Sauron and Saruman - The Tragedy of Good Intentions

[Aldarion]

Unlike Morgoth and his nihilism, Sauron and Saruman are both a case study of how good intentions lead to evil.

Both Sauron and Saruman are the Maiar of Aule. This may in fact be the root origin of their mistake: the tendency to look at the world, society and even individuals as nothing but machinery that operates according to strict and easily understandable laws. By this logic, anything that causes disruption or chaos, anything unpredictable at all, is by its very nature a mistake. Because chaos causes harm, pain, and even destruction. It can lead to creation of many things, but also to their destruction; it can lead to progress, but also to regression. In order to remove the pain, inefficiencies and "mistakes", to create safe and productive life, chaos must be replaced by order.

Natural conclusion of this logic is that the free will itself is a mistake. Free will creates chaos, inefficiencies and mistakes, because people are not the same. Thus, in order to create this perfectly functioning machine, free will itself has to be removed and subdued - and this is what both Sauron and then Saruman set out to do.

The ultimate failure in their belief is that, despite their good intentions, Sauron and Saruman had both rejected God. They rejected the role God had envisioned for them . 

But even for an atheist, this should still hold an abject lesson: good intentions alone are not enough. It is not enough to be good and to want good: that can still, all too easily, lead to evil. Belief in utopia is dangerous: this world is by its nature imperfect, and therefore creating a perfect society, a utopia, heaven on Earth, is a fool's errand. More than just being foolish, it is dangerous as well: belief in perfection always breeds extremism, because what isn't allowed in pursuit of a perfect world? Wouldn't all of Sauron's evil be justified if only he could solve all the world's problems? Sauron and Saruman certainly believed so. For them, the ends always justified the means, the utopia always justified whatever was done along the way. And if free will got in the way of the paradise, then the free will had to go.

Yet refutation of free will is in and by itself evil. And evil can never bring about good. No matter how good intentions and the goal may be, the path that we walk to that goal still matters. Stable house cannot be built on quicksand, nor can good world be built upon evil works. Therefore, denying the free will in order to achieve a perfect world or some sort of utopia can never manage to do so, because evil cannot bring about good.

Power is not the path to happiness, nor is the ultimate power something able to solve the world's problems. Tolkien's ideal king has little responsibility or impact on the lives of his subjects. He is a caretaker, not a manager, much less a dictator. Freedom, not power, is what should be strived for - but responsible freedom, one in accordance with human role in God's design, rather than the destructive freedom of the Hippie crowd. Humans are fallible, and there are no heroes who will rise up to solve the world's problems. Aragorn becomes a king of Gondor, but all he can do to win the war is offer himself and his men up as a bait in a Hail Mary move to draw Sauron's attention away from the real threat. Frodo may be the protagonist of the Lord of the Rings, but he ultimately fails in his quest to destroy the One Ring - fails at the very end. It is only through divine providence that the quest succeeds. The One Ring, as a representation of sin, is so powerful that no creature can overcome it. Only one who is resistant to Ring's call is Tom Bombadil - an impersonation of nature itself. Yet neither Sauron nor Saruman understood this, and attempted to work alone and against God's design. No matter how good their intent may have been in the beginning, their pride ultimately doomed them to fall.

Tolkien's heroes are people who act out of love and duty and place themselves in service of things greater than themselves. Aragorn and Faramir both do what they can to protect Gondor. Denethor too starts out as a hero - but his pride and belief in his own power ultimately dooms him, as he fails to realize that he cannot fix everything, or even just defeat Sauron, on his own. Yet Denethor can never be called a villain, for even those prideful actions were ultimately taken from love for his family and his people. Sauron and Saruman by contrast have no such love. For them, country is merely a system of domination, and their people are merely slaves, extensions of their own will. They became so convinced of their own goodness and calling to order the things the way they believe they should be, that both have forgotten the importance of very things they were claiming to be trying to perfect.

In this, both Sauron and Saruman are representatives of modernism, where man is the measure of all things. Both of them abandoned wisdom of the past in pursuit of the ideal future. They - and this is especially obvious with Saruman - abandoned tradition in favor of modernism, abandoned what has worked for centuries in favor of new solutions that promised ideal future. Saruman at first wanted to help the people, but in studying the One Ring he began to desire it. Even if Ring itself had not been evil, desiring Ring to reshape the Middle Earth represented hubris of wanting to be like God, or even, be the God. They may have started with good intentions, but humans are imperfect beings, and imperfect beings can never create perfection. If one attempts to create in anyway, the outcome will be far worse than if no attempt had been made at all. Both Sauron and Saruman, embodying Nietzche's modernist philosophy, decided to try and achieve perfection (that is, Godhood) on their own. But in trying to become gods, they created Hell on earth. And this result was unavoidable - perfection after all is the domain of the divine, and can never be achieved in the physical reality of Middle Earth. Attempting to recreate Eden will always result in Hel.

[C.T. Phipps]

There's a certain level of "Good people turned bad" in Tolkien and "no one starts out as a monster" but I also feel like the fact that Tolkien's sympathy is actually somewhat limited. Redemption is something the good guys continuously offer but there's a very real sense that it's almost never taken by the people involved and after a certain point becomes more or less impossible.

In the case of Sauron, he joins with Morgoth during the initial rebellion and is fascinated with all of the corrosive and terrible arts that his master practices. He's a mad doctor and scientist who wants to establish "order" but there's never any sense that Sauron's particular brand of order is anything other than horrifying. Good intentions are something that you must stretch your limits a good deal to actually apply to Sauron because his intentions aren't really that good.

Sauron is better than Morgoth and falls less than his master because he still wants to rule the world and not destroy it but that's damning with faint praise. Even Sauron's attempt to redeem himself only goes so far as willing to ask for forgiveness from his friend but not someone who actually has authority over him. Which implies that any guilt or remorse he might have felt was limited to being sorry he lost the war.

This is a contrast to Denethor and Feanor who are by far more sympathetic beings held down by their monumental personal flaws but actually do have GOOD intentions. Denethor isn't that good of a person, being what you'd call a racist colonialist who viewed Gondorians as a separate order of men from the rest of humanity (Tolkien gets some "fair for his day" criticisms here that the British IdealTM is no better than the people they look down on ala the Rohan). Feanor being the enemy of Morgoth is his redeeming quality despite being a kinslayer.

What Saruman's motivations are is also something that remains somewhat mysterious. He's clearly working with Sauron but it seems very likely that he has plans of turning against him and possibly using the One Ring or his copy of it (which he's already made it seems by the events of LOTR) to overthrow Sauron. Alternatively, Saruman may have simply given up on the War of Good vs. Evil after believing defeating Sauron for good.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think you have to add several nuances here:

• Morgoth's nihilism arose because he wanted the world to be his. The world couldn't be his, therefore he wants to destroy the world.
• Sauron's "good" desires have evaporated by the time of The Lord of the Rings. Sauron simply wants to Rule. Why? Because he thinks himself as Ruler is, by definition, the most desirable outcome. Long ago, he might have framed it as the Ends Justify the Means. But now it's the Means are the Ends, and he's defined more by his utter cynicism than by any positive motives. It's also an interesting question as to why Sauron (the great admin and planner) decided to team up with a glorified toddler hell-bent on destruction.
• Saruman might be on the same path as Sauron, but he's got complexities of his own. Most notable is that he sees himself as making the best of a bad situation (Sauron will win. Let's cut a deal). He also has a weird little vendetta against Gandalf - a personality quirk of pettiness, rather than a statement about wider metaphysics. Lumping him in with Sauron is a mistake.

The notion that "man is the measure of all things" is hardly modern, of course. Protagoras pre-dates Plato. And if anyone in Tolkien is a comment on Nietzsche, it is neither Sauron nor Saruman, but rather Feanor.

[mcbigski]

On 11/11/2023 at 7:08 PM, Aldarion said:

 Wouldn't all of Sauron's evil be justified if only he could solve all the world's problems? Sauron and Saruman certainly believed so. For them, the ends always justified the means, the utopia always justified whatever was done along the way...

 Therefore, denying the free will in order to achieve a perfect world or some sort of utopia can never manage to do so, because evil cannot bring about good.

Neither Sauron nor Saruman were working towards the greater good by the end of the third age.  Sauron never, and Saruman not after about the middle of third age or so.

As for evil not bringing about good, "Oft evil will shall evil mar" is literally in the text.

[SeanF]

They might once have believed, sincerely, that they were working for the greater good.  But it's hard to see them genuinely believing this, by the end of the Third Age.  Both of them practise chattel slavery; Saruman is willing to resort to mass rape, to produce the Uruk Hai;  both derive amusement from torture;   they are either indifferent to the suffering caused to others by their plans, or else they take outright pleasure from it. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

56 minutes ago, SeanF said:

They might once have believed, sincerely, that they were working for the greater good.  But it's hard to see them genuinely believing this, by the end of the Third Age.  Both of them practise chattel slavery; Saruman is willing to resort to mass rape, to produce the Uruk Hai;  both derive amusement from torture;   they are either indifferent to the suffering caused to others by their plans, or else they take outright pleasure from it. 

Saruman believes it, I think. "Knowledge, rule, order," and all that, and the notion that Sauron can be steered in desirable directions. Saruman is the poster-child for thinking the ends justify the means.

(Sauron is much more advanced on this front. For him, there is no greater good than the advancement of his own power).

[C.T. Phipps]

The delusion of the ends justifying the means is something that certainly exists in the Lord of the Rings but it's something that is mostly reserved for mortal characters like Boromir. Sauron certainly doesn't have that as a problem by the Third Age because he's still convincing mortals to worship Morgoth as a god because he's afraid of his master returning and certainly making no entreaties to Eru.

Saruman, I tend to interpret as having planned to eventually overthrow Sauron and never being a servant of him with their alliance being a highly unstable one. Sauron was already planning to send some people to punish Saruman and he was searching for the One Ring for himself.

Tolkien's intro suggested that in a "realistic" LOTR, Saruman would have gotten the Ring knowledge he needed to bond his essence to a One Ring of his own and the world would have ended up divided between the two.

But Saruman was also willing to surrender to Sauron before the One Ring became an option.

“A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Númenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.”

Edited November 17, 2023 by C.T. Phipps

[TrackerNeil]

On 11/12/2023 at 11:01 PM, C.T. Phipps said:

In the case of Sauron, he joins with Morgoth during the initial rebellion and is fascinated with all of the corrosive and terrible arts that his master practices. He's a mad doctor and scientist who wants to establish "order" but there's never any sense that Sauron's particular brand of order is anything other than horrifying. Good intentions are something that you must stretch your limits a good deal to actually apply to Sauron because his intentions aren't really that good.

Absolutely, and in fact I think Sauron is more of a change agent than Gandalf, who really just wants to take Middle-Earth back to the days of Numenorean rule. Obviously, Gandalf is more benevolent than the Dark Lord, but he's really advocating a return to the past, while Sauron wants a radically different (and terrible) future.

Some years ago I published a paper on this very topic, which used to be free online but now I can't find it. (Or else I am too lazy to search hard.) It goes way beyond Sauron and Gandalf, but I lay out in greater the detail that in Middle-Earth, the heroes--Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn--were really just protecting the status quo.

[C.T. Phipps]

22 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Absolutely, and in fact I think Sauron is more of a change agent than Gandalf, who really just wants to take Middle-Earth back to the days of Numenorean rule. Obviously, Gandalf is more benevolent than the Dark Lord, but he's really advocating a return to the past, while Sauron wants a radically different (and terrible) future.

Some years ago I published a paper on this very topic, which used to be free online but now I can't find it. (Or else I am too lazy to search hard.) It goes way beyond Sauron and Gandalf, but I lay out in greater the detail that in Middle-Earth, the heroes--Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn--were really just protecting the status quo.

Fascinating take!

I'd argue that Gandalf's renewal of Gondor is actually purely to renew toward High Gondor rather than Numenor. Aragorn has many qualities of past kings like Isildur and Beren both but I'd argue that he doesn't have many qualities akin to Numenor. He actually rejects imperialism and generally makes peace versus conquest of the whole of humanity as a goal. The general suspicion of elves, idolatry, and imperialism that is the core of the Numenorean experience is absent and the "best" of Numenor happened after its collapse with the loyalist survivors.

But this may well be semantics on my part.

Which would be my only argument that the status quo is something that Tolkien gets argued as advocating but that is less than people think because the status quo is something Tolkien depicts as unsustainable. Also, what people are often advocating as the greatness of the past is often suicidal and self-destructive.

* Gondorians are obsessed with ancient glories and actually build elaborate tombs versus anything new.

* Gondorians are obsessed with Ancient Numenor when Tolkien depicts it as a place literally struck down by God for its perfidy.

* The attempt to rebuild ancient Moira is an utter disaster.

* The Hobbits get ignored as rural throwbacks but Tolkien actually has them as the future. The genteel English 19th century country life is actually depicted as far superior to ancient feudalism.

Tolkien is suspicious of modernization for its own sake but he's also a man who has experienced the tail end of the Industrial Revolution and WW1 so he's going for a "Golden Mien" between casting aside the idealized memories of the past and the wholesale embrace of a destructive technocracy.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

* Gondorians are obsessed with Ancient Numenor when Tolkien depicts it as a place literally struck down by God for its perfidy.

Right? Which makes you wonder why folks are so eager to give Aragorn the keys to the kingdom. Sure, he's no Ar-Pharazon, but can we say the same about Eldarion? Or Eldarion's son?

I think it's also important to remember that Gandalf is a mouthpiece of the Valar, who were notoriously bad at managing the affairs of the Children. Truth be told, I think the Istari were among Manwe's better ideas, although of course four of the five of them turned out to be useless or worse than useless. So I'm saying that the Valar's best idea was only 20% effective. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by TrackerNeil

[TheNecromancerofMirkwood]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but I don't see Melkor as being nihilistic. He wants to be Master of All to the point he infuses all of Arda with his essence (making it Arda Marred). Of all the beings in Eä that could be said to be nihilistic are Ungoliant and Shelob, as they had no ethos beyond 'consume and spread darkness'. And I think that's because Ungoliant is the Anti-Bombadil, she is the literal embodiment of Melkor's Discord when during The Music of the Ainur whereas Bombadil IS the Music of the Ainur itself minus the Discord. 

(I don't think Ungoliant actually has a fëa,  spirit, only a hröa, body.)