only to have them fizzle out in the end. The freedom of choice is definitely affected by the boundaries of good and evil.

Furthermore, what some people might consider to be wholly good may in fact be completely evil from another perspective. The will for power is an important aspect, and it is arguable whether one can say a person's motives to fulfill that drive are unwarranted. In Frodo's or Gyges case, we can all relate on some level, since along with impunity comes an inflated sense to take all that your heart can desire. Too much good is a bad thing, yet to me, too much bad is at first a good thing, but then it goes bad again. So why not take evil in moderation? Could we control the intake of our impulses?

Is it so evident that given that freedom to take everything in would saturate one's desires to point where the person would be compelled to turn the other way? Moderation of the good is, of course, the alternative, and like Plato said, the moral life is ultimately more fulfilling than the immoral one. That being said, I kick myself now for not looking deeper into the ethical dilemma raised by the struggle between good and evil. Still, it does not seem as interesting. The wicked person gets a far higher head-turning quotient, even if that person doe not intend to be so.

Bibliography

Bassham, Gregory and Eric Bronson (eds.) The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy. Chicago: Open Court, 2003.
Benjamin, Anna and L.H. Hack staff (tr). St Augustine On the Free Choice of the Will. Indianapolis: Boobs-Merrill, 1964 Fromm, Erich.
The Anatomy of Human of Human Destructiveness. London: Jonathan Cape, 1974.
Jowett, B. (tr). Plato's Republic. New York: W.J. Black, 1942.
Midgley, Mary. Wickedness. London: Routledge, 1984.
Stent, Gunther S. Paradoxes of Free Will. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2002.