This talk of lions and dogs is all very well, as far as it goes, but I am not sure that it really answers the original question.
I would agree that certain patterns of behaviour can be trained in animals, although they can still retain instinctive reactions. The main difference between the dog and the lion in the example above, I think, is that dogs have been selectively bred over many years for certain characteristics, reduced aggression for example. And so the instinct to attack is not as strong in the dog as it is in the lion, which is one step away from being wild.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gothmog
But then an orc isn't comparable with an animal; the orcs have a more advanced brain and can think for themselves.
|
Not necessarily. In some of his writings, Tolkien suggests that Orcs (or at least some of them) were mere beasts, without “fea” and wholly subject to the will of their Master. But I am not sure that distinction between sentient beings and beasts matters too much here, as behaviour will be a mixture of breeding (genetics) and training (education) in humans as well as animals. So, whichever view one takes as to the nature of Orcs, I think it fair to say that certain characteristics, both physical and mental, might be altered through both selective breeding (in the long term) and training/education (in the shorter term). Indeed, there are examples of both in Tolkien’s works. The Uruk-Hai were selectively bred (for strength, aggression and resistance to sunlight) by Sauron (although it is fair to assume that magic may have been involved here too). And the more regimented, hierarchically obedient nature of Lugbúrz Orcs and Isengarders, in contrast to the Goblins of the Misty Mountains, might be attributable to their “military” training as warriors.
The difficulty, as I see it, with the lion and dog discussion is that we are talking here about
evil, rather than about physical and mental characteristics such as height, aggression etc. And evil, in Tolkien’s world (and philosophy) at least, is not a genetic trait or a learned behaviour. It is the result of Morgoth’s marring of Arda. And, specifically with regard to Orcs, they are evil because Morgoth “created” them to be so. As
Son of Númenor (quoting
Sharkû) pointed out, they are “creatures begotten of Sin and naturally bad” (although apparently not irredeemably so). I find it difficult, in these circumstances, to see how evil could be bred or trained out of them. If they are, by their very nature evil, how is it possible for them to change? Indeed, Tolkien’s comment on their redeemability notwithstanding, I find it difficult to see how they could be redeemed through their own actions, or through the actions of anyone other than Eru himself. Perhaps, therefore, their only possibility for redemption would be following their death, by the grace of Eru.
In these circumstances, notions of genetics and learned behaviour seem inappropriate.
Of course, the whole notion of a race of beings that are evil by their very nature through no fault of their own give rises to a number of philosophical problems which is why, I think, Tolkien came round to the view that they were mere beasts rather than creatures with souls. My own view, however, is that this approach conflicts with the portrayal in LotR of characters such as Shagrat, Grishnakh and Ugluk, and so the problem (for me, at least) remains.
Further reading:
Inherent Evil