Let's Talk Morgoth

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I have to disagree with you there. Orcs are a part of Arda and are therefore relevant to any discussion concerning the nature of its ultimate Creator and His realtionship with good and evil. One might seek to explain them, but one cannot dismiss them.

The explanation most consistent with the theological and moral tone of the Legendarium, I suppose, is that Orcs were mere beasts or automatons, rather than a sentient and free-willed race of beings. But I have never been able to accept this proposition as it is wholly at odds with my conception of Orcs, particularly those whom we meet as individuals, as derived from Tolkien's published works.

And yet they do seem only to have limited free-will. There is no suggestion that Orcs were able to choose between good and evil, and indeed the clear indication is that they were unable to act in any way other than evilly.

What I was saying is that the orks cannot be presented as strong evidence in this argument one way or another, with regards to a forgiving/condemning Eru, because we do not know their origins and their degree of free will.

If they do not have free will, then how is it wrong/unjust to condemn them? And as you note, there is conflicting evidence about how free the orks wills are exactly. Even Tolkien couldn't make his mind up.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

What I was saying is that the orks cannot be presented as strong evidence in this argument one way or another, with regards to a forgiving/condemning Eru, because we do not know their origins and their degree of free will.

I would say that, on the basis of "pure" canon alone (ie the works published by Tolkien during his lifetime), the evidence points strongly towards Orcs being a sentient race with limited free will - ie lacking in the ability (or, at a stretch, the environmental conditions) to choose good.

You are, of course, free to dismiss Orcs as a factor in your thinking on this issue, but that does not make them irrelevant to the discussion, at least as far as those of us who have a reasonably settled view on the nature and origins of Orcs (based on the published works) are concerned.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If they do not have free will, then how is it wrong/unjust to condemn them?

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

Okay, to put it another way, the origin of the orks is tied not only to the issue of whether they have free will or not, but also whether they have souls. More or less, I would say that it appears plain that if the orks have true free will, they must also have a soul. If so, then yes we come to a confusing muddle of whether it is just to condemn all orks as evil.

On the other hand, if orks do not have free will, and thus a soul, there is not problem in condemning them as evil, because they are essentially the same as animals, and not destined for eternity in any way, shape, or form.

[HerenIstarion]

Alatar, when you talk about orks which are not automata, I suppose you imply Shagrat and Gorbag (and also Ugluk and Grishnakh), are you?

How was the "built-in standard" removed?

In case of free-willed ork exeptions, it is not. They exhibit the standard - evaluating good and bad in a way similar to one elves or men would follow, labeling certain things bad and immediately ascribing them as inherent to their enemy:

The big fellow with the sharp sword doesn't seem to have thought him worth much anyhow – just left him lying: regular elvish trick

But, almost instantly, we're shown that in fact, they themselves, though acknowledging one, do not follow the code:

D'you remember old Ufthak? We lost him for days. Then we found him in a corner; hanging up he was, but he was wide awake and glaring. How we laughed! She'd forgotten him, maybe, but we didn't touch him-no good interfering with Her

Following after Pet Shop Boys I'm listening to at the moment, I may hum (as is a good feat for a deadnight chanter) under my nose 'it's a sin...'

See also All About Orks

[obloquy]

Would it be fair though, for a good God to treat the evil and the good the same? After all, justice is an essential component of goodness. Is it just, therefore, for God to treat an amoral, immoral, murderer-rapist who enjoyed his life to the fullest at the expense of others, with no thought of repentence, with exactly the same reward as child-saint who was poor, starved, and abused, but love with all his little heart?

Not every Christian believes that the reward for the "good" is Heaven and the punishment for the "bad" is Hell. This particular Christian happens to believe that it is more indicative of a loving, just god that he punishes the wicked by simply denying them life, rather than tormenting them.

Edit: Additionally, yes, it would be "fair" if that's how he chose to do it. He is the source of our sense of justice and fairness, and whether it is an inherent part of our creation or something we learn, it is based on his definition (and example) of justice. He has the ultimate say on the matter.

As far as the Tolkien-related side to this thread, alatar has sort of taken my torch and ran with it so I think I'll leave him to it.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Not every Christian believes that the reward for the "good" is Heaven and the punishment for the "bad" is Hell. This particular Christian happens to believe that it is more indicative of a loving, just god that he punishes the wicked by simply denying them life, rather than tormenting them.

A Catholic who knows and believes what his/her church teaches does, including both myself and the good professor, but that's hardly the point. If there is any point, it is that this is where I am coming from in writing what I have.

Originally Posted by alatar

Still, assume that I'm an average shmoe - no big sins, just choose the wrong side of the balrog wings debate, which ends up sending me to Hell. How can I assume that the god who sent me there was 'good?' I will spend a very finite drop of eternity in the 'choosing' phase, and the remainder in punishment. Great system. (by the by, no wings! )

Well, at least we agree on the Balrog wings. You have a hope of salvation!

Okay, I'm just joking!!!

Or perhaps, not quite...

Hope. There is always the HOPE of salvation, the belief that a merciful God will forgive. The only person to whom heaven is totally and utterly denied is to he who utters rejects God. To all others, there is the hope of heaven, and the hope not ending up in Hell. This is the concept of divine mercy, which goes hand in hand with that of divine justice.

After all, if only the truly unrepentant go to Hell, then surely only the great saints can be said to have come close to achieving Heaven. Here is where the Catholic dogma of Purgatory comes in. Purgatory is the place of PURGING, of cleansing the soul so that it is cleaned of sin and ready for Heaven.

No person will be condemned to Hell for not having had the opportunity to join the Church (primitives, people who never heard of it, unborn babies, people before Christ), nor will those who have tried to lead a good life according to what they know and/or believe (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Proddies, atheists, etc... )

No offence is intended by the above, just a more or less blanket statement that Catholics believe that all people who try to lead a good life have a real hope of Heaven. Even Balrog-Wingers!

Perhaps along the same lines one can view the orks.

Supposing that the average ork, having never heard anything of good, having been trained by birth and genetics to do evil, and whose entire environment is one that encourages evil, is brought before Eru in judgement. What then? If you consider Iluvatar to be one and the same as God (the premise on which I am basing more or less all of my arguments thus far), then would Iluvatar condemn the ork to eternal hellfire?

I personally think that Iluvatar would look at the ork's life, at how he lived, and then look deep into his soul. Iluvatar then learns whether or not the ork rejects His forgiveness and mercy, or whether it rejects it.

(Remember that this is in the afterlife, beyond the circles of the world after the destructio of Arda, so the ork is no longer blinded by prejudices of any sort, by the constraints of his physical form, or anything of that nature. His choice is completely his own, not influenced by any factor).

If the ork accepts forgiveness, then comes Purgatory, and the "Purging" of the ork's soul, to the point it the once-ork is now in an Elf-state, and able to join in singing Iluvatar's praises in Arda Remade.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

It would have invloved direct forcible removing of ability = direct suspense of free will = against the rules Eru sets himself = can not be done

I am sure that he could have come up with suitably indirect interventions to achieve the same aim. After all, his interventions in the Third Age effectively denied Sauron of all his abilities without requiring direct action against Sauron himself.

Originally Posted by davem

I still say that Eru's (rare) interventions are to prevent absolute disaster, to pull Middle earth back from the brink.

Well, I would say that Melkor's tainting of Arda was pretty disastrous. As I recall, he never intervened once to obstruct Morgoth's various attempts at world domination, whereas he intervened a number of times to foil Sauron's plans. Is this favouritism, or were the inhabitants of Arda somehow less well equipped to deal with Sauron themselves than they were with Morgoth?

Originally Posted by davem

How much absolute freedom of choice does any race (or individual) actually have. The freedom of choice of every individual is limited by circumstances.

Yes, free will is necessarily constrained by circumstances, physical geography, environment etc. But the limitation on the Orcs' freedom of choice goes much further than this. They appear to have been denied the opportunity to choose good under any circumstances. If it was just down to their upbringing, I would still expect a small, but significant, proportion of Orcs to reject evil, just as some brought up in a moral and caring environment will nevertheless turn bad.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I personally think that Iluvatar would look at the ork's life, at how he lived, and then look deep into his soul. Iluvatar then learns whether or not the ork rejects His forgiveness and mercy, or whether it rejects it.

Well that's fine for the putative good Orc after he has died. But he still has to behave evilly, and suffer accordingly, throughout his life - which (Eru's perspective notwithstanding) will seem a very long time to him.

Perhaps it's because I have no firm belief in the afterlife that I find it difficult to accept that a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter. But it does seem to me from what you are all saying that Eru places greater value on the afterlives of the beings of Arda than on their actual lives. And he seems not to value non-sentient (ie soulless) beings at all.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Well, I would say that Melkor's tainting of Arda was pretty disastrous. As I recall, he never intervened once to obstruct Morgoth's various attempts at world domination, whereas he intervened a number of times to foil Sauron's plans. Is this favouritism, or were the inhabitants of Arda somehow less well equipped to deal with Sauron themselves than they were with Morgoth?

How would you have wished Him to intervene against Morgoth - given that there was no 'quick fix' option (ie destroying of a Ring)? It seems to me that the difference between his direct intervention in the Third Age & his non-intervention in the First is that the Valar were strong enough to deal with Morgoth themselves, & it was a battle of opposing forces. The result did bring devastation to most of Beleriand as a consequence, though. In the Third Age, no one individual could have taken the Ring to the Fire & cast it in of their own free will. Hence it was a matter of Eru stepping in & achieving the Quest, or allowing Middle earth to be taken over by Sauron or his replacement. Eru intervenes because no-one else can do the task at hand.

Yes, free will is necessarily constrained by circumstances, physical geography, environment etc. But the limitation on the Orcs' freedom of choice goes much further than this. They appear to have been denied the opportunity to choose good under any circumstances. If it was just down to their upbringing, I would still expect a small, but significant, proportion of Orcs to reject evil, just as some brought up in a moral and caring environment will nevertheless turn bad.

Surely the Orc will be judged with the very constraints you point out in mind. Less would be expected of the Orc than of a man, Elf or Hobbit. In other words, because of their more privileged position, & the fact that 'goodness' would be a far easier prospect for members of those races, they would have to struggle just as hard (relatively) as Orcs.

Perhaps it's because I have no firm belief in the afterlife that I find it difficult to accept that a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter. But it does seem to me from what you are all saying that Eru places greater value on the afterlives of the beings of Arda than on their actual lives. And he seems not to value non-sentient (ie soulless) beings at all.

Well, we're speaking about Middle earth here, so 'a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is' (perhaps) 'acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter'.

As to Eru placing greater value on afterlives than on lives the only difference between the two is the presence or absence of a hroa...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that the difference between his direct intervention in the Third Age & his non-intervention in the First is that the Valar were strong enough to deal with Morgoth themselves, & it was a battle of opposing forces.

Presumably, however, if the worst had come to the worst and Sauron had regained the Ring and extended his dominion over the entirety of Middle-earth, the Valar would have been just as capable of defeating him. Did Eru simply want to avoid the destruction that Beleriand had suffered in consequence of just such a thing happening in the First Age?

But surely Eru would have foreseen the damage that Beleriand did suffer in the First Age. Assuming that he did, why did he not take steps to prevent this by means of the simple expedient of (indirectly) ensuring that the Valar did not release Morgoth once they captured him. He would have foreseen that Morgoth had no intention of repenting.

Well, we're speaking about Middle earth here, so 'a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is' (perhaps) 'acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter'.

The Orc still has to suffer more, with no choice in the matter, in consequence of the simple fact that he happened randomly to be born an Orc. Or perhaps being born an Orc is not a random event ...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Hope. There is always the HOPE of salvation, the belief that a merciful God will forgive. The only person to whom heaven is totally and utterly denied is to he who utters rejects God. To all others, there is the hope of heaven, and the hope not ending up in Hell. This is the concept of divine mercy, which goes hand in hand with that of divine justice.

Agreed. Where do non-theists fit in (i.e. do not reject God as they do not think that there even is a god)?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

After all, if only the truly unrepentant go to Hell, then surely only the great saints can be said to have come close to achieving Heaven. Here is where the Catholic dogma of Purgatory comes in. Purgatory is the place of PURGING, of cleansing the soul so that it is cleaned of sin and ready for Heaven.

Not to debate Christianity too much, but the concept of 'works' and 'purging' negate the need for Grace (and therefore the sacrifice of Christ).

Originally Posted by Formendacil

No person will be condemned to Hell for not having had the opportunity to join the Church (primitives, people who never heard of it, unborn babies, people before Christ), nor will those who have tried to lead a good life according to what they know and/or believe (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Proddies, atheists, etc... )

No offence is intended by the above, just a more or less blanket statement that Catholics believe that all people who try to lead a good life have a real hope of Heaven. Even Balrog-Wingers!

That's called 'univeralism.' Is that a Roman Catholic doctrine? I would contend that that's not found in the Christian Bible.

And what worse torture for Melkor! After fighting your whole life against Eru, Manwe etc, you now are forced to make nice and join every else in Paradise ("Sorry about the sister thing, Turin. Sorry about the sword thing at the Dagor Dagorath, Morgoth. <kisses and hugs>").

Anyway, I would have to say that Eru was not a universalist (if there is such a word) in that not all end up in Paradise. All may have the opportunity to go, yet free will allows for some not to go. Free will = choice. I've left the orcs out of all of this as we have yet to pin down the extent of their choices.

Orcs and other baddies go to the Void, and others go to some other afterlife. After Dagor Dagorath, not sure where all of the baddies will end up, but I'm sure that it won't be a party. Nonexistence?

Is the Dagor Dagorath the 'last chance to repent?' At that time can everyone elect to change sides, and after the big game, share the fate of the side of their choice? Would this pre-game time be when good-natured orcs ("he killed the villagers before he sat down to eat them - there's a mark in the plus column...") turn to Eru and by their choice are given some kind of redemption? Do they become Elves again?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

Agreed. Where do non-theists fit in (i.e. do not reject God as they do not think that there even is a god)?

Not to debate Christianity too much, but the concept of 'works' and 'purging' negate the need for Grace (and therefore the sacrifice of Christ).

I would put non-theists with all others. A separate category for them is unnecessary.

Originally Posted by alatar

That's called 'univeralism.' Is that a Roman Catholic doctrine? I would contend that that's not found in the Christian Bible.

And what worse torture for Melkor! After fighting your whole life against Eru, Manwe etc, you now are forced to make nice and join every else in Paradise ("Sorry about the sister thing, Turin. Sorry about the sword thing at the Dagor Dagorath, Morgoth. <kisses and hugs>").

I think you might be misinterpreting what I said. I did NOT say that everyone will get into Paradise, only that everyone has CHANCE. It is NOT Catholic dogma that everyone will kiss, make up, and go to heaven, but Catholic doctrine does not say that people will automatically be condemned to hellfire for having been born before Jesus, in an un-evangelised society, etc, etc. Nor will people who live in accordance with God's law as best they are able, such as non-Catholic believers (ie. Jews, Protestants, Muslims, et. al) see their efforts go to waste.

That said, ultimate judgement falls on God, as does the exercise of His mercy. I do not think that all will granted mercy, but the condemnation is greater on those who KNEW what was expected of them, and still did wrong.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, this opens up another can of worms - if Melkor hadn't rebelled, & thus created an alternative to Eru's divine plan, would one of the other Ainur have rebelled instead? What I mean is, Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'. At that point the Ainur have to decie whose wide they are on. If Melkor hadn't done that, would one of the other Ainur have started wondering about 'alternatives' & hence become 'Dark Lord' instead.

I would have to say "No. It was not NECESSARY for Arda that one of the Ainur fall and become the Dark Lord."

Even had Iluvatar gone ahead and made Arda, and none of the Ainur had rebelled, there would still be free will for the Children of Iluvatar. There would still be rules that could be broken.

The exercise of free will would still be necessary to chose to obey divine law, or to reject it in favour of self-gratification. The difference is that there would be no mighty tempter, no Dark Lord whose goal was to spread evil. Therefore, evil would not be so prevalent in Arda as it was with Melkor, and it would not have had the same dominance over Man and Elf that it does.

The possibility of rejecting Eru and His laws would remain, but it would be a much less likely thing to happen, without someone pushing it, and corrupting the matter of Arda to proneness towards discord and chaos.

Remember, this is Arda MARRED, in Tolkien's own words. Therefore, that implies that there was, or was intended to be, an Arda UNmarred. Therefore, in Iluvatar's original plan, there should have been NO Dark Lord, thus if Melkor had not gone bad, it would not have been necessary for someone else to step up to the Dark Lord plate.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Maedhros

I would like to know how can you be so sure that it was Eru's intervention and not just mere luck.

You can't - that's the point. If you could know definitely one way or the other it would have a too deterministic effect on your freedom of belief.

And did Melkor really rebelled?
Ilúvatar gave him the powers and the freedom to use them as he saw fit. It was his right to act as he saw fit, as where the other Ainur.

No, it wasn't his right to act as he saw fit - certainly he had the ability to do as he saw fit, but being able to do something is not the same thing as having the right to do it. The Nazis were able to murder 6 million jews in the death camps, but I don't think anyone (in their right mind) would argue that they had a right to do it. He was created to serve. Any powers he had came from Eru & were given with the intention that he would use them in His service. Melkor misused his 'power'. Its like, if I let you use my car to take a sick friend to the hospital, & you dump the person by the roadside, sell the car & go on holiday with the proceeds. Being in possession of the car means you have the ability to do that, but you certainly wouldn't have the right to do it.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

The possibility of rejecting Eru and His laws would remain, but it would be a much less likely thing to happen, without someone pushing it, and corrupting the matter of Arda to proneness towards discord and chaos.

You've sidetracked me into wondering whether, because there is no Me Bible or Quran, 'Good' & 'evil' have to manifest in rather 'extreme' forms so that they're quite plain & understandable to everyone. There seems to be something of an absence of theologians arguing over the minutiae of their subject in Me. People only have what's in their hearts, a kind of 'innate' understanding of what is 'Good' & what is 'evil' & their experience of good & evil in the world - ie no Ten Commandments, no clearly set out 'rules', no religious imperatives (accept Jesus as your personal saviour or Else!, accept Muhammad as the final prophet of God or Else!, etc etc)

What I mean is the inhabitants of Me have to come the 'Truth' through personal judgement based on their experiences, not by accepting or rejecting the 'word of God'.

This is pure speculation & has just occurred to me, so I'm not it makes complete sense...

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Yet he can intervene - or so we are led to believe by incidents such as Bilbo's finding of the Ring and Gollum's fatal stumble at Sammath Naur.

Well, He had obviously foreseen His own intervention from the beginning, so it was not a spurof the moment decision....

Originally Posted by Alatar

Still, assume that I'm an average shmoe - no big sins, just choose the wrong side of the balrog wings debate, which ends up sending me to Hell. How can I assume that the god who sent me there was 'good?' I will spend a very finite drop of eternity in the 'choosing' phase, and the remainder in punishment. Great system. (by the by, no wings! )

This assumes that God would damn someone to eternal punishment for something trivial. I know there is a strand of extreme fundamentalist Christianity which says that rejecting Jesus as one's personal saviour will result in eternal damnation, but personally I think God is a lot smarter (as well as a lot more compassionate) than that, & that His judgement would be based on looking into the individual's heart. I would go so far as to say that the way some fundamentalists behave is enough to lead many to reject Christianity altogether, but I don't think God would base 'His' judgement on a decision made on those grounds. The 'god' that you have in mind here would,to put it bluntly, not be 'Good', & everything you've said about him would be valid. Personally I don't think God (or Eru) is like that...,

Your freedom to choose anything requires your actual existence - as I said. Yes, you could only end in Hell if you were brought into being, but equally, you could only find Heaven. If 'Hell' is not a place of eternal punishment, but rather of non-being, then you have a free choice - you may choose to accept God, or to reject Him & cease to exist - as you apparently would have wished rather than suffer eternal punishment. So, you do get to choose - you, not God choosing for you. You get to try it out first, make your decision & get the outcome you desire for yourself.....

Agreed about the rules. He told the Valar, "here's the game - have at it!" And though I would agree that Melkor may have changed someone's blueprint for Arda, he did not change Eru's unless Eru permitted the same.

Well, Eru handed over the blueprint but others were left to build what it depicted. There is a deeper question to be dealt with here: Was it necessary for all the suffering & struggle to be gone through as a way of bringing about Arda remade. Did Eru have to allow His Children to get all that stuff 'out of their systems', in order to 'grow up'? Certainly He intervenes, but only occasionally, & only to prevent absolute disaster. Certainly, when He does intervene it is both rare & reluctant. He seems to actually want His children to be free - even if great suffering results for them. Another question is whether that makes him callous, amoral, or extremely loving...

Originally Posted by SpM

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

Why is this problematic. Orcs play their part in the cosmic drama & after death are able to see the truth & make a decision as to their moral stance & Eru's judgement of them would be based on that.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Okay, to put it another way, the origin of the orks is tied not only to the issue of whether they have free will or not, but also whether they have souls. More or less, I would say that it appears plain that if the orks have true free will, they must also have a soul. If so, then yes we come to a confusing muddle of whether it is just to condemn all orks as evil.

On the other hand, if orks do not have free will, and thus a soul, there is not problem in condemning them as evil, because they are essentially the same as animals, and not destined for eternity in any way, shape, or form.

Well, as I said, the evidence suggests to me that they (or at least some of them) were sentient, which suggests to me that they had souls, even if their free will was limited. But why is it just to condemn beasts to a life of brutality and suffering? Do lives not matter to Eru if they don't have souls?

Originally Posted by davem

Why is this problematic. Orcs play their part in the cosmic drama & after death are able to see the truth & make a decision as to their moral stance & Eru's judgement of them would be based on that.

It is problematic because they still have to live out their lives (and quite possibly some of them were "immortal" in the same way that Elves are) in a state of evil being without them having any choice in the matter. Why should they be denied "worldly" choice, when it is enjoyed by the other races of Arda?

Well, He had obviously foreseen His own intervention from the beginning, so it was not a spur of the moment decision....

But it was not part of his plan, since that did not anticipate Melchor's rebellion. Which suggests that he is able to change his plan where necessary. So, to return to alatar's point, he could have intervened to prevent Melchor's tainting of Arda (and foreseen that) if he wished. To do so would have involved interfering with his gift of free will to Melchor, yes, but no more so than his later interventions with regard to those affected by them.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

It is problematic because they still have to live out their lives (and quite possibly some of them were "immortal" in the same way that Elves are) in a state of evil being without them having any choice in the matter. Why should they be denied "worldly" choice, when it is enjoyed by the other races of Arda?

How much absolute freedom of choice does any race (or individual) actually have. The freedom of choice of every individual is limited by circumstances. Hence any judement of them would be made with this taken into account.

But it was not part of his plan, since that did not anticipate Melchor's rebellion. Which suggests that he is able to change his plan where necessary. So, to return to alatar's point, he could have intervened to prevent Melchor's tainting of Arda (and foreseen that) if he wished. To do so would have involved interfering with his gift of free will to Melchor, yes, but no more so than his later interventions with regard to those affected by them.

Not part of His original plan, certainly. Whether that plan ever actually changed is open to question. Surely its possible that that 'ideal' concept never changed & is the blueprintg for Arda Remade. Eru's interventions are intended, perhaps, to steer Arda Marred towards the form of the original plan. Yet, Arda Remade will not be an exact manifestation of the original plan, as Eru has given both free will & the capacity to sub-create to his creatures.

I still say that Eru's (rare) interventions are to prevent absolute disaster, to pull Middle earth back from the brink. Eru intervenes, & to that extent takes away (temporarily) his gift of free will, but only when it is necessary to protect his children from being completely destroyed. Hence, though He may have felt great pain at the creation of Orcs, their existence was not a threat to the survival of Middle earth, so he let that part of the Music continue. And even if orcs retain the 'immortality' they had as Elves, in the context of eternity, which is the perspective from which Eru views things, it is only a phase of their existence.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Alatar, when you talk about orks which are not automata, I suppose you imply Shagrat and Gorbag (and also Ugluk and Grishnakh), are you?

Sorry, but can't remember to which I refer (and as Essex well knows, I still haven't reclaimed my books...). Weren't there orcs that were tired of war and desired to get out of Mordor, and another admonishes the one regarding rebel talk or sticking with their own kind (and not the wraths) or something?

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

But, almost instantly, we're shown that in fact, they themselves, though acknowledging one, do not follow the code:

They survive by being very pragmatic and individualistic. Why try to save the spider-food orc when it could only mean more losses? The Little Folk and Bree folk seem more than ready to allow someone else to fix the problem of Sauron - passing by the man on the side of the road, if you catch my allusion. And one might say that the other Free folk are only doing some heavy lifting as it is in their best selfish interests.

And with such a code there were no inter-Free folk wars, slayings, injustices, etc.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Following after Pet Shop Boys I'm listening to at the moment, I may hum (as is a good feat for a deadnight chanter) under my nose 'it's a sin...'

Ever hear the line from Depeche Mode's Strangelove, "...I give in, to sin, because I like to practice what I preach." One of my favorites.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by alatar

They survive by being very pragmatic and individualistic

I suppose, Tolkien intended the conversation I provided you with excerpts of was written to show that orks (exceptional ones, those who had free will about them) were crooked. Otherwise, why say that leaving one's companion in trouble is bad, and than behave in an opposite way? If survival was what counted and was approved of, Shagrat and Gorbag would have praised 'big elf warrior' for what they thought he did. 'Clever chap, that warrior, he did exactly what is vital for survival', that kind of thing.

EDIT

to SpM. We just cross-posted. One thing in your post caught my eye:

Originally Posted by SpM

But why is it just to condemn beasts to a life of brutality and suffering? Do lives not matter to Eru if they don't have souls

That's why we have taint of Morgoth in the matter of Arda concept. The chain is as follows:

All matter has a bit of Morgoth in it - all matter will be unmade in the end - orks (but for exceptions) are made of matter, therefore they also will be unmade in the end. So human and elven bodies will be destroyed in the end. It does not follow life does not matter for Eru. He created it, after all No justice involved, just necessity.

For one, nothing temporal may be eternal. For two, nothing of Morgoth will last

As for exceptions, I could not find it at the spot (your archivist is getting older, you see), but I remember arguing elsewhere that none of orks in LoTR who have a hint or even slightest trace of will and individuality about them are treated as 'mere matter'. I believe it is author's intention as well - to have Shagrat and Gorbag kill each other, to have Grishnakh killed by stray arrow, to have Ugluk fought by Eomer on foot and alone, though it would have been as easy to have him shot from the horseback and so forth.

Originally Posted by SpM

To do so would have involved interfering with his gift of free will to Melchor, yes, but no more so than his later interventions with regard to those affected by them

More so. Interventions always follow the pattern of natural events - Numenor is drowned in a flood which might have been caused by a chain of perfectly natural events, Gollum falls because of another chain of events, ring was found by Bilbo because of third chain of events etc. Besides, interventions do not suspend the free will of doers, they correct/change consequences of their doings

Melkor's abilities included ability of tainting a matter. Denying him such an ability, I suppose, could not have been done following 'chain of events' pattern. It would have invloved direct forcible removing of ability = direct suspense of free will = against the rules Eru sets himself = can not be done

Third - intervention will take place - the Arda will be remade. That is the greatest intervention of them all. For us, it haven't happened yet, but Eru is outside time. It may be (if the concept that God lives in eternal 'now' be correct) that for him, the moment of creation happens at the same time as moment of redemption. It is from our perspective, from the inside of time, that we may ask quesitons of the 'why haven't He done that, or this'. For all we know, all necessary things have been done, we haven't reached them yet in time.

Besides, it was already mentioned, that knowing things does not equal affecting them. I know the moon moves by an orbit around the earth. Based on certain calculations, I can bet you a dollar it will move likewise tomorrow. I know the fact beforehand. Yet, my possession of the data does not affect said orbit in no way at all


END OF EDIT