I must first say that I feel there can never be one right answer. There are many, many millions of scenarios in which this question will arise (if you are in possession of your wits, and are able to think, that is), and in all of them there may be a different answer. For example: if someone is attacking you, and they have the upper hand and are about to kill you, I am never going to tell you to show mercy to them; simply because that is impossible. You cannot show mercy unless you have a certain amount of power over that person. On the other hand, if you have the upper hand, by all means do not kill them. Take them to the police, get them a sentence, imprison them so that they cannot harm anyone else; but I feel that it would be wrong to kill them. Personally I feel that it would be wrong to kill out of suspicion, in cold blood, or to kill someone who is at your mercy.
The question here seems that it is killing against setting that person free; there is another option. Jails may seem cruel, but it is more cruel to let a dangerous someone free to kill/maim/rape/whatever again.
Having a What Would Gandalf Do? mindset is somewhat dangerous, simply because Gandalf would probably never be faced with some of the choices we have in the 7th age. The philosophy his words show are for all the ages; but I think WWGD is impractical. While it is good to remember his quotes while we sit in our comfy houses in front of our computer screens, to act like him in our everyday world doesn't seem practical. This isn't the Third Age and we are not battling forces of 100% evil. There are grey areas in this age that were not apparent in the Third. This mentality is applicable in philosophy discussions, and hypothetical situations, but I think I'll stay away from letting a character of fiction influence my choices that much.
As for the Orc question, given that I see an Orc more as a 'something' than a 'someone', it is like having a dangerous animal knocked unconcious on the battlefield. I don't think I would kill it, but I would be more wary (posting more guards on my camp and such), despite the fact that, (like Lush said), Orcs are cowards on their own.
I have never been faced with a do-or-die situation, and I hope I never will. I do not believe that I have the right to take away another life, and thus I do not think I would be able to condemn someone to the death sentence (if I were on a jury, for instance). But I would also not condemn another to die by setting that person free. Since the people in question are 'grey areas' in that we can never be sure if they are 100% evil, (just as we can never claim to be 100% good), I think a 'grey area' punishment is suitable. Gandalf's treatment of Saruman - sacking of Isengard, removal of staff - is an example. He did not kill him and he did not set him free.
In this discussion we must decide which, according to our beliefs and behaviour, is more important to us: self-preservation and defence, or virtue and mercy? Of course our bodies and instincts will tell us to kill, but how much control do we have over those instincts?
[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Aosama, the Wandering Star ]
|