...and Gandalf suddenly had a brilliant idea of how to win the war.

[the phantom]

But just because a 'thing' exists doesn't necessarily make it OK to use it, and though I know you're not saying that it would be perfectly OK to use The One Ring or Orc breeding

Indeed, I never said it was proper. I am trying to temporarily suspend such a judgment. My point was that the use of orcs does not condemn one the same way Melkor's creation of orcs condemned him.

Would everyone agree that it is acceptable to hire (or otherwise compel) a non-western army to fight Sauron? I don't see anything wrong with that, and neither did Tolkien. He saw nothing wrong with fighting evil with evil's own devices. Remember the Paths of the Dead? Legolas said this in ROTK, The Last Debate-

Strange and wonderful I thought it that the designs of Mordor should be overthrown by such wraiths of fear and darkness. With its own weapons was it worsted!

So, what do you guys have to say about that?

And Lal, about this-

They were invented and used, but it does not make it OK to use them again

You can't make a blanket statement like that about nukes or almost anything unless the thing is in and of itself evil. You must always consider circumstance and consequences.

If Montreal dropped a nuke on Toronto because they were jealous, that'd be wrong.

But if Toronto was Mordor and Sauron was about to release a virus that would end all life on Earth, I think most sane people would excuse Montreal for dropping a nuke.

Might the same thing apply to the use of orcs?

But then I must ask, is there a difference between breeding orcs to make an army and hiring an army of existing orcs? Or is there a difference between breeding normal orcs and making a new strain of orcs?

What are your opinions on this?

And I just saw your post, Davem.

Tolkien seems to be saying that, in the last resort, anything is permissible in order to defeat Evil.

Do you disagree a bit, or completely? Let me tell you all a little story I heard used one time. Take a minute and put yourself into the story. Experience it and think about it.

There are two bad guys. They kidnap your daughter (if you don't have one- pick someone very dear to you). They plan on torturing her for a week and then executing her. You somehow capture one of the men. He refuses to tell you where she is being held.

How far would you go to get him to talk? What would you do to save the life of the person who is most precious to you?

This is an excellent illustration of how behavior does not always stand alone. Circumstances and consequences play a role.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by the phantom

You can't make a blanket statement like that about nukes or almost anything unless the thing is in and of itself evil. You must always consider circumstance and consequences.

If Montreal dropped a nuke on Toronto because they were jealous, that'd be wrong.

But if Toronto was Mordor and Sauron was about to release a virus that would end all life on Earth, I think most sane people would excuse Montreal for dropping a nuke.

Yet some things are 'of themselves evil', and that would include, amongst many other things, weapons of mass destruction (and weapons of mass distraction, which is what 'non-aggressive' countries use, but that's another can of worms). The reason they are evil is that they catch up people who are not involved, and the very possession of such things bestows a level of power on a state which can unbalance the world.

In the case of such a thing as the Ring, we can clearly see this in action. The very existence of such a thing puts the whole of Middle Earth on the knife edge of disaster. The fact that so many of the great and the good refuse the Ring shows just how wise they are, in that they not only know how dangerous such an item is, but they can see that to have such an item would put them in the same position as Sauron, in that they would hold a level of power that is not right or good.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Well, the cause might have, but could it still be said to be their cause? Wouldn't they have deserted the cause by employing the enemy's tactics. Effectively Eru's cause would have no-one to support it. In short, I think Tolkien is wrong. He's effectively saying the end justifies the means, when in fact the 'end' is always determined by the means used.

But davem, daring statement or not, I completely agree with what you've said in this post.

Regardless of the real-world complexity that Lalwende and the phantom are doing a good job discussing, things are much simpler in Middle-Earth, for one reason: Sauron is utterly corrupt and indisputably evil. He isn't a misguided leader, or even insane. He longs for the destruction of goodness itself.

It goes against the very idea that drives the Council of Elrond to send the Ring to Mordor to say that the defenders of Good can use Sauron's tools against him.

That is to say, unless these orcs were radically redeemed and reformed. But that's a topic for another thread...

Sophia

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, the cause might have, but could it still be said to be their cause? Wouldn't they have deserted the cause by employing the enemy's tactics. Effectively Eru's cause would have no-one to support it. In short, I think Tolkien is wrong.

But how can you so definitively take the position that Tolkien was wrong when we can never know exactly what it was he meant by this statement? You place great emphasis on the word "their", but I think that the problem can be resolved by viewing their cause and their means as distinct. Their cause was right but their (hypothetical) means would have been wrong. I may be wrong in my interpretation of the statement, but we cannot know for sure.

Originally Posted by the phantom

You can't make a blanket statement like that about nukes or almost anything unless the thing is in and of itself evil. You must always consider circumstance and consequences.

I agree. Which is why I said that things are much more complicated in real life. The expanse of Tolkien's works certainly contain much material for discussion but, on this point, the philosophy behind them is remarkably simple. In Middle earth, where we are dealing with beings of utter evil, using their means (by which I mean intrinsically evil means such as the Ring or home-bred Orcs, rather than a catapult or an Orcish sword) to defeat them can never be justified. As Sophia said:

... things are much simpler in Middle-Earth, for one reason: Sauron is utterly corrupt and indisputably evil. He isn't a misguided leader, or even insane. He longs for the destruction of goodness itself.

For this very reason, it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw analogies in this matter with events in our own world (current, historic or hypothetical). Indeed, in light of the extracts which Child quotes, this is a trap that Tolkien himself fell into, one which led to him making this contentious statement (although, as Child also points out, it was never intended for public consumption).

Originally Posted by phantom

But then I must ask, is there a difference between breeding orcs to make an army and hiring an army of existing orcs?

Yes. I think that there is a distinction to be made here. On the basis of what Tolkien says in his Letters, Orcs are inherently evil (although not necessarily iredeemable) beings. If the West were to breed them or create a different strain, then they would be no better than the Enemy. But if they were to use Orcs against Sauron and thereby redeem them, then that, I think, could be justified. To my mind, this answers your point about Aragorn using the Army of the Dead. By doing so, he releases them from the Oath that they broke and thereby redeems them.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Not if they pull a Saruman and create a new strain.

At the risk of opening up the ole "what exactly are orcs" can o' worms, by breeding orcs and/or adding new DNA to the pool, one would be perpetuating and expanding upon the maiming of Life that Melkor engaged in.

Let us, for a time, pretend that Middle Earth had the science, technology, will, and all else needed to tweak genetics. They've also got super-mommies, just for the other part of my "what if".

My Adv.Biology teacher has this lovely nice big poster on his wall with several quotes, one being "Are you a part of nature, or apart from nature. Either answer has consequences." That one has nothing to do with my point. The important on to my slightly wandering line of thought is "Nature or Nurture?"

We already know that orcs are evil by nature, having been created thus. Even if Middle Earth had my afore mentioned super-mommies, they wouldn't have been able to nurture orcs into being decent creatures. It goes against what they are.

So let's say the good guys have the facilities to tweak the orcs' genetics and make them nice little Eru-friendly creations that hate Sauron [and all the other evil guys]. After switching a few Ts with Cs, some As with Gs, Middle Earth has new quick-breeding ARMIES of good orcs.

As incredibly unlikely as it sounds, say this happened somehow. Is "The West" doing right or wrong with it? Let's go with right; the good guys have taken something wholly evil and made it good. With it, they can defeat the evil. The wrong; they have manipulated Nature, or more accurately, played Eru. Melkor already took advantage of his gift of sub-creation, but now the good guys, in order to make his no-no into a yes-yes, did the same thing. They played with something that Eru's currently got in existence (because let's face it, if Eru wanted the orcs gone, they wouldn't exist), and that's exactly what Morgoth did!

Actually, allow me to even incorporate my teacher's other quote. "Are you a part of nature, or apart from nature?" Which heading do orcs fall into? They are alive, so they are a part of nature, yes? But they are a creation of one that is not Eru, so they are apart from nature. But then again, if that is criteria for being apart from nature, than the Naugrim aren't natural either. But ignoring the Stunted People...

Orcs were made in mockery of something that belongs in Middle Earth's nature. So they are not natural, although they have qualities of natural beings. Because orcs are already unnatural, does that make it okay to play with their genes, because they are already screwed up? Would "The West" tweaking orcs to fit their needs be like Hitler's fetish with blonde hair and blue eyes, or would it be like an artist saying "Oops. Well, the sculpture is already screwed up, so let's see if I can turn it into something else."?

...

[Kuruharan]

But if they were to use Orcs against Sauron and thereby redeem them, then that, I think, could be justified.

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.

So let's say the good guys have the facilities to tweak the orcs' genetics and make them nice little Eru-friendly creations that hate Sauron [and all the other evil guys]. After switching a few Ts with Cs, some As with Gs, Middle Earth has new quick-breeding ARMIES of good orcs.

It is difficult not to “get current” in answering a question like this because of the similarity to the cloning controversies of our own day, but in just trying to take a stab at it, I’d say that Eru would probably not appreciate it. Part of the fundamental nature of orcs is that they are chained to the will of another being. When Sauron went *poof* the orcs did as well. In order to make them good, their will would have to be chained to somebody else’s (read Gandalf). So the orcs would still be a race enslaved by their very nature, a perversion of life.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

You place great emphasis on the word "their", but I think that the problem can be resolved by viewing their cause and their means as distinct. Their cause was right but their (hypothetical) means would have been wrong. I may be wrong in my interpretation of the statement, but we cannot know for sure.

I'm not sure we can draw this kind of distinction between their cause & their means. If they had employed the methods Tolkien is describing they would, to my mind, have been motivated by a different 'cause'. Their 'cause' would have been merely the defeat of Sauron by whatever means. The end of that road would inevitably have been the use of the Ring, if the ultimate & total defeat of Sauron would have required that.

I don't think that was their true cause. They were motivated niot by what they were fighting against, but by what they were fighting for. For the West it was never a question of merely defeating Sauron. They were struggling (consciously or unconsciously) against the 'wrongness' they percieved in Arda. They had a vision (or at least a sense) of how the world should be. And that vision or 'sense' did not include orcs at all.

To employ orcs to achieve their ends would have been equivalent to them using the Ring itself - just on a smaller scale. Using orcs, like using the Ring, would have made them no different than Sauron. We could even speculate on whether if they had defeated Sauron and destroyed the Ring they wouldn't eventually have gone on & created their own equivalent of it, because they would have adopted a 'Sauronian' mindset.

Originally Posted by The Phantom

There are two bad guys. They kidnap your daughter (if you don't have one- pick someone very dear to you). They plan on torturing her for a week and then executing her. You somehow capture one of the men. He refuses to tell you where she is being held.

How far would you go to get him to talk? What would you do to save the life of the person who is most precious to you?

This is an excellent illustration of how behavior does not always stand alone. Circumstances and consequences play a role.

Yes they do, & in that position (wildly hypothetical as it may be) I may do extreme things to get the information I needed. But that's not the point. I may use torture to find out where they were holding my child, but if I did I would be wrong. I would be no different to the kidnappers - like them I would be using torture to get what I wanted.

But I'm not sure your analogy works in the context of this discussion. The fate of my child is not the fate of the world. Essentially the West is fighting a moral battle against 'Evil' itself. To adopt the methods of 'Evil' is to lose before you start. 'Good' wins out in the end because it is 'Good', not because it is more powerful than 'Evil'. We side with the West because they are in the right. Its not just their cause, but the means they employ in carrying it out that makes them 'heroes'. This is not a war of handsome heroes vs ugly monsters. Its a war of Good vs Evil, Right vs Wrong.

As Brian Rosebury has pointed out, in LotR its essential that Evil brings about its own fall through the very means it chooses to employ - cruelty, malice, treachery, lack of trust & wanton destruction are what bring about Mordor's ultimate defeat. Sauron & Saruman destroy themselves through the means they employ to achieve their cause. Let's not forget that Saruman wanted order & peace - just on his own terms. How far had he actually strayed from the mission he was sent to perform? How far (in his own mind at least) had he lost sight of his cause? Actually, what he seems to have done is to use orcs in order to achieve what he had been sent to Middle earth to do.

So even if in desperation ‘the West’ had bred or hired hordes of orcs and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right.

How is that different from what Saruman did?