...and Gandalf suddenly had a brilliant idea of how to win the war.

[Kuruharan]

There is an interesting remark on orcs in Letters that I’d never paid much attention to before but it suddenly struck me that it has odd implications.

The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world. So even if in desperation ‘the West’ had bred or hired hordes of orcs and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right.

Letter 183, emphasis mine

Compare this to Letter 153 (as an example)

…He does not stop or make unreal sinful acts and their consequences. So in this myth, it is ‘feigned’ (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special ‘sub-creative’ power to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation. Of course within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions. But if they ‘fell’, as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things ‘for himself, to be their Lord’, these would then ‘be’, even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other ‘rational’ creatures like Elves or Men. They would at least ‘be’ real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even ‘mocking’ the Children of God. They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad.

also…

[the creation of orcs] it may be was the vilest deed of Melkor, and the most hateful to Ilúvatar.
The Silmarillion

Here we have an interesting contrast. How is it possible for the West to remain indefeasibly right by engaging in an activity that is specifically condemned as Melkor’s worst deed? Admittedly, Tolkien is discussing the West using this means to defend the right of Eru to the divine honor, but I find it odd that they could do so and not draw the same condemnation for the same activity that Morgoth received such harsh condemnation (laying particular emphasis on the possibility of the West breeding orcs.)

[the phantom]

Boy, something about this seems so familiar.

Hmm... something about ends and means.

Oh, I'm sure I'll remember later.

[The Saucepan Man]

The excerpt from Letter #183 which Kuruharan quotes simply says that, had the West bred or hired Orcs to do their dirty work, their Cause would have remained right. It does not follow that their chosen means of pursuing that Cause would have been right.

[Kuruharan]

their Cause would have remained right. It does not follow that their chosen means of pursuing that Cause would have been right.

But that is just the thing that puzzles me. It seems to me that by employing or (especially in my view) breeding orcs, the West would be repudiating the very Cause they are trying to uphold.

[Child of the 7th Age]

You can't read this passage in a vacuum. I think we need to look at the section of the Letter that comes immediately after the Orc comment. It's clear that what Tolkien is doing is answering those critics who had complained about the way he had depicted his characters in LotR. He is stating an extreme position to say, even if the situation had been different his characters would still have been justified in their opposition to evil.

First, he relates it to a contemporary political situation: the elevation of the State-God and the need to oppose that. I believe the reference below concerning "Marshal This or That" is to Stalin who died in 1953; the horror of his crimes was just being fully revealed by 1956 when the first draft of this comment was written. As a result, Stalin was repudiated not only by the US and UK, but also by the successive Russian government. We are also presumably talking Cold War here: the Soviet Union vs. "The West". Tolkien was understandably suspicious of a country that then discouraged open Catholic worship. This section starts immediately after the sentence on breeding and using Orcs....

...As does the Cause of those who oppose now the State-God and Marshal This or That as its High Priest, even if it is true (as it unfortunately is ) that many of their deeds are wrong, even if it were true (as it is not) that the inhabitants of "The West", except for a minority of wealthy bosses, live in fear and squalor, while the worshippers of the State-God live in peace and abundance and in mutual esteem and trust.

He then goes on to tie this in with what the critics have to say about the "good guys" in LotR. Here is a portion of this...

So I feel the fiddle-faddle in reviews, and correspondence about them, as to whether my "good people" were kind amd merciful and gave quarter (in fact they do), or not, is quite beside the point. Some critics seem determined to represent me as a simple minded adolescent, inspired with, say, a With-the-Flag-to-Praetoria spirit, and willfully distort what is in my tale. I have not that spirit and it does not appear in my story......I have not made any of the peoples on the 'right' side, Hobbits, Rohirrim, Men of Dale or of Gondor, any better than men have been or are, or can be...."

Sounds like Tolkien was a little angry with those critics. It should also be noted that this essay (it wasn't a Letter) was written only for himself and was shown to no one during his life. JRRT seems to have been letting off a little steam and frustration.

Perhaps, with the reference to the 'Marshall' and contemporary politics, he's also implicitly acknowledging that in the real world there are times we do use Orcs to fight evil, not a good thing but, regardless, evil still has to be opposed.

Still, to see those remarks on paper, even in a theoretical context, did give me pause...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

It seems to me that by employing or (especially in my view) breeding orcs, the West would be repudiating the very Cause they are trying to uphold.

No. The Cause and the means of upholding it are separate. The West's Cause was to prevent Sauron's victory, which would have gone against the Will of Eru. That is a just Cause and a right one to pursue. But the means by which they seek to realise it may be right or it may be wrong.

[Kuruharan]

Child

I agree with the general direction of your comments that he is largely referring to the situation in the world current at that time. However, I am still a bit puzzled. The statement itself relates directly to Middle earth. Even if it was not in a letter he sent to someone, I believe it reflects some measure of his thought on the matter.

I guess the center of my perplexity (and this relates to the astute comments made by Saucepan Man) is that it almost smacks of a justification of the actions of Saruman. Admittedly, Saruman was driven for lust for the Ring into employing and breeding orcs, however, the idea of Gandalf or Aragorn going out and hiring Ugluk and crew to help fight the war seems dangerously close to seizing the great weapon of the enemy and using it against him.

There is another aspect of this and it hinges around the word "breeding." I think that if the opponents of Sauron, in an attempt to defeat him, engaged in this breeding are engaging in the same type of perversion of life that Melkor engaged in at the very beginning. In view of the phrase "most hateful to Ilúvatar" I think this might in some way be worse than seizing the Ring.

[HerenIstarion]

Matthew 7:22-23:

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Still, casting out devils remains the good cause. It is means (iniquity) which is condemned, regardless the goodness of the cause. If Tolkien were to elaborate the point, though, I suppose he would not approve of Aragorn and Co involving in such activities.

In fact, he haven't appoved at all, had he? - otherwise, we would have seen ork hirelings in published LoTR, would not we?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

No. The Cause and the means of upholding it are separate. The West's Cause was to prevent Sauron's victory, which would have gone against the Will of Eru. That is a just Cause and a right one to pursue. But the means by which they seek to realise it may be right or it may be wrong.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

...the idea of Gandalf or Aragorn going out and hiring Ugluk and crew to help fight the war seems dangerously close to seizing the great weapon of the enemy and using it against him.

There is another aspect of this and it hinges around the word "breeding." I think that if the opponents of Sauron, in an attempt to defeat him, engaged in this breeding are engaging in the same type of perversion of life that Melkor engaged in at the very beginning. In view of the phrase "most hateful to Ilúvatar" I think this might in some way be worse than seizing the Ring.

There are two rights here, two responses equally agreeable. SpM is perfectly right in terms of the logic behind what Tolkien said, as he did indeed state that it was a justifiable cause. But Kuruharan is also right in terms of the moral questions this might raise, of whether any means are justified in order to achieve a 'greater good'. This is an interesting dilemma, one which can be applied to events in history such as the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Without raising any arguments about those particular events here, in terms of moral complexity they are comparable to the situation in which the forces of the West might have hired or bred Orcs. The cause might be right, but would the means?

What really is interesting about this is to consider it in relation to Tolkien's own stance on technology and how it can corrupt. Surely this would go against what he held to be right? And what would be done with these Orcs once 'used' to fight the war? They are sentient beings after all, and could not be 'decommissioned'. And is Tolkien here saying that Orcs were not necessarily evil by nature? That they could be 'turned' to good? Worms...

[The Saucepan Man]

But Kuruharan is also right in terms of the moral questions this might raise, of whether any means are justified in order to achieve a 'greater good'.

But, to my mind, Tolkien is quite specific on this in no lesser manner than in his formulation of the basic plot to LotR. The Ring could have been used to defeat Sauron (by Gandalf at least, if not by others on the basis of what is said in the Letters). Yet, although the cause would have been the same, Tolkien makes it clear that it would have been wrong for the "West" to have done so. The whole philosophy of LotR is based on the proposition that it is wrong for the West to use the devices of the Enemy to defeat him (and no phantom, I still don't consider the "diversion" at the Black Gate to be akin to a device of the Enemy. )

Of course things are rarely so clear cut in real life, much as we might want them to be ...

[the phantom]

and no phantom, I still don't consider the "diversion" at the Black Gate to be akin to a device of the Enemy.

The Ring could have been used to defeat Sauron...Tolkien makes it clear that it would have been wrong for the "West" to have done so.

No. In this case it had nothing to do with it being wrong to use a weapon of the enemy. It had to do with the fact that it wouldn't have worked. That's why it was wrong. If Sauron beats the new ring bearer, evil wins. If the new bearer wins, he becomes the next Dark Lord and once again evil wins.

The "cause" was to get rid of the Dark Lord. Using the Ring against him would ensure that there would continue to be a Dark Lord, so using the ring completely defeats the cause. That's why it was wrong.

If the ring had no corrupting powers and could be wielded safely there would be no problem with using its power to overthrow Sauron.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

No. In this case it had nothing to do with it being wrong to use a weapon of the enemy. It had to do with the fact that it wouldn't have worked ... If the new bearer wins, he becomes the next Dark Lord and once again evil wins.

Well, it would have defeated Sauron, so it would have realised the original cause, even if it gave rise to another.

If the ring had no corrupting powers and could be wielded safely there would be no problem with using its power to overthrow Sauron.

The point is that it couldn't be wielded safely precisely because it was a device of the Enemy. I can think of no better illustration of the proposition that, by using a device of the Enemy, one becomes no better than him. In the case of the Ring, one does in fact replace him.

To my mind, the situations are very similar. Had one of the Wise set about a policy of breeding Orcs to defeat the existing Dark Lord, then they would be setting themselves up to be the next Dark Lord. At least that's how, in my opinion, it works in Tolkien's world.

In real life, things are a bit more complicated.

[the phantom]

The point is that it couldn't be wielded safely precisely because it was a device of the Enemy.

Okay, I get what you're saying now.

I don't completely agree though. I think the ring was a special case. If a different weapon of the enemy had fallen into the the hands of Gandalf and Elrond, let's say a catapult, then it's no big deal to use it against Sauron, right? (maybe use it to toss the Ring into Mt Doom, for those of you who've clicked on all the links on the Mortor thread )

Of course, that's not to say that breeding orcs is fine and dandy.

In real life, things are a bit more complicated.

I don't think it's always quite that simple in Middle-Earth either. That's why there are so many threads.

There is another aspect of this and it hinges around the word "breeding." I think that if the opponents of Sauron, in an attempt to defeat him, engaged in this breeding are engaging in the same type of perversion of life that Melkor engaged in at the very beginning.

Well, Kuru, I think there's a difference between breeding or hiring an army of orcs and what Melkor did. I'll take a bit out of the quote you gave earlier.

They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege

What was this "highest privilege" Melkor was abusing? The power to breed things? No. The power to hire an army? No.

He was abusing his power of creation.

Morgoth created the orcs. He made them in mockery of the children of God. That's what was so evil.

If Gandalf and Aragorn had employed orc mercenaries or even bred orc armies, they still would not be guilty of creating the race of orcs. They would merely be making use of something that was already created. That is a major difference.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by the phantom

He was abusing his power of creation

Power of subcreation

[the phantom]

Power of subcreation

No, the power of orc creation.

If Melkor really had the ability to make submarines, I think he would've done it and attacked Valinor.

Sub creation- heh... honestly, where in the world do you come up with this stuff, H-I?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The phantom

If Gandalf and Aragorn had employed orc mercenaries or even bred orc armies, they still would not be guilty of creating the race of orcs. They would merely be making use of something that was already created. That is a major difference.

But just because a 'thing' exists doesn't necessarily make it OK to use it, and though I know you're not saying that it would be perfectly OK to use The One Ring or Orc breeding, it's a dangerous path to head down. Think of nuclear weapons. They were invented and used, but it does not make it OK to use them again, and even having them poses problems as there is always the possibility they could be used, the threat still exists. So, to create Orcs is wrong in itself, even if they are not 'used' for bad purposes.

[Kuruharan]

They would merely be making use of something that was already created. That is a major difference.

Not if they pull a Saruman and create a new strain.

At the risk of opening up the ole "what exactly are orcs" can o' worms, by breeding orcs and/or adding new DNA to the pool, one would be perpetuating and expanding upon the maiming of Life that Melkor engaged in.

[davem]

So even if in desperation ‘the West’ had bred or hired hordes of orcs and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right.

Well, the cause might have, but could it still be said to be their cause? Wouldn't they have deserted the cause by employing the enemy's tactics. Effectively Eru's cause would have no-one to support it. In short, I think Tolkien is wrong. He's effectively saying the end justifies the means, when in fact the 'end' is always determined by the means used.

No, it doesn't work - chiefly because its impossible to imagine Gandalf, Aragorn or Elrond, et al, even contemplating such an act, let alone carrying it through. In fact, I think Gandalf, Aragorn or Elrond could easily pull apart Tolkien's argument here.

Tolkien seems to be saying that, in the last resort, anything is permissible in order to defeat Evil. So, why not take the Ring & use that - if it was the last hope of defeating Sauron? Or are we to believe that only the Ring itself can totally corrupt an individual?

What Tolkien is advocating here is simply wrong, & goes against the whole philosophy of LotR. One cannot use the enemy's means without becoming like the enemy.

Abu Ghraib anyone?

The Ring is an extreme case, not a unique one. If it was unique then LotR would not have such resonances for us. I can't help feeling Tolkien has fallen into his own trap here. Or more precisely the trap he exposed for his characters. If the West had used Sauron's methods they would have sacrificed their values & moral superiority, & become 'Sauron'. To have refused to use the Ring for fear of becoming a 'monster' like Sauron but to have behaved in every other way as if they had taken & used it, would have been the height of hypocrisy, to say the least.

The reason they are in the right is that they didn't ever take the course that Tolkien is attempting to justify here. They would never have considered it. If they had considered it they would have been too vulnerable to the lure of the Ring & so 'their' cause would have had no chance of success. In short, they wouldn't have done such a thing because they didn't think that way.

[the phantom]

But just because a 'thing' exists doesn't necessarily make it OK to use it, and though I know you're not saying that it would be perfectly OK to use The One Ring or Orc breeding

Indeed, I never said it was proper. I am trying to temporarily suspend such a judgment. My point was that the use of orcs does not condemn one the same way Melkor's creation of orcs condemned him.

Would everyone agree that it is acceptable to hire (or otherwise compel) a non-western army to fight Sauron? I don't see anything wrong with that, and neither did Tolkien. He saw nothing wrong with fighting evil with evil's own devices. Remember the Paths of the Dead? Legolas said this in ROTK, The Last Debate-

Strange and wonderful I thought it that the designs of Mordor should be overthrown by such wraiths of fear and darkness. With its own weapons was it worsted!

So, what do you guys have to say about that?

And Lal, about this-

They were invented and used, but it does not make it OK to use them again

You can't make a blanket statement like that about nukes or almost anything unless the thing is in and of itself evil. You must always consider circumstance and consequences.

If Montreal dropped a nuke on Toronto because they were jealous, that'd be wrong.

But if Toronto was Mordor and Sauron was about to release a virus that would end all life on Earth, I think most sane people would excuse Montreal for dropping a nuke.

Might the same thing apply to the use of orcs?

But then I must ask, is there a difference between breeding orcs to make an army and hiring an army of existing orcs? Or is there a difference between breeding normal orcs and making a new strain of orcs?

What are your opinions on this?

And I just saw your post, Davem.

Tolkien seems to be saying that, in the last resort, anything is permissible in order to defeat Evil.

Do you disagree a bit, or completely? Let me tell you all a little story I heard used one time. Take a minute and put yourself into the story. Experience it and think about it.

There are two bad guys. They kidnap your daughter (if you don't have one- pick someone very dear to you). They plan on torturing her for a week and then executing her. You somehow capture one of the men. He refuses to tell you where she is being held.

How far would you go to get him to talk? What would you do to save the life of the person who is most precious to you?

This is an excellent illustration of how behavior does not always stand alone. Circumstances and consequences play a role.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by the phantom

You can't make a blanket statement like that about nukes or almost anything unless the thing is in and of itself evil. You must always consider circumstance and consequences.

If Montreal dropped a nuke on Toronto because they were jealous, that'd be wrong.

But if Toronto was Mordor and Sauron was about to release a virus that would end all life on Earth, I think most sane people would excuse Montreal for dropping a nuke.

Yet some things are 'of themselves evil', and that would include, amongst many other things, weapons of mass destruction (and weapons of mass distraction, which is what 'non-aggressive' countries use, but that's another can of worms). The reason they are evil is that they catch up people who are not involved, and the very possession of such things bestows a level of power on a state which can unbalance the world.

In the case of such a thing as the Ring, we can clearly see this in action. The very existence of such a thing puts the whole of Middle Earth on the knife edge of disaster. The fact that so many of the great and the good refuse the Ring shows just how wise they are, in that they not only know how dangerous such an item is, but they can see that to have such an item would put them in the same position as Sauron, in that they would hold a level of power that is not right or good.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Well, the cause might have, but could it still be said to be their cause? Wouldn't they have deserted the cause by employing the enemy's tactics. Effectively Eru's cause would have no-one to support it. In short, I think Tolkien is wrong. He's effectively saying the end justifies the means, when in fact the 'end' is always determined by the means used.

But davem, daring statement or not, I completely agree with what you've said in this post.

Regardless of the real-world complexity that Lalwende and the phantom are doing a good job discussing, things are much simpler in Middle-Earth, for one reason: Sauron is utterly corrupt and indisputably evil. He isn't a misguided leader, or even insane. He longs for the destruction of goodness itself.

It goes against the very idea that drives the Council of Elrond to send the Ring to Mordor to say that the defenders of Good can use Sauron's tools against him.

That is to say, unless these orcs were radically redeemed and reformed. But that's a topic for another thread...

Sophia

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, the cause might have, but could it still be said to be their cause? Wouldn't they have deserted the cause by employing the enemy's tactics. Effectively Eru's cause would have no-one to support it. In short, I think Tolkien is wrong.

But how can you so definitively take the position that Tolkien was wrong when we can never know exactly what it was he meant by this statement? You place great emphasis on the word "their", but I think that the problem can be resolved by viewing their cause and their means as distinct. Their cause was right but their (hypothetical) means would have been wrong. I may be wrong in my interpretation of the statement, but we cannot know for sure.

Originally Posted by the phantom

You can't make a blanket statement like that about nukes or almost anything unless the thing is in and of itself evil. You must always consider circumstance and consequences.

I agree. Which is why I said that things are much more complicated in real life. The expanse of Tolkien's works certainly contain much material for discussion but, on this point, the philosophy behind them is remarkably simple. In Middle earth, where we are dealing with beings of utter evil, using their means (by which I mean intrinsically evil means such as the Ring or home-bred Orcs, rather than a catapult or an Orcish sword) to defeat them can never be justified. As Sophia said:

... things are much simpler in Middle-Earth, for one reason: Sauron is utterly corrupt and indisputably evil. He isn't a misguided leader, or even insane. He longs for the destruction of goodness itself.

For this very reason, it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw analogies in this matter with events in our own world (current, historic or hypothetical). Indeed, in light of the extracts which Child quotes, this is a trap that Tolkien himself fell into, one which led to him making this contentious statement (although, as Child also points out, it was never intended for public consumption).

Originally Posted by phantom

But then I must ask, is there a difference between breeding orcs to make an army and hiring an army of existing orcs?

Yes. I think that there is a distinction to be made here. On the basis of what Tolkien says in his Letters, Orcs are inherently evil (although not necessarily iredeemable) beings. If the West were to breed them or create a different strain, then they would be no better than the Enemy. But if they were to use Orcs against Sauron and thereby redeem them, then that, I think, could be justified. To my mind, this answers your point about Aragorn using the Army of the Dead. By doing so, he releases them from the Oath that they broke and thereby redeems them.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Not if they pull a Saruman and create a new strain.

At the risk of opening up the ole "what exactly are orcs" can o' worms, by breeding orcs and/or adding new DNA to the pool, one would be perpetuating and expanding upon the maiming of Life that Melkor engaged in.

Let us, for a time, pretend that Middle Earth had the science, technology, will, and all else needed to tweak genetics. They've also got super-mommies, just for the other part of my "what if".

My Adv.Biology teacher has this lovely nice big poster on his wall with several quotes, one being "Are you a part of nature, or apart from nature. Either answer has consequences." That one has nothing to do with my point. The important on to my slightly wandering line of thought is "Nature or Nurture?"

We already know that orcs are evil by nature, having been created thus. Even if Middle Earth had my afore mentioned super-mommies, they wouldn't have been able to nurture orcs into being decent creatures. It goes against what they are.

So let's say the good guys have the facilities to tweak the orcs' genetics and make them nice little Eru-friendly creations that hate Sauron [and all the other evil guys]. After switching a few Ts with Cs, some As with Gs, Middle Earth has new quick-breeding ARMIES of good orcs.

As incredibly unlikely as it sounds, say this happened somehow. Is "The West" doing right or wrong with it? Let's go with right; the good guys have taken something wholly evil and made it good. With it, they can defeat the evil. The wrong; they have manipulated Nature, or more accurately, played Eru. Melkor already took advantage of his gift of sub-creation, but now the good guys, in order to make his no-no into a yes-yes, did the same thing. They played with something that Eru's currently got in existence (because let's face it, if Eru wanted the orcs gone, they wouldn't exist), and that's exactly what Morgoth did!

Actually, allow me to even incorporate my teacher's other quote. "Are you a part of nature, or apart from nature?" Which heading do orcs fall into? They are alive, so they are a part of nature, yes? But they are a creation of one that is not Eru, so they are apart from nature. But then again, if that is criteria for being apart from nature, than the Naugrim aren't natural either. But ignoring the Stunted People...

Orcs were made in mockery of something that belongs in Middle Earth's nature. So they are not natural, although they have qualities of natural beings. Because orcs are already unnatural, does that make it okay to play with their genes, because they are already screwed up? Would "The West" tweaking orcs to fit their needs be like Hitler's fetish with blonde hair and blue eyes, or would it be like an artist saying "Oops. Well, the sculpture is already screwed up, so let's see if I can turn it into something else."?

...

[Kuruharan]

But if they were to use Orcs against Sauron and thereby redeem them, then that, I think, could be justified.

Huh? I’m a little confused. I thought that the whole point of using orcs was to let them be orcs, just on somebody else. That does not really seem like redeeming them.

So let's say the good guys have the facilities to tweak the orcs' genetics and make them nice little Eru-friendly creations that hate Sauron [and all the other evil guys]. After switching a few Ts with Cs, some As with Gs, Middle Earth has new quick-breeding ARMIES of good orcs.

It is difficult not to “get current” in answering a question like this because of the similarity to the cloning controversies of our own day, but in just trying to take a stab at it, I’d say that Eru would probably not appreciate it. Part of the fundamental nature of orcs is that they are chained to the will of another being. When Sauron went *poof* the orcs did as well. In order to make them good, their will would have to be chained to somebody else’s (read Gandalf). So the orcs would still be a race enslaved by their very nature, a perversion of life.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

You place great emphasis on the word "their", but I think that the problem can be resolved by viewing their cause and their means as distinct. Their cause was right but their (hypothetical) means would have been wrong. I may be wrong in my interpretation of the statement, but we cannot know for sure.

I'm not sure we can draw this kind of distinction between their cause & their means. If they had employed the methods Tolkien is describing they would, to my mind, have been motivated by a different 'cause'. Their 'cause' would have been merely the defeat of Sauron by whatever means. The end of that road would inevitably have been the use of the Ring, if the ultimate & total defeat of Sauron would have required that.

I don't think that was their true cause. They were motivated niot by what they were fighting against, but by what they were fighting for. For the West it was never a question of merely defeating Sauron. They were struggling (consciously or unconsciously) against the 'wrongness' they percieved in Arda. They had a vision (or at least a sense) of how the world should be. And that vision or 'sense' did not include orcs at all.

To employ orcs to achieve their ends would have been equivalent to them using the Ring itself - just on a smaller scale. Using orcs, like using the Ring, would have made them no different than Sauron. We could even speculate on whether if they had defeated Sauron and destroyed the Ring they wouldn't eventually have gone on & created their own equivalent of it, because they would have adopted a 'Sauronian' mindset.

Originally Posted by The Phantom

There are two bad guys. They kidnap your daughter (if you don't have one- pick someone very dear to you). They plan on torturing her for a week and then executing her. You somehow capture one of the men. He refuses to tell you where she is being held.

How far would you go to get him to talk? What would you do to save the life of the person who is most precious to you?

This is an excellent illustration of how behavior does not always stand alone. Circumstances and consequences play a role.

Yes they do, & in that position (wildly hypothetical as it may be) I may do extreme things to get the information I needed. But that's not the point. I may use torture to find out where they were holding my child, but if I did I would be wrong. I would be no different to the kidnappers - like them I would be using torture to get what I wanted.

But I'm not sure your analogy works in the context of this discussion. The fate of my child is not the fate of the world. Essentially the West is fighting a moral battle against 'Evil' itself. To adopt the methods of 'Evil' is to lose before you start. 'Good' wins out in the end because it is 'Good', not because it is more powerful than 'Evil'. We side with the West because they are in the right. Its not just their cause, but the means they employ in carrying it out that makes them 'heroes'. This is not a war of handsome heroes vs ugly monsters. Its a war of Good vs Evil, Right vs Wrong.

As Brian Rosebury has pointed out, in LotR its essential that Evil brings about its own fall through the very means it chooses to employ - cruelty, malice, treachery, lack of trust & wanton destruction are what bring about Mordor's ultimate defeat. Sauron & Saruman destroy themselves through the means they employ to achieve their cause. Let's not forget that Saruman wanted order & peace - just on his own terms. How far had he actually strayed from the mission he was sent to perform? How far (in his own mind at least) had he lost sight of his cause? Actually, what he seems to have done is to use orcs in order to achieve what he had been sent to Middle earth to do.

So even if in desperation ‘the West’ had bred or hired hordes of orcs and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right.

How is that different from what Saruman did?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not sure we can draw this kind of distinction between their cause & their means.

I understand what you are saying, davem. If the "cause" is taken as the defeat of Sauron, then it remains the same whatever means are employed. But if it is taken as the defeat of Sauron according to the will of Eru, then the means become all-important when defining the cause. I interpreted the statement along the former lines. But, as I have said, I could be wrong. In which case, I would agree that the statement does not accord with the philosophy espoused in the book. My point was that we cannot be certain which way he meant it.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Huh? I’m a little confused. I thought that the whole point of using orcs was to let them be orcs, just on somebody else. That does not really seem like redeeming them.

You are right to pull me up. I was not sufficiently clear. I did not mean to say that the West using Orcs would automatically redeem them. I meant that, if the West used them and if that redeemed them (like Aragorn's use of the Oathbreakers redeemed them), then that would be justifiable. But you are right. That is not what Tolkien implied in his statement. If the West had employed Orcs and they had acted just as Orcs normally do, then that would not be a means which justified the end.

[drigel]

Another thought provoking thread here. I think though, as general and as non-contemporary one can make the argument, it stills falls flat against the philosophy of the works.

SPM:

The expanse of Tolkien's works certainly contain much material for discussion but, on this point, the philosophy behind them is remarkably simple.

Well put. For me, the Saruman device reveals the effect of loss of Hope and Faith. The orc issues that is brought up here were merely his tools that he applies himself to after the fact.

As far as the ring goes, for me the ultimate philosophy taking place here is that the ring is a (albiet negative) devine instrument, created by (albiet fallen) an angel. To use this to govern (for good or bad) the environment/events/souls in the physical plane, is the ultimate affront to Eru. This is why (I think) the author ties the fate of the One to the fate of all other rings of power. No matter how benign the original purpose of creating them, they cannot overcome the Defeat.

[the phantom]

This first part is just sort of a side note, so forgive me for being off-topic.

things are much simpler in Middle-Earth, for one reason: Sauron is utterly corrupt and indisputably evil. He isn't a misguided leader, or even insane.

the philosophy behind them is remarkably simple. In Middle earth, where we are dealing with beings of utter evil

Why is Middle Earth so simple compared to our world? Because we are seeing it through the eyes of one man.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Middle Earth was real life that there would be orc-rights activists making speeches about how humans and dwarves especially had invaded their habitat and the orcs were merely fighting back, and that they are just as valuable a life from as a human.

There would be Sauron sympathizers who would say things like "Sauron's not really evil, he's just going about his goals in a different way. He's had different life experiences. Instead of fighting him, we should try to talk with him and work with him."

There would be those who would demand that the white tree be torn down because "It represents a tie to the Valar and spirituality and that sort of thing has no place in front of a government building".

There would be those who would say it was wrong to call Sauron or anything else "evil". They would ask "Who made you the judge of good and evil?"

Anyway, you get the point. Middle Earth would've been like that had it been real, so the real ME is comparable to our world. We just don't see it that way because we're viewing Middle Earth through the eyes of a single historian who paints things clearly from his viewpoint.

Heh heh, one reason why Middle Earth is so enjoyable is because Tolkien edited out many of the weirdo quack opinions we'd hear if it was real life.

They had a vision (or at least a sense) of how the world should be. And that vision or 'sense' did not include orcs at all.

So, are you trying to say that since orcs are basically evil and shouldn't even exist, making more of them goes against the cause? I suppose I would agree with that. But what about using existing orcs to fight Sauron? Isn't that a win win situation? In a battle of orc vs. orc, no matter who wins, there's going to be less orcs in the world.

I may use torture to find out where they were holding my child, but if I did I would be wrong.

Why in the world would you say that? I'd say that if you didn't do everything in your power to save your daughter, her innocent blood would be on your hands as well as the evil men who did it. That would be wrong.

Essentially the West is fighting a moral battle against 'Evil' itself.

Now, if this is how we look at the war with Sauron then you are completely right about using orcs and such. But I was looking at it as a physical battle in addition to a moral battle. If the west demonstrated perfect behavior and had impeccable table manners to boot, but Sauron takes over the world and kills all that is right, it's not really a victory, is it?

So even if in desperation ‘the West’ had bred or hired hordes of orcs and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right.

How is that different from what Saruman did?

It's different in a very major way. Saruman didn't attack Sauron with his orcs! He attacked the good guys!

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Phantom

Why in the world would you say that? I'd say that if you didn't do everything in your power to save your daughter, her innocent blood would be on your hands as well as the evil men who did it. That would be wrong.

Well, this is our true dilemma as fallen beings. Let me quote something I posted a long time ago:

I'm reminded of one of Charles Williams Arthurian poems, where Taliesin, the King's poet, while Arthur is leading the main battle to gain Kingship, goes to Camelot with a small force to depose Cradlemas, the dictator. There is a combat & Taliesin deals Cradlemas a mortal blow & stands watching him die. There's a line, that Taliesin felt 'Righted by earth, but from Heaven displighted', & that 'Cain & he had one immingled brain'. Taliesin has done the 'right' thing - killed a dictator, a monster, helped liberate the people & make way for the peace & justice of Arthur's rule. But at the same time he's taken a life, broken God's law. But what was the alternative? To stand by, be 'Righted by Heaven, but from earth displighted'? Reject his human responsibility & go live in an Ivory Tower & write poetry? Basically, Taliesin is a fallen being in a fallen world & will fail in one way or another, & can only be saved by 'Grace'.

(Full post here:http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...4&postcount=59)

In short, if I used torture to save my child I would be gaining a 'worldly' victory - I would be 'righted by earth', but I would be acting 'immorally' by going against a 'moral absolute' - ie It is wrong to torture another human being. So, I would be 'displighted from Heaven'. This, for me, is one of the central themes of LotR - we are fallen beings, & so live in an impossible situation. We cannot save ourselves - we are repeatedly put into situations where we are damned if we do & damned of we don't. I couldn't stand by & leave my child to be tortured to death. I would have an obligation to do everything I could to save her - like Taliesin was forced to kill Cradlemas - but I couldn't claim to have acted 'morally' in so doing.

Now, if this is how we look at the war with Sauron then you are completely right about using orcs and such. But I was looking at it as a physical battle in addition to a moral battle. If the west demonstrated perfect behavior and had impeccable table manners to boot, but Sauron takes over the world and kills all that is right, it's not really a victory, is it?

Its a moralvictory. To intentionally use Sauron's methods to defeat him - which is not what Aragorn does in calling the Dead to fulfil their oath - would perhaps bring about a worldly victory, but it would at the same time & for that very reason be an immoral one. The West would be 'displighted by Heaven', & thier cause would be lost even as they achieved their goal.

Let's face it - we all die - even my child would one day die whether I rescued her from the kidnappers or not. Death, 'defeat' (from a worldly perspective), is inevitable. We must, as far as we can, choose the moral path. We may not always be able to, but when we fall to do so we must acknowledge that failure & not pretend it was a 'success'.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

As far as the ring goes, for me the ultimate philosophy taking place here is that the ring is a (albiet negative) devine instrument, created by (albiet fallen) an angel. To use this to govern (for good or bad) the environment/events/souls in the physical plane, is the ultimate affront to Eru. This is why (I think) the author ties the fate of the One to the fate of all other rings of power. No matter how benign the original purpose of creating them, they cannot overcome the Defeat.

I wonder whether this really has anything to do with the question of the Ring's evil? True, Sauron is a Maia. Also true, Sauron created the Ring to dominate. But Celebrimbor's rings weren't much different, except in scope. Celebrimbor was not evil, nor was he a Maia; but he was definately ambitious and there was certainly an element of desire for power and governance in his crafting of them. That's really the point of Ring-making in the first place. They all were intended to be objects of power, hence the term "Rings of Power". I don't think the Ring's intrinsic evil has anything to do with its nature as an object of semi-divine power, but the evil nature and intent of its creator and the evil nature of the power residing in it.

I believe the same thing would go for the use of orcs by the forces of good. Even though one could use them (or attempt to use them) in a way contrary to the original intent, the power of their maker is still resident in them, and his intentions were evil. May I make a comparison to the Oath of Feanor? The Oath was sworn in anger and was unbreakable. Although later the purposes of the Oath were questioned by the Sons of Feanor and even though it drove them to slay their own kin on two separate occasions, the original intent of the Oath was inescapable. As Littlemanpoet commented on this thread:

The oaths they swear seem to follow them like a bad smell.

I would argue the same for the intent with which things in Middle Earth are created. Up to and including Orcs.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Middle Earth was real life that there would be orc-rights activists making speeches about how humans and dwarves especially had invaded their habitat and the orcs were merely fighting back, and that they are just as valuable a life from as a human.

There would be Sauron sympathizers who would say things like "Sauron's not really evil, he's just going about his goals in a different way. He's had different life experiences. Instead of fighting him, we should try to talk with him and work with him."

There would be those who would demand that the white tree be torn down because "It represents a tie to the Valar and spirituality and that sort of thing has no place in front of a government building".

There would be those who would say it was wrong to call Sauron or anything else "evil". They would ask "Who made you the judge of good and evil?"

Anyway, you get the point. Middle Earth would've been like that had it been real, so the real ME is comparable to our world. We just don't see it that way because we're viewing Middle Earth through the eyes of a single historian who paints things clearly from his viewpoint.

Phantom I have grave doubts that any of this would happen in a living ME. These are clearly modern attitudes and Middle Earth was clearly not a modern world. Perhaps now in what was once Middle Earth there would be that kind of modern thought; but this world is what Tolkien imagined as Middle Earth some five-thousand years later, and lo and behold we do have all the things you mentioned (well, in principle at least). But we didn't have them until the last few centuries. And we certainly wouldn't have had them five thousand year ago.

Not sure whether I've strayed too far from the real topic here, but I thought these bits were worth addressing.

Sophia

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sophia the Thunder Mistress

But Celebrimbor's rings weren't much different, except in scope. Celebrimbor was not evil, nor was he a Maia; but he was definately ambitious and there was certainly an element of desire for power and governance in his crafting of them. That's really the point of Ring-making in the first place. They all were intended to be objects of power, hence the term "Rings of Power".

From reading Unfinished Tales, it becomes apparent that Celebrimbor may have created the Elven rings, certainly Nenya, out of love for Galadriel. I mentioned this in this post here, in the Osanwe-kenta/Rings of Power thread. Celebrimbor actually says:

"But you know that I love you (though you turn to Celeborn of the trees), and for that love I will do what I can, if happily by my art your grief can be lessened."

He makes the Elessar for her, and later, replaces this with the no doubt more 'advanced' Nenya. The question here is whether making a ring of power is wrong it itself, and how different is being driven by love from being driven by hate? That would depend, I suppose, on what sort of love Celebrimbor has for Galadriel, which to me appears almost devotional. He is not driven by lust, which would be wrong in Tolkien's world; there is a definite distinction between lust and love in his tales. The One Ring and the Orcs, meanwhile, were certainly not made out of love, but of hate, and perhaps also pride, anger and greed. Therefore to use such 'things' would be to use something created for all the wrong reasons.

EDIT: And an afterthought which I forgot to add:

Originally Posted by The Phantom

There would be those who would say it was wrong to call Sauron or anything else "evil". They would ask "Who made you the judge of good and evil?"

Middle Earth is a lot clearer, morally speaking, than our own world. We live in a world filled with grey areas, and it is exceedingly rare (thankfully) to come across a figure as patently evil as Sauron. But even in Middle Earth not everything is black and white, Gollum being one example. As Gandalf says:

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Why is Middle Earth so simple compared to our world? Because we are seeing it through the eyes of one man.

Er, that one man created Middle-earth as we know it. So it is however he wrote it. You are, of course, fully entitled to ascribe to it the real life attributes that you describe but, to my mind, they are at odds with the materials which we are given.

*WARNING! You are now entering a Canonicity-related discussion. Take this discussion no further unless you are fully aware of the consequences of doing so.*

This message is brought to you by the Barrow-Downs automated message service.

[drigel]

Ah, Lalwendë bringing up that quote does reveal some elvish psychological conditions doesnt it?

Whether or not the author intended the romantic relationship to be a factor for Celebrimbor, I wonder if grief that all elves felt ever and anon, is the underlying theme. Grief of the loss of the blessed days. Grief that is ever present for the firstborn, who by being first, realizes what has been lost, and what is going to be lost, until All is lost. Thats mighty powerfull stuff. Its also incongruent with the reality of ME - but its nature isnt evil at all is it? Only in Valimar does time truly stand still. Enter Annatar into that situation, and suddenly your work of love and grief becomes tied to something very much evil. What a wonderfully simple way to explain certain (ultimately human) complexities.

Sophia - I love the tie in to the Oath as well - never considered that. What a legacy!

excellent insights here folks! keeps me coming back again and again....

SPM I agree, but on Phantom's line of thought, isnt ME seen through the eyes of one man who is looking through the eyes of a hobbit? AH HAH - my treastice is playing out Mabye the only way we could understand ME's message to us today is through the eyes of it's most meekest of players.... seriously though my personal rebellion would say that, while fortune has allowed the author to show us via literature the ME condition, Im not sure its the only vision.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by drigel

... seriously though my personal rebellion would say that, while fortune has allowed the author to show us via literature the ME condition, Im not sure its the only vision.

Fair enough, although that is largely dependent on one's personal spiritual beliefs. Surely we can all agree, however, that there are no situations in real life (on a physical - as opposed to metaphysical - level at least) comparable to the struggle with Sauron, a being of pure evil. Real life situations are much more akin to the situations portrayed in connection with the likes of Gollum (as Lalwendë points out) and Boromir.

[Kuruharan]

posted by Sophia:
Even though one could use them (or attempt to use them) in a way contrary to the original intent, the power of their maker is still resident in them, and his intentions were evil.

This is a point of consideration. I'm not sure that the West's use of orcs would really have been against the intent of their maker. The West would be using the orcs for the purposes of destruction, which was really all that Melkor was interested in.

Of course, this would have been against the interests of their current master but not against the original intent of their maker.

[drigel]

concurrence SPM
The Light back then was much less splintered in this time/place/imagination.