Inherent Evil

[Nils]

The minds of all of Iluvatar's creations can be read and understood by Iluvatar Himself, so in a sense Melkor's mind is a part of Iluvatar's mind. I do not think that Gwaihir meant this to mean that in some realm of his brain Iluvatar thinks similarly to Melkor, that there is a part of his brain trying to break free, as it were, and act evilly.

I believe that is pretty much what Gwahir said. Each Ainu is a piece of Eru's mind.

Gwaihir

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

and

Gwaihir

It does not mean that Illuvatar is like Melkor, because he isn't. He is also like Manwe, Yavanna, Mandos, Ulmo and all the others. As I said, his mind is all-encompassing and understands all of these minds.

Notice the "he is also like". This is telling me that Gwaihir's view is that the evil itself, which Melkor came to be was originally evil within Eru. It did not dominate Eru as it did Melkor, but evil started within Eru.

It is my understanding that he simply meant that Melkor's mind is reflected in Iluvatar's mind, since Iluvatar can see the minds of all others.

What does 'reflected' mean?

And since Melkor was born of Iluvatar, who is the creator of all and understands all, then Melkor's mind would certainly make up a part of Iluvatar's thought.

Originally yes. As Gandalf stated, nothing starts out evil. The evil arrives when we make wrong decisions. Our ability to make these decisions is a result of free will, which is a result of the Flame Imperishable.

I think that this topic would certainly qualify as an excellent topic for an essay, but I have just hastily thrown together my ideas.

I agree, this would be an excellent topic for an essay. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ August 03, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Lord of Angmar]

Notice the "he is also like". This is telling me that Gwaihir's view is that the evil itself, which Melkor came to be was originally evil within Eru. It did not dominate Eru as it did Melkor, but evil started within Eru.

I believe that yes, evil did start with Eru in a sense - in a sense, mind you. I personally am of the opinion that it was Eru Iluvatar who first conceived of the idea of evil, of the ability of others to rebel against his own will, since he did endow each of his creations with free will. Since Iluvatar would never act on this idea (how could he?), he did not conceive of any of his children acting on it. When Melkor acted on the thought of rebellion, he changed Arda forever, corrupting Iluvatar's initial designs. Iluvatar never intended for evil to become an entity in Arda, but Melkor's actions led to Iluvatar fully understanding the concept of evil and thus fully understanding the mind of Melkor.

This is just my crazy idea. I haven't had much sleep recently, so it may be far from an intellectual response. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] Cheers

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Great thread. I will attempt to swim with the big fish in here.

Good = that which is consistant with the will of Eru. Evil = that which is not consistant with the will of Eru. Therefore, the ONLY thing that is inherently evil is to choose something that is not consistant with the will of Eru. Saucepan Man's comments were in the same vein.

So does the fact that Eru created a condition (free will) in which created beings could chose to go against his will mean he has evil within his being? I say no. The simple introduction of the possibility of choice is what opened the wide vista of evil. That does not mean Eru himself made evil choices.

It is an interesting circular point that Eru cannot go against his own will therefore can never be evil. I'd say if Eru ever did something that wasn't consistant, then THAT would be evil. Digression...

Another digression....does "good" really have any meaning without its opposite? No. What is light if there is no darkness? Before Eru allowed choices, there was only unity, no good or bad. Evil serves Eru's greater design because it owes its existance to his intention of free will.

I think perhaps this thread has moved beyond the original question, still:

Morgoth created the Orcs. He is their source. They are evil because of him

The power and influence of Morgoth directly ran through them, they were filled with his evil.

They are filled with Morgoth's evil, and it is because of this that they are not capable of good in any form.

I disagree with those things. The evil is of Melkor's intent, his choice against the will of Eru. Therefore it is his evil, not the Orcs. They had no hand in their own creation, no choice. Evil is not a substance or a stain or a thing to be passed on. It is a choice.

If orcs do have fea, then they can choose to do things that are evil, and be condemned by their choices. But beings with fea can also choose to do good. Just because we have no example of any orc ever doing that does not mean the possibility did not exist. If they had fea, then the possibility certainly did exist.

If orcs do not have fea, then they have no free will and are simply tools, extentions of the one that governs them. A tool cannot be evil. It cannot chose.

In my opinion, orcs had fea otherwise how could Tolkien say

I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far.

Orcs were not irredeemable. How would an orc ever be redeemed? By chosing to do things that were consistant with the will of Eru. How could they do that? I don't know, but they would have to have fea in order to even be able to choose.

If your understanding of that quote from the Silmarillion is correct, then how could there be a 'fallen state'? If no matter what we do, we are following Eru's plan, how could anything we do be outside that plan?

I can't remember who said this, and there is so much in this thread I lose track. I hope I am not taking someone out of context here. But to make my point: the "fallen state" is to chose to act against the will of Eru. The fact that all things work to enact the greater good of Eru's will does not change the evil in the intention to act against him.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

If I may offer a comment here on the speculation over what I was actually saying; you can stop nitpicking over it, Nils, I meant exactly what the Lord of Angmar said. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] What I mean is that in this debate over what I meant, the Lord of Angmar is correct.

It seems I have done an inadequate job of explaining myself and defending Gwaihir's viewpoint...

Not at all, Angmar.

It is exactly as I said before. It is probably time to accept the assurance and confirmation of what we (we should after all know) were actually saying; this thread has dragged because of the refusal to do so. I believe a fitting statement here would be something to the effect of 'get over it'.

Debate on what it has been confirmed I meant, however, is of course fine. Since the above section of my post is probably sufficient as a response to most of Nils's posts, I may as well proceed onto what Keneldil had to say (which does tie in with one or two points of Nils also).

Good to see someone other than Nils, Angmar or me in here by the way; I had assumed that people were staying away. Anyway down to a bit more talk.

The simple introduction of the possibility of choice is what opened the wide vista of evil. That does not mean Eru himself made evil choices.

Aargh, not another one.. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]. Really, I think I and Angmar have said everything it is possible to say with regards clarification of this. If anyone is still in confusion, as I believe you are, Keneldil, read back a bit. Evil was concieved of and begun in the thought of Illuvatar, but if you can get your head around this (I recognise it may be rather difficult since people seem to be misunderstanding), I never meant that Illuvatar was permeated by evil or ever acted evilly as Nils seems preoccupied with accusing me of. Perhaps this stems from a bad articulation, I don't know, but try and look at recent posts from myself and the Lord of Angmar (particularly the latter, probably [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) and it's got it down pretty much clearly.

Finally to get back to the original subject of debate, raised again by Keneldil:

The evil is of Melkor's intent, his choice against the will of Eru. Therefore it is his evil, not the Orcs. They had no hand in their own creation, no choice. Evil is not a substance or a stain or a thing to be passed on. It is a choice.

I can see your point, but if you look at the title of the thread it is 'Inherent' Evil. Basically, I take this to mean that Orcs are actually created imbued as it were with evil, rather than their making a choice to be so (which I agree with you they did not do; that is why they are inherently evil in my opinion).

The 'choice' to be evil was, as I implied, Melkor's; it is therefore to him that the blame goes for the evilness of the Orcs. Nonetheless, Orcs I believe to be evil, as whether or not they made the choice to be so (in a sense they can be said to, as while they are naturally bent towards an evil way of thinking, they probably do think independantly and thus the thoughts of evil are theirs), that is what they are if we take the definition of evil to be 'against the purposes of Eru'. If Morgoth was, then they are against these purposes -- i.e. they are against the purposes of Illuvatar in the same way that Morgoth was.

The analogy of 'tools' was raised by someone. If they are tools, then they are still inherently evil. They were created by Morgoth as tools for evil, and are thus against Illuvatar.

So in Arda at least, clearly, they are evil. Evil beings. Created that way by Morgoth, evil under him. However, it is because of the fea argument and sources such as

I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far.

that it has been raised that a form of redemption for the Orcs exists beyond the Circles of the World, and with Eru. If they have fear, then while they are still evil on earth, redemption in some way -- whether through a 'purging', an enlightenment, an assimilation into the light or something -- probably is for them.

That last quote you raised, Keneldil (one of Nils's actually), which I give again:

If your understanding of that quote from the Silmarillion is correct, then how could there be a 'fallen state'? If no matter what we do, we are following Eru's plan, how could anything we do be outside that plan?

Was in fact due to a misinterpretation. It is a good point though, and you raise a good point after it. Summed up nicely by the concourse of Ulmo and Mandos.

(Ulmo)... 'Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been.'
But Mandos said: 'And yet remain evil.'

Keneldil, your point is true.

My thoughts (it was from one of my posts that Nils said this) on the 'plan' of Illuvatar are that he does have a plan, and that it is not evil, but that it considers evil and takes it into account. It is through this that the Melkor-reflecting property of Eru is implemented. Evil's impact on the world, on Eru's creation, has been huge; the 'plan' seems to be worked around it. The 'beauty', as Ulmo says, that is brought into Ea through evil can only be a product of goodness, and an overcoming of evil that is the essence of Illuvatar's plan -- of course, an overcoming of evil could not be present in Illuvatar's plan if he had no consideration of evil himself. (What we have been saying, though, is that his consideration of evil is the greatest possible, and goes beyond Melkor's to see the light -- the beauty -- beyond it.)

Lastly, I retract the comment made that Nils was 'parallelling' God to Eru over-much. In fact I no longer think he is, so I apologise.

Right, that's about it from me I think. This thread is a good one, you're right (despite the already-mentioned lagging components of it :rolleyes [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]; should be plenty of material here for your essay at any rate, Angmar.

[Nils]

It is probably time to accept the assurance and confirmation of what we (we should after all know) were actually saying; this thread has dragged because of the refusal to do so.

Gwaihir,

I have supported my case with quotes from you, which you have not retracted. Yes, I believe this is well past the point of agreeing to disagree.


Keneldil the Polka-dot,

Another digression....does "good" really have any meaning without its opposite? No. What is light if there is no darkness? Before Eru allowed choices, there was only unity, no good or bad. Evil serves Eru's greater design because it owes its existance to his intention of free will.

Is light no longer light without darkness? If there is to be a perfect world, is no longer perfect because there is no evil?

I don't believe so.

[Lord of Angmar]

Is light no longer light without darkness? If there is to be a perfect world, is no longer perfect because there is no evil?

I don't believe so.

Once again, misunderstood. Nobody is implying that perfection can only be achieved with evil. That was never said nor implied, so do not accuse anyone in this thread of thinking that.

What Kelendil and Gwaihir said, and what Tolkien himself reinforces through conversation between Ulmo and Mandos, is that Melkor's evil, while still rebellious, depraved and profane, adds depth to the world that Iluvatar created, and makes the beauty of his creation shine through all the more when compared with that evil. It is still evil, but that does not mean that it is entirely negative in the 'long haul'.

Nobody is implying that Iluvatar's initial creation is better for having been marred by Melkor, simply that his world is still beautiful and not by any stretch of imagination fully corrupted because of Melkor. The implication you seem to disagree with, Nils, is the thought that evil makes good seem even better, but this is a fundamental philosophy in Tolkien's works. Would anyone feel or care about the immense happiness of King Elessar when he finally claimed the Throne of Gondor if we did not know aught of the struggle that he had been through to attain it?

I leave you, Nils, with the repeat of a Silmarillion quote that Gwaihir used. It is a far better summary of Tolkien's thought than I could sum up:

Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been. (Ulmo)

[ August 04, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[ August 04, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

OK then, we are in agreement about Eru. Looks like we are not with regard to Orcs.

I can see your point, but if you look at the title of the thread it is 'Inherent' Evil. Basically, I take this to mean that Orcs are actually created imbued as it were with evil, rather than their making a choice to be so

If you look back at my post, you will see that I presented the idea that the ONLY thing that is inherently evil is the choice to act against the will of Eru. Evil is a choice made, not a thing to be. Orcs are not stained by the evil done in creating them. They are evil when they chose against the will of Eru.

If they are tools, then they are still inherently evil. They were created by Morgoth as tools for evil, and are thus against Illuvatar.

My intended definition of "tool": someone or something used to enact the will of someone or something else. A knife is not inherently evil regardless of the intention of its maker. A tool is merely an extention of the one that wields it. The good or evil originates in the wielder, specifically in the wielders intentions when using the tool. If orcs did not have fea, then I would agree they were simply tools.

Is light no longer light without darkness? If there is to be a perfect world, is no longer perfect because there is no evil?

I agree with your point, light is still light. I am just saying without an opposite, what does it mean really? Same with good and evil. Same if everything really did taste like chicken. Saying something tastes good would mean nothing. I did not mean to imply a perfect world is less than perfect because evil doesn't exist in it.

[Nils]

Orcs are not stained by the evil done in creating them. They are evil when they chose against the will of Eru.

I must disagree. An incarnate being has both a fea (soul) and hroa(body). According to Tolkien, the hroa does have an effect upon the fea, as I quoted a couple of times earlier in this thread.

The Orc's hroa (assuming Orcs are incarnate) was heavily corrupted by Melkor and therefore the Orcs were heavily affected by Melkor's malice.

I did not mean to imply a perfect world is less than perfect because evil doesn't exist in it.

Would 'good' be any less good without evil? I would think that 'good' with meaning is better than 'good' without meaning.

[ August 04, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I would like to remind all participants in this discussion to stay on topic! I can understand the need for clarity in arguments and wanting to be certain of being understood correctly; however, the repetitive "But I said and you misinterpreted me" posts (interspersed with "But you said, so obviously you mean...") are taking up more space than the actual Tolkien discussions at times. Quite frankly, that is boring your readers and not adding to the depth of the discussion. Do try to discuss Tolkien's works, not just your own words!

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Thanks, Estelyn, but I think we're ok.

Now as Keneldil says, it seems as if we've finished on the whole Illuvatar thing (thanks for the excellent discussion, by the way); back to Orcs specifically, then. Quite good really, as I don't think I've got time today for yet another long-winded post on the issue. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

From Keneldil, we heard:

A knife is not inherently evil regardless of the intention of its maker. A tool is merely an extention of the one that wields it.

True, but the problem with Orcs is is that they can only ever be used, by Morgoth or descendant, for evil. They were never anything more than agents for evil, so in their case, were the 'tool' theory to apply, I think we could say that they were inherently evil. As you say, 'an extension of the one that wields it' -- Orcs are then, in mind, an 'extension' if you like of Morgoth and his evil. They are so totally filled with his malice that they cannot cease to be sources of evil in the world.

You can debate, as you are, on whether (provided they were without fëar) their being created out of evil makes them evil themselves or not. In a way you would be right; in a way, they would be mere 'tools' if they did not have thoughts of their own.

However, for the reasons stated above (first paragraph), I still think Orcs would be evil inherently as they are, in essence, sources of evil. Wells (i.e. water-wells), if you like, of evilness upon earth. Simply put, as they can never be anything other than evil things (contrary to Illuvatar's will) in Arda, they are evil in their very fibres.

All this said, I do not think that they were mere tools. A tool, as you say, is evil because of the use it is put to. Orcs are evil even when they are not being 'wielded' in this way -- remember the brigand-orcs, and the Orcs of the Misty Mountains that managed their own evil affairs for a while; furthermore, while certainly Morgoth and Sauron used their Orcs as tools to their design, it does not mean that Orcs were fëa-less. Humans can be used as tools. Anyone can be manipulated. In any case, Orcs were bound to their masters (Sauron, Morgoth) because of the ties of evil out of which they were born.

Orcs, I believe (good to see I agree with Nils on something [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]), are beings in their own right (regardless of their precise origins, which we will never know -- apart from, crucially, that they were effectively made by Morgoth).

[Kaiserin]

Interesting thread... I hope nobody minds if I jump in. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
I can see two possible dimensions of orcs' inherent evil:
1- Evil in essence / being. If that is the case, then they have no choice but to do what is nasty, depraved and downright wrong because their very being is corrupted.
2 - Evil in action / intention. If it is simply by their deeds that they are considered "bad", but not necessarily their being or essence (i.e., if they are not "irredeemable"), then it must just mean they have the capacity to resist doing evil.

Earlier in this thread, somebody remarked that "good" is that which coincides with the will of Eru (I think it was Keneldil... I hope I spelled it right. I'm not so good at spelign). If that is so, a perversion of his will would be evil. A corruption of what he had originally designed would be evil - such as the "creation" of orcs. Then it would also probably mean that orcs are evil themselves because they were not part of Erus' original intention (?)
But anyway, who knows the definite, specific will of Eru, down to the nitty-gritty details?

Just a thought: If Eru intended all to be good, and a perversion of his intention is evil... then "evil" as we know it is actually just a corruption of good. Meaning that evil cannot exist apart from good because it is just "spoiled goodness"; but good CAN exist without evil, because that was the original intention.
(Whew! I don't have enough synonyms for "evil" and "good"; sorry for the redundundundundundance [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] )

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

An incarnate being has both a fea (soul) and hroa(body). According to Tolkien, the hroa does have an effect upon the fea

Good point, Nils. But..... then someone with a handicap (a corrupted hroa in some way) could claim that as justification for doing something against the will of Eru? I see your point, but I don't know that it overshadows the orc's ability to make choices.

Gwaihir, I think we are in agreement: orcs are not tools. They do have fea. I am saying that having fea means the orcs CHOOSE to do bad things, and that alone is what makes them evil. Not some birthright passed on from events entirely outside their ability to affect.

I still think Orcs would be evil inherently as they are, in essence, sources of evil. Wells (i.e. water-wells), if you like, of evilness upon earth. Simply put, as they can never be anything other than evil things (contrary to Illuvatar's will) in Arda, they are evil in their very fibres.

Maybe we disagree about the nature of evil itself, in which case we are going to have to agree to disagree. In the above quote, Gwaihir seems to be saying they are of the substance of evil. It is part of what makes them. In my opinion evil is not a thing or substance, it is making a choice to do that which is against the will of Eru.

If evil were not a choice for orcs, and was simply in the fibers of their being, then how can they ever be redeemed? If they cannot ever choose to do good, then it would seem redemption is not for them. I admit, it seems ridiculous to imagine an orc choosing to do good, but I see no other way they could be redeemed.

Humans can be used as tools. Anyone can be manipulated.

I agree, anyone can become a tool. In order for a sentient being to become a tool they have to either give up the ability to make choices, or have it taken from them by force. The chain of who is actually responsible for actions taken gets a bit twisted at this point. I think there is a difference in being a tool, and being manipulated though. Or perhaps there are degrees to which one can give up their ability to choose, I don't know. I better think about it some more.

Interesting point at the end of your post Kaiserin. Only the original intention can stand on its own. I better think about that one too.

[Lord of Angmar]

Maybe we disagree about the nature of evil itself, in which case we are going to have to agree to disagree. In the above quote, Gwaihir seems to be saying they are of the substance of evil. It is part of what makes them. In my opinion evil is not a thing or substance, it is making a choice to do that which is against the will of Eru.

The orcs, however, did not make a conscious choice to be corrupted. They had no say in whether or not they went against the designs of Iluvatar, because they were enslaved, fëa and hroa, to Morgoth. Since orcs are inherently against the design of Iluvatar (he did not want them to be, and it states in the Silmarillion that the corruption of the orcs was the "most hateful [deed] to Iluvatar"), then they are inherently evil.

Just because they are inherently inclined towards evil deeds, this does not mean they cannot be redeemed. In Catholic belief (and thusly in Tolkien's belief), all sinners can be purged and absolved of their sins. This redemption would probably take place in the afterlife, since there would be a more powerful medium for absolution.

I believe that it is within the nature of the orkish fëa to do bad deeds, since their very existence is evil in the eyes of Iluvatar, and since they have so often been enslaved to the wills of other 'fallen' beings. Just because something is in someone's nature, however, does not mean their actions and thoughts cannot be altered or changed and their lives and fëar redeemed.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

The orcs, however, did not make a conscious choice to be corrupted. They had no say in whether or not they went against the designs of Iluvatar

That, I completely agree with. Evil is not passed on to them by their creator.

Since orcs are inherently against the design of Iluvatar (he did not want them to be, and it states in the Silmarillion that the corruption of the orcs was the "most hateful [deed] to Iluvatar"), then they are inherently evil.

That, I do not agree with. The choices Melkor made in creating orcs are what was evil. Their creation was evil, maybe even the stuff of their hroa was evil (I don't think so), but the orcs themselves were not evil. To say they were is to say their fea was evil. Fea, souls, are from Eru only, and are not evil. Even Melkor's fea was not evil. Choices made make evil.

Just because they are inherently inclined towards evil deeds, this does not mean they cannot be redeemed.

I'd say there is a huge difference between "inherently inclined towards evil deeds" and "inherently evil".

I wonder if we are having a semantics thing here.

[Lord of Angmar]

the orcs themselves were not evil. To say they were is to say their fea was evil.

I wonder if we are having a semantics thing here.

I daresay we may be [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. In my opinion, evil is not a state of the fëa (which is Eru's creation alone and thus must ultimately be good), but simply a state of being. If a creature is inclined towards evil acts and is in its essence unrepenting of its evil deeds, then it is evil. I doubt that any orcs (at least the ones born of other orcs and not the originals) ever repented of their evil deeds or showed mercy in life.

maybe even the stuff of their hroa was evil (I don't think so)

I believe that after their initial corruption, all offspring of orcs were born into Arda with corrupt hroa. Since their bodies were not originally envisioned or created by Iluvatar in their corrupted forms, then their hroa is inherently 'evil'. However, the blame for this can be placed wholly on Morgoth.

I think the semantics problem we were having is a hard one to sum up. When I state that they are inherently evil, I mean that orcs will not think twice about doing an evil deed and will not repent of it without outside intervention (and I doubt even that much intervention could be found for them while they were still alive). I am simply saying that evil is in their nature, that no matter what they will be inclined towards and unrepentant of evil deeds. While there is a possibility of redemption and absolution, I do not think that orcs can redeem themselves or repent of their deeds solely of their own will.

[Nils]

Good point, Nils. But..... then someone with a handicap (a corrupted hroa in some way) could claim that as justification for doing something against the will of Eru? I see your point, but I don't know that it overshadows the orc's ability to make choices.

Polka-dot,

It seems to me that you believe there is some sort of punishment involved here. As far as I know, there is no punishment that Eru passes upon those who follow the evil path. Evil leads to destruction inherently. That is just how Middle-earth works. Here is a quote from Morgoth's Ring:


The Elves certainly held and taught that fear or ‘spirits’ may grow of their own life (independently of the body), even as they may be hurt and healed, be diminished and renewed.*

*The following was added marginally after the page was written: If they do not sink below a cerain level. Since no fea can be annihilated, reduced to zero or not-existing, it is no[t] clear what is meant. Thus Sauron was said to have fallen below the point of ever recovering, though he had previously recovered. What is probably meant is that a ‘wicked’ spirit becomes fixed in a certain desire or ambition, and if it connot repent then this desire becomes virtually its whole being. But the desire may be wholly beyond the weakness it has fallen to, and it will then be unable to withdraw its attention from the unobtainable desire, even to attend to itself. It will then remain for ever in impotent desire or memory of desire.

If someone can can give up evil desires, then one can regain one is healed. It has nothing to do with judgement, it is just how it works.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps, then [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. I can see your point, but (as I see it) if 'evil' simply means 'against the purposes of Illuvatar' then, as Orcs were this, they were evil.

On the issue of redemption. It's good to see that we're all agreed that Orcs have fëar, so were they redeemable? JRRT seems to have said so, I believe. Nils is right by the way;

As far as I know, there is no punishment that Eru passes upon those who follow the evil path.

This appears to be true, but as a fëa can never be destroyed Orc's spirits must go somewhere in the end. However, I think it probable -- it is the 'fate of Men' -- that only humans, of all people on earth, go to Illuvatar after death. The Orcs, then, probably stay in Arda somewhere; Mandos is the obvious gathering-place for their spirits.

Either way, if there was no redemption for them they would stay evil forever. Could this be permitted? After the end of the world, would Orcs have changed or would they remain exactly as they were? One does have to feel sorry for them, as it really is not their fault that they are like that. They have been utterly corrupted; I think they are still evil, as the evil thoughts originiate in their minds, but the way their mind works is not their fault (in their case).

Another take on it could be Nils's. If what he has said is correct, and the body is evil on Arda rather than the spirit, then Orcs could possibly, after death, lose their evilness and return to a normal state. It seems unlikely that they should change in this way, but perhaps it is true that they are only bound to evilness while they inhabit their corrupt bodies after all.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

if 'evil' simply means 'against the purposes of Illuvatar'

A more accurate quote of myself should read TO CHOOSE against the purposes of Eru. My point is the evil is in the choice, not the hroa or the fea. Hroa are just molocules and cannot be evil. Fea are from Eru, and cannot be evil. It is Eru's allowance of free will that can permit evil into the world. Evil hinges on that moment when a being makes a decision. Again, I agree that the creation of the orcs was enacted by a choice made against the will of Eru, but that evil is Melkor's. Not the orcs.

we're all agreed that Orcs have fëar, so were they redeemable?

Based on what JRRT implied, I agree that orcs are redeemable. The mechanism of that redemption seems to be the question. You would think it would require some kind of repentance on their part, some kind of intentional choice. Otherwise, what is the difference in choosing good or bad in the end if all are redeemed? I don't know enough about what JRRT intended to do more than speculate.

Nils, I am confused about where you got an idea about punishment from what I have written. Perhaps I mispoke somewhere, but punishment wasn't on my mind. I do not recall any kind of specific punishment being described for doing evil either, other than Melkor's banishment. I looked at that as permanent separation from all things, including Eru. Kind of mirrors how the Bible describes hell: permanent and complete separation from God. Or, since Eru has the power to make fea, perhaps in the end judgement he might choose to unmake the fea of orcs.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Mmmm, seems rather harsh though. Of course all this can never be more than speculation, and every suggestion (well, except for stupid ones) is a distinct possibility.

Hroa are just molocules and cannot be evil. Fea are from Eru, and cannot be evil.

The phrase about Hroa is true. The actual evil of a person itself could not exist in, as you say, 'just molecules'. I think the point that Nils is trying to make, though -- at least as I percieve it -- is that the physical manifestation upon earth can affect the fëa. Either way it does seem an unlikely possibility.

Concerning fëar, though. It is true that a fëa comes only from Eru himself, and thus, in its original form, was not in fact made evil. We can take Melkor as an example of this. His mind, as the concept for it existed very much with Illuvatar and had to emerge as an Ainur (don’t take me up on this, please, Nils – we’re supposed to have finished with that argument [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]), was built with the capability to tend towards darkness, but did not necessarily do so. (I think it probable that it was inevitable that he did, in the end, fall to evil in his innately-set quest for highness/terribleness (&#8230 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] and power, but nonetheless. I'll touch on this issue again in a moment.)

However, under Morgoth’s influences, the fëa of Orcs were apparently corrupted to evil inherently as they were as a race. What methods he used for this is unclear, but it is clear that he managed it somehow. Perhaps, with Illuvatar, these fëar are freed and again able to decide for themselves without the presence of Morgoth’s stain, but in Arda, their fëar are from the moment of an Orc’s birth evil. They were not designed that way by Illuvatar, but they have been corrupted to be that way.

Tying in to what I said about the seeming inevitability of Melkor’s Fall, there is another explanation for the nature of Orcish fëar. Were Orcs also this way? Orcs were not like Melkor, clearly, but in the same way that his turning to evil might have been, as I say, inevitable, so might the Orc’s have been in the nature of their spirit. It is a possibility. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] In this case, redemption may not have been for them; as they would be evil unchangeably. I recognise this does not apparently fit in with the ‘almost irredeemable’ line, but it may do if you consider that Orcs did not originally have to be that way – until the evil in their fëar was introduced to them by Morgoth.

To introduce another point that is slightly off topic, which may explain why Orcs existed in the world. The stain of Melkor was innately put upon everything in Arda's beginning; Orcs may have been unremovably there because of this.

[Lord of Angmar]

The stain of Melkor was innately put upon everything in Arda's beginning; Orcs may have been unremovably there because of this.

Good point Gwaihir. Although I do not think this really qualifies as an explanation of orkish existence, it is a good reason to believe that orcs can be redeemed. Since Melkor put forth much of his power into Arda itself, and since his power was reflected in Ea through his rebellion in the Themes even before Ea was created with the Flame Impherishable, then his evil was inherently part of the landscape. Since orcs are a product of the marring of Iluvatar's world, then I would think that they would be purged in the afterlife (since the halls of Iluvatar and the Undying Lands remain unmarred, and that is where they would probably be judged) and follow the fates of their ancient kin (whether they are Men, Elves, Maiar or beast).

Now to punishment, which I think everyone here has touched upon except me. I believe that for orcs, the punishment (if any) put forth by Iluvatar or the Valar before absolution would more closely resemble purgatory than hell. In fact, I do not think that there is an equivalent of hell in Tolkien's world, unless it be the dungeons and fortresses of the Dark Lord (Angband, Utumno, Mordor, etc.) I think once they were absolved of their sins (whether this would involve a long wait and/or punishment respective to their crimes I do not know), I believe, as I said earlier, that they would follow the fates of their original ancestors.

[Nils]

Nils, I am confused about where you got an idea about punishment from what I have written.

This is what led me to believe that you thought that those who chose to do evil things were going to be some how punished.

Good point, Nils. But..... then someone with a handicap (a corrupted hroa in some way) could claim that as justification for doing something against the will of Eru?

Why is there the need to claim a justification (or defense) for doing something against the will of Eru?

Now on to the next point:

My point is the evil is in the choice, not the hroa or the fea. Hroa are just molocules and cannot be evil.

According to Tolkien, this is not true. I posted the quote twice already, but I'll do it again:

From Morgoth's Ring:

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.

[ August 06, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Ah. Well, Nils, you missed the point of what I was trying to say there. The main idea there is the corrupted hroa and it's influence on the fea, or on a being's decisions. I was addressing your earlier
point.

As for defense against acting against Eru....there is no NEED to claim justification, but I'd say there is judgement that gets passed.

You raise a good point about Melkor's influence actually being in the physical matter that make up hroa. I agree with his influence being in all things. I do not agree that this makes anything inherently evil.

[ August 06, 2003: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[Nils]

In the case of the Orcs, Melkor's influence was very great. It was so great that if Orcs did have fear, that a 'good' orc has never been recorded.

[ August 06, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

...they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate from, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.

Hmmm, something to do with brain function perhaps? This quote is actually rather an interesting one, but I would have trouble with the idea that Melkor could be an inherent part of all people in Arda -- who are created in mind, as we know, solely and directly by Illuvatar -- without his actual contact with them.

Personally I would not take that to be the quote's meaning. Influence, rather than innate corruption, is what Melkor's involvement in the making of hroar would have had on the thoughts of the people of Arda (except in the case of the Orcs, who he had personally corrupted). In that case, the quote is not in fact such a major revelation. We already know that this 'influence' and power of evil -- the power of Melkor -- lies on all matter in the world, and also that it too 'had an effect' on the movements of even the Children of Illuvatar. That this 'evil energy' lay in the fibres of hroar would, I think -- that is, what I think coheres and seems right -- have continued this effect rather than innately corrupting them (if only in part). So it does in fact fit in.

In the case of the Orcs, perhaps this leaving behind of an 'imprint' or remnant of power upon them -- it is said that Melkor continues to adminsiter his material force for evilness, even from the remoteness of his prison -- is how Melkor corrupted the Orcs. This is a viable theory, then, as to the actual method through which Melkor's own evilness was administered to the Orcs, and the channel through which they were damned in the beginning.

(Forgive me if this post is slightly hurried-seeming btw, I wouldn't know as I can't read over it; I am myself in a hurry (public computer, too =/).

[Durelin]

...it seems clear to me that they had no choice but to become Orcs. (Saucepan Man, from previous page)

Yes, but I didn't say that, did I? I said they had a choice to be evil.

Ha ha! I have you now! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I am bowing out of this overly intelligent debate, as I am a fourteen year old with enough things to think about! Thank you for being such good sports, but you're all too smart!

I still say orcs are evil, and chose to be. *sticks tongue out*

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

It seems that this thread has reached the end of its life. Well, nothing to add then. Thanks for the discussion, everyone, it was quite a valuable one after we all finally came to understand each other...