[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.