Alice Mead
Member
While Corey is right that there is no perfect solution to the orc problem, here is the one I've settled on, which, as far as I've seen, has yet to be brought up.
Basically it comes down to the difference between redemption being a theoretical possibility and a practicable reality. While, in an abstract theological sense, it is impossible to corrupt any Child of Illuvatar to the point that they are beyond redemption, Tolkien's legendarium does contain several cases which demonstrate the fact that individuals can become functionally iredeeemable (Morgoth, Sauron, Feanor, Saruman) If this principle can hold true for "major" villains (or fallen heroes) why, then can it not apply to orcs? The obvious objection which will be raised is that these major figures all progressed along a clear path to damnation marked at each stage by their free choice, wheras orcs, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, had badness thrust upon them. While this is an important distinction, it calls up the real world parallel of the cycle of abuse. Most abusers engage in such behavior because they themselves were abused, an experience which they did not choose any more than orcs chose to be corrupted. Thus, obviously, they are to be pitied, and, as Elrond would say, were not evil in the beginning. I speak from experience, however, (both my own and that of friends I have seen go through similar experiences) when I say that immoderate pity can often be the very millstone that ties a victim to their abuser. It was only through accepting that my abuser's damage, while tragic, was both not my fault and beyond my ability to fix (and, in a practical sense, probably unfixable, save by an act of God) that I was able to let go of my guilt and my martyr complex and remove myself from a toxic situation. Of course, I must acknowledge that there is obviously a vast gulf between cutting off contact with someone and gleefully decapitating them, I will also point out, however, that my abuser never tried to kill me, as orcs frequently do. If we take the transformation from elf to orc as a visible representation of the slide into the worst kind of victim-turned-victimiser, then perhaps the Free Peoples' attitudes become slightly more understandable.
Further, on snaring orcs with falsehoods, I can attest, that I often had to engage in dishonest behavior such as giving a promise I knew I would have to break in order to escape a situation. While, morally, I may not be culpable, because the promise was exacted under duress, it still made me uncomfortable, as I am normally scrupulously honest. In every case, however, I knew that, for my own safety, I had to tell the person what they wanted to hear, n order to get out of the situation. To quote West Wing "If you can't take their money, drink their booze, and then turn around and do what you were gonna do anyway, you don't belong in this business" It was primarily the fact that I was dealing with a fundamentally untrustworthy and unstable being (witness: Donald Trump) that taught me that I needed to be willing to bend some of my own rules of honesty in order to survive. Such, I imagine, would be the nature of dealing with an orc.
Fnally, we know that, while Morgoth/Sauron are alive and kicking, the wills of the orcs are (to an admittedly uncertain extent) dominated by their masters. As such, even if orcs are, under normal circumstances, as easy to redeem as humans, does this state of domination not render them something akin to demoniacs in the throes of a violent possession, with the most significant difference being that it is impossible to exorcise them until their master is defeated? In that case, while it may be regrettable that they are in such a state, it is both clearly necessary, and, perhaps, merciful to kill them. One can not reasonably expect them to reform until they are no longer dominated, and, if their potentially good souls are trapped in a body they cannot control, is it not good to free them from such torment? I will close by saying that I see the problematic parallels between these arguments and racist ones, and the strontger parallel is part of why I dislike the second argument compared to the first, but I hope that it is clear that none of my arguments are meant to justify the killing of anyone in the real world. I am simply engaging in a thought experiment and playing with secondary belief.
Basically it comes down to the difference between redemption being a theoretical possibility and a practicable reality. While, in an abstract theological sense, it is impossible to corrupt any Child of Illuvatar to the point that they are beyond redemption, Tolkien's legendarium does contain several cases which demonstrate the fact that individuals can become functionally iredeeemable (Morgoth, Sauron, Feanor, Saruman) If this principle can hold true for "major" villains (or fallen heroes) why, then can it not apply to orcs? The obvious objection which will be raised is that these major figures all progressed along a clear path to damnation marked at each stage by their free choice, wheras orcs, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, had badness thrust upon them. While this is an important distinction, it calls up the real world parallel of the cycle of abuse. Most abusers engage in such behavior because they themselves were abused, an experience which they did not choose any more than orcs chose to be corrupted. Thus, obviously, they are to be pitied, and, as Elrond would say, were not evil in the beginning. I speak from experience, however, (both my own and that of friends I have seen go through similar experiences) when I say that immoderate pity can often be the very millstone that ties a victim to their abuser. It was only through accepting that my abuser's damage, while tragic, was both not my fault and beyond my ability to fix (and, in a practical sense, probably unfixable, save by an act of God) that I was able to let go of my guilt and my martyr complex and remove myself from a toxic situation. Of course, I must acknowledge that there is obviously a vast gulf between cutting off contact with someone and gleefully decapitating them, I will also point out, however, that my abuser never tried to kill me, as orcs frequently do. If we take the transformation from elf to orc as a visible representation of the slide into the worst kind of victim-turned-victimiser, then perhaps the Free Peoples' attitudes become slightly more understandable.
Further, on snaring orcs with falsehoods, I can attest, that I often had to engage in dishonest behavior such as giving a promise I knew I would have to break in order to escape a situation. While, morally, I may not be culpable, because the promise was exacted under duress, it still made me uncomfortable, as I am normally scrupulously honest. In every case, however, I knew that, for my own safety, I had to tell the person what they wanted to hear, n order to get out of the situation. To quote West Wing "If you can't take their money, drink their booze, and then turn around and do what you were gonna do anyway, you don't belong in this business" It was primarily the fact that I was dealing with a fundamentally untrustworthy and unstable being (witness: Donald Trump) that taught me that I needed to be willing to bend some of my own rules of honesty in order to survive. Such, I imagine, would be the nature of dealing with an orc.
Fnally, we know that, while Morgoth/Sauron are alive and kicking, the wills of the orcs are (to an admittedly uncertain extent) dominated by their masters. As such, even if orcs are, under normal circumstances, as easy to redeem as humans, does this state of domination not render them something akin to demoniacs in the throes of a violent possession, with the most significant difference being that it is impossible to exorcise them until their master is defeated? In that case, while it may be regrettable that they are in such a state, it is both clearly necessary, and, perhaps, merciful to kill them. One can not reasonably expect them to reform until they are no longer dominated, and, if their potentially good souls are trapped in a body they cannot control, is it not good to free them from such torment? I will close by saying that I see the problematic parallels between these arguments and racist ones, and the strontger parallel is part of why I dislike the second argument compared to the first, but I hope that it is clear that none of my arguments are meant to justify the killing of anyone in the real world. I am simply engaging in a thought experiment and playing with secondary belief.