The Orc Problem

Odola said:
By doing so they actively act to protect, restore and promote something which is objectively good, which is health. Motivation secondary, action and goal itself are good.

A.k.a: There is no pharmacy in Barad-Dur.
Not so sure about Othank yet, though.
Click to expand...

1. Upon what basis can we say that all health is objectively Good in a moral sense?

2. Is protecting something Good automatically Good if done for the wrong reasons or through the wrong methods? My understanding, both from The Lord of the Rings and from Christian theology, is that a seemingly-Good action can actually be evil if done improperly.
 
Rob Harding said:
It feels like Tolkien really shot himself in the foot by the whole 'orcs were elves' thing. If he'd just never mentioned it, it'd all be fine. I get he didn't like the idea that Eru didn't create evil things but if he just never tried to explain it away then we'd have more scope to wonder at what orcs are like. The fact we are guided to believe they are implicitly evil by virtue of being eternally corrupted, actually makes the problem worse. Should've just had orcs and trolls and whatever pop up and not be an issue. They work fine in The Hobbit as 'generic fantasy bad guys'. Silly old John, bless your heart.
Click to expand...
Then orcs woul be only 10% as interesting. And he could then also left Eru out altogether. The story would be just like the Hobbit light-weight entertainment with no deeper meaning and nothing to ponder about.
 
JJ48 said:
1. Upon what basis can we say that all health is objectively Good in a moral sense?

2. Is protecting something Good automatically Good if done for the wrong reasons or through the wrong methods? My understanding, both from The Lord of the Rings and from Christian theology, is that a seemingly-Good action can actually be evil if done improperly.
Click to expand...
Health is objectively good. Like Beauty (e.g. of the Silmarills) - If you kill others to obtain it, you are wrong. Having and using and sharing medicine is objectively good thing/action.
 
Last edited:
Odola said:
Then orcs woul be only 10% as interesting. And he could then also left Eru out altogether. The story would be just like the Hobbit light-weight entertainment with no deeper meaning and nothing to ponder about.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I frankly think they'd be a lot more interesting if the loose ends hadn't been tied up. As is, we have far less scope to explore as it veers us more toward 'they are innately bad' which is frankly dull. Also, I'm not saying the entire story should be Eru free or have no cosmology to it (I love the mythology of the world), it's just trying to tie everything into it can be limiting. Tom Bombadil is so fun as we can only speculate about him. Orcs are more interesting if we don't have to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's for me about the specific of how elves become orcs. But that's a personal preference and I can't ask a story to be a different story than it is.
 
Odola said:
Health is objectively good. Like Beauty (e.g. of the Silmarills) - If you kilk others to obtain it, you are wrong. Having and using and sharing medicine is objectively good thing/action.
Click to expand...

That feels more of a subjective opinion and worldview. One we can't know that orcs and their various subcultures share.
 
Rob Harding said:
That feels more of a subjective opinion and worldview. One we can't know that orcs and their various subcultures share.
Click to expand...
It is. Catholic. We worship a Healer. ;-)

See the importance of healing, healers, healing hands, Houses of Healing and Irmo/Lorien.
 
Orcs don't.

You can't say 'healing is good. Orcs heal. Orcs are good.' Orcs do what orcs do because of orc reasons. Orcs are not Catholic so they don't hold any Catholic ideals. Since Catholicism doesn't exist. It has to be a cross-cultural exploration.

It's incorrect to make assumptions about another people's moral values based on one's own. Especially a group we know next to nothing about and are unable to as they don't actually exist nor does a guide to their personal beliefs.

If we are to believe the story then we are compelled to allow orcs their own identity. Whether that is an identity tied to Melkor or other characters within the universe is up for debate. But we can't plant our own identities onto them. We do not exist in the story. To take the story at it's own merit, we can't put ourselves into it.
 
Odola said:
Health is objectively good. Like Beauty (e.g. of the Silmarills) - If you kilk others to obtain it, you are wrong. Having and using and sharing medicine is objectively good thing/action.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I agree that health is objectively Good in a moral sense any more than Beauty is objectively Good in a moral sense. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is. It still doesn't follow that restoring it is automatically Good in a moral sense, any more than removing it is automatically Evil in a moral sense. Otherwise we are forced to conclude that when God kills someone in judgement, or commands others to do so, that God is himself being Evil.
 
Rob Harding said:
Hmmm. I frankly think they'd be a lot more interesting if the loose ends hadn't been tied up. As is, we have far less scope to explore as it veers us more toward 'they are innately bad' which is frankly dull. Also, I'm not saying the entire story should be Eru free or have no cosmology to it (I love the mythology of the world), it's just trying to tie everything into it can be limiting. Tom Bombadil is so fun as we can only speculate about him. Orcs are more interesting if we don't have to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's for me about the specific of how elves become orcs. But that's a personal preference and I can't ask a story to be a different story than it is.
Click to expand...
I find Bombadil boring as we have to little details so any guess is as random as another and ultimately without any consequences. The only thing that makes me appreciate him is being a mirror for Frodo showing what an attitude necessary to be immune to the ring.
 
Rob Harding said:
Orcs don't.

You can't say 'healing is good. Orcs heal. Orcs are good.' Orcs do what orcs do because of orc reasons. Orcs are not Catholic so they don't hold any Catholic ideals. Since Catholicism doesn't exist. It has to be a cross-cultural exploration.

It's incorrect to make assumptions about another people's moral values based on one's own. Especially a group we know next to nothing about and are unable to as they don't actually exist nor does a guide to their personal beliefs.

If we are to believe the story then we are compelled to allow orcs their own identity. Whether that is an identity tied to Melkor or other characters within the universe is up for debate. But we can't plant our own identities onto them. We do not exist in the story. To take the story at it's own merit, we can't put ourselves into it.
Click to expand...
You have missed my edit above. About the importance of healing which is always associared with good in ME.
 
JJ48 said:
And Orcs are always associated with Evil in Middle-earth. How do we know "healing is Good" isn't the result of the biased, Hobbit narrators?
Click to expand...
Because Irmo is a healer, Erlond is a healer, Aragorn is a healer, the rightfull king has healing hands, Galadriel's gift to Sam heals the land etc.etc. Nothing the hobbits have a direct say in.
 
Odola said:
Because Irmo is a healer, Erlond is a healer, Aragorn is a healer, the rightfull king has healing hands, Galadriel's gift to Sam heals the land etc.etc. Nothing the hobbits have a direct say in.
Click to expand...

I mean, hobbits have a direct say in it all. This goes back to my point that the attributes highlighted by our narrators tell us something about our narrator. We can take the history to be an accurate record of events, but the events chosen tell us something. The fact the stories focus on Middle Earth and spend so much time in The Shire indicate not The Shire’s import to history but its import to the writers of this history. The fact we are shown imagery associating healing with goodness tells us it matters to the writers. The fact orcs are described in the way they are invariably links them to value statements. This results in the general Othering of orcs. Which seems to be cross-culturally systemic (rightly or otherwise). But, fascinatingly, I’m being drawn now to your premise that to hobbits healing is thing and the orcs to some degree are written as making some level to heal (for whatever purpose) makes sense to be recorded as we know Sam himself has an interest in at least partially presenting orcs as complex beings. And Sam is of course a chief figure in recording and interpreting his perception of this world’s history. It all ties together!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Odola said:
Because Irmo is a healer, Erlond is a healer, Aragorn is a healer, the rightfull king has healing hands, Galadriel's gift to Sam heals the land etc.etc. Nothing the hobbits have a direct say in.
Click to expand...

"The hobbits claim that certain people are Good, and they also claim that some of these Good people heal," doesn't really sound any less Hobbit-dependent than, "The hobbits claim that certain peoples are Evil, and are held by all Good folk as Evil."
 
So broadly speaking the historical record shows orcs are corrupt and worthy of unquestioned destruction in the minds of most races due to their origins as living perversions BUT that same historical record itself actively highlights attributes of them that at least to the writers implies attributes they perceive as good and hints that those reading ought to at least consider some redeeming features. Sam I think struggles with orcs in the same was as Tolkien did
 
JJ48 said:
"The hobbits claim that certain people are Good, and they also claim that some of these Good people heal," doesn't really sound any less Hobbit-dependent than, "The hobbits claim that certain peoples are Evil, and are held by all Good folk as Evil."
Click to expand...
But, as @Rob Harding brilliantly noted above, exactly those same hobbits report that orcs heal also ;-)
 
JJ48 said:
Meaning that, even as reported by Hobbits, healing may or may not always be Good depending on whether we believe the Orc healing to be a Good act.
Click to expand...
1. hobbits are not healing-obssesed - they do not mention it in the Shire at all
2. Healing is a Big Deal with the important figures on the Good side in ME
3. When hobbits report this connection this is something they have learned along the way on their journey, not something they bring from home
4. And then they report in passing that orcs have healers also
-splendid! oh, this is fun!
 
Odola said:
1. hobbits are not healing-obssesed - they do not mention it in the Shire at all
2. Healing is a Big Deal with the important figures on the Good side in ME
3. When hobbits report this connection this is something they have learned along the way on their journey, not something they bring from home
4. And then they report in passing that orcs have healers also
-splendid! oh, this is fun!
Click to expand...

1. Whether or not they are "obsessed" with it is completely irrelevant. It's not mentioned in the Shire simply because it never comes up.
2. It's certainly noted a couple times. I'm not sure I'd say it's a "Big Deal".
3. Same with the Orcs. There's ONE mentioned battle between the Orcs and Hobbits. All the other stuff are either incidents they experience directly or stories/observations of other folk.
4. This is a gross mischaracterization. For one thing, I don't recall the text saying that the Orcs had healers; it just said they had medicine. For another, the report is hardly given "in passing", rather it's a rather significant portion of text. Finally, the nature of the healing is described as effective, but foul and unpleasant; which is more in contrast to the Good healing than it is comparable to it.

You either have still not responded to my earlier point that if Health is objectively Good in a moral sense, to the point that restoring it is objectively Good in a moral sense (regardless of method or , then logically, removing or diminishing something objectively Good must be objectively Evil. Therefore, any "Good guy" (including Valar) who kills or wounds anyone--whether in battle, in justice, or even in self-defence--is committing an objectively Evil act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top