Orcseys - always Evil?

Forth tolkiengas! orcrist wielder at your service, may your beards grow large and never fall. I think i am one of the newer posters, in fact this is my very first post reply, concerning this particular issue, i am not quite sure that there are even orcseys!! i have never read in any of the J R R works (i have not read the letters yet tough) and correct me if i am wrong or if i am missing something important, that orcs have "childhood". Of course it is obvious to imagine that the must be younger at some point of their lives, but nothing that can be compared to a "childhood" i think. and there is no quote that i know of that might create that impression... i dont know maybe they are created and breeded by artcrafts, because as far as i can recall, it is in very short periods of time that both sauron and saruman "amassed" a very large army wich makes me think that they must be using some kind of dark and malicious power to rise so many orcs (should it be uruk-hai or regular orcs ) in a not-large ammount of time, therefore i dont really think there is enough time to "breed" an orc just like you would rise a human being or an elf or a fellow dwarf. If were are all just speculating, then i would agree with most of you, in the fact that a little orc can be rised i a way or another, depending of whom is to raise that little orc (burarrum), but i do agree with the perspective that no matter how "well" raised is that orc, there always will be a little part of him that will be "evil" inherent and as a part of him...
Greetings.

[Kath]

Ooh orcrist wielder may have a good point. We're assuming there are orc children. As far as we know they may not. We know they are corrupted Elves or a mixture of elves and goblin men. Perhaps this would be impossible.

But, that is perhaps a matter for a different thread.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

A topic oft spoken about. Try the search function if you want to know more about Goblin kids.

Gollum used to eat them, remember.

[narfforc]

Yes they did have children, Tolkien states this when he says: They had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar. We know that The Eldar and Atani bore children.

[Eldar14]

Gothmog, you raise a very good point regarding how there are lions in captivity which don't attack their keepers. However, this isn't because the lions are tame.

In most cases of a predatory animal being kept in activity, such as in zoos or circuses, the zookeeper plays a very clever game to convince the creature that the keeper is dominant, and that the keeper is more powerful than the predator. There have been cases where once this illusion is broken the lion will kill the keeper.

For example, one way this happens from time to time is if a new creature is introduced, and this animal doesn't yet know the keepers position, it may attack the keeper. The instant this happens, and the keeper shows their weekness, the other animals also attack.

So, while there often is an illusion of tameness amongst naturally violent animals, this is merely an illusion created by the animal's fear and respect for its keeper. The parrallel for orcs in regard to this phenomenon wouldn't be an orc growing up in society and fitting in, but the fact that an orc doesn't attack his superiors because he believes them to be stronger.

It's not that the lion is tame to its keeper, but that it believes its keeper is more powerful.

[Gothmog]

You're probably right, Eldar14, but the animals I thought of was not the usual zoo-animals and their keepers, but animals that of some reason has been left without parents and are raised by an animal keeper, not in a zoo together with other lions (or whatever the animal is). Besides, there are few animals that hunt humans for food. Polar bears are the only land living animal that do that. In other cases, wild animals attack to defend themself, their offspring or their own area.

To keep the animals, or in this case orcs, away from strerssing situations might be necessary. But then an orc isn't comparable with an animal; the orcs have a more advanced brain and can think for themselves. If they don't want to adapt to the elven/human world, then they won't. But if they have a wish to leave the life of their kin behind, then I still think it's possible.

[The Saucepan Man]

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.

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