[HerenIstarion]

Well, I have found the time to pick some bones alongside the whole of this fascinating thread, so I will. And though my first bone contradicts to some extent my previous post, I hold it to be true:

by MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

They have feelings too. Who knows, they might even have an orc family back in Mordor and his orc son might be asking the orc mommy where daddy is. They might not be defending their country, but they are forced to fight, whether they want to or not. It relly is sad if you think about it

there were no such thing, for, though I was not able to find direct quote right away, it runs somehow “orks hate even their own kind”. no kiddies asking for daddies. Besides, most bulk of orks (exceptions of abovementioned Shagrat and Gorgab, as well as Grishnakh and Ugluk (my belief) and Boldog of the FA (stated by JRRT) does just underline the general rule:

Orks are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar
HoME X

And beasts completely under evil dominion of Morgoth and Sauron. So when in Tolkien battles good chaps kill bad chaps, what is said is what is meant.

But there are cases, where, though it is not stated, it is implied that enemy opposing you though is evil, is not a beast but moral being. Than behavior of “good chaps” differs from mere slaughter which is fit for mere beast orks. Why, do you think, Eomer dismounts to honor Ugluk with one to one combat on foot? Is not it simpler way to shoot them all from the horseback? Reason is that it is believed orks of new kind are interbred with man, so (I believe Tolkien had woven it into his story) deserve fair play. And never in the story orks of that kind are merely slaughtered. Shagrat and Gorbag fight one another, for which no man of the west is to blame, Ugluk is slain in fair fight where he has equal chances to destroy Eomer, Grishnakh, on could argue, is killed by fate.

Yet in general, when Men of the West deal with mere beast orks, there are no negotiations. There is no logic to talk to killer robot, one tries to destroy it or be slain.

Yet men under Sauron’s sway are different. If you consider description of any battle in ME, men of the opposite side are always rather taken captive than slain (dunlendings, haradrim, etc). They are not marked with “totally evil devils” mark, as orks are. And the war of Men against Men is considered by “good characters” as sad thing:

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace

by MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie
Killing is wrong and no one deserves to die, however in war, all that matters is survival

And I have to disagree with it completely (on my own behalf and on Tolkien’s too). IF all that mattered were survival, Boromir would have been the most positive chap in the hole story. Tolkien’s motto, which shines through all his works, is:

do the right thing, whatever consequences for you personally

If right things implies killing, kill. For what matters is choice, and, as Hama said at Theoden’s door:

Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom

That’s why Beregond kills the doorwarden and is forgiven

killing is wrong but sometimes it's necessary for survival and in war, it doesn't matter if it's wrong or right.

sometimes killing is right, and not because of survival, again. As C.S.Lewis once said, “if one committed crime the right Christian behavior would be to give up at the police and be hanged” (not precise wording). But the ruler against which the righteousness of killing is measured is, when no law apply, is again Hama’s statement above, for “even wise can not see all ends”. But when one ponders Gandalf’s words about death, he stresses on safety:

Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, <font color=”red”>fearing for your own safety.

IT does not deal with war and face to face battle, but with sitting somewhere cosily in the armchair dealing out death to someone not even seen

Bill Ferny
There is an apparent biblical tension between utter pacifism on the one hand and the realities of a fallen human condition on the other. This is seen in the very subtle wording of Exodus, in the Ten Commandments, when the Hebrew word, usually <font color=”red”>translated as “kill”, is actually a legalistic term that is better translated as “murder”.

That is what I was driving at in my previous stumbling. Explanation following this paragraph is perfect, upon my word Bill, so I will go on without stopping more on the subject. Or just to sum it up:

One is allowed to kill one’s neighbour once defending whilst assailed but is not allowed to hate. Faramir would not bluff even ork, Gandalf pities Saurons slaves, Frodo is not touching his weapons any more. But that does not mean that because of their pity any of them will surrender and not stand up to forced attack. Left cheek is rather moral issue, than physical

Or, to simplify it even more, one has to be humble in spirit, for anger, which is checked by “left cheek” commandment is the expression of pride. And pride is what led to fall of Melkor, Sauron and Saruman. “Thou shall not kill” is graciously explained by Bill above.

If that's true, life is pointless. There must be a right. And there must be a wrong.

Well, if one is entitled to discuss meaning of life, two things both in Tolkien, and in real life (for some at least) are to be remembered. One of those is already mentioned - “wise can not see all ends”.

Wise can not, but he who holds all ends, all threads of the story in his hand can. That is why Frodo is one chosen, and not by the council of Elrond

Another statement, which is not stated explicitly in Lord of the Rings, but which is implied throughout, is trust, or belief. It is derived naturally form the previous statement. For not seeing all ends, trust one who sees, for he created the world and you for some good end.

HoME X, ATHRABETH FINROD AH ANDRETH.

That is one thing that Men call "hope",' said Finrod. 'Amdir
we call it, "looking up". But there is another which is founded
deeper. Estel we call it, that is "trust". It is not defeated by the
ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but
from our nature and first being. If we are indeed the Eruhin, the
Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be
deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves.
This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when
we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for
His Children's joy

I’m approaching the end of my somehow stray discourse now, and hope to get an exact recipe for war or anything else for ME and RL:

three statements to live by for Tolkien, or three quotes summing it all up:

• even wise can not see all ends (LoTR)

Implying limited knowledge of creature about itself and other creatures, therefore limiting it’s claim to judge. Thou shall not kill, do not judge and would not thou be judged and so forth is rolled into one here

• things might have been different but they could not have been better (Leaf by Niggle)

Trust your creator in any circumstances, for even though you do not know it, al is done for your good

• Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom (LoTR)

In time when choice is to be made, first two principles lead up to third. When you see you do not see something, decide what is to be done according to the measure of your wisdom, and do it, not heeding your own safety, not seeking profit, fighting, if need be.