The Causes of Evil?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

The Causes of Evil

In the film, The Lord of the Rings, (and I suspect in the book as well, but it is so long ago that I read it that I cannot remember.) Frodo, a ‘hobbit’, and one of the ‘heroes’ of the story, takes pity on the creature Gollum, who is evil, one is lead to suppose, beyond redemption.

Gollum was once a creature not unlike the hobbits, but he came into possession of the One Ring, the Ring of Power, and it corrupted him till there was nothing of good left in him, there was nothing at all left in him but hatred and malice.

Frodo and Sam, his friend/servant, get lost trying to find their way to Mordor. Frodo has possession of the One Ring, and he is taking it to Mordor so that it can be destroyed. The pair are attacked by Gollum who wants the Ring for himself, but Frodo and Sam overcome him and take him prisoner.

This is where it gets interesting, for Frodo and Sam exhibit entirely different attitudes towards Gollum, and it is the effect this has on Gollum and his responses that are interesting.

Sam treats Gollum with distrust and derision. He watches him, suspecting treachery at every moment, and reading malicious intentions into his every act. He calls him ‘Stinker’, and expresses disgust at his eating habits etc. stc.

Frodo on the other hand, preferring to believe that Gollum is not beyond redemption, and recognising that he has suffered takes pity on him and is more sympathetic. He treats Gollum with respect, and remembering that he had once been a better creature called Smeagol, calls him by that name. He also gives Gollum his trust, and gets him to guide himself and Sam to Mordor.

Under Sam’s influence Gollum remains as treacherous and malicious as ever, but in response to Frodo he begins a process of transformation. Gollum enjoys the consideration, trust and respect he gets from Frodo, and in return he develops a sort of respect, trust and even attachment to him. Under Frodo’s influence Gollum begins to become detached from his evil side, to see it as not really him, and tries get free of it. He tries to become the creature Frodo treats him as, tries to become Smeagol.

If one is to abstract a principle, or moral, from the above story, it would be this:

People behave as they are treated.

i.e. any person that is treated with disrespect will behave badly. If they are treated with mistrust they will become untrustworthy. If they are treated as though they are evil then they will behave evilly.

Conversely, if a person is treated with trust and respect they will behave well and will BE trustworthy. If a person is treated as though they are good then they will be (or become) good.

In other words, people are not just ‘good’ or ‘bad’. They are ‘interactive’, they ‘become’.

If this is true, and in my own, very extensive experience it is most definitely true, then the implications for our society are profound.

I live in the UK, but the situation is not so different anywhere in the world that I have seen, or where it has been different, it is in places that are called ‘underdeveloped’, or ‘primitive’, and these places are scheduled to follow in the footsteps of the ‘developed world’.

Whatever I do, wherever I go, I am treated with disrespect, with distrust and suspicion.

I take a walk into town to do some shopping, and everywhere I look, inside the shops and out, I see video cameras watching me. These are saying ‘we are watching you because we think that you will do something wrong if we do not watch you’.

In the shops there are all sorts of devices designed to ensure that if I take something out of the shop without having paid for it an alarm will sound. These are telling me they do not trust me not to thieve.

Some shops display large notices in prominent places warning of the consequences if you are caught shop-lifting. These are telling me they do not trust me.
I go home and put on a DVD. The first thing I see is a notice warning me that it is an offence to pirate a video and that severe penalties will result if I am caught doing so. That is saying that they do not trust me.

I go to the library to return and borrow some books. At the counter one of the books I am returning is overdue, I am told. I know that this is not the case, that I have only had the book for a few days, in fact. But the computer and the stamp on the book both concur that the book is overdue. I am not believed. I have to pay the fine. I have experience of the computer getting it wrong, and have seen the library staff making mistakes with the stamps. That is of no matter. The whole system of keeping track of books says, ‘you are not to be trusted and we need to watch you’.
At work, many people have to clock in and out. This says we do not trust you to work your official hours.

Also at work, if you are off ill for more than a day or two, then you are required to obtain a doctor’s certificate to prove that you were, in fact, ill. This says, we do not trust you.

On the internet one is always having to prove one’s identity, or at the very least, to prove that one is not a machine. Also, any site that allows interaction has long lists of terms and conditions that are designed to ensure good behaviour. In addition there are usually monitors policing these sites. This says, we do not trust you.

Whenever I fill in an official form there is a prominent warning about the consequences of giving incorrect, or withholding, information. That says, ‘we do not trust you’.

I have had dealings with the police. For example, I once reported a lost camera, an expensive item that I had been using but which was the property of my employer. Two plain clothed policemen visited me. One made polite conversation, being very nice and chatty, but really trying to put me off my guard so that the other one could suddenly fire a question at me about the camera and when I had last seen it etc, and hopefully catch me out, as though they suspected that I had stolen the camera myself. They were clearly saying, ‘we do not trust you’.

I once found a purse dropped in the street and took it to the police station. The duty policeman asked me all sorts of questions and then carefully noted down all the contents of the purse. I had the distinct feeling that if anything was found to be missing when the purse was claimed by its owner then I would be blamed. In fact it may have been also about keeping checks on the policemen themselves, but it does not matter, there was still that accusation hanging in the air, that distrust.

I remember a time and place where I could leave my house without having to lock the door, and I could leave my car in town without having to lock it. Every lock on every door, every alarm system, every iron fence says, ‘we do not trust you’.

Now, if I go back to the principle that I derived from the story of Frodo, Sam and Gollum i.e. that people behave as they are treated, then one can only conclude that society is making the criminals. That is, that the more governments try to clamp down on criminal behaviour, the more surveillance and alarm systems they install, then the more criminals they create; the more they tighten their grip on society the more violence, theft and criminal behaviour of all kinds they instigate. In fact, one can only conclude that if you want to prevent crime then you have to do the opposite of what is being done, i.e. you have to relax your grip on society, you have to do away with all the surveillance, the locks and alarms and checks.

I am not suggesting that these surveillance and alarms and locks etc are the only cause of criminal behaviour. The situation is not as simple as that. Karl Marx said, ‘property is theft’, and I think he may have a point. I mean, on top of everything else, what we class as good and bad behaviour is, itself, open to question. But what I AM saying, is that the way society handles crime is counterproductive.

Points for further consideration

  1. If I am right, if it is the case that society would be safer and better if all the systems designed to watch and deter criminal behaviour were dismantled and done away with, then I would call that good news indeed! I would LOVE to get my privacy back! I would love to return to that relaxed atmosphere where you could walk out of your front door and not even have to shut it, when you could leave things lying about, could walk away from your car, when you did not have to be sure to have something about you at all times that could prove that you are who you say you are etc etc. It is so wonderful to feel safe and to be respected and trusted as a matter of course. There are many young people in the world today who do not know what that is like. I feel that is a shame, because they do not know what they are losing with every new measure that is brought in to prevent crime or catch criminals.

  2. The way the academic world works, the way scientific, historical etc research are done, the peer-review system, is based on mistrust. Scientific research is done the way it is done in order to prevent individual scientists from being able to lie and cheat. The other academic disciplines are the same. Based on the above, one could conclude that the scientific method only engenders lying and cheating.

2

some more thoughts

does that make me wrong to distrust?

if people have hurt me in the past in some way… let’s say assault at nightime in a city… am i wrong to avoid dark alleys at night?

should i leave my doors unlocked at all times? should i just remove the locks?

i think your descriptions are accurate in a sense…but i’m not sure if i would call it evil in all cases… perhaps its just convenience… or practicality with less of a concern of how it effects others

it’s also taught to many from an early age. santa claus wasn’t real… parents lied. is it evil? well no they just enjoyed the reaction we had. they don’t trust me to walk across streets either when i’m 3. is that causing me to be evil?

systematic use of security devices is mistrust on a global scale. perhaps it will soon become completely unacceptable to not want to be on camera… you’ll be evil

i tend to associate evil (when it comes to persons) as born-psychopaths… kids who killed animals at 5, try to stab their siblings at 6, and end up in a looney bin for life at 7. people who want to kill for self-pleasure only… although killing (animals for food) is a part of life… perhaps in another time the psychopaths could have been the best providers… erhaps they still are… plucky that i am sheltered from it

everyone else is just a result of normal life

i think mistrust is a natural byproduct of people seeing themselves in a good light… WHICH THEY SHOULD… and when someone else’s idea conflicts with that

i’m sure the camera companies or police officers have no problem with a camera anywhere

i think evil comes from frustrated powerless smart people going over the edge

3

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” - Socrates

4

Ok let’s put this into perspective on the book to start, Gollum spent hundreds of years with a ring that although it gave him long life corrupted him beyond all reason, just like Bilbo who only had it for decades he could not resist it’s lure. The ring is basically a symbol of power, but it is essentially half what Sauron is, he poured his will and his malice into it and although it has great power it cannot be used by anyone without it corrupting them, even Frodo eventually cannot resist it’s charms.

Sauron is a clever bugger, he knows his will to dominate which is his greatest power is also the key to seeing that the ring always finds it’s way back to its true master. One also has to remember that orginally, Sauron is a servant only of law, he seeks to build an Earth that functions solely to an order that is good under Eru the one God’s direction. The problem is of course men have free will, and on seeing them ruin his plan he slowly falls under the sway of the vengeful Demon/Devil/Valar called Morgoth, eventually Sauron believes the only way men can be brought to perfection is by being dominated.

Morgoth is not a planner he is essentially absolutely pissed off that even though he corrupted the fabric of reality, its very creation depended on him to do that, Eru saw a war in the heavens as the only way to bring order to the creation: arda without it eventually becoming such a simple song that it held everyone captive in its order. Morgoth is reliant on Sauron to think for him beyond his plans for revenge, since he is created precisely to sow disorder. Morgoth is cast into the void when he acts too soon on the mortal plain (a series in the first age that is explained in the Silmarillion), the result is the undying lands are sundered from middle Earth, however such great damage is done that his servant Sauron lives on, and by their own rules neither the Valar or Eru can manifest their power on the mortal plane, to do so would unleash such power that it would destroy it. So they send the 6 wizards, “Sauron” who is already there, Gandalf, Saruman, Radaghast, and two green wizards who are never heard from again but are assumed to have fallen in the Eastlands, to try and protect Middle Earth from the ravages of Sauron.

There’s a hell of a lot more story but lest I bore you…

The Lord of the Rings is neither about good or evil it has much greater scope than that, we know any man can be capable of both, it is about the corrupting influence of power. It’s ultimately about how the world can progress if not for overcoming the need for power.

Just to explain what the story means initially.

It’s a little more complicated than good and evil. :slight_smile:

5

To get a bit more technical, the actual “seed of sin” is presumption (act now, think later… if ever).

A variety of things tempt presumption into action; quick wealth or power, urgent pain, perceived freedom or entrapment…

I agree from the psychology side that by treating people as criminals, they are tempted into criminality and often even forced into it. And that is known and isn’t done by accident. But there is a greater issue underfoot.

Medically, psychology can be (and is) over trumped by neurological interference. You can’t train a mule into being a thoroughbred and a scorpion is thankless. All creatures have a limit to how much they can mentally process and to what degree they can be trained against their genetic or infected neurology. That limit and genetic propensity determines to what degree they will presume and thus “sin” or commit evil. Education and training can correct such things only up to a limit. You cannot train a scorpion to avoid all possibility of being infected or pressured into resorting to “emergency instincts” which will fall into presumptuous and thankless behavior.

Any person can be treated psychologically and medically such as to cause them to behave in any manner possible for a person to behave. The serious problem is that such treatments are going on now more than ever, on a global level, and have always been going on. They are presumptuous acts creating presumption by design with the blind hopes of presumptuously gaining control over presumption; “the blind leading the blind”.

The cause of evil is merely mental blindness caused by an urge to act before thinking which then creates more of itself.

6

See my new thread — “The Ring of Power”.

7

Interesting comments. I’d like to take up on a number of points as I’ve numbered them:

  1. Trustingness is a state of mind. You can make up your mind to believe what someone what someone says to you, but if you are fundamentally distrustful, this will be only an intellectual thing and down deep you will not trust them. So you are who you are, but you can choose to aspire to trustfulness, though it’s a long hard process, it can be done.

  2. The first person you should always trust is yourself. If you feel fear, for whatever reason, of going down a dark alley at night, then that means that it would do you more harm than good to do so. The harm may in fact be the stress of exposing yourself to fear before you can cope with it.

  3. That would cause you unbelievable stress. Also, the world is just not geared up for it right now. But again it comes down to do you fear doing so? If you do fear doing so, don’t do it.

  4. The distrust of an adult is the distrust of a child’s skills. The kind of distrust we are talking about here is tha distrust of a person’s good intentions. It is a significant distinction.

  5. I can’t help but agree with you there! Science fiction nightmare.

  6. You are raising the nature/nurture debate here. Personally I incline rather towards nurture i.e. people are not by nature evil but come to be so because of circumstance - and I carry that further to believing that nurture can also cure evil.

  7. Yes, and that reminds of the insult that is added to injury - it is us, the taxpayer, who have to pay for all this surveillance and distrust of ourselves.

(8) I do not go with this one. I think that the most able people do not get frustrated and therefore do not go over the edge. Frustration results from low ability. (Not my smiley, btw, just can’t get rid of the damned thing!)

8

Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. I would say the evil or otherwise is in what you do with things i.e. it is in the person, in their intentions.

9

Yes, it is a bit more complicated. You obviously have a more extensive knowledge of the Tolkein thing than I do. However, I really only meant to take that one episode out of the film, to illustrate a point I was trying to make about good and evil.

On the other hand, one might argue that evil originates in the corrupting influence of power…

10

To some extent I would agree with you, though I think that the heart of the problem is not so much thinking later, but being able to identify the consequences of one’s actions. Cause and effect are not easy to identify. Also, in order to accomodate your definition I could talk of the “act of distrust”. That is to say that to express distrust of a person is an act, even if only a psychological one, and if one did think later, and was able to relate cause to effect, one would find that the result of one’s act of distrust was treachery in the person distrusted.

11

Enjoyed this post a lot, especially the cat and dog playing.

12

and what governs one’s intentions but their knowledge?

13

I think that what governs one’s intentions is their Will.
It is our consciousness and our self-awareness that give rise to good intentions.
You can have all the knowledge in the world and you might have good intentions - but until your follow through with the use of your Will and your Spirit - nothing is a done deal.

14

but what decisions you make with you will is influenced greatly by you knowledge.

15

You don’t make decisions with your will - but you can make decisions based on your knowledge.
But you act on those decision with your Will.

16

Well exactly, of course it does good and evil are about power, Satan with his great power to create the stars in the heaven is corrupted when he becomes proud of his endeavours, the initial part of the Silmarillion is a simile with the battle in heaven between God and Satan, but then Tolkien borrows on so many rich mythologies precisely because he wants to draw a common thread together, the desire to enjoy myth that he thought the English had begun to lose.

Essentially though to understand the story you have to see it as a series of power plays between good and evil, some of which are supposed to be good are in fact evil and some that are evil eventually reveal a good: Eru knows this has to happen because without men, or indeed Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits learning the great evil that they are capable of and the great good for themselves their free will is non existent. Free will comes with a price, the power to do good or evil, a lesson that takes 3 ages of man to remotely sink into the weak mortals that are men. For the Elves it is too late, tied to fate and lacking much of the free will of men, they are destined to seek out the undying lands again and hope beyond hope that “men” will save themselves, there is little more they can do, despite their great power, and indeed because of it.

Anyhow carry on I am a massive Tolkien geek.

17

You choose to act on those decision based upon one knowledge you have…?

18

I think you all overestimate your own self-control and self-awareness. There is much more going on in the subconscious: e.g. think of how advertising works, how it has an effect on people of which they are largely unaware, but which markedly influences their behaviour. Your subconscious has all sorts of things going on in it which affect your behaviour and which over-ride most of what goes on in your conscious mind. Most of the conscious rationale in fact merely justifies decisions or behaviours which have originated in the subconscious.

Personally, I am highly intuitive and strongly influenced by my likes and dislikes (this is closest to spirit ), often as not, the heart rules the head.

To quote David Hume “reason is and ought always to be the slave of passion”. If he’s right, there doesn’t seem an awful lot of room there for conscious exercise of free will.