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

[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?

[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.

[drigel]

Another thought provoking thread here. I think though, as general and as non-contemporary one can make the argument, it stills falls flat against the philosophy of the works.

SPM:

The expanse of Tolkien's works certainly contain much material for discussion but, on this point, the philosophy behind them is remarkably simple.

Well put. For me, the Saruman device reveals the effect of loss of Hope and Faith. The orc issues that is brought up here were merely his tools that he applies himself to after the fact.

As far as the ring goes, for me the ultimate philosophy taking place here is that the ring is a (albiet negative) devine instrument, created by (albiet fallen) an angel. To use this to govern (for good or bad) the environment/events/souls in the physical plane, is the ultimate affront to Eru. This is why (I think) the author ties the fate of the One to the fate of all other rings of power. No matter how benign the original purpose of creating them, they cannot overcome the Defeat.

[the phantom]

This first part is just sort of a side note, so forgive me for being off-topic.

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.

the philosophy behind them is remarkably simple. In Middle earth, where we are dealing with beings of utter evil

Why is Middle Earth so simple compared to our world? Because we are seeing it through the eyes of one man.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Middle Earth was real life that there would be orc-rights activists making speeches about how humans and dwarves especially had invaded their habitat and the orcs were merely fighting back, and that they are just as valuable a life from as a human.

There would be Sauron sympathizers who would say things like "Sauron's not really evil, he's just going about his goals in a different way. He's had different life experiences. Instead of fighting him, we should try to talk with him and work with him."

There would be those who would demand that the white tree be torn down because "It represents a tie to the Valar and spirituality and that sort of thing has no place in front of a government building".

There would be those who would say it was wrong to call Sauron or anything else "evil". They would ask "Who made you the judge of good and evil?"

Anyway, you get the point. Middle Earth would've been like that had it been real, so the real ME is comparable to our world. We just don't see it that way because we're viewing Middle Earth through the eyes of a single historian who paints things clearly from his viewpoint.

Heh heh, one reason why Middle Earth is so enjoyable is because Tolkien edited out many of the weirdo quack opinions we'd hear if it was real life.

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.

So, are you trying to say that since orcs are basically evil and shouldn't even exist, making more of them goes against the cause? I suppose I would agree with that. But what about using existing orcs to fight Sauron? Isn't that a win win situation? In a battle of orc vs. orc, no matter who wins, there's going to be less orcs in the world.

I may use torture to find out where they were holding my child, but if I did I would be wrong.

Why in the world would you say that? I'd say that if you didn't do everything in your power to save your daughter, her innocent blood would be on your hands as well as the evil men who did it. That would be wrong.

Essentially the West is fighting a moral battle against 'Evil' itself.

Now, if this is how we look at the war with Sauron then you are completely right about using orcs and such. But I was looking at it as a physical battle in addition to a moral battle. If the west demonstrated perfect behavior and had impeccable table manners to boot, but Sauron takes over the world and kills all that is right, it's not really a victory, is it?

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?

It's different in a very major way. Saruman didn't attack Sauron with his orcs! He attacked the good guys!

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Phantom

Why in the world would you say that? I'd say that if you didn't do everything in your power to save your daughter, her innocent blood would be on your hands as well as the evil men who did it. That would be wrong.

Well, this is our true dilemma as fallen beings. Let me quote something I posted a long time ago:

I'm reminded of one of Charles Williams Arthurian poems, where Taliesin, the King's poet, while Arthur is leading the main battle to gain Kingship, goes to Camelot with a small force to depose Cradlemas, the dictator. There is a combat & Taliesin deals Cradlemas a mortal blow & stands watching him die. There's a line, that Taliesin felt 'Righted by earth, but from Heaven displighted', & that 'Cain & he had one immingled brain'. Taliesin has done the 'right' thing - killed a dictator, a monster, helped liberate the people & make way for the peace & justice of Arthur's rule. But at the same time he's taken a life, broken God's law. But what was the alternative? To stand by, be 'Righted by Heaven, but from earth displighted'? Reject his human responsibility & go live in an Ivory Tower & write poetry? Basically, Taliesin is a fallen being in a fallen world & will fail in one way or another, & can only be saved by 'Grace'.

(Full post here:http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...4&postcount=59)

In short, if I used torture to save my child I would be gaining a 'worldly' victory - I would be 'righted by earth', but I would be acting 'immorally' by going against a 'moral absolute' - ie It is wrong to torture another human being. So, I would be 'displighted from Heaven'. This, for me, is one of the central themes of LotR - we are fallen beings, & so live in an impossible situation. We cannot save ourselves - we are repeatedly put into situations where we are damned if we do & damned of we don't. I couldn't stand by & leave my child to be tortured to death. I would have an obligation to do everything I could to save her - like Taliesin was forced to kill Cradlemas - but I couldn't claim to have acted 'morally' in so doing.

Now, if this is how we look at the war with Sauron then you are completely right about using orcs and such. But I was looking at it as a physical battle in addition to a moral battle. If the west demonstrated perfect behavior and had impeccable table manners to boot, but Sauron takes over the world and kills all that is right, it's not really a victory, is it?

Its a moralvictory. To intentionally use Sauron's methods to defeat him - which is not what Aragorn does in calling the Dead to fulfil their oath - would perhaps bring about a worldly victory, but it would at the same time & for that very reason be an immoral one. The West would be 'displighted by Heaven', & thier cause would be lost even as they achieved their goal.

Let's face it - we all die - even my child would one day die whether I rescued her from the kidnappers or not. Death, 'defeat' (from a worldly perspective), is inevitable. We must, as far as we can, choose the moral path. We may not always be able to, but when we fall to do so we must acknowledge that failure & not pretend it was a 'success'.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

As far as the ring goes, for me the ultimate philosophy taking place here is that the ring is a (albiet negative) devine instrument, created by (albiet fallen) an angel. To use this to govern (for good or bad) the environment/events/souls in the physical plane, is the ultimate affront to Eru. This is why (I think) the author ties the fate of the One to the fate of all other rings of power. No matter how benign the original purpose of creating them, they cannot overcome the Defeat.

I wonder whether this really has anything to do with the question of the Ring's evil? True, Sauron is a Maia. Also true, Sauron created the Ring to dominate. But Celebrimbor's rings weren't much different, except in scope. Celebrimbor was not evil, nor was he a Maia; but he was definately ambitious and there was certainly an element of desire for power and governance in his crafting of them. That's really the point of Ring-making in the first place. They all were intended to be objects of power, hence the term "Rings of Power". I don't think the Ring's intrinsic evil has anything to do with its nature as an object of semi-divine power, but the evil nature and intent of its creator and the evil nature of the power residing in it.

I believe the same thing would go for the use of orcs by the forces of good. Even though one could use them (or attempt to use them) in a way contrary to the original intent, the power of their maker is still resident in them, and his intentions were evil. May I make a comparison to the Oath of Feanor? The Oath was sworn in anger and was unbreakable. Although later the purposes of the Oath were questioned by the Sons of Feanor and even though it drove them to slay their own kin on two separate occasions, the original intent of the Oath was inescapable. As Littlemanpoet commented on this thread:

The oaths they swear seem to follow them like a bad smell.

I would argue the same for the intent with which things in Middle Earth are created. Up to and including Orcs.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Middle Earth was real life that there would be orc-rights activists making speeches about how humans and dwarves especially had invaded their habitat and the orcs were merely fighting back, and that they are just as valuable a life from as a human.

There would be Sauron sympathizers who would say things like "Sauron's not really evil, he's just going about his goals in a different way. He's had different life experiences. Instead of fighting him, we should try to talk with him and work with him."

There would be those who would demand that the white tree be torn down because "It represents a tie to the Valar and spirituality and that sort of thing has no place in front of a government building".

There would be those who would say it was wrong to call Sauron or anything else "evil". They would ask "Who made you the judge of good and evil?"

Anyway, you get the point. Middle Earth would've been like that had it been real, so the real ME is comparable to our world. We just don't see it that way because we're viewing Middle Earth through the eyes of a single historian who paints things clearly from his viewpoint.

Phantom I have grave doubts that any of this would happen in a living ME. These are clearly modern attitudes and Middle Earth was clearly not a modern world. Perhaps now in what was once Middle Earth there would be that kind of modern thought; but this world is what Tolkien imagined as Middle Earth some five-thousand years later, and lo and behold we do have all the things you mentioned (well, in principle at least). But we didn't have them until the last few centuries. And we certainly wouldn't have had them five thousand year ago.

Not sure whether I've strayed too far from the real topic here, but I thought these bits were worth addressing.

Sophia

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sophia the Thunder Mistress

But Celebrimbor's rings weren't much different, except in scope. Celebrimbor was not evil, nor was he a Maia; but he was definately ambitious and there was certainly an element of desire for power and governance in his crafting of them. That's really the point of Ring-making in the first place. They all were intended to be objects of power, hence the term "Rings of Power".

From reading Unfinished Tales, it becomes apparent that Celebrimbor may have created the Elven rings, certainly Nenya, out of love for Galadriel. I mentioned this in this post here, in the Osanwe-kenta/Rings of Power thread. Celebrimbor actually says:

"But you know that I love you (though you turn to Celeborn of the trees), and for that love I will do what I can, if happily by my art your grief can be lessened."

He makes the Elessar for her, and later, replaces this with the no doubt more 'advanced' Nenya. The question here is whether making a ring of power is wrong it itself, and how different is being driven by love from being driven by hate? That would depend, I suppose, on what sort of love Celebrimbor has for Galadriel, which to me appears almost devotional. He is not driven by lust, which would be wrong in Tolkien's world; there is a definite distinction between lust and love in his tales. The One Ring and the Orcs, meanwhile, were certainly not made out of love, but of hate, and perhaps also pride, anger and greed. Therefore to use such 'things' would be to use something created for all the wrong reasons.

EDIT: And an afterthought which I forgot to add:

Originally Posted by The Phantom

There would be those who would say it was wrong to call Sauron or anything else "evil". They would ask "Who made you the judge of good and evil?"

Middle Earth is a lot clearer, morally speaking, than our own world. We live in a world filled with grey areas, and it is exceedingly rare (thankfully) to come across a figure as patently evil as Sauron. But even in Middle Earth not everything is black and white, Gollum being one example. As Gandalf says:

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.