[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