Inherent Evil

[Lord of Angmar]

I was recently reading through the Valinor = Heaven for Elves? thread when I came across an interesting remark by Kiah.

No entire race is evil...

Although I do feel the need to specify that Kiah ended this quote with a variation of 'aside from Orcs, that is', I still feel that perhaps no race in Middle-earth really can be considered evil. Let us consider the circumstances of the orcs.

Although it has been a topic of debate as to whether orcs were corrupted Elves or Men, it is said in the Silmarillion that

[Elves from Cuivenen] were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved ... thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves... And deep in their hearts the Orcs loathed the master they served in fear...

So they are not entirely evil, it can be argued, but rather they are the victims of harsh circumstance. For Morgoth enslaved them and the Children of Illuvatar hated them and slew them, and they could not escape the bonds of their master. And since their very essence is corruption, they can never know love. I propose that, had they not been subject to Morgoth and Sauron, they would not be fully disposed to evil, but rather to hiding and not bothering in the affairs of those who walked under the Sun in the day. I think that it was because of Morgoth's and Sauron's influence on and sway over them that they were considered to be evil.

In The Two Towers, when Sam overhears the two orcs conversing, both agree that they would rather find an out-of-the-way residence and abide there with friends than serve the Dark Lord in the War of the Ring. This is certainly a convincing argument that they are not wholly evil, and are not always predisposed to plunder and murder. It is my humble opinion that they are corrupted by nature, merciless by need and because of the will of their master (Sauron, Morgoth, Saruman, etc.), and considered inherently "evil" only by circumstance.

[StarJewel]

I agree with you. imho, no race is completely evil or completely good. nothing is perfect. if orcs could go back to their original state, the elves, they probably would. I feel more pity than anything else for them

[Sharkû]

"They [sc. orcs] would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.)" (Letter 153)

"I actually intended it to be consonant with Christian thought and belief, which is asserted somewhere, Book Five, page 190,1 where Frodo asserts that the orcs are not evil in origin." (Letter 269)

What else is there to say?
I believe we have had this discussion at least once before, but for this thread's sake, let me add that while the notion of orcs being corrupted Elves may have been the idea at the time of Tolkien's writing of LotR, later theories should be given more importance here.

What the quotes tell us is that there is of course perfection, but it lies solely with the Creator (and one might say therefore in creation as a whole). Because of the gravity of the origin of orcs, which does not change with a different idea of their beginnings, they are indeed "naturally bad".
Furthermore, it is stated somewhere that orcs in fact loathed their own existance.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

'What the quotes tell us is that there is of course perfection, but it lies solely with the Creator (and one might say therefore in creation as a whole).'

'Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.'

These two quotes, my apologies Sharku as they were lifted from your own post, I have isolated these because they outline something I believe to be very fundamental in the writings of Tolkien. I'll just add another couple to help it (since my much-ravaged copy of sil is missing the sections these are found in, they'll be approximate [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]).

ULMO: ...and thus it may be that evil... was yet better to have been.

He will see that nothing exists or can be created that hath not its uttermost source in me.

I am of the opinion that evil in Ea is a fundamental and inherent part of the world, which comes from the mind of Illuvitar via Melkor, is manifest generally in the world and will not be beaten -- unless it is at the very end, at the 'Last Battle' of the Dagor Dagorath. Evil, rather than being contrary to Eru's will, is a part of it; I believe that since everything stemmed from him, nothing can be said to be against his will. The Ainur, through their Music, wrote it all, and they wrote it all directly from Illuvitar's initiative.

This may not seem entirely in keeping with the topic of this thread, which I realise. It does relate to Orcs in that they, like Melkor, represent the part of the mind of Illuvitar that contains inherent evil. The existence of Orcs is a product of the evilness that is a fundamental part of the world.

When you say that Orcs are not totally evil; does an Orc have any chance of performing an act that is not either a) for the purposes of an evil master or b) for the purposes of their own gain? I don't think so. It may be that an Orc, in a natural, uncorrupted state, may not be the twisted and totally evil creature that we see them as. However, they are this. Under the influence of Morgoth and Sauron they are this way, if they were not in the beginning of their creation. (Remember that even in cases where they aren't serving an evil master, they still act evilly.)

So yes, I would say that Orcs, under the domination of Melkor, are inherently evil. Sorry if the first part of my post was somewhat roundabout, but I thought it was necessary to sort of led up to it [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

[Lord of Angmar]

I am of the opinion that evil in Ea is a fundamental and inherent part of the world

I agree, but while it may be a fundamental part in the world that does not mean that it is an inherently dominant character trait in an entire race. Many humans sin (according to the Catholic definition of the word), in fact most if not all humans have sinned in our lives, but this does not make us evil as a race. What I am saying is that evil can be part of a race and yet individuals of that race can still be defined by traits other than evil.

He will see that nothing exists or can be created that hath not its uttermost source in me.

This seems to prove his point. Since Tolkien described Illuvatar the Creator as the only one who could attain true perfection, then anything rooted in his creation cannot be utterly and inherently evil.

[Finwe]

I don't believe that a race can be inherently evil. I actually pity the entire race of Orcs, because they are being forced to do things that they were too afraid to refuse. Look at the Iraqis as an example. We can't claim that all Iraqis, or all Saudis, are evil just because a few leaders are evil. Why blame an entire race, or entire country, for the actions of a Saddam or an Osama bin Laden? Fear can drive a person to do many things that they normally wouldn't do. Most of the time, it's not even their fault. That's why, don't blame the Orcs, put the blame where it's deserved, on Sauron (and Morgoth).

[purplefluffychainsaw]

I find it hard to beleive that orcs are wholy evil becuase, although tortured and mutated beyond reconition, they were still created from the elves. And what creature with such orgin could truly be evil? This also qualifies for any further mutation of the orcs, such as uruk-hai. The trolls I do not beleive to be evil becuase to me they are not a race of setimate creatures, such as humans,elves or even orcs, so they cannot have morals such as good and evil, so how can they be put under one of these headings? Dragons I find hard to place. There is little detail to suport them as not wholy evil except for they are to qualified as Kelvar (Animals) I do not know if this is how Tolkien qualified them, but it is how I do. So this works with most of the races which are considered evil except for Balrogs. Balrogs are maiar. But then their whole race is not evil, becuase you have all the maiar that still work for Eru and his ways. This works for Sauron and Melkor too.

But also, you cannot have such a race as is wholy good. I take a quote from a disney film here (To my shame) which I find so true:

You find one in every family, sire

This is true. From the elves you have Feanor, who was blinded by his greed. Smeagol, from the Hobbits was too blinded by his desire. Humans there are many exaples. I shall take Boromir, for even though he died for the causes of good he still had greed in him. I could go until Eru. What fault does he have? I cannot say. Perhaps he loved his creation a bit too much? Tolkien does not specify. Maybe he wanted Eru to be perfect, like his God.

And I'll shut up now, most of that will be random... Sorry!

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Hang on. Lord of Angmar first:

What I am saying is that evil can be part of a race and yet individuals of that race can still be defined by traits other than evil.

Yes, but the thing is that all Orcs were bent towards evil, no matter what their other traits.

Since Tolkien described Illuvatar the Creator as the only one who could attain true perfection, then anything rooted in his creation cannot be utterly and inherently evil.

Do you realise this to mean that everything is rooted in his creation? Melkor included, and if he wasn't totally evil I don't know who is. The world and everything in it is his creation ultimately.
Basically, Illuvitar is the source of everything.

Finwe:

Why blame an entire race, or entire country, for the actions of a Saddam or an Osama bin Laden?

Comparing Orcs to the public of a nation is a rather bad analogy. Orcs are, as individuals really nasty people. And every Orc is like this.

Fear can drive a person to do many things that they normally wouldn't do.

Yes, the Orcs were afraid (mostly of each other); but how does cowardice -- or their ability to fear, anyway -- redeem them in any way? How does fearing improve them? It was fear that orginised the Orcs, it that's what you mean, but that does not mean that without a master -- Sauron, for example -- they would have been OK. They would have been aimless, but still pretty bad.

That's why, don't blame the Orcs, put the blame where it's deserved, on Sauron (and Morgoth).

Morgoth created the Orcs. He is their source. They are evil because of him, and yes, the blame does lie on Melkor and none other for scourging the Earth in this way. The Orcs did not create themselves.
They are still inherently evil though, even more so because they are the spawn of the most evil of all -- Morgoth. It isn't their fault, but they are this way nonetheless.

Dynaviir was next.

I've actually found myself growing in pity for them; more misunderstood and exploited by their rulers.

As I said above, the fact that they were manipulated -- by none other than their natural Lord, I might add, Morgoth and then Sauron -- doesn't take away their evilness at all. And they were understood to be exactly what they were, and that is foul creations that are iredeemably bad.

I think because they were harsh and because they ate many other races that they became feared and hated.

Orcs are the absolute force of evil in a race; every one of them was bad, and as you said yourself, every one of them was hostile towards everything and everyone. Evilness on a stick.

Ok, I think that about covers it (So I don't need to start on you, chainsaw [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. My apologies for making my post in this format, but I thought I'd just say what I though about the main material raised in the posts here against mine.

BTW, when you argue that Orcs cannot be evil, because they are 'an entire race', you seem to forget that the rest of Ea in fact exists. Rather than looking at the Orcs as being everything in your vision, consider them more as a part of the greater world, which does contain the good to make up for the Orcs' evil.

Finally, think; did the Orcs ever show anything other than rottenness, and did they ever have a redeeming feature? It is not their fault as such that they are that way, I agree with you -- but the fact is that they really are.

[Lord of Angmar]

I think you are wrong, Gwaihir. I think they cannot be held entirely accountable simply because they were corrupted and enslaved by a force far greater than they, and because of their enslavement and their hideousness they were hated forever by Elves and Men. But obviously, did they not serve Morgoth or Sauron, at least a few of them would wish not to meddle in the affairs of the other races of Middle-earth, as illustrated in Shagrat and Gorbag's conversation in the Two Towers.

Do you realise this to mean that everything is rooted in his creation? Melkor included, and if he wasn't totally evil I don't know who is.

No, that was not my point. I wasn't referring to individuals, as I know that any individual can have a mastering trait of evil and malevolence, as clearly Melkor did. I was referring to races as a whole, and certainly you could not say that all of the Ainur, or more specifically all the Valar, were in any way, shape or form evil, although Melkor certainly was.

I am not implying that NO ORC is entirely evil, but rather that as a race they appear utterly evil mostly because of the enslavement of their will's to an evil master. If the orcs were free of this evil master (be it Sauron or Morgoth), I would choose to take pity on them and leave them alone, as Aragorn the King of Gondor decided to do after he won the War of the Ring, giving them a land of their own. I doubt King Elessar would give any land in his kingdom to an unpitiable and entirely evil race.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

I think you misunderstand me. The Orcs, it is true, cannot be held 'accountable' as you say, Lord of Angmar, and yes, they are to be pitied. It isn't their fault. They simpy are that way. This does not change the fact that they are evil beings.

As I said in that quote-ridden post, the fault does indeed lie with Morgoth. He corrupted the Orcs, and as a result of this, they have become evil. Stupid and evil. I do not hold them responsible for their being this way, but, unfortunately, they are.

I was referring to races as a whole, and certainly you could not say that all of the Ainur, or more specifically all the Valar, were in any way, shape or form evil, although Melkor certainly was.

No, as the Ainur are very variable. The Orcs are all very similar; and they proceed from Morgoth (the evil Vala that you mentioned) who is the source of evil in Ea (although ultimately the primary source is in Illuvatar).

There are no nice Orcs in Middle-Earth. They are all cruel and nasty.

Edit: The quote

...at least a few of them would wish not to meddle in the affairs of the other races of Middle-earth, as illustrated in Shagrat and Gorbag's conversation in the Two Towers. (Lord of Angmar)

They were considering becoming highway bandits. As I say, stupid and evil. Just sort of bad all through, really.

[ July 27, 2003: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ]

[Nils]

From Letter 183

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil.

If no rational being can be wholly evil, then if Orcs are rational, they can't be completely evil.

If one takes the view that Orcs were talking beasts without a 'rational soul', then Orcs can act in an evil way, but are not evil. In order to be evil, one must first be rational.

[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Yavanna228]

Since the orcs were corrupted elves in the beginning, and if elves were considered to have a soul(were they?), then orcs would still have a soul. From what I've seen, Morgoth could not destroy anything that had been created, neither could he create. He could only corrupt. So, the orcs would have souls, corrupted though they may have been. That said, they would be considered to be rational beings.
Being rational, they would have a choice to live evilly or not. (I do believe that every person has some evil inherent in their natures, but this is a personal belief.) The orcs chose to behave evilly, even though they were intimidated and maligned.
So, I would conclude that any race could fall into evil if enough of the people chose to live that way continually. Because of the inherent evil in the soul, every race has the potential for evil.
Peace

[Durelin]

...victims of harsh circumstance.

Aren't we all...

Perhaps in the beginning, yes, they were good, but it seems these beings -- corrupted elves or simply orcs, whatever you wish to call them -- they enjoy what they do. When were the elves first imprisoned? The First Age. That was the beginning.

Star Jewel's point:

no race is...completely good.

No race is completely good, evil dwells in all. The elves were corrupted, already with a seed of evil in them. The Dark Lord was just enough to make it grow. They served him in fear, always, but how many people, evil or good at heart, would not fear a master such as him? Sauron, as any classic Dark Lord, used this fear to turn them into loyal servants.

I do not agree with that quote anymore than I agree with the fact that a race cannot be completely 'evil' either. I guess we must first place a definition to the word 'good', but since that would be an entirely complex and confusing discussion, I will go with a basic idea. I believe more along the lines that all people of all races have the capability of doing evil. But, even when they do evil, they are not completely evil. It is when they indulge in it, or enjoy it. Enjoying it is a big problem. Also, I believe the road to evil can also be paved with fear. (Think Yoda. Just because he's got Fozzy Bear's voice doesn't mean he isn't really wise) Actually, I believe that, in reality, any emotion can lead to the doing of evil, if we let that emotion take control. Even love can lead to it, if we use it in a twisted way seperate from its true meaning. So, there's the fear in the Orcs, the corrupted elves. They follow their master, fearing his wrath, and they kill and pillage as he says. Then they are rewarded. It's like teaching a dog to stop doing something and a trick, at the same time. Soon, anyone or anything that lets their fear take control of them so, will be molded into evil. I believe that all elves, men, hobbits, and dwarves (and all humans in the real world) can control that fear. But, the Elves from Cuivenen, in their tortured and corrupted state, would not be as able to.

Overall, I believe some people/things are truly evil. But for the most part, people are good, if not to a heroic extent. Still, even those people can be heroes...

Also, I will never pity Orcs. *mumbles* And Gandalf be darned...

Those are just some of my thoughts. I think they might be a bit jumbled, but I have trouble wording my thoughts at times...especailly on a topic so complex and interesting as this. I hope to be back with more! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

-Durelin

[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Durelin ]

[Nils]

Since the orcs were corrupted elves in the beginning, and if elves were considered to have a soul(were they?), then orcs would still have a soul.

I agree with Sharku when he said:

let me add that while the notion of orcs being corrupted Elves may have been the idea at the time of Tolkien's writing of LotR, later theories should be given more importance here.

From what I've seen, Morgoth could not destroy anything that had been created, neither could he create.

If you are talking about Souls, then this is true.

From Morgoth's Ring pg 218

Now the Eldar are immortal within Arda according to their right nature. But if a fea (or spirit) indwells in and coheres with a hrondo [>hroa] (or bodily form) that is not of its own choice but ordained, and is made of the flesh or substance of Arda itself, then the fortune of this union must be vulnerable by the evils that do hurt to Arda, even if that union be by nature and purpose permanent. For in spite of this union, which is of such a kind that according to unmarred nature no living person incarnate may be without a fea, nor without a hrondo [>hroa], though the fea cannot be broken or disintegrated by any violence from without, the hrondo [>hroa] can be hurt and may be utterly destroyed.

Because of the inherent evil in the soul, every race has the potential for evil.

Evil is not inherent to the soul, it is inherent to the body.

From Morgoth's Ring pg 399-400

Melkor ‘incarnated’ himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as the control the hroa, and ‘flesh’ or physical matter, of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it. A vaster, and more perilous, procedure, though of similar sort to the operations of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all ’matter’ was likely to have a ’Melkor ingredient’, and those who had bodies, nourish by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, toward Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate from, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.

[Yavanna228]

Evil is not inherent to the soul, it is inherent to the body

Pardon me that I did not put an 'if' or an 'in my opinion' before that. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I don't believe that it is something definitely knowable or absolute, about whether or not evil is inherent in the soul, body, or at all. It is a matter of personal opinion. But in the case of Tolkien, thank you for correcting me with that passage, since he gives an absolute about where the place of inherent evil may be located with relation to his works.
Also, I do agree with Sharku on the 'later theories', but I was using that one for the sake of argument as it has not been completely disproven, only fallen out of favour with some. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace

[Nils]

I'm sorry, but I thought this discussion was purely in the context of Tolkien's Mythology.

Here is a quote from Morgoth's Ring that describes one of Tolkien's later views on Orcs. From section VIII of Myths Transformed

In summary: I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fea. The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberatley perverted/converted into a more close resemblance to Men.

I don't believe that it is something definitely knowable or absolute, about whether or not evil is inherent in the soul, body, or at all. It is a matter of personal opinion.

Personal opinion has nothing to do with it. Evil is where it is. We can be incorrect about where evil comes from, but it does not change based on what we believe.

[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Yavanna228]

Always learning. Thanks, Nils. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Nils]

No problem. If there was only one book from HoME that I could get, I think it would be Morgoth's Ring.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

The orcs chose to behave evilly...

I can't agree with this statement, Yavanna -- even provided that the Orcs did have 'rational' fëar. The power and influence of Morgoth directly ran through them, they were filled with his evil.

I would not say that Elves were 'corrupted', Durelin, but certainly they were corruptible -- to a very small extent. Either way, the blame does lie with Morgoth rather than the Orcs themselves. The Orcs, whether mockeries or direct corruptions, existed because of Morgoth. They are filled with Morgoth's evil, and it is because of this that they are not capable of good in any form. As I have said, their entire nature was twisted towards badness.

Nils, that quote of yours is a funny one. It is plain to see that individual Orcs did in fact have their own minds and selfishnesses, and it would really be hard to believe that they did not, and were merely talking creatures (any creature that talks surely has an intelligence at least akin to Man's). Then there are other beings; 'any beast that talks' may expand to the debate on the essence of dragons, although it is said somewhere that dragons are filled with a 'fell spirit' or something like that.

You know, Nils, we don't have to take every comment that Tolkien said as the ruling word on his work. Obviously his word generally has a lot more importance that the word of another observer, but still, when he says certain things he is sort of acting as an observer himself.
The one about evilness in the body rather than the soul, is, I think, an idea of Tolkien's rather than a concrete ideal of his writings. At any rate, the writings can be interpreted by a reader who does use his own ideas of this sort to judge these things for himself. Well, that's how I see it. And I assure you that this is still within the confines of Tolkien's literature.

[Finwe]

Oh Eru! According to Helka's theory, I'm definitely a goner! [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

Fear can drive the best of people to do the most evil things, and to make the stupidest mistakes. It takes events out of their control, and into "The Big Guy"'s hands. It has been scientifically proven that in moments of complete fear (or anger), one's IQ drops, so it becomes harder to reason your way out of a tight spot like that. Once people get frightened enough, they will be willing to do anything, absolutely anything, to get out of that tight spot, and big, evil Dark Lords like Morgoth and Sauron love capitalizing on that.

[Nils]

Nils, that quote of yours is a funny one. It is plain to see that individual Orcs did in fact have their own minds and selfishnesses, and it would really be hard to believe that they did not, and were merely talking creatures (any creature that talks surely has an intelligence at least akin to Man's).

You don't believe that animals have their own minds and selfishnesses?

You know, Nils, we don't have to take every comment that Tolkien said as the ruling word on his work.

I agree with you. The problem with the Silmarillion is that it was never published by JRR. Why should what it says over ride any other work published by his son? All I have done is agreed with Sharku about Tolkien's later writings.

The question isn't 'every comment that Tolkien said', the question is which comment that Tolkien made.

Obviously his word generally has a lot more importance that the word of another observer, but still, when he says certain things he is sort of acting as an observer himself.

I couldn't disagree more. This is Tolkien's world. When we discuss Tolkien's world, we need to keep as close to Tolkien's view of it as possible. When it comes to our own views of Tolkien's world, then we can make Tolkien an equal observer all we want.

The one about evilness in the body rather than the soul, is, I think, an idea of Tolkien's rather than a concrete ideal of his writings.

I believe the important word here is 'inherent'. Souls can be evil (rebel against Eru's plan), but they are not inherently evil.

[Elennar Starfire]

I do not believe that there is such a thing as "pure evil," not in orcs, or even in Morgoth himself. While I cannot think of anything Morgoth has done that is good, I still believe that there is potential for good, even in Morgoth. Morgoth began the same as the other Ainur.

[The Saucepan Man]

The Orcs, whether mockeries or direct corruptions, existed because of Morgoth. They are filled with Morgoth's evil, and it is because of this that they are not capable of good in any form. As I have said, their entire nature was twisted towards badness.

I agree with you, Gwaihir, that Orcs, as a race, were inherently evil. It makes little sense to me, in the context of the way that they are portrayed in LotR (and also in the Hobbit and the Silmarillion), that they should have any capacity for good. While we might (in much the way that Sam does in Ithilien) have some sympathy for the Men enlisted to fight on behalf of Sauron (and Saruman, in the case of the Dunlendings), we are given no such reason to feel sympathy for the Orcs, save to the extent that they cannot help their plight having been brought into existence as inherently evil beings.

But this brings me to my conundrum on this issue. Are Orcs capable of redemption after their death? It would seem strange that, being denied the ability to redeem themselves during their life, they should be given the opportunity to do so following their death. And yet the concept of a beings which (through no choice of their own) are born (or spawned or whatever) as inherently evil being denied any possibility of redemption does not, for me, square with the concept of Iluvatar as a benevolent and wholly good Creator.

[Yavanna228]

In a bit of a branch off of Saucepan Man's question, what happened to the orcs after Sauron's demise? Was the will of Morgoth still active in them, or were they left mere shells of themselves? Or yet, going with the theory that they were corrupted elves(even though this may not be true), would the echo of their former fair nature come through?
Peace

[Lord of Angmar]

After Sauron was vanquished, King Elessar gave to his minions a land of their own, where they could abide in peace as long as they did not disturb any of the other races of Middle Earth. Certainly Aragorn would do no such thing if he thought they had absolutely NO capacity for good.

[Yavanna228]

Thanks, Lord of Angmar.
My question was basically about what happened to the orcs themselves, their souls(or lack thereof) or motivations, not really what happened to their living areas or whatnot. But you're right. I doubt that Aragorn would have given them space if he thought they were totally evil and should be 'dealt with.' [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace

[Nils]

Here is a continuation of the quote from Morgoth's Ring that I posted earlier.

It remains therefore terribly possible there was an Elvish strain in the Orcs. These may then even have been mated with beasts (sterile!) - and later Men. Their life-span would be diminished. And dying they would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Right, I've got something extremely important to say a bit later on in this post, so please read it. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

'When it comes to our own views of Tolkien's world, then we can make Tolkien an equal observer all we want.'(Nils)

Is that not precisely what we are doing here? As I said, this thing is a personal idea of Tolkien's, and does not neccessarily have much to do with his work. Of course, not an equal observer, as his word obviously has more power than anyone else's when it does concern his work.

'being denied any possibility of redemption does not, for me, square with the concept of Iluvatar as a benevolent and wholly good Creator.'(Saucepans)

Yet evil, I believe, is present in Eru as well. Redemption may be for the Orcs -- it may be for everything in the end -- or then again, they may be wiped out and thus the good in Illuvatar's mind triumph ultimately over the evil. But I think, rather, that the creations -- directly or otherwise -- of Illuvatar perhaps follow linear paths, so that the flowering of his mind (through which came about everything) reach a final flourishing in all forms. (Forgive me if this is hard to follow).

Ok, this is the pre-mentioned 'important bit'.

Saucepans, you are right -- the though of an Orc ever accomplishing something other than evil is an incredibly difficult one. As for the supposed setting-free of the Orcs that people are talking about, as evidence that they were not fully irredeemable, I think that the quote may be mistaken. This is what it says in the RotK;

And the King pardoned the Easterlings that had given themselves up, and sent them away free, and he made peace with the peoples of Harad; and the slaves of Mordor he released and gave to them all the lands about Lake Nurnen to be their own.

Actually, when I first read the Lord of the Rings years ago I did not assume for a moment that this was talking about the Orcs. 'Slaves' is what it is talking about. We know that Morgoth kep slaves (usually called 'thralls'; we also know that Sauron had huge tributaries from the South and the East, who may indeed have brought him, among their other gifts, labourerse -- they were certainly barbaric enough to give slaves as gifts. If not, Sauron may have taken them from his surrounding lands simply by force. The 'slaves', I believe, were Men.

I am supported in this reckoning by the lengthy article, 'Men of Darkness' (http://people.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~lalaith/Tolkien/Men_of_Darkness.html if you want to see it).

(of Khand) But its strategically crucial location made it sometimes victim, sometimes ally of both Rhún or Harad to neither of which it properly belonged, and its immediate proximity to Mordor made it particularly vulnerable to its dreadful neighbour. Certainly Khand accounted for a lot of the "fresh slaves" imported to Nurn.

Nurn, of course, was where the vast farms and managed land were that helped supply Mordor, the ones that Sam and Frodo 'knew nothing of' when they wondered what Orcs ate. It is probable that these lands were managed by Men rather than Orcs, and as probable that they were slaves under Easterling of Haradic governers. Held to Sauron, like the Orcs and like the thralls were to Morgoth, in fear. The Sea of Nurnen was the land they lived in already, so it was the ideal land for Aragorn to give as a gift to them. It was also in close proximity to Khand, which (as the article says) is probably where the slaves came from.

So I don't think Aragorn found anything redeemable in the Orcs, either. He would have most likely destroyed them in Mordor in his rides East with the Rhohirrim. The Orcs are considered, rightly, fair game for anyone, and after Sauron's downfall they had no place in the world.

[Lord of Angmar]

Gwaihir, when Tolkien used the word "slaves" I do not think that he intended it to be so narrow as to limit it to one race. I believe that this term encompasses all the minions of Sauron, of which the chief party was orcs. But this is not the real question at hand. Neither of our theories can be proven or disproven on this matter. Let us consider it a moot point in this debate.

Yet evil, I believe, is present in Eru as well.

I concur. How else could Melkor have been so corrupt and malevolent, if the seed were not sown in him somewhere by Illuvatar. And I do agree with you also that almost all or perhaps all of the race of Orcs had an overwhelming tendency towards evil, stemming from their corruption at Melkor's hands. Does this mean they can be classified as inherently evil, so that they cannot be saved in life and only redeemed in some sort of after-life purgatory, if at all?

I personally believe that Tolkien valued redemption in life and in afterlife, as a devout Catholic.

Redemption from evil deeds is one thing, but from evil being? Christianity teaches us (and I'm sure that Tolkien, being a Catholic, has been taught and influenced by this view) that no one being is entirely good or evil.

I believe that Tolkien did not have no hope for the orcs, although he may have made them out to be gruesome and malevolent, since they were bent to the will of a far greater power. Given his Catholic background I would say he did not condemn orcs in his works to be creatures of an inherent and unfailing banefulness.

This is just an idea, but perhaps it occurred to him that orcs should be cleansed and absolved of their sins after the Final Battle, when the doom of Morgoth was finally full-wrought. I am quite unsure if there is textual evidence for or against this; it is just a thought based on the religious theology that is characteristic of Professor Tolkien.

[ July 30, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Nils]

Is that not precisely what we are doing here? As I said, this thing is a personal idea of Tolkien's, and does not neccessarily have much to do with his work.

vs.

Yet evil, I believe, is present in Eru as well.

Evidently you don't believe that Middle-earth is Tolkien's world. If you did, then you wouldn't believe certain things were just Tolkien's personal ideas. According to Tolkien, Eru is good and is not evil. Eru is not in a fallen state. It seems to me that you are introducing your own personal view of God (at least 'if' God exists God must be both good and evil).

The fallen state is an important aspect of evil in Tolkien's Myth. It is a concept that Tolkien brought into his works from his Catholic beliefs. If evil is defined in the context of the 'fallen state', then the original state was good. Eru has not fallen. Eru is not evil.

It seems to me that you are trying to say that since Eru gave his creation free will that any decision that his creation makes must be one Eru himself would have made. The only way one could draw such a conclusion is through a faulty view of free will.

Lord of Angmar,

I concur. How else could Melkor have been so corrupt and malevolent, if the seed were not sown in him somewhere by Illuvatar.

It is called free will.

[ July 30, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[ July 30, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Turambar]

I agree with Nils.

So (when Miriel refused to return to her hroa) the Valar were faced by the one thing that they could neither change nor heal: the free will of one of the Children of Eru, which it was unlawful for them to coerce . . ."

Shibboleth of Fëanor

[The Saucepan Man]

How else could Melkor have been so corrupt and malevolent, if the seed were not sown in him somewhere by Illuvatar. (Lord of Angmar)

It is called free will. (Nils)

But free will cannot be exercised in a manner for which there is no potential either within the subject or within the environment within which the subject exists. So either Melkor was created with the potential for evil or he acquired that potential from his environment (Ea). Iluvatar created Melkor and he created Ea. And in order for Iluvatar to create something that has the potential for evil, he must have understood the concept. And since there was nothing and no-one else from whom he could have learned this concept, he must have understood it because it was within him.

Ergo, logically, Gwaihir is correct when he says:

Yet evil, I believe, is present in Eru as well.

[img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[ July 30, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Nils]

So either Melkor was created with the potential for evil or he acquired that potential from his environment (Ea).

Yes, Melkor was created with free will which allows for the potential to go against Eru's will which would defined as evil.

Iluvatar created Melkor and he created Ea.

Yes, this is true.

And in order for Iluvatar to create something that has the potential for evil, he must have understood the concept.

Yes, I agree that Eru understood that when he gave his creation free will that they might use that free will to rebel against his plan.

And since there was nothing and no-one else from whom he could have learned this concept, he must have understood it because it was within him.

I don't follow your logic. I see a very big difference between being evil and understanding that evil can exist. I can see that someone can break the law without ever breaking the law myself.

Eru defines right and wrong. What ever Eru does is good. Anyone who rebels against Eru's plan is evil. Just because he allowed others to rebel against his plan does not mean that Eru rebels against his plan.

It appears to me that your logic is faulty.

[Turambar]

And in order for Iluvatar to create something that has the potential for evil, he must have understood the concept.

Hey Anselm, does that mean that, having created this, de Kooning understood it? [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[Lord of Angmar]

But free will cannot be exercised in a manner for which there is no potential either within the subject or within the environment within which the subject exists. So either Melkor was created with the potential for evil or he acquired that potential from his environment (Ea). Iluvatar created Melkor and he created Ea. And in order for Iluvatar to create something that has the potential for evil, he must have understood the concept. And since there was nothing and no-one else from whom he could have learned this concept, he must have understood it because it was within him.

This is a very interesting and insightful point, Saucepan Man. I believe too believe that evil was "within" Eru, but I do not understand your definition of "within."

Some may think you are suggesting that Illuvatar has the capability of committing acts that are evil, although if he acted in an evil way it could no longer be considered evil because he is the Creator of Ea and his actions pertaining to Ea are therefore the "right" ones. If you mean to say that the idea of evil and of treachery is a concept familiar to Illuvatar, then I strongly agree. How could this concept not be familiar to Him who is the Judge of what is evil or not?

I think what you are saying is that Illuvatar knows and understands his own (and therefore everyone else's) concept of evil. I agree, but I do not think he has an "evil" side or that the possibility of malevolence towards the beings of Ea is within him.

Remember, although, as he says, everything has his roots in Eru, that does not mean that all of his traits must be conveyed in his offspring. Cannot the child of a philanthropist grow up to be a murderer or a rapist? The evil in Melkor does not necessarily have to come DIRECTLY from any characteristic in Illuvatar.

[Durelin]

I do not believe that there is such a thing as "pure evil," not in orcs, or even in Morgoth himself. (Elennar)

I guess it is like beauty: "in the eye of the beholder."

I would not say that Elves were 'corrupted', Durelin, but certainly they were corruptible -- to a very small extent. (Gwaihir)

Then obviously Morgoth found a very creative way to break the boundaries of reality...he was, after all, a Maiar. And, since he so apparently had gone against Illuvatar, he was not bound by the Creator's rules...perhaps? It's all theory to me.

Fear can drive the best of people to do the most evil things, and to make the stupidest mistakes. It takes events out of their control, and into "The Big Guy"'s hands. (Finwe)

No emotion can take control away from the human mind. We let fear take away control, and therefore are still responsible for all of our actions. Also, I do not believe fear is a part of 'The Big Guy', Illuvatar in this case, and therefore it would not be in his hands. More likely it would be in the hands of fear itself, and fear is all too nicely linked with 'The Big Bad Guy'.

Evil is not inherent to the soul, it is inherent to the body. (Nils)

The body does not have to have an effect on the mind. And, even so, how did it become inherent to the body of every living thing in ME, if that is what you are suggesting?

Woo...my head hurts...

[Nils]

The body does not have to have an effect on the mind. And, even so, how did it become inherent to the body of every living thing in ME, if that is what you are suggesting?

Tolkien answers both of your questions in Morgoth's Ring. Here is the quote:

Melkor ‘incarnated’ himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as the control the hroa, and ‘flesh’ or physical matter, of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it. A vaster, and more perilous, procedure, though of similar sort to the operations of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all ’matter’ was likely to have a ’Melkor ingredient’, and those who had bodies, nourish by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, toward Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate from, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.


Oops, I see I posted this same quote earlier in the thread. [img]smilies/redface.gif[/img]

[ July 30, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Durelin]

Ah, of course. Yet again, my beliefs clash with the author.

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I was just writing a overall investigation of the theme of Lord of the Flies, which I believe has a lot to do with inherent evil within the human heart. Then I was asked to give my opinion. So, sorry, I am still opinionating, my fault.

Excellent observations, Nils! My hat goes off to you! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Mithadan]

Excellent discussion! There seem to be two separate issues being discusses here; whether a race such as orcs is inherently evil; and whether orcs possessed sentience. My favorite letter by JRRT (one which Sharku quoted earlier) addresses both issues.

As to the evil nature of Orcs, Tolkien said this:

"But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be', even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other 'rational' creatures like Elves or Men. They would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.) " (Letter 153)

As to Orcish sentience, he said this:

"It is not true of the Orcs - who are fundamentally a race of 'rationally incarnate' creatures, though horribly corrupted..." (Letter 153)

Thus Orcs are not irredeemably evil, though it might be difficult to conceive of how one might be healed of evil, and are nonetheless rational beings.

[ July 30, 2003: Message edited by: Mithadan ]

[Nils]

Thus Orcs are not irredeemably evil, though it might be difficult to conceive of how one might be healed of evil, and are nonetheless rational beings.

It seems to me that Tolkien struggled with this issue. It would be interesting to compare the date of that letter with Tolkien's writings in Myths Transformed. As I quoted earlier, in it Tolkien wrote that Orcs were beasts.