[Bill Ferny]

I’ve been researching, as I said above, and came up with the conclusion:

ELVES ARE NOT IMMORTAL!

As the direct quote from HoME is already given in HI’s post just above (talk about a coincidence!), I don’t see any reason to repeat it. Elves had long lives, extremely long lives, but were in a state of fading away. First they are to fade away in ME, and then, perhaps a bit slower, in the Undying Lands.

So no matter which way you might consider the problem, whether you are contemplating the corruption of elves, or the creation of a new animal, orcs are not immortal. It also solves the problem of immortality in spite of fallen nature. I’m very thankful for that, as I was racking my brain trying to come up with an explanation for elves as existing with a fallen nature (because they are given moral choice among lesser goods), but not suffering from a fallen nature (suffering physical corruption).

HI, your thoughts flow more toward ethics than human nature, and in that is probably where our disagreement had its source. While I was busy defining free will, you had already moved toward the ought of free will. “Ought” entails a choice that is ordered to the greater good, and, of course, it can be said that it is every rational being’s right (as in an individual freedom/responsibility, such as the right of free speech) to choose rightly (as in for the greater good). However, I wouldn’t go so far as to make that a defining principle of rational beings. A right, to use the language of contemporary thought, is something that belongs as inalienable to the individual, but only because that individual possesses a dignity of nature that goes beyond an individual’s so called rights. Individual rights logically follows upon nature, not the other way around.

I think, though, that I still understand what you are saying. Simply, the more one chooses rightly, the more one is ordered toward the good, then the more rational, and thus the more human, one is. Conversely, the less one is ordered toward the good, the less one is human. Moral choice isn’t a peripheral of human existence, it is something that makes a rational being more “in being.” It is something that perfects our existence as humans. I agree with this completely.

In regard to orcs, I assumed that they had some degree of rational existence (as well as eagles, etc.). However, I’ve discovered from a thorough reading of chapter ten in HoME, that Tolkien thought orcs were not rational beings, but merely talking animals. (Once again, I’m indebted to HI for doing the cutting and pasting from HoME.) I found this very interesting, and relieving. First, it takes all moral culpability away from orcs. As the minions of evil, they are merely extensions of Melkor’s/Sauron’s culpability. Secondly, it makes the wanton destruction of orcs perfectly alright. There is no need to justify killing an orc, because it can’t be murder. (So, you go, dwarves!) There’s no reason to believe that orcs can be “saved,” to borrow a term from Christianity. The struggle with orc kind is truly a struggle between light and dark, good and evil, and it can be won only with the extermination or complete domination of one or the other.

This actually would ensure the continued existence of men and maybe dwarves in the case of victory of the dark forces. Orcs would not be the kinds of thralls that would satisfy Melkor’s/Sauron’s need for complete domination. Their greatest and most prized slaves would be those who could practice moral choice.