Inherent Evil

[Lord of Angmar]

I was recently reading through the Valinor = Heaven for Elves? (http://http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=1&SUBMIT=Go) 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 smilies/smile.gif).

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 smilies/smile.gif.

[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 smilies/smile.gif. 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! smilies/biggrin.gif

-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. smilies/smile.gif 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. smilies/smile.gif
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. smilies/smile.gif

[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! smilies/evil.gif

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.' smilies/smile.gif
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. smilies/smile.gif

'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.

smilies/tongue.gif

[ 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? smilies/cool.gif

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/modern/pictures/E14133big.jpg

[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. smilies/redface.gif

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

[Durelin]

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

smilies/biggrin.gif

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! smilies/biggrin.gif

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

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. (Nils)

I believe too believe that evil was "within" Eru, but I do not understand your definition of "within." (Lord of Angmar)

How could Eru understand the concept of evil in a pre-Creation universe if there was not evil within him? How else could he gain this knowledge?

Perhaps the answer is that it is the potential to do evil, ie act contrary to the standards which he defines as good, that is within him. Although you have a good point, Lord of Angmar, when you say:

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.

That opens up the possibilty of a universe where the Creator exercises his potential for evil so that to act in a way that we would consider evil would actually be the "right" way to act. smilies/eek.gif

But, I suppose that's all hypothetical as Iluvatar never exercised that particular option. He had Melkor to do it for him. smilies/evil.gif

OK, back to my original question. Accepting that Iluvatar is good (ie does not exercise his option of committing evil thereby creating a world where evil acts are acceptable by his standards), why would he not allow the Orcs the possibility of redemption when they had no choice in being born as Orcs in the first place?

[Nils]

why would he not allow the Orcs the possibility of redemption when they had no choice in being born as Orcs in the first place?
This assumes of course that Orcs have souls.

In any case, I believe this comment from Morgoth's Ring applies:

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.

Combine that with what I quoted 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.

If the Orcs had Elven souls, then it would be their inability to repent that would make it that they could not be redeemed.

If the Orcs had Mannish Souls, then I would suppose that they would pass through the Halls of Mandos and join the souls of all Men. I don't remember anything about Men ever having to be redeemed.

[The Saucepan Man]

This assumes of course that Orcs have souls.

I hold that they do. Whatever thoughts Tolkien may have had later on the subject, they are clearly, to my mind, portrayed in LotR as rational beings with souls. If nothing else, the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag in the Tower of Cirith Ungol establishes that for me.

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

Yes, that makes sense. I can understand why Sauron should not have the opprtunity to repent, since he chose to follow the path of evil of his own free will. But the Orcs never had any choice. They were born evil. So how can a "good" divine being deny them the opportunity of redmeption in those circumstances?

And dying they would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End.

This might be interpreted as suggesting the opportunity of repentance following the Dagor Dagorath. Although, even if that were the case, it still seems unfair that they should have to wait so long when they had no choice in the first place.

[Nils]

If you are going to say "no they must have souls", but Eru (represented by Tolkien) says "no they don't", then I don't believe Eru need live up to your expectation.

Having said that, I don't think you gave my comment about having Man's soul much thought.


Mithadan,

I just dated both Letter 153 (1954) and section VIII of Myths Transformed(1959). I believe the later thoughts hold more weight.

[The Saucepan Man]

If you are going to say "no they must have souls", but Eru (represented by Tolkien) says "no they don't", then I don't believe Eru need live up to your expectation.

Well, I'm with the Windlord on this one. I first read LotR many years ago, before the Letters or the HoME series were ever published. And I formed an impression of Orcs as rational beings based upon how I understood the Book to be portraying them (which , I think, reflected author's intention at the time of writing).

To see the Orcs as anything other than rational beings makes a mockery, to my mind, of the scenes where they are conversing, in particular (as I have said) the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag. And, as I understand it, if the Orcs are sentient beings, then they have souls.

Having said that, I don't think you gave my comment about having Man's soul much thought.

No, because it is said in the Silmarillion that they were, in origin, Elves. smilies/wink.gif

[tinewelt]

Here Here!!! smilies/biggrin.gif

[Nils]

No, because it is said in the Silmarillion that they were, in origin, Elves. What ever gets published first. smilies/wink.gif

From The Two Towers, Treebeard

But Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darnkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves.

If you are going to base your view of Orcs on the Trilogy and your early understanding, then why not believe Orcs to be rational creatures created by the Enemy?

If you are going to base your view of Orcs on the Silmarillion, then I'd think that all of Tolkien's writings that were never published should be taken into consideration.

Oh well, I guess all that can be said is that you go with the early stuff and I go with the later stuff.

One thing your question does bring to mind is the predestination concept of Christianity. The Bible says that the created are not to judge the creator. Of course, that does not hold water with all that are created. smilies/wink.gif

[Durelin]

Ah, here's a new thought. The Treebeard quote from Nils got me thinking.

The Orcs in The Lord of the Rings are different altogether from those in the Silmarillion.

Let me explain...

Obviously, Sauron could not have had such a large army without breeding Orcs. Either with other Orcs, or prehaps with some other fell creature. Thus, we get something seperate from the first Orcs: the tortured Elves. Plus, Sauron could have made improvements to the design at any time, making them more and more creatures and less and less a race such as Elves or Men.

I know that you can argue that Tolkien viewed them as a race...at one point. I agree with Nils that Tolkien was not sure about this. So, at one point they were, later they were not.

This topic is an excellent one since there really is not answer, it seems, since Tolkien isn't sure on the matter himself. smilies/biggrin.gif Fun fun!

[Lord of Angmar]

Obviously, Sauron could not have had such a large army without breeding Orcs. Either with other Orcs, or prehaps with some other fell creature. Thus, we get something seperate from the first Orcs: the tortured Elves.--Durelin

One characteristic of a "race" as we consider it today is the ability to breed offspring who are not impotent and who share characteristics with their parents. It was obviously by art that we do not understand that the Elves were corrupted into Orcs, meaning that they became a new race and their offspring did not have Elvish qualities. In other words, somehow their genetic construct was altered (debating how this was done would be a fruitless exercise... some things in Tolkien's world just aren't meant to be questioned). This made their race original, and explains their ability to breed.

But we digress from the original question, which has been debated finely from many angles.

I would like to sum up the questions that have been discussed and attempted to present my own answers.

1. Are orcs inherently evil as a race? Can they do no good?

No. In my opinion, they do have the capability to do good. Tolkien, after all, was a Catholic and thus probably did not believe in the entire evil or goodness of a being or a race.

2. Is evil a state which exists because it was present in the Creator Himself?

I think this is the debate which has been most heavily argued in this thread. There were good points on all sides. I believe that evil in Tolkien's world is any action or virtue that conflicts with Eru's thought of how Ea and all of the life therein should be ordered. This is a fundamental Christian idea. If the Creator did not intend or purpose for something to be, then it should not be. In this case, you could say that the Orcs are "evil", being entities that Eru did not purpose to be alive within his world. Does Eru have the capacity for evil? This is an unanswerable question, because, as I said earlier, any action that he takes cannot be considered evil since his Creation is ultimate. Obviously he knows of the concept of evil, which in his mind is Melkor's conflict with the harmony of his themes and the discord that it wrought on Ea.

3. Do orcs have a will and soul within Ea?

I believe so. Just the simple fact that the orcs in the Two Towers are discussing what they want and what they wish for is enough to convince me that they have a will, and in my opinion a will is the physical realization of a soul.

4. Can orcs be redeemed in or after life?

In my own humble opinion, it is entirely possible for an orc to be redeemed, although I doubt that in mortal life an orc can be "cleansed" of its baneful characteristics. Again, based on Tolkien's devout Catholicism, I am forced to believe that there is some sort of purgatory (akin or equal to the Ring of Doom where Melkor was held in bonds for three ages), where creatures that fall under the category of "evil" in the eyes of the Creator can be absolved. Perhaps even Melkor, after the last battle and his ultimate doom, will be absolved.

I did not mean this as a summation of this thread, just as clarification and organization (for myself as much as for anyone else smilies/biggrin.gif ) of my views on all the key topics in this discussion.

Cheers!

[Mithadan]

Treebeard's words are also addressed in Letter 153. There Tolkien says:

Treebeard does not say that the Dark Lord 'created' Trolls and Orcs. He says he 'made' them in counterfeit of certain creatures pre-existing. There is, to me, a wide gulf between the two statements...

Tolkien then proceeds with the 'rational incarnate' statement which I quoted above. Also keep in mind that while Treebeard was immensely old, he was not one of the 'wise'; i.e. not one of the Ainur privy to at least some portion of the truths concerning Tolkien's sub-created world. Thus his beliefs and indeed those of the Elves remaining in Middle Earth (who were uninformed of the Valar's views of Orcish origin - it is not clear that the Valar encountered Orcs before the First Age) are not necessarily the whole 'truth'.

The difficulty arising from the Morgoth's Ring materials is that they were often ideas in flux. Thus there are multiple views concerning Orcish origin. However, Tolkien does not seem to waver from his view that they arose in whole or in part from sentient Elves/Men who possessed Feär. This seems ratified by Tolkien's statement that Orcs would proceed to Mandos upon death. If they lacked Feär, there would be no need for this.

[Nils]

I agree that the Tolkien did not really come to grips with Orc Origins, but hey, he didn't really come to grips with the origins of the Sun, Moon and Stars either. smilies/wink.gif

What does seem clear to me is that Tolkien wanted Orcs to originate with Men instead of Elves. Chris Tolkien makes pretty much that exact statement in Morgoth's Ring.

[The Saucepan Man]

Oh well, I guess all that can be said is that you go with the early stuff and I go with the later stuff. (Nils)

Well, I'd prefer to say that I go with the impressions that I have gained from reading the Books, and which make sense to me.

And if I learn subsequently that the author had later ideas which conflict with those impressions, particularly if (as is the case with the origins and sentience of Orcs), they are unresolved, I do not feel that I am bound to accept them. I am happy to if they make sense to me, but Orcs as soulless, non-rational beasts just doesn't make sense, based on how they are portrayed in LotR.

One characteristic of a "race" as we consider it today is the ability to breed offspring who are not impotent and who share characteristics with their parents. It was obviously by art that we do not understand that the Elves were corrupted into Orcs, meaning that they became a new race and their offspring did not have Elvish qualities. (Lord of Angmar)

Obviously, Sauron could not have had such a large army without breeding Orcs. Either with other Orcs, or prehaps with some other fell creature. Thus, we get something seperate from the first Orcs: the tortured Elves. Plus, Sauron could have made improvements to the design at any time, making them more and more creatures and less and less a race such as Elves or Men. (Durelin)

Yes, although Orcs originated as debased Elves, they did (as I understand it)subsequently breed amongst themselves. So, later generations would not be debased Elves, but the offspring of debased Elves or the offspring of the offspring of debased Elves, and so on. And yes, they were bred by Sauron (and probably by Morgoth before him), whether selectively or with other races, to create different strains: the Uruk Hai, for example. But I don't see why either of those processes should deny them their rationality or their soul.

What does seem clear to me is that Tolkien wanted Orcs to originate with Men instead of Elves. (Nils)

I don't have a problem with the concept of Orcs originating from Men. Indeed, it would solve a lot of problems, such as whether or not they are immortal and whether or not their souls go to Mandos when they die. Questions such as these are, I believe, why Tolkien started thinking in terms of Orcs as debased Men. My difficulty, however, is a logical/temporal one. How could Orcs have their origin in Man when Orcs were around before Men awoke?

However, Tolkien does not seem to waver from his view that they arose in whole or in part from sentient Elves/Men who possessed Feär. (Mithadan)

So I would conclude that, whether they originated from Men or Elves, and however subsequent breeding (amongst themselves or by Morgoth and Sauron) might have affected them, Orcs are rational beings with souls.

Which once again brings me back to my (still unresolved) question:

Accepting that Iluvatar is good ... why would he not allow the Orcs the possibility of redemption when they had no choice in being born as Orcs in the first place?

[Yavanna228]

Concerning the way orcs were supposed to have reproduced, here is a brief passage from the Silmarillion which I offer knowing full well the criticism I'll receive because I'm using that as a source. smilies/wink.gif
...and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes. For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar; and naught that had life of its own, nor the semblance of life, could ever Melkor make since his rebellion in the Ainulindale before the Beginning: so say the wise.
Peace

[Mithadan]

It does seem that JRRT was leaning towards a Mannish origin for Orcs later in his life. It just isn't clear that he made a final decision on this issue. Further, a Mannish origin would have at least indirectly contradicted LoTR. While this could be solved by a new modified edition, it always seemed to me that he hesitated to change what was already published.

The conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat about "the bad old times", seemingly referring to a distant past is well known and often cited. Less well known is the age of Bolg, son of Azog. Azog was slain in the Battle of Nanduhirion in TA 2799. His son Bolg was slain in the Battle of Five Armies in TA 2941, 142 years later suggesting that Orcs were at least long lived, indicating at a minumum a partial Elvish origin.

[Nils]

And if I learn subsequently that the author had later ideas which conflict with those impressions, particularly if (as is the case with the origins and sentience of Orcs), they are unresolved, I do not feel that I am bound to accept them. I am happy to if they make sense to me, but Orcs as soulless, non-rational beasts just doesn't make sense, based on how they are portrayed in LotR.I take it then that you consider the Silmarillion to be one of those original books that you base your ideas on.

I guess it depends on one's age as to the Silmarillion's influence on one's original view of Middle-earth.

I posted the quote from Treebeard to point out the fact that the Two Towers has an 'orc origins' theory. For those who are older, I'd think that the Silmarillion would fall under the category of subsequent information.

I don't have a problem with the concept of Orcs originating from Men. Indeed, it would solve a lot of problems, such as whether or not they are immortal and whether or not their souls go to Mandos when they die. Questions such as these are, I believe, why Tolkien started thinking in terms of Orcs as debased Men. My difficulty, however, is a logical/temporal one. How could Orcs have their origin in Man when Orcs were around before Men awoke? It seems to me that this problem is easily solved by moving up Man's time of awakening. Take that and the different kinds of Orcs (Maiar, beast, Men) and I believe the 'Man theory' could fit rather well.

It would require a little work on the published Silmarillion, but since JRR did not publish it, I don't think it should be held in too high regard. Even if Tolkien had published it, he was not above editing his older work to make corrections. Concerning the way orcs were supposed to have reproduced, here is a brief passage from the Silmarillion which I offer knowing full well the criticism I'll receive because I'm using that as a source. It isn't the mere fact that it is from the Silmarillion that makes the information suspect, it also has to do with how the information fits with Tolkien's later thoughts on the subject.


Mithadan,
His son Bolg was slain in the Battle of Five Armies in TA 2941, 142 years later suggesting that Orcs were at least long lived, indicating at a minumum a partial Elvish origin.
Or perhaps Maiar.

OK, one other possibility comes to mind:

The Mouth of Sauron had unnaturally long life without a ring of power. Why couldn't an Orc learn to do the same?

[ July 31, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Forgive me if this interrupts the discussion in any way, but I'm going to be hailing back a couple of days to the posts immediately following my last one for this reply (this thread having apparently become incredibly popular over those two days). I feel that I am being totally misunderstood by a certain Nils in what I say, over two points.

First, though, a message directed at the Lord of Angmar, who said this:
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.
Do you honestly think that Aragorn would give Men and Orcs the same land together to live in? This is totally incompatible. The quote in which the liberation of Sauron's slaves is found in, I think, is probably talking about how Aragorn dealt with the Men that served Sauron, as it also talks about Harad and Rhun. The land of Nurn was in fact inhabited by human slaves in the first place, so it was that land that he gave them.

You said that this is a minor issue, but I disagree. This was, as people were arguing, the only apparent time when Orcs were 'forgiven' and set free to do as they wished. If it didn't happen, as it probably (to my judgement anyway smilies/smile.gif) didn't, then there is no case at all of the Orcs deserving any forgiveness and gifts from Men or Elves. There were many wise leaders of both races, and of the Valar, and none considered the Orcs to be capable of being redeemed -- at least in Arda.

So this significantly damages the (still wierd-seeming) idea of Orcs not being evil.

Nils, I see where you are coming from, but I don't think you quite understand me. Anyway I'm just going to conclude it for you.
From you:
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).
Of course Arda is Tolkien's world, but still of course he had personal ideas that I may or may not agree with. What you would have me do is simply recite Tolkien's quotes and fall into the ideas and beliefs he held, not making any independant observations of my own. I am not Tolkien (although I immensely enjoy his work) and may in the occasional circumstance be allowed an individual idea of my own, don't you think? I don't know how you are going to be operating in your posts here as I haven't seen many of them yet, and the method you advocate may be fine for you. I personally wish to be more thoughful than that.

Independant observations are all I am making. I assure you that Tolkien's words, when they concern his work, are held as very important to me.

Eru is not in a fallen state.
This is the second thing. Perhaps I should explain it out a bit more. I did not imply at all that Eru was 'fallen', as, then, I would not be fit to be in here. Illuvatar is of course God, the lord of all. What I see in Tolkien is that the Ainur, the world of Ea and everything in it proceeds directly from Tolkien, so that it is really a kind of great Thought and dream of his with a beginning and an end that takes form. Thus, everything on earth is his ultimately;
In the end he shall see that nothing is done that hath not its uttermost source in me.
Do you see now? That is my observation, that does not seem to be contradicted by anything Tolkien says, my conclusion that I have come to from his work. To be 'fallen', Illuvatar would have to be totally corrupted. Clearly not the case, and I didn't imply it; Illuvatar is indeed good, the highest of all things. If what I have talked about is the case, then every mood and way of thinking is reflected in the all-encompassing mind of Illuvatar;
There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Illuvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought... for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Illuvatar from which he came, and in the understanding of their brethren they grew but slowly. Yet ever as they listened they came to deepr understanding, and increased in unison and harmony..
(Forgive me for using the Silm and not a later source, but as it is in fact the foundation of Tolkien's literature and a damn relevent piece of writing, I felt it would be fitting to use this passage to exemplify what I am saying. smilies/rolleyes.gif

Finally, the last part of your post that I'll reply to:
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).
It occurs to me that perhaps you are over-parallelling the Eru of Ea to the Christian God. This parallell is there, but the two are not exactly the same. C.S. Lewis used his fantasy to parallell Christian theology, but Tolkien -- while similar in some ways -- is really a thing of its own.

Anyway, that's it -- again, sorry for not participating in the recent (i.e. within last day =/) discussions, but I felt I needed to take this up. smilies/smile.gif

[ August 01, 2003: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ]

[Nils]

Independant observations are all I am making. I assure you that Tolkien's words, when they concern his work, are held as very important to me.So why don't you believe that Orcs were created by Melkor?

If you consider the Silmarillion to be one of JRR's works, then why do you consider the Silmarillion a more important work than Morgoth's Ring? What I see in Tolkien is that the Ainur, the world of Ea and everything in it proceeds directly from Tolkien, so that it is really a kind of great Thought and dream of his with a beginning and an end that takes form. Thus, everything on earth is his ultimately;

In the end he shall see that nothing is done that hath not its uttermost source in me.

Do you see now? That is my observation, that does not seem to be contradicted by anything Tolkien says, my conclusion that I have come to from his work. But it does contradict the fall.

Tolkien was writing a myth that revealed the truth of this world. It didn't have to do with what was within Tolkien. He was not creating mere fantasy. He was trying to describe how the world actually works.

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?

The only way that I can see that quote fitting into the theme of the 'fallen state' is through the concept of sub-creation. I believe that is why Tolkien wrote so much about that topic.

Through the concept of sub-creation (Eru giving a part of his power to create to his own creation) Tolkien was able to give the created beings the ability to 'fall', while having that ability to 'fall' originating with Eru.

Each being is not some part of Eru's personality. Each being is seperate and distinct, but its powers originate with Eru's power. All Eru was telling Morgoth was that no matter what Morgoth tried to create out of the 'good' power Eru entrusted him with, the end result must be 'good'.

Morgoth tried to do his own thing and fell. That makes Morgoth evil.

Although it may appear for a time that Melkor had succeeded, Eru's creations did not have the power to corrupt the power that Eru entrusted his creation with. If what I have talked about is the case, then every mood and way of thinking is reflected in the all-encompassing mind of Illuvatar;
It seems to me that your view is that Eru's creation do not have free will at all. They are not independent creations, they are different manefestations of Eru's own personality. In other words, creation is a physical manefestation of Eru's personality. Manwe represents this part of Eru, while Melkor represents another. That the battle between good and evil represents the battle within Eru himself.

In other words, nothing is an original creation. Clearly, this is not the case. There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Illuvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought... for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Illuvatar from which he came, and in the understanding of their brethren they grew but slowly. Yet ever as they listened they came to deeper understanding, and increased in unison and harmony. Just because Eru came up with the idea of the Ainu and used his thoughts to create them does not mean that each Ainu represents a component of Eru's personality. Forgive me for using the Silm and not a later source, but as it is in fact the foundation of Tolkien's literature and a damn relevent piece of writing, I felt it would be fitting to use this passage to exemplify what I am saying. Nice sarcasm, but at least you are recognizing the fact that Tolkien did have other writings. It occurs to me that perhaps you are over-parallelling the Eru of Ea to the Christian God. It seems to me that Tolkien was heavily influenced by his Christian beliefs. As I said earlier, Tolkien was trying to reveal how things actually worked in his myth. Since Tolkien was a Christian, he tried to portray how Christianity says things work.

[Lord of Angmar]

"If what I have talked about is the case, then every mood and way of thinking is reflected in the all-encompassing mind of Illuvatar;"

It seems to me that your view is that Eru's creation do not have free will at all. They are not independent creations, they are different manefestations of Eru's own personality. In other words, creation is a physical manefestation of Eru's personality. Manwe represents this part of Eru, while Melkor represents another. That the battle between good and evil represents the battle within Eru himself.

In other words, nothing is an original creation. Clearly, this is not the case.

I do not think that was Gwaihir's point at all. He was stating that Iluvatar understands every mood and every type of thought that lies within his creations. Surely every type of mood and every type of thought within the minds of his Children is reflected somewhere in his mind, the source of his creation.

Just because Eru came up with the idea of the Ainu and used his thoughts to create them does not mean that each Ainu represents a component of Eru's personality.

While the Ainur may not have each individually acquired one "component" of Eru's being, surely they gleaned from his mind and his inner thought a good deal. They were influenced by him as his creations and as his labourers, living for ages upon ages in a world first conceived by him. They had no other source of personality definition but Eru and Ea, their Creator and His Creation.

You say that the Ainur did not receive different separate components, yet for the Valar this may be somewhat the case. Each Vala loves a different part of the world, and each has vastly different character traits (silent Mandos, hearty and jovial Tulkas, stern and subtle Aule, etc.). Surely this is some indication that different facets of the mind of Iluvatar were passed onto the Ainur.

I agree, Nils, with what you are saying about the 'fallen' state, although I do not agree that this was Gwaihir or Saucepan Man's meaning when they suggested that evil was within the Creator Himself.

Tolkien, as a Christian, would be inclined to believe that the state of being 'fallen' from paradise or from wisdom is, in essence, the state of being evil. It is shown time and again in all of his 'evil characters'. Melkor is the original, the Fallen Angel, the Lucifer of Tolkien's world, as it were. In him the seed of 'evil' lived, planted there at the beginning from somewhere deep in the heart and thought of Iluvatar. From him all evil things grew; it was he who corrupted Sauron, the 'Lesser Angel', if you will, the Maia. It was he who broke the minds of and corrupted the Elves or Men (depending on what source you decide to look at) and 'created' the orcs. The Balrogs were originally Maiar, and they became 'fallen' beings too, serving the Dark Lord. The Nazgul and Saruman were also 'fallen', the former from noble Kings of Men and the latter from being a friend and helper to the foes of Sauron.

In my mind, nothing started out 'evil', but when Iluvatar conceived of the possibility of evil, of rebellion against his will, then it became a reality, and thus was bestowed (knowingly or just by chance) upon one of the Ainur, Melkor, who just so happened to be the most powerful. It was he who then brought evil into Ea, falling from the ranks of the Valar and being totally encompassed by evil. If there was anything in Middle Earth that was 'inherently' evil, it was Morgoth, who, it is stated in the Silmarillion and in Morgoth's Ring, was, after his imprisonment in the Ring of Doom, totally incapable of redemption. He was the original in that 'fallen' state, and all other evil beings 'fell' as a direct or indirect result.

I hope my ideas makes sense to people. What I am trying to say is that, while evil first was conceived in Eru's mind, it was the reflection of this idea into the mind of Melkor which actually CREATED evil as an entity in Ea. It was possible for Eru to understand evil without being in a 'fallen' state.

[ August 01, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Nils]

I do not think that was Gwaihir's point at all. He was stating that Iluvatar understands every mood and every type of thought that lies within his creations. Surely every type of mood and every type of thought is reflected somewhere in his mind, the source of his creation.I can't get around the fact that this will logically mean that Eru is in part evil, based on Eru's own definition of evil. That the only way Eru' would not be evil would be if Eru changes the rules.

In other words, Eru is an evil dictator. Which is the way many see God, but I'm not one of them. smilies/wink.gif

There is still that little part that is different enough from what I am saying that I can't agree While the Ainur may not have each individually acquired on "component" of Eru's being, surely they gleaned from his mind and his inner thought a good deal. I believe this is that little part.

Why is this surely the case?

They were influenced by him as his creations and as his labourers, living for ages upon ages in a world first conceived by him. They had no other source of personality definition but Eru and Ea, their Creator and His Creation.
So you don't believe in free will and that each of us is totally responsible for what we do.

It is entirely possible that Eru created beings that are totally distinct. They are a seperate creation, given the ability to sub-create.

Each Vala loves a different part of the world, and each has vastly different character traits (silent Mandos, hearty and jovial Tulkas, stern and subtle Aule, etc.). Surely this is some indication that different facets of the mind of Iluvatar were passed onto the Ainur.
Or they could just be their seperate personalities. Their personalities tied into the sub-creative power given to them by Eru. In him the seed of 'evil' lived, planted there at the beginning from somewhere deep in the heart and thought of Iluvatar. Why must this be the case? Why can't Melkor choose to rebel against Eru's designs on his own? From him all evil things grew No, he was the example of rebellion. He was the first to rebel. Each individual spirit that rebelled against Eru's designs simply followed Melkor's example. Melkor did not 'make them do it'. The sub-created did not have that power over any other sub-creation. it was he who corrupted Sauron, the 'Lesser Angel', if you will, the Maia. No, Melkor was the example, but he could not corrupt them. Each one had to choose to follow Melkor's example. Each one corrupted his/her self. It was he who broke the minds of and corrupted the Elves or Men (depending on what source you decide to look at) and 'created' the orcs. As far as the incarnates go, their bodies were corrupted, which led to their souls being corrupted. They still had the chance to redeem themselves after their fear were seperated from the hroar. Melkor had no such direct influence on the Ealar (Ainur).

In my mind, nothing started out 'evil', but when Iluvatar conceived of the possibility of evil, of rebellion against his will, then it became a reality, and thus was bestowed (knowingly or just by chance) upon one of the Ainur, Melkor, who just so happened to be the most powerful. Is it that Eru forced the most powerful to fall (included is Feanor) or is it that great power is very seductive and leads to the fall?

[Nils]

Something just struck me while rereading my post: Or they could just be their seperate personalities. Their personalities tied into the sub-creative power given to them by Eru. Melkor was originally good. He did not rebel. Did his rebellion come as result of a hidden time bomb or was it a result of Melkor's growth?

In other words, is Melkor a result of his 'genetics or enviroment'? How we react to the world is greatly influenced by how we perceive the world. How we perceive the world is greatly influenced by our prior experience. Part of that experience is how the world reacts to us.

Since the powerful are rewarded by acting in an evil way, evil behavior is reinforced. Seeing that one can do certain things leads to a sense of arrogance, that leads to pride that leads to the fall.

In that equation somewhere comes self control. In that equation somewhere lies the knowledge that using the greater power to 'win' is wrong and will lead ultimately to destruction. At least once its been seen to happen. Perhaps Melkor did not see the end result of his choice to use his power to force his desire, but others like Gandalf did and chose to reject the ring of 'power'.

[Lord of Angmar]

I see what you are saying, Nils, but I still think you are reading my words out of context. I do not believe that Eru is an 'evil dictator'. Far from it. I am saying that since everything is his Creation then he is an influence on EVERY SINGLE THING in the world. It is impossible to create without influencing, just as it is impossible to observe without changing. His creations would inherently be influenced by him.

Why must this be the case? Why can't Melkor choose to rebel against Eru's designs on his own?

Or they could just be their seperate personalities. Their personalities tied into the sub-creative power given to them by Eru.

While they certainly have sub-creative powers, no being really has the ability to CREATE their own personality. The personality is the direct result of the environment. Since they were created and taught by Iluvatar, and since they lived in a world conceived by him, their underlying personalities would reflect his own ideas and his creations. In other words, their personalities would be a reflection of Iluvatar because it was Iluvatar who set the pretense for the creation of their disposition (by creating them, teaching them and giving them a world to inhabit).

Melkor was turned to evil because of the disposition he developed as a Child of Iluvatar. How else could Melkor have risen up in rebellion against Iluvatar's theme? He did not have any previous knowledge of rebellion and did not have any influences outside of the Halls of Iluvatar. Therefore it must have been an affect of Iluvatar on Melkor that he learned how to rebel. A child does not learn how to speak unless they hear others speak, to walk unless others walk, etc. Since Iluvatar was the only teacher the Valar had, their personalities were reflections (distorted or blown up though they may have been) of parts of his own.

So you don't believe in free will and that each of us is totally responsible for what we do.

I am a firm believer in free will. But every will must have a starting point, a background. A baby cannot simply wake up and decide the course it will take. It is influenced, above all else, by its surroundings. The surroundings of an infant and the ideas of that infant's guardians are what mold that child's personality. Children are not born with a certain disposition, nor can they simply create it. IT IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR ENVIRONMENT, to quote myself earlier in this entry.

Only when the background is completely laid and personality moulded can an individual truly assert free will over their lives.

[Nils]

see what you are saying, Nils, but I still think you are reading my words out of context. I do not believe that Eru is an 'evil dictator'. Far from it. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that believed God to be an evil dictator. I just meant that the point of view you are taking can logically lead to that conclusion. It is impossible to create without influencing, just as it is impossible to observe without changing. His creations would inherently be influenced by him. Perhaps what is impossible for us, is possible for God. smilies/wink.gif The personality is the direct result of the environment. Since they were created and taught by Iluvatar, and since they lived in a world conceived by him, their underlying personalities would reflect his own ideas and his creations. Personality is not just enviroment. It is a combination of many factors, which include something we are born with and how we react to the enviroment. If by world you mean Ea, then I must submit that the Melkor's rebellion had a hand in the creation of that world. I guess it could be seen as a self-fulfilling prophecy. smilies/wink.gif Melkor was turned to evil because of the disposition he developed as a Child of Iluvatar. How else could Melkor have risen up in rebellion against Iluvatar's theme? Free Will, which is a concept that Tolkien clearly states is a part of his myth. He did not have any previous knowledge of rebellion and did not have any influences outside of the Halls of Iluvatar. Therefore it must have been an affect of Iluvatar on Melkor that he learned how to rebel. He was the most powerful of the Ainur and he did have interaction with them. Perhaps he developed the pride and arrogance to believe that he should have his own way. This pride, which he was not created with, but a possibility to for, was his own doing, not Eru's. A child does not learn how to speak unless they hear others speak, to walk unless others walk, etc. Since Iluvatar was the only teacher the Valar had, their personalities were reflections (distorted or blown up though they may have been) of parts of his own.
As I stated earlier, the Ainur also interacted with each other and learned from these experiences. They were not just programmed by Eru. A baby cannot simply wake up and decide the course it will take. Eru did not create babies. The Ainur would be equivalent to Adam, a full grown man. As far as I can tell from the text, the Ainur were created with the ability to communicate. Children are not born with a certain disposition, I couldn't disagree with you more. From the time my children were born they were very different. Only when the background is completely laid and personality moulded can an individual truly assert free will over their lives.Considering the fact that we are always growing and our personality is always changing, I must disagree with this statement.

[Durelin]

Tolkien, after all, was a Catholic and thus probably did not believe in the entire evil or goodness of a being or a race.

Uh...I'm pretty sure Catholics believe that a person can be entirely good. We are the ones with all the Saints, you know.

In other words, Eru is an evil dictator. Which is the way many see God, but I'm not one of them.

Phew, you had me going there for a moment, Nils... smilies/biggrin.gif

Evil in the Creator himself? Now, if we are going on the fact that Tolkien was strongly Catholic and based much of this on his beliefs, then we shouldn't be asking this at all. But, since we do not know how much he based on his faith and how much he did not...

If there was evil in Eru, then there would be evil in all his creations, and none of them would be entirely good. What a clever thing! But...we come upon this: does what Eru create have a choice as to letting that evil or the good in them take control? Then you think, if Melkor created something out of evil, they wouldn't have a choice. But...Melkor did not create anything, he only adjusted and changed, and possibly bred together for a different combination. Therefore, they had the choice. So, the Orcs had a choice to be evil or not, and, driven by fear, they chose to.

smilies/tongue.gif

Come on! I'm waiting for that rebuddle! Now where is it? smilies/biggrin.gif

[The Saucepan Man]

Free Will, which is a concept that Tolkien clearly states is a part of his myth. (Nils)

Yes, Eru created beings with free will. He knew that beings with free will could potentially rebel against his own will. He therefore created potentially evil beings.

But it is, of course, up to the individual whether he exercises that free will to commit evil. That is the very essence of free will. So, Eru didn't cause evil to exist. He created the potential for it to exist. In that sense, evil does has its source in him.

Melkor freely chose to commit evil. So did Sauron and Saruman. Neither of them were forced to commit evil, however much they might have been influenced. There were countless other Maiar who did not choose the same path. I can therefore understand why the likes of Sauron and Saruman should not have been offered the opportunity of redemption at the end.

But Orcs are different.

But...Melkor did not create anything, he only adjusted and changed, and possibly bred together for a different combination. Therefore, they had the choice. So, the Orcs had a choice to be evil or not, and, driven by fear, they chose to. (Durelin)

I do not agree with this. Whether they were originally Men or Elves (and I still prefer to go with the Elf origin idea smilies/wink.gif ), it seems clear to me that they had no choice but to become Orcs. Melkor saw to that. And if we accept that Orcs, once they came into existence, were inherently evil, then they had no possibility of choosing to act in a good way. They could, by their nature, only act in an evil way. In that sense, they had very limited free will.

Now Eru did not create them that way. That was down to Melkor, who Eru created with free will. And since Melkor chose to exercise his free will (given to him by Eru) to commit evil and one of his evil acts was to create Orcs, and since those Orcs never had any choice but to be evil, it seems only fair to me that Eru should allow them some opportunity of redemption.

[Iarwain]

I agree very much with Saucepan. When Tolkien says that Melkor had committed the"greatest evil" of all in the corruption/creation of orcs, we ought to ask the basic question of why this is the greatest crime. Was it because he put them through horrible torture? I'd guess this was not the reason, because he did that many times in much more varied ways. Then, could it have been because he altered them and caused Eru's divine creation to permanently change? Perhaps, but he did the same thing (on a slightly lesser scale) with Dragons, Trolls, and other conscious things of creation too. Perhaps we should think more of what Eru gave to the "Children" that was truly unique. He gave them a destiny/destination (whichever you prefer), and he gave them a choice. The consequences of the choice I'll leave unexplored, because Tolkien's creation does not fulfill the need for explaination there, but the choice itself is big. Or is it? What are the consequences of the choice? If, in Middle-Earth one chose to live a life of justice and servitude, how would the ending consequences differ from if one chose to live a life of injustice and tyranny? I feel that I am horribly off topic, but the thought-train express has taken me here, and I believe that the roots of a new discussion are sitting in what I've just been thinking and writing. I'm off.

Iarwain

[Nils]

I think that the 'Man Origin' theory throws a paticularly cool twist into the redemption question.

As far as I know, there is no judgement for Man in Tolkien's Myth. All that we know is that Man passes through the Halls of Mandos. There doesn't seem to be a reward or a punishment.

If this is so, then there is no need for redemption. smilies/eek.gif


smilies/cool.gif It appears as if Iarwain's and my post got crossed and that we were thinking along the same lines.

[ August 01, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Iarwain]

Well, if Nils and I are correct, then it really wouldn't matter as an issue of cruelty to label the entire race of orcs as fallen or condemned, because even if they were, their condemnation would never recieve a sentence, much less an execution, as long as they are recognized as children.

Iarwain

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

You still don't have it, Nils. Listen for once and thou shalt understand.

To say that Eru, in the ultimate intellect of his mind, has a part of him that can understand and see the value of evil does not mean that he himself is an 'evil dictator'.

The Lord of Angmar has got what I was saying perfectly (actually I think he may have said it rather better than me). Eru's mind is the source of the Ainur. Each of these Ainur are different. I think it likely that they, all arrayed together, represent the various thoughts and comprehensions that make up Illuvatar's mind. Some, and especially one (Melkor) of these Ainur, see the use and power of evil and use it for their own ends.

As Melkor himself came from Illuvatar directly, it is clear that in the pre-mentioned 'all-encompassing intellect of Illuvatar' the kind of mind that Melkor has got is understood and known there. 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. In the addition of Melkor to this, the capacity to recognise the power and use of evil is clearly also something that Eru posesses.

He sees all ends and purposes under heaven.

Because Illuvatar can comprehend the sort of intelligence that is evil, it does not mean at all that he is 'fallen' and utterly consumed by it himself. He is obviously not evil himself; I cannot believe your thick-skulledness in continuing to think that that is what I mean. I should think it was perfectly clear what I (and the Lord of Angmar) have been saying -- what I don't understand is how you came to reason out the so-called 'logic' you are attempting in your posts.

As for your 'free will' thing, you must realise that I am also not implicating that the creations (i.e. everyone) of Illuvatar do not have it. They do, obviously, as I said about the Orcs; that their apparent sense of intelligence -- and free-will -- makes the theory of their not having any sort of fëa unlikely-seeming. But the sort of mind that makes the free-willing choice to be evil is not the same as the one that makes the choice to be goodly. Each person is different. All I said is that Illuvatar's mind contains the essence of each of these minds, so that he can understand both; it does not mean that his mind is polluted by evil, only that he knows it and sees its purposes. Evil is comprehended by Illuvatar as well as it is by Melkor, but that does not mean that Illuvatar is Melkor (as you seem to think I am implicating). In a sense Eru can be said to see beyond it, which is something Melkor cannot.

-----

Your sense of logic is lacking in some other things you say, as well. It seems to follow the same lines as the above affair, i.e. jumping to remote conclusions from posts instead of actually really understanding what they are saying. Because I gave a quote from the Silmarillion and related that it was 'relevent' -- which you may deny if you'd like, to my further bewilderment -- it does not in any way imply that I consider Morgoth's Ring to be irrelevant. As you'll notice, I never actually said this or anything that could normally be interpreted as such.

One last request, Nils: before you go on to make another post that violently condemns everything I have said, understand that what you think I am trying to say -- as I obviously should know, as it is me that's trying to say it -- is not what I am actually saying. So please, stop putting words in my mouth and stop telling me what I am saying regardless of my honest protests that you have got me wrong; I already know what I am saying, and it is utterly pointless to tell me that I am saying something else when in fact I'm not.
If you have misunderstood it I have clarified for you. If I disagree with your idea of what I have been talking about in this thread, then that is obviously not what I have been talking about.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

As an addition in response to Iarwain, you may be right. It all depends on whether there are implications for a being's evilness or not in redemption; but there might well be. To 'label' the Orcs as evil is something I am not doing, though, as I base my opinion on a backing that I believe is conclusive.

[Nils]

You still don't have it, Nils. Listen for once and thou shalt understand. Nice sarcasm again. smilies/wink.gif

Believe me, I get what you are saying. I think it likely that they, all arrayed together, represent the various thoughts and comprehensions that make up Illuvatar's mind. Some, and especially one (Melkor) of these Ainur, see the use and power of evil and use it for their own ends.I believe I accurately described this and said I disagreed with it when I said:

Each being is not some part of Eru's personality.

I am aware of the fact that I am basing my view of this on Tolkien's other writings that you don't believe hold much water. As Melkor himself came from Illuvatar directly, it is clear that in the pre-mentioned 'all-encompassing intellect of Illuvatar' the kind of mind that Melkor has got is understood and known there. 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. I never said you were saying he is 'only' like Melkor. From your statement "his is also like", it is pretty clear you mean that there is a component of Eru which is like Melkor.

You may not want to admit this and call me thick headed for pointing this out, but that's OK.

As I said, his mind is all-encompassing and understands all of these minds. In the addition of Melkor to this, the capacity to recognise the power and use of evil is clearly also something that Eru posesses.
It seems to me that you are basing this on assumption since Eru never uses his power for evil.

I find it very unlikely that Eru would use his power to go against his own plan. But hey, you look at God your way and I'll look at God my way.

Evil is comprehended by Illuvatar as well as it is by Melkor, but that does not mean that Illuvatar is Melkor (as you seem to think I am implicating). In a sense Eru can be said to see beyond it, which is something Melkor cannot.I don't believe that Melkor understands evil. One need not understand something to be something. I agree with you that Eru does see beyond it which was something Melkor could not do. it does not in any way imply that I consider Morgoth's Ring to be irrelevant. As you'll notice, I never actually said this or anything that could normally be interpreted as such.
Oh, I don't know, you said that Tolkien was just an observer. If you gave weight to what Morgoth's Ring says, you wouldn't hold the view that Orcs are Elves. That was my reason. So please, stop putting words in my mouth and stop telling me what I am saying regardless of my honest protests that you have got me wrong; I already know what I am saying, and it is utterly pointless to tell me that I am saying something else when in fact I'm not.
Sorry if you don't see what I'm trying to say. It is as clear as day that you believe Eru has an evil component. As your 'also' remark points out.

[Lord of Angmar]

It seems to me that you are basing this on assumption since Eru never uses his power for evil.

I find it very unlikely that Eru would use his power to go against his own plan. But hey, you look at God your way and I'll look at God my way.

Sorry if you don't see what I'm trying to say. It is as clear as day that you believe Eru has an evil component

My dear Nils, I'm afraid you are still misinterpreting. We do not believe that Illuvatar is evil or has an evil 'side' or 'component'. We are merely stating that he comprehends evil and can understand the various facets of the evil mind. There is a difference between knowing evil and acting on evil, and we are simply saying that since Iluvatar is the creator of the world then the idea of evil originated within him.

I believe I accurately described this and said I disagreed with it when I said:

Each being is not some part of Eru's personality.

I am aware of the fact that I am basing my view of this on Tolkien's other writings that you don't believe hold much water.

It is not that we don't think that Morgoth's Ring does not 'hold water', it is just that it is no more or less definitive in answering our question than is the Silmarillion, so neither of us cannot be proven entirely right on the origin of orcs or on several other points that have differences between Morgoth's Ring and the Silmarillion.

Furthermore, it is perfectly fine to believe that each of the Ainur does not reflect a certain part of the mind of Eru. Arguments can be made for both sides, but we are not arguing against you. We are rather arguing for our belief in the context of this debate. You have not provided this thread with any textual argument that the differences in personality among the Valar are due to the creation of their own personalities.

What I am saying is - and I am not trying to sound harsh or overbearing - I think you have approached this debate from the wrong perspective. Breaking down each and every one of our entries line by line and picking it apart will not do anything for you or for us. The point here is not to win the debate so much as to glean new understanding of Tolkien's world from the debate. I do not think you are getting the 'Big Picture', as it were, of what others are saying.

In my mind, that 'Big Picture' can be crudely summed up like this:

1. Iluvatar is not 'evil'.
2. Iluvatar fully comprehends evil as an entity within his world, and understands the working of an evil mind, just as he understands all other facets of life and thought within the world that he created.
3. Melkor could not see past his own deeds and could not fully comprehend his own evil. He was, as Nils states, in a 'fallen' state.
4. Orcs, being corrupted Children of Iluvatar, cannot act in any manner that is not considered 'evil' by the incorrupt, but that does not mean that they cannot be redeemed. While they are 'inherently' moved to evil deeds, they are, by and large, the victims of harsh circumstance, and thus (probably) subject to redemption in the afterlife.

[ August 02, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Nils]

There is a difference between knowing evil and acting on evil, and we are simply saying that since Iluvatar is the creator of the world then the idea of evil originated within him.
What is evil?
What I am saying is - and I am not trying to sound harsh or overbearing - I think you have approached this debate from the wrong perspective. Breaking down each and every one of our entries line by line and picking it apart will not do anything for you or for us. I am not trying to pick it apart. I am trying to be clear about what I'm responding to.

As far as the Orc issue goes, I'm sorry, but blowing off the alternate theories and settling on just Elf speaks fairly clearly.

[ August 02, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Lord of Angmar]

I personally have never blown off or dismissed the theory that orcs were corrupted Men. By saying that you prefer a certain theory, as Saucepan Man did, you are not condemning other views, just 1) inviting others to debate or 2) stating your personal preference based on your knowledge.

As for myself, I am of the opinion that perhaps orcs can be either Elves or Men, and I believe that it they were Elves, their corruption would be such that Iluvatar would revoke the gift of immortality from them and purge them from their sins after they died.

[Nils]

By saying that you prefer a certain theory, as Saucepan Man did, you are not condemning other views, just 1) inviting others to debate or 2) stating your personal preference based on your knowledge. As I said in thread on Orcs, I get frustrated when people don't recognize the fact that the Orc issue isn't quite as simple as it appears most would like to think (or do think because they haven't read anything other than the Silmarillion). Out of ignorance of the other books, I can identify with since it is only relatively recently that I was even made aware of the existance of HoME and UT for that matter. Knowing the complexity of the issue and not recognizing it diminishes the issue. Yes, it blows off the issue.

"I know the issue is there, but I don't care" attitude I call blowing off.

Am I condemning other's views? Perhaps, but that is because evidently this issue means more to me than it does to those who are so flippant about it.

[Nils]

I just finished reading the first page of the Orcish Orcish Fear (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000025&p=1) thread and found that Saulotus had the same difficulty I'm having. If he didn't make any headway, I know I'm not going to. I hold Saulotus in very high regard.

Sorry about stepping on people's feet.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Not feeling sorry for yourself are you? I can tell you that Saulotus, who I also held in very high regard, would not have done what you have in this thread. Your apology is of course accepted, though. This quote-war that you have waged has been most irritating.

Basically what has happened is that you have jumped on every little by-point raised, magnified and exagerated it and then thrashed it, giving the raiser of the point (or, as I said, by-point) an aggreved tongue-lashing on the way. Your assumption that I believe Orcs to be corrupted Elves ('If you gave weight to what Morgoth's Ring says, you wouldn't hold the view that Orcs are Elves') is wrong. I don't know where they came from; I don't actually really hold a firm view on the subject of Orcish origin. That's the point of debate. Neither do you know where they come from, although you seem to hold yourself utterly correct and react inflamedly to everyone else's suggestions (which does not add to your own argument at all, as, something you have demonstrated, you can sort of peter out over it).

I never said you were saying he is 'only' like Melkor. From your statement "his is also like", it is pretty clear you mean that there is a component of Eru which is like Melkor.
Alright, but then why do you assume that because Melkor's mind is contained within Illuvatar's larger intellect meant that Illuvatar was evil? Anyway, I actually did mean that 'there is a component of Eru which is like Melkor'. That's exactly what I meant. However, as I said, Illuvatar goes beyond this, so that while he can see and concieve of a Melkor-like mind he is not this himself.

The accusory tones of this post are therefore misplaced.

That you said this
I am aware of the fact that I am basing my view of this on Tolkien's other writings that you don't believe hold much water.
after my assurance that I do in fact consider all of Tolkien's writings to hold 'water' shows the continuing 'thick'ness that you have denied to be in fact plain to see.

Anyway, the Lord of Angmar's summary is a fairly good one. This thread hasn't been bad, actually, despite the conflict encountered. Thanks again for it, by the way. As for Nils -- let's try and establish some sort of workable relationship now, ok? In future discussions I do not wish to repeat this.

[ August 03, 2003: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ]

[Nils]

Not feeling sorry for yourself are you? Not at all. I had just read the thread Orcish Fear and it dawned on me that this topic was discussed long ago and the same arguments that Saul dealt with were being used again. Since I am no where near the scholar Saul is, I decided what I was attempting to do was futile. I can tell you that Saulotus, who I also held in very high regard, would not have done what you have in this thread. Yes I know. What I said, I said out of frustration and I am sorry. I should have followed Saul's example and said:

Believe what you will.

If it is the only theory that makes sense; then why did Tolkien reject it himself?
Why did he spend years devising a new origin?

No-one is in disagreement about the original thought concerning orcs, only that their origin evolved, and its the evolution that is erringly disregarded (yourself inclusive).

Again; believe what you will.

Your assumption that I believe Orcs to be corrupted Elves ('If you gave weight to what Morgoth's Ring says, you wouldn't hold the view that Orcs are Elves') is wrong. I don't know where they came from; I don't actually really hold a firm view on the subject of Orcish origin. I'm sorry, I guess I got you and Saucepan-man mixed up. Neither do you know where they come from, although you seem to hold yourself utterly correct and react inflamedly to everyone else's suggestions (which does not add to your own argument at all, as, something you have demonstrated, you can sort of peter out over it).
As I said, I should have said what Saul said long ago.

Are you done with your reprimand now?

Alright, but then why do you assume that because Melkor's mind is contained within Illuvatar's larger intellect meant that Illuvatar was evil? Anyway, I actually did mean that 'there is a component of Eru which is like Melkor'. That's exactly what I meant. However, as I said, Illuvatar goes beyond this, so that while he can see and concieve of a Melkor-like mind he is not this himself.

Ah yes, there was another issue here. If you don't mind, lets drop the Ork thing and concentrate on this issue.

The problem I have with your view is that it means that there is a component of evil within God. This does not fit with the Christian belief of God and as I said earlier, Tolkien's writing was heavily influenced by his Christian beliefs.

Give me a while and I'll post a reply with quotes. Do you consider Letters to be an authoritative source of information?

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

[Lord of Angmar]

The problem I have with your view is that it means that there is a component of evil within God. This does not fit with the Christian belief of God and as I said earlier, Tolkien's writing was heavily influenced by his Christian beliefs.

Your definition of 'component' is obviously very different from our own. You see the fact that Iluvatar can conceive of and fully understands evil as a flaw. We see it as simply a necessary reality. His mind reflects all ways of thought and every possible idea formed in the minds of his creations. Since Melkor was rebellious against Iluvatar's plans, Iluvatar therefore must understand rebellion and recognize evil within his world. This is not to say that he is evil or that he condones evil. He simply understands the workings of the mind of Melkor and all other evil beings within Ea.

Since Melkor recognized the potential for rebellion and seized the opportunity to rebel against Eru during the singing of the Themes, it can be concluded that Eru conceived of the possibility of rebellion against his will and recognized this as 'evil' before Melkor. The creation of an All-Knowing Being such as Eru cannot think of rebellion without the Creator conceiving of the idea as well.

While it is true that the Christian God does not show signs of being 'evil' (it was he, after all, who came up with the ideas for what is considered 'evil' in the Ten Commandments), it can surely be said that He could see and understand the mind of Lucifer as he descended into Darkness. He knew of evil before Adam and Eve and even before Lucifer, as is shown (and this is open to interpretation) by the Tree which God forbade Adam and Eve from eating from, which represented (in the minds of many Christian scholars) evil, or rebellion against God. God understood evil, understood Lucifer's 'fallen' state, and understood the implications of Adam and Eve eating from the tree, yet that did not make him evil in any way, did it? And since Lucifer was surrounded by Angels and by the Lord himself before his fall, his evil must have been a product of the life given unto him by God.

What I am saying is, a god can conceive of and understand evil, and evil can be a part of the mind of a god, without that god ever acting or thinking in a way that would be considered 'evil.'

[Nils]

Your definition of 'component' is obviously very different from our own. You see the fact that Iluvatar can conceive of and fully understands evil as a flaw. But Gwaihir goes beyond saying that Iluvatar can conceive of and fully understand evil. Gwaihir has gone on to say:

Alright, but then why do you assume that because Melkor's mind is contained within Illuvatar's larger intellect meant that Illuvatar was evil?

Gwaihir says that Melkor's mind is contained within Iluvatar's mind. That is more than just knowledge of evil. That actually contains evil itself.

Do you support this position or not?

His mind reflects all ways of thought and every possible idea formed in the minds of his creations.

Yes and no. Yes God is all knowing, but each person is an individual and not a sub-component of God. You seem to be very close to the line of this issue. Although you may not be going that far, Gwahir is.

Since Melkor was rebellious against Iluvatar's plans, Iluvatar therefore must understand rebellion and recognize evil within his world. This is not to say that he is evil or that he condones evil. He simply understands the workings of the mind of Melkor and all other evil beings within Ea.
If this is all you are saying, then you and Gwahir are not on the same page. I have no problem with your understanding. Since Melkor recognized the potential for rebellion and seized the opportunity to rebel against Eru during the singing of the Themes, it can be concluded that Eru conceived of the possibility of rebellion against his will and recognized this as 'evil' before Melkor. If Eru created the Flame Imperishable, then yes he conceived the idea of free will. At the very least, Eru knew what he was doing when he used the Flame Imperishable. The creation of an All-Knowing Being such as Eru cannot think of rebellion without the Creator conceiving of the idea as well.
I agree. In order to give free will, God must first understand free will. After all, that is what the ability to rebel actually is. What I am saying is, a god can conceive of and understand evil, and evil can be a part of the mind of a god, without that god ever acting or thinking in a way that would be considered 'evil.'
I agree with you. I would use different terms to describe what you are describing, but I agree. As I said earlier, I don't believe you are describing what Gwahir is describing, as I quoted earlier in this post.

[Lord of Angmar]

It seems I have done an inadequate job of explaining myself and defending Gwaihir's viewpoint (which I think is very similar to my own on this subject).

First off, let me start with one idea that I know to be a belief of Tolkien, or at least a fact in Tolkien's book (unfortunately I cannot find The Letters of JRR Tolkien so I am unable to recite the exact text, but bear with me). Iluvatar, the Creator, has the ability to see and fully comprehend the minds of any of the beings within the world that he created. His mind encompasses all realms of thought and all conceivable viewpoints.

Gwaihir says that Melkor's mind is contained within Iluvatar's mind. That is more than just knowledge of evil. That actually contains evil itself.

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. 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. 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.

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 hope you can understand them and glean something from them, Nils, and Gwaihir, I hope that I have not entirely misrepresented your train of thought.

[ August 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[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. smilies/smile.gif

[ 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. smilies/tongue.gif 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. smilies/smile.gif 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.. smilies/eek.gif. 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 smilies/smile.gif) 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 smilies/smile.gif; 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. smilies/wink.gif

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 smilies/smile.gif), 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. smilies/smile.gif
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 smilies/biggrin.gif )

[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 smilies/smile.gif. 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 smilies/smile.gif. 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 smilies/smile.gif), 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 (… smilies/wink.gif 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. smilies/smile.gif 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! smilies/biggrin.gif

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...