Orcseys - always Evil?

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I read from this that evil is the natural state for an Orc, something that is an essential part of the Orc's nature and which the Orc itself is unable to change. Accordingly, I would instead say that they have limited free will. Their choices will always be limited by their natural impulse to evil.

Sounds quite depressing... At least for the orcs.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Sounds quite depressing... At least for the orcs.

Indeed. As I have said, I have major philosophical difficulties with the idea of a race of beings that are evil by their very nature, through no choice or fault of their own. An Orc is evil simply by virtue of being born an Orc. He or she has no choice in the matter. And that does seem terribly unfair.

I think Tolkien recognised this. Hence his later thoughts which envisioned Orcs as soulless beasts rather than sentient beings. I am not sure that this necessarily solves the problem, though, as they are still living things that suffer by virtue of their naturally evil state, whether or not they have souls.

But is it any less depressing to regard Orcs as being capable of repentance and/or redemption? As being capable of being “cured” of their evil state? I am not so sure that it is, given that there is no suggestion in any of Tolkien’s writings that this ever actually occurred. Indeed, they seem to be regarded by those on the side of good as being naturally evil and incapable of redemption or repentance, whether or not this is the case. The treatment of Orcs, for example, is in marked contrast to the treatment of those Men who served evil, such as the Dunlendings, whose gripe against Rohan is given some justification and with whom the Rohirrim are seen to be reconciled following the battle of Helm’s Deep, and the Haradrim, for whom some sympathy is engendered in Sam’s musings upon the fallen warrior in Ithilien. Orcs are never regarded through the same sympathetic eyes and nor are they ever shown any mercy by those on the side of good.

The fact is that, even if they were not evil by their very nature, the chances of an Orc ever being “reformed” are extremely slim. Their appearance, their temperaments, their reputation, the nature of the societies into which they are born (or spawned ) and their likely upbringing all mitigate so severely against their likely rehabilitation as to make the chances of it ever happening virtually nil. Which is little better, in practical terms, than being “irredeemably” evil.

[Morsul the Dark]

However there has never been a chance of redemption because they were raised by evil that was raised by evil if you get my meaning

I think an Orc raised by caring parents would in fact be good

I view it almost as such, Sparta

Sparta(a war society IE orcs):Spartans were raised to love war and bloodshed like orcs are it seems to me that orcs however go that much further and i almost think that orcs geneticly are an all male society and the only way to reproduce is well i hate to use the word but it must be said raping innocent women an act that if any compassion was in an orc would be unthinkable that is to say the strong emotioonless have survived while the compassionates have died out.

So now Orcs are evil by nature however earlier in thei evolution there were im willing to bet those that were compassionate

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Morsul

So now Orcs are evil by nature however earlier in thei evolution there were im willing to bet those that were compassionate

Orcs did not evolve. Indeed, there is little room for evolution of any kind in Middle-earth, as envisioned by Tolkien.

Orcs were "created" by Morgoth to serve him. Tolkien states that they were "creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad". If anything, therefore, the original Orcs had less chance of redemption than those living at the time of the War of the Ring.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Sauce

I read from this that evil is the natural state for an Orc, something that is an essential part of the Orc's nature and which the Orc itself is unable to change. Accordingly, I would instead say that they have limited free will. Their choices will always be limited by their natural impulse to evil.

I think it's a troubling thought that a living thing would constantly be driven by natural impulses to evil. Although the difference is small, and the concept isn't any happier, I'd rather think that orcs were incapable of doing good. They were created that way, and evil was a consequence of their actions, not the reason.

Originally Posted by Sauce

Indeed, they seem to be regarded by those on the side of good as being naturally evil and incapable of redemption or repentance, whether or not this is the case.

I've been wondering if the whole 'pure evilness' is mostly just the point of view of the free races of the Middle-earth. Since they are the ones who have done all the writing (Bilbo wrote the Hobbit etc.) we get a rather limited view of orcs. Surely orcs considered Men and Elves to be pretty wicked, too. Weren't they able to do good deeds even among their own kin? The Letters probably give a more unbiased picture of the orcs, but since I don't have them, I can't tell.

However, I can't help feeling that there is something vaguely similar to the fact that a certain instinct makes dogs usually chase cats and yet you can't say that one of them is really evil. They are animals, yes, but it's not easy to put out an old hatred between two races even if neither of them remembers where it all started. Besides, orcs are slaves commanded by higher individuals. You either obey or die, and I think surviving is a much stronger instinct than seeking for justice.

That leads me to another question. Did orcs realize that there could have been something better - did they long for 'a change for goodness'? I'm sure they didn't actually like all the whipping and hard work, but were they able to imagine a better life (I haven't found the quote Hookbill mentioned either), and I mean more than thoughs like "no whipping" and "a long nap"? If they didn't realize their glum situation, and the horridness of their deeds, how could they have done anything good to improve it...

Originally Posted by Hookbill

I would guess that it is plausible, then, that the Orcs could be 'cured' of their violent ways if given the opportunity.

I think cured or even 'cured' might be a bit too optimistic. I'm inclined to think that orcs could have learned to hold back/ control their evilness (much like in the examples of lion cubs) or even taught what is regarded as good behaviour, but they would have done it because someone superior told them to. If the orcs lacked the ability to comprehend other people, goodness could have never become a natural part of them.

A good orc obeyed orders, but was he able to independently think what would cause pleasure to another individual? It's the conscience and the ability to empathize that separates the humankind from animals. Conscience is something that you don't even have to teach for a kid, it comes naturally. If the orcs didn't have it, I'd say that they were indeed lesser beings than people, thus unable to do good at their own initiative and enjoy it (if orcs even could feel plain happiness instead of victorious exultation after a battle, for example).

Originally Posted by Lommy

Hmm... Didn't Tolkien say in the Letters that orcs represent all that is bad in human race? And said some people to be the orcs of modern days? I think - though a bit irrelevant matter - might point to some orcish free will.

Tolkien believed that humans have free will, right? Then (in my logic) also those Tolkien's "modern orcs" (= badly behaving humans) have free will and why should they be compared to orcs if orcs haven't some sort of free will? If orcs were bound to do the "evil" deeds they did how could they be compared to humans who have free will?

I take it that badly behaving people are being compared to orcs just because in the eyes of "decent" people, orcs generally behave badly. I don't think the matter of free will has necessarily much to do with this - I mean, you can compare a human being to a tomato if he looks red, but it doesn't mean that he'd be a vegetable. I can't believe that Tolkien would have meant that some people actually are descendants of orcs (I don't think you even meant that), but if that's the case, the answer must be that orcs could be raised to have some sense of right and wrong (and thus the ability to do good) since that's natural to all people.

[davem]

At the same time orcs are inhabitants of Faerie, they are not human & so we can't attribute human moral values to them. They are what they are. I think Tolkien made a major mistake when he attempted to 'explain' their nature. In TH & LotR they simply behave like we'd expect Orcs to behave.

Obviously there is a difference between the Orcs of LotR & the Sil & the Goblins of TH - & the Father Christmas Letters come to that. In the latter two works we are dealing with Faerie creatures, wicked by nature because that's what Goblins are like in Faerie.

Of course, we have to keep in mind that both TH & FCL we're written for Tolkien's children at a very difficult time - the world was a very unstable place, & during the latter years in which the FCL were being written WWII was in full swing & there are constant references to the war (Tolkien as Father Christmas mentions on a couple of occasions that there are some children who have no homes or much food, so that is why the Tolkien children cannot expect to get all the presents they have asked him for, & tells of how Goblin attacks have destroyed or depleted the toys his Elves had made - or stolen them, & that's why the children will not get what they asked for (apparently the Tolkien boys had a great liking for Hornby train sets, but these were favourites of the Goblins too!)).

Anyway, all this to say that Tolkien's children's stories, & the beings they depict, are simple & straightforward, & deep moral questions & ethical dilemmas are out of place in them. There are good people & bad people, & those two works in particular are in part attempts to give a 'mythological' mirror of the real world his children were having to live in.

As to the Orcs in LotR & The Sil, these are still basically malicious & cruel creatures out of Faerie, but they also take on an aspect of the demons of Christianity. Demons are fallen angels, but once fallen they are irredemable (it seems all the Good' in them was left in Heaven when they fell).

This was clearly Tolkien's problem. As Middle-earth moved further & further away from its Faerie origins, its inhabitants became effectively more 'human' in a moral sense (or an immoral one). Tolkien has to account for the Orcs. They can either be 'robots' with no capacity for moral choices, or they can be sentient beings who simply, & always, choose evil.

I'm not sure that Tolkien made a wise decision when he set out to 'explain' the Orcs - simply, they can't be explained. Goblins (& Elves & Dwarves - & Men too, for that matter) were around long before Tolkien (& are still around after him). Some things just are - they have a nature that cannot be explained, & that applies particularly to the inhabitants of Faerie.

No individual human being is an Orc, but at the same time 'Orcishness' is an aspect of the Human which has always been there & probably always will be. Hence the 'Long Defeat' - one battle to be fought after another forever (or for as long as Humans are around). Because there's an Orc in all of us - but then again there's also an Elf (& a Hobbit) in all of us as well, & that's why we keep on fighting, because we know deep down that 'they cannot conquer forever'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

At the same time orcs are inhabitants of Faerie, they are not human & so we can't attribute human moral values to them.

But the difficulty, as far as I am concerned, is not so much in trying to understand Orcish "morality", but rather why they are condemned to a life of evil (portrayed as wrong by Tolkien in his writings) through no fault or choice of their own and indiscriminately slain without remorse by those on the side of good. That raises questions about the morality of the world which Tolkien created and the nature of the struggle between "good" and "evil" which is at the centre of it. And, while that world may have been Faerie in origin, it was also a Christian one, consciously so in the revision.

Therein, surely, lies the reasoning which led Tolkien to attempt to "explain" their natures and, given his faith, I can understand why he tried to do so.