Are orcs actually evil?
 

Are orcs actually evil?
Tolkien represents them as filthy,nasty,evil creatures and the elves as beautiful and wonderful,but is that the truth? :eek:

They were made in mockery of the Elves and were puppet-slaves (because of fear for) Morgoth and Sauron. Despite how "evil" they were, Tolkien liked to think that even Orcs weren't beyond redemption:

They are evil, because that is what they were created to be. Morgoth made orcs for the sole purpose of having an army of evil minions, basically. Of course, nothing is beyond redemption (besides osama). I think that even orcs could be good, but I also think that they would resist the attempt. Also, I dont think all elves are good. They are a "pure" race, but not without faults. Put this question down to ask Tolkien once you go to heaven. :)

I like to think orcs had the potential for redemption,
as JRRT suggests in Letters . And he specifically
notes that elves "were not entirely in the right"
in that same book. The classic conflicted elf, to me, is Maedhros.
The surviving Third Age elves had both learned to temper their
arrogance, and also most of them were basically "refusenik"
elves who had declined to go to Valinor.

One example of orcs showing companionship and
cameraderie was Rosenkrantz and Gilderstern (Gorbag
and Shagrat), who seem in the past to have been
fairly successful entrepreneurs---and perhaps their
quarrel was as much due to the baleful influence of the
Ring as orc testiness.

Hey ninja 91,I am not so sure I am going to heaven ;)
But if I do and if I meet Tolkien there,I`ll ask him all the things I want to know... ;)

It's an odd question that we've spoken about before. To what extent are the orcs responsible for their actions? Are they always taught to hate and kill elves, men and dwarves? If they grow up believing this to be correct and were never taught contrary and are more or less forces into this are they responsible? No I don't think they are wholly responsible. I don't have the exact quote but I remember that Melkor creating the orcs was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, crime he committed. I think most of the culpability rests in him.

For example a parent has a child and teaches him a concept that most would view as 'evil' but the child is never exposed to the truth and is never shown the error of his ways. Is he responsible for errant actions? I would say no! It doesn't seem just to say that a being is responsible for adhering to a principle it has never learned.

Why, it's right about you in Letter 153:
I agree, responsibility must be laid upon Morgoth, as the Letter continued:
This makes it seem like for Orcs to even exist (or in order for them to be "created") Morgoth needed to spew all the evil and hatred into them.

The orcs had only one purpose when they were created by Morgorth and this was to aid in his desctruction and plan of taking over the world in the First Age. Since the Orcs know only one way of life, I find it very hard to see them in any way redeemable.

Are they acting of their own accord and to what level is their knowledge of the actions? If they do not know what they do is wrong can they truly be accountable? If at work you are not adhering to a certain policy, however you were never informed of the policy and in fact you were taught contrary to said policy, can you be truly culpable?

This observation, is, essentially, I think, "canon", and would seem
to contradict the view by many
(including but not confined to ArathorofBarahir):
If orc's are rational, Middle-earth creatures it would seem there
must be a possibility of redemption for any individual orc. As
individuals and a society a long period of "detox" would
presumably be necessary, but possible.

Orcs take joy in causing death and destruction. They know what they are doing and therefore cannot be redeemed. Orcs are evil, plain and simple.

Arathor, I'm afraid you are mixing the Orcs Tolkien created with the common stereotypical view of Orcs that is common in literature. See, Tolkien created Orcs that are much more complex and have the human feelings of individualism and free will. What you've said completely contradicts what we see Orcs are capable of doing in Tolkien's story.

First you disregarded Letter 153 where Tolkien directly says that even Orcs were not beyond redemption, also consider these...

1) The Orcs were certainly capable of rebelling against Morgoth and Sauron:
2) We see a glimpse of a more humane side of Orcs with the discussion between Shagrat and Gorbag:
Even Orcs had a desire to settle down and get away from the 'big bosses.' Sure we see them as the spiteful, hateful, ant-like slaves of Sauron and Morgoth. Yet they were much more complex than that stereotypical label. They could not be part of the 'cogs' of the machine. They could rebel and they could feel a desire of individualism.

Now, see, this use of Letter #153 goes to the heart of our use of Tolkien's Letters. The very looong draft is, I think, an excellent example of Tolkien's love of pinhead debate, that is, angels dancing etc. It also rather provides a commendable model for much of our discussions here. (Well, certainly, the current I found the Entwives thread gives more than passing nod to Tolkien's linguistic legerdemain and a great lot of fun it is.)

When is a letter canonical and when is it not? When is it a legitimate expression of Tolkien's intention and when is it rather expressive of his delight in debate?

What is called Letter #153 by Carpenter was in fact never sent to Peter Hastings, Tolkien's Catholic questioner. It is identified as a "draft" at the top of the letter and given a specific qualification at the conclusion. Here's the note at the end of the draft, p. 196 in my paperback edition of the Letters:

Now isn't that an absolutely fascinating sentence structure! "It seemed" refers to the letter, as something taking Tolkien too seriously. It isn't "I seemed to be taking myself too seriously." Tolkien steps away from authorial omnisience and hands it over to the letter itself. Now there's a writerly sleight of hand if ever I saw one!

I would argue that we should take this entire draft as speculative on Tolkien's part, an intellectual challenge. Hastings had seriously questioned part of the sub-creation in terms of Catholic theology. I can myself quite imagine a Tolkien, clever wag that he was, delighting in the exercise of seeing if he could prove Mr. Hastings wrong by delineating how consistent his sub-creation was or was not with the primary world. Why, look, he even used "orc" not metaphorically to refer to barbarians in his own world, but to the sub-created creatures of Melkor and then he used "God" rather than "Eru". Talk about deliberately muddying the waters for such a serious questioner. I'm sure Tolkien would have made an excellent Jesuit!

No, I don't think we can in all seriousness--although in a great deal of play--use this draft as an example of Tolkien's intention. It has altogether the air of intellectual gamesmanship--an air which Tolkien himself recognised when he decided not to send it. It needs to be appreciated as such, methinks.

(Note also, that Carpenter says "the draft ends here", as if Tokien gave up the game before he came to what would have been the logical conclusion.)

Now, if this post is technically off-topic in that it does not specifically address the oft-visited Orc question, well, then, let it stand as a study in the nature of evidence we ought to employ in visiting the orc question. :p ;)

Bethberry, everything would be so much easier if you just nodded your head and agreed with me. :rolleyes:

Ok, seriously though, great stuff. I had no idea about any of that. But now the pressure is on you. What do you think about Tolkien's Orcs? Were the outright evil and wicked? Or was there a chance for their redemption...for as we do see in the Lord of the Rings (and not Tolkien's messy Letters), the Orcs did have and idea of individualism and could not 'live' within 'the machine.' ;)

Bêthberry and Boromir - Great comments.

I'd like to throw one more quotation in the pot:

This is another fine example of Tolkien answering a question without actually answering it. :D I love the phrase "might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men)". (Hmm... There is a sneaky hint here that the situation could have been regarded differently in the eyes of the Valar or Eru.)

Still, JRRT was at least willing to consider the possibility that an Orc might plead for mercy. If a orcs had the ability to make such a plea (and why would Tolkien raise the point unless he felt that they had that ability?), I think they might be able to be "redeemed" in some form or fashion.

Actually, what I find most interesting is not what Tolkien said about this subject, but how I feel about this situation. There is something inside me that rebels at the idea that all orcs are unconditionally doomed simply by the mere fact of their existence. What kind of world condemns someone at birth and does not allow for any possibility of change? And how about the original Elves who were captured by Morgoth and tortured into submission so that their very nature was changed. To me, it raises questions about the justness of the world.

OK, I'm going out on a limb here. But is it possible to have a just world, a world where there is a clear demarcation between goodness and evil (at least in theory), if a being is condemned to perdition simply because they happen to be born to a particular station in life? I am willing to accept that 99% of orcs were doomed....but I somehow can't accept that each and every one of them down to the end of time had no chance to be anything but evil.

But maybe I am way too soft-hearted....

P.S. For a definitive answer to this question, drop into the ongoing Rohan RPG "The Fellowship of the Fourth Age". Its main question is similar to that posed by this thread: were any of the orcs of Mordor redeemable after the destruction of the Ring and the demise of Sauron?

I certainly do not think you are being way too soft-hearted Child of the 7th Age, I in fact have a softer heart. All the while I have read LOTR I never really understood why things like wargs and orcs had to be intrinsically evil, I mean sure, they did terrible things to people, but don't you think that they thought that people did terrible things to them? People went out there and slaughtered them, they can't have liked that. If I met an orc on the road one night I wouldn't kill it, no matter what it tried to do to me, it has a life just like mine, how am I better then it? Because some important people think I do the right thing verses what the orc does? There is no set rules of right and wrong, the orc was doing what it thought it should do, maybe someone had made it do on threat of death or something. It's for this reason that I am not totally in awe of Legolas or Gimli for killing X number of orcs, it's bad enough you killed them, but did you have to glorify it so much? You could just do it for the sake of protecting your friends and family, that's not something to scoff at.

Ah well, it seems I have gone off on rampage here, I get really touchy on this sort of thing, I follow the Buddha's teachings on the value of another's life.


I might add that in the LOTR rip off Eragon the big, bad, orc things called Urgals are not really the bad creatures they seem to be at first, as is reviled in the second book Eldest.



*Much later edit* I hope I did not kill this thread....I got kinda enthusiastic there, heh heh..

See, a lot of people never think "Well, this monster I just mowed down might actually have feelings." Can there honestly be such thing as a "good" Orc? :confused:

Just a few thoughts to stir the pot...

I like to explain orcs by socio-cultural reasons, mainly because I loathe the idea of a race being ultimately evil (manly because I hate the idea of good and evil :p). The moral values and upbringing methods in an orc society differ much from what we call acceptable or normal or good. In the same manner a human child (hopefully) learns from his surroundings that killing and hurting others is wrong, an orc child learns that it's right. The surroundings from which an orc child learns are originally created by Sauron or Morgoth or whoever, and repeated by other orcs around the child because they have been brought up the same way. Similarly the children of the free peoples are, I would think, taught to hate orcs.

So what is the difference? Why are the heroes never bothered by the amount of slaughter they do, or rather, why are we never bothered by it? Why are they still not evil in any way? Okay, they don't take joy in violence and they are on the defending side...

But somehow that isn't sufficient for me. True, we could justify the heroes' hatred for orcs by what orcs have done to their families or homes or freedom or whatever, but aren't we then doing the precisely same thing that those people who eg. hate all supporters of a certain religion because some 0.00000001% of them are terrorists who happened to kill someone, or those who hate all inhabitants of a country because their leader is a brute?

Of course LotR is an epic fantasy novel, almost like a fairytale, and I'm probably making a mistake in comparing it to things happening in this world. After all, Middle Earth is a world of its own, a fantasy world, and in such places I suppose good and evil can exist even if they didn't in this one. (Especially if it is a symbolic story or especially if the author needs a way for describing war in his books without making his heroes seem cruel because they kill others... :rolleyes:)

from A Little Green

Its the lack of public education for little Orclings. They were all home schooled and truly believe that they are the center of the universe. ;)

Well, remember. TOlkien believed in Redemption he was Catholic, and Christianity talks a lot about forgiveness, so I'm sure Tolkien thought that Orcs were not pure evil. In fact, probably no-one, not even Melkor is 100% evil (depending on how you view Ungoliant)

Thinking that this belongs in "the Books"...
 

I believe the question of whether orcs were irredeemably evil or not gave Tolkien a lot of headache. If orcs indeed were corrupted forms of elves and/or men they then would have had a 'fea' granted by Eru and a rational mind capable of moral choices, as others already have pointed out.

But consider the above quote in the light of what happened during the first battles of Beleriand. During the second battle, the elves were said to have routed the orc hosts so severly that "no more than a handful of leaves" returned to Angband. During the third battle the orc host was destroyed "to the last and least".

If orcs were rational beings and not mindless beasts, this would've be a terrible crime. Surely at some point before their ultimate annihilation the orcs must have realised they were uttterly defeated and asked for mercy or at least tried to flee. Yet they were slaughtered to the last man.

I'm sure Tolkien had this in mind when he later on tried to device other orgins of orcs to replace 'the corrupted elves'-one. Yet he realised that it wasn't belivable to say they were just mindless beasts. They were not. IMO Tolkien really tried to make up a plausable theory on how they could've been beasts, but never quite managed it. He really wanted them to be beasts but realised that they couldn't be, not without contradicting much of what he already had written. There's just no way that Melkor could have made intelligent and rational humaniods out of beasts, without granting him the gift of original creation, and this was out of the question.

Whenever I read The Lord of the Rings and sometimes the Silmarillion, I get the feeling that the border between Man/Elf and Orc is less well defined than one might think. For example:

Faramir, in the RotK thinks that Gollum is some kind of scout-orc. Gollum, in my mental image, looks nothing like the stereotypical orc, or even the scout orc. It suggests that there are more breeds of orc than just Uruk, Uruk-Hai, Snaga etc. and that it is easier to mutate Men and Elves than we might have thought.

There are mentions of "half-orcs" and "goblin-men" when dealing with Saruman. Saruman was not the first to experiment with Orcs so we can assume Melkor and other dark powers tried this too, and probably made half-breeds which were more peaceful, and super-breeds which were more ferocious and reckless. I could imagine a kind of half-man, half-orc race which lived a rough and tribal existence, with less of the civilised qualities other men had. These men would still have peaceful ideas in their heads and could be integrated somewhat (and interbred) into society.

Massive armies of orcs seem to spring from almost nowhere, especially in the cases of Saruman and Mordor. To create the armies so quickly the sorcerors must have bred already wild men, slaves and other sub-species into the "pure" orc strain. The purer orcs would be the slave-masters and leaders, but the underlings of the armies and the orcs who have been depicted as more independant in Tolkien's books must have been the ones with man- and half-man-blood in them. I could see Gorbag as a stronger, more man-blooded orc.

I don't see redemption as easy. While the orcs were adapting to their new values, there would undoubtedly be instances of their violent nature getting the better of them, for which they would have to be punished, which would brutalise them further and lead to shunning and killing of their race in the end. I do see redemption possible, but it would not work in real life because men do not care for orcs, and orcs do not care for men.

Good point The Sixth Wizard.

In fact, If orcs and men are interbreedable, they must be the same race biologically, if their offspring are able to reproduce. That would make orcs no more (or at least, not much more) different to men than, for example, ethnic Chinese are to eskimoes. And doesn't Tolkien talk about modern day orcs too? Wow, I never really thought about that before. Orcs are men. Simple as that.

You're right, skip - this isn't a movie discussion. Occasionally threads get unearthed from barrows not intended to be their home. No problem - I'll just move it; as it's a question that seems to interest newcomers, and there are previous similar discussions in Books, I'll place it in the N&N area. Please continue reading and posting there - thanks!

You are right, VI, Saruman certainly was not the first to dabble with Orcs; in fact, a common misconception (engendered by the movies no doubt) was that Saruman created the Uruk-Hai. This is not the case, as Sauron had created the fighting Uruk several centuries earlier.

In regards to Orc-Men and Half-Orcs, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the 'squint-eyed Southerner' in FotR had more mannish stock in him than orkish, and thus was better able to assimilate unnoticed in Bree.

Orc Genealogy
 

As Morgoth could only ruin, but could not independently create, orcs must be a sort of unnaturally selected type of genus Homo. The gestation periods of elves and dwarves were too long for those species to be suitable as the founding stock of orcs. Perhaps pointy ears were a dominant trait; so if orcs had pointy ears they might have had a small amount of elf blood. If orcs had great longevity -- another point of controversy -- they might have had more than a small amount of elf blood.

Darwin teaches that species can emerge from isolated races, so it's plausible that Morgoth could have selectively bred captive men for various nasty human characteristics, and could also have bred them for shorter gestation periods, shorter periods of sexual maturation, and greater frequency of twins and triplets. Morgoth then ultimately could make them into a new species, Homo orcis, or whatever the Latin might be. The new orc species would be inter-fertile to a high degree with Homo sapiens. In nature there are distinct species which are fully inter-fertile but which do not normally interbreed due to psychological inhibitions. In other cases, species are partially inter-fertile, so that a hybrid must be bred back to a specimen of pure species to produce viable offspring. Probably humans and elves were only partially inter-fertile, while humans and orcs were more inter-fertile, with human-orc crosses prevented by human revulsion.

If this surmise is correct, orcs are not doomed by nature to do evil, but simply have a much harder time avoiding evil.

Has anyone solved the riddle of orc longevity? Were they like elves, immortal unless killed, or were they mortal, and if so, what was their life expectancy?

Orc physiology
 

The black blood of the orcs could signify that it was extraordinarily rich in hemoglobin.

This is a hint that orcs were bred in high altitudes, and might also explain their powers of endurance in long distance loping.

Their dark skin seem anomalous, given that they were active at night and inside dark mountains. Perhaps it is a kind of natural camouflage.

I'm not sure what function the pointy ears of an orc might have served. In an orc v. orc fight, and in a cold climate, pointy ears would be a disadvantage. Perhaps they were useful for predation, as are wolves' ears. Perhaps too they were useful for controlling body temperature.

I am not aware there was ever a description of Orcs having pointy ears. Is this perhaps a conclusion based on Elves having pointed ears, and so a transference to Orcs? Since Tolkien later on decided that Orcs more likely came from Man than Elves, would not the shape be mannish rather than elvish? I'm at work, so any reference material is unavailable to me.

Actually even more - I am not aware that there is even a conclusion that Elves had pointy ears. And if there is not a definite word on it (which I believe there isn't), then I would even believe (for myself) that they did not have them. If nothing else, in the "canonical" books, there is not a mention of the shape of the Elven ears, so no need to assume they were pointy. Anyway, that's not the point (indeed!).

Another thing... not disqualifying the view of M-E as Animalmother posed it, it's one of possible viewpoint, but personally I'd be highly doubtful to using Darwin's theories to explain biological processes in M-E... it does not seem to me that M-E would work on such principles, simply because it's nature seems very... different... too much "otherworldly" on that... but like I said, anyone can use any view of analysing he wishes :)

The elves in Tolkien's art have pointy ears - whether or not that characteristic carried over to orcs is debatable. Maybe orcs didn't have ears at all...after all, it never says specifically that they did, right Legate? ;) Just kidding.

Of course, Tolkien also paints Beleg with a pointy beard to go with his pointy ears...:)

I am inclined to think that Orcs could potentially be good, but that their predisposition for evil would dominate in nearly every case. If there were any good Orcs, they would very VERY few and far between indeed.

Not quite sure, sir ;) I know about eyes, at least, but ears may also be there... keen ears, sure, I believe it is mentioned somewhere... ;)

I think you may be right.
:cool:

The Quenyan LASSE is cognate to both "leaf'' and "hear", indicating a similarity between the two (again, I am at work so I can't quote definitive text, but it is in a Tolkien draft commented on by his son). In addition, Tolkien comments that Bilbo had slightly pointed, almost elvish ears, but I cannot transcribe the direct quote until I get home (whenever the hell that will be).

This all refers to Elvish ears, of course, and does not have anything to do with Orkish ears.

P.S. The squint-eyed Southerner in Bree and his dark companion (obviously half-orcs spies) were predisposed to looking mannish. Pointed, Elvish ears would no doubt look out-of-place and cause suspicion.

I am back home and found the references to Elves and ears, seeing as I can't rely on my memory (please refer to my muddled previous post):

a) Tolkien described Bilbo in a letter, dated 1938, in the following way: A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and "elvish". The quotes are his.

b) People observe that the elvish root LAS- meaning "leaf" is cognate with LAS- meaning "to listen", which gave the word used to refer to the ears.

3) In The Etymologies, published by Christopher Tolkien in The Lost Road and Other Writings, there appears the following note at the entry LAS- (giving the word lasse "leaf"): 'The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than... Unfortunately, the last word is unreadable, but human is surmised, with probability.' These etymologies date from the end of the 1930s.

Soft on Orcs
 

Let a few thousand fantasy years pass, and everybody becomes soft on orcs.

Tolkien was not soft on orcs. His heroes Legolas and Gimli much resemble Mukai and Noda, the two Japanese officers in China in AD 1937 whose contest to be first to behead one-hundred Chinese soldiers won the admiration of the Tokyo newspapers.

Neither Gandalf nor others among the Wise ever said a word against the genocidal extermination of orcs. Implicitly, they approved it. Even the Ents and Huorns exterminated orcs.

Whether or not there's an ethical case to be made for the wartime slaying of whole classes of people as an act of political justice (e.g., the Royal Air Force's slaying of the inhabitants of Hamburg, Germany in AD 1943), Tolkien's coalition of the willing, the Free Peoples, went beyond mere lawless warfare all the way to genocide.

I do not view it as genocide as much as extermination.
The Orcs of Middle-earth were incapable of any motive besides violence and self-preservation. After the first generation of orcs, they ceased to be mutated Elves and were, very much so and only so, Orcs. They stopped being the Children of Illuvatar and became monsters of Morgoth, like the spiders of Mirkwood- though bred by Morgoth and birthed by the Maia Ungoliant- were no longer Maiar. The Orcs were unredeemable, unswervingly evil.
So the killing of thousands of Orcs is justifyable if one keeps in mind that when Morgoth twisted the Elves bodies, he twisted their souls and minds, too.

Giving it a different name makes it look so much more rational and justifiable, doesn't it? 'Exterminate' is something you do to vermin, not humanoid creatures. What happened to Gandalf's "I pity even his slaves"?

And on a not quite so serious tangent:
Leaving alone the question whether Ungoliant was a Maia or something else, I'm not sure Morgoth had much of a hand in their breeding. I'd suppose at least Ungoliant herself wasn't particularly amenable to participating in any plans of his after the Thieves' Quarrel; he may have got his hands on one or the other of her offspring and twisted them a bit (or found that they didn't really need much twisting), but on the whole they would have happily multiplied by themselves.

I just revisted this old thread and I think two questions need to be answered in order to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

1. Do orcs have a will of their own? This is highly debated and certainly not conclusive. If they do, they could choose for themselves how to behave and what their morality base is. If they do not, they are simple tools of Morgoth and Sauron and cannot be held accountable for their actions.

2. Is there an ultimate morality? Obviously, this is a huge can of worms and I do not know if Tolkien had any official word on this. Does Eru have an established morality that all inherently know, such as killing in cold blood is wrong. Obviously there are other crimes I could cite but this is one of the most extreme examples which would be pertinent for our topic at hand.

If the orcs have a will and there is an ultimate morality that they violate then obviously they are evil. If there is no ultimate morality in LOTR then their culpability is questionable not completely expunged however.

It seems that orcs did have a will of their own based on the discussion but that is my opinion.

In regards to killing an orc on sight or the slaughter of them it's a tough question; one which we are probably not looking at through the perspective of those in Middle-earth. We look at it through our own lens and it seems horrendous to kill somebody on sight based on their species. Think of it this way however, if during the middle ages you were traveling a dangerous path notorious for robbery and murder and a band of men who were clearly criminal crossed your paths, what would you do. Would you politely wait for them to make the first move or would you take the first shot, hoping to give yourself and advantage? It is to be remembered that orcs were at constant war with elves and men. I'm sorry to get off on a bit of a tangent.

Sentient Vermin
 

I would think the answer to the first question depends a great deal on whether the One Ring and Sauron have been destroyed. In the battle before the Black Gate just before the ring was destroyed, the orcs and many other similar species were intensely determined to kill. When Frodo put on the ring and Sauron bent his will on getting the Nazgul to Mount Doom ASAP, Sauron's other servants were as marionettes with their strings cut.

One might propose that Morgoth created them as marionettes, as being subject to his will. Sauron later used them in the same way. Thus, a policy by any of the free peoples to kill on sight in self defense could be considered quite reasonable during the First, Second and Third ages. With the destruction of the Ring, you almost have to sit down and ask the first question all over again.

And if you ask the first question again, one might have to take a good hard look at the second question.

One might also want to consider the difference between Tolkien's time and our own. In World War II and before, it was quite traditional to demonize the enemy. The hun, the nazi or the nips were presented in government propaganda and Hollywood film as subhuman beings, killers and lacking morals. In short, ordinary people in western countries saw fellow human beings as if they were orcs. Fiction commonly portrayed characters as wearing black hats or white, as pure heroes or vile villains.

In following the pattern where pure heroes save innocent damsels from vile evil, Tolkien was following the fiction convention of his day. Modern fiction might often have more complex and shaded characters, with flawed heroes, selfish manipulative damsels and sympathetic villains with believable motivations. In many ways modern fiction might be more realistic and complex than the old 1950s stuff. One might have to be careful, when asking the two questions above, how appropriate it is to judge fiction written in one era by the standards of a significantly later era.

Years ago, when I was running a Dungeons and Dragons campaign, I created a term 'sentient vermin.' It was acknowledged that there were some species and races that were self aware and had free will that none the less might be killed on sight without penalty under law.

I would suggest that Orcs under the sway of Morgoth and Sauron effectively lacked free will and might reasonably be treated as sentient vermin. During the Fourth Age Aragorn was able to negotiate borders with them and peacefully coexist. While not a lot was written about the Fourth Age, it would seem improper to treat them as sentient vermin after the destruction of the Ring.