[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not sure we can draw this kind of distinction between their cause & their means.

I understand what you are saying, davem. If the "cause" is taken as the defeat of Sauron, then it remains the same whatever means are employed. But if it is taken as the defeat of Sauron according to the will of Eru, then the means become all-important when defining the cause. I interpreted the statement along the former lines. But, as I have said, I could be wrong. In which case, I would agree that the statement does not accord with the philosophy espoused in the book. My point was that we cannot be certain which way he meant it.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Huh? I’m a little confused. I thought that the whole point of using orcs was to let them be orcs, just on somebody else. That does not really seem like redeeming them.

You are right to pull me up. I was not sufficiently clear. I did not mean to say that the West using Orcs would automatically redeem them. I meant that, if the West used them and if that redeemed them (like Aragorn's use of the Oathbreakers redeemed them), then that would be justifiable. But you are right. That is not what Tolkien implied in his statement. If the West had employed Orcs and they had acted just as Orcs normally do, then that would not be a means which justified the end.