The Orc Problem

[Odola]

That doesn't address the issue I raised: are the Valar and Maiar also guided by fate? The quoted passage seems to suggest that Men hold a special place even apart from the Ainur. And if being more bound to fate doesn't eliminate the free will of the Ainur, then we have no reason to believe it would eliminate the free will of the Elves.

I know many people tend to think that fate automatically equals a lack of free will. However, I don't think that's the stance Tolkien takes in his works. Throughout The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion; Tolkien shows us a world where events are fated to happen, yet at the same time, it's the choices of the characters which bring the events about.

I will repeat again, elves do have free will, it simply does not go as far as that of a human. Could Finduilas refuse her fate to be in love with Turin? She could not. But he could and actively did refuse his part in it, to his demise. A human is tempted several times a day, an elf maybe once or twice in his/her whole livetime. It is not a big difference in essence but a very huge in degree.

 

[JJ48]

I will repeat again, elves do have free will, it simply does not go as far as that of a human. Could Finduilas refuse her fate to be in love with Turin? She could not. But he could and actively did refuse his part in it, to his demise. A human is tempted several times a day, an elf maybe once or twice in his/her whole livetime. It is not a big difference in essence but a very huge in degree.

Ok, and if Elves have free will, and Orcs use Elf "souls", then Orcs would also have free will. So, we're right back to the start as far as the Orc Problem goes.

 

[Odola]

Ok, and if Elves have free will, and Orcs use Elf "souls", then Orcs would also have free will. So, we're right back to the start as far as the Orc Problem goes.

If you listen to Shagrat and Gorbag it is clear they do have some free will of their own, just not enough of it to be able to effectively decide to stop being orcs.

 

[Haerangil]

We have moved on from fate and free will to predetermination, which i believe is wrong.

 

[Odola]

We have moved on from fate and free will to predetermination, which i believe is wrong.

This is interesting. How so? Is being a member of ones' line or even being a mortal human predetermination? Humans are all doomed to die because of their distant forebarers worshiping Morgoth in Eru's place. Is this predetermination? Orcs are orcs because of something done to their forebarers. Where the difference really?

 

[Haerangil]

When elves have a very restricted free will and orcs inherit somebody elses original sin, if only men are truly free then, i believe, we have crossed that line towards predetermination.

 

[Odola]

When elves have a very restricted free will and orcs inherit somebody elses original sin, if only men are truly free then, i believe, we have crossed that line towards predetermination.

Men's free will is also limited, they cannot choose immortality or to become a bird or a strone. The Ainur have more freedom in this regard. Men's free will has wider range but the prize for it is huge. It is the prize of having to always second guess oneself, always being one's own greatest enemy, distrusting one's own mind, thoughts, filings and instincs as all can be led astray. The reverse of this is that a human can always turn back, as long as he is not turned into a wraith, of course.

 

[JJ48]

It's not just that orcs are evil; it's that Orcs are so thoroughly evil from the time of birth that anyone can simply attack any Orc on sight (or even make a game of killing them), without any other good folk so much as batting an eye. Orcs are placed on a level with animals (or lower), despite apparently coming from Elves. Baby Orcs are born into this situation simply by their nature, not due to any choices.

You liken this to Men being born to die, but the two situations are not even remotely similar. Men dying is not their ultimate fate, but rather the process by which they get to their ultimate judgement and fate. Orcs, on the other hand, have already been judged and been found irredeemable. In a sense, they are like souls in Hell, who have had their choices locked in and can no longer change their minds.

So far, this doesn't seem like a problem. After all, if the Elves got twisted into the Orcs, there was probably some part of the process where they gave in and can be judged for it. However, the main problem, as I see it, is the Orc children. Orc children are born with their ultimate judgement locked in, and no possibility of changing it. This is akin to souls in Hell still having kids who are then born in Hell with no possibility of escape. In this way, Eru is actively creating new lives solely to be evil, which is problematic when it comes to the nature of Iluvatar.

I do see two possible alternatives, but both have their own problems. The first is that perhaps the souls of the Orcs do not come from Iluvatar. However, granting other beings the ability to create life in this way would bring Middle-earth dangerously close to becoming dualistic, which would severely weaken the work.

The other possibility is that Orcs may not have souls at all, eliminating the need for Eru to directly sanction their procreation. However, the text of The Lord of the Rings (particularly The Return of the King), suggests that Orcs possess qualities that place them above animals or automata.

 

[Odola]

The other possibility is that Orcs may not have souls at all, eliminating the need for Eru to directly sanction their procreation. However, the text of The Lord of the Rings (particularly The Return of the King), suggests that Orcs possess qualities that place them above animals or automata.

1. The text of LOTR is neither written by Eru nor by the Ainur. As such it only describes what hobbit understand about orcs and what orcs are for them. As such it is not surprising the text is not consistant in its view. The orcs of Saruman are described by Merry and Pippin and those in Cirith Ungol by Sam. Sam carried the ring and indomuch understands evil and corruption better then the both young hobbits.
2. The counting game in not performed by Glorfindel and Erlond but by Legolas and Gimli. Dwarves could play such a game with elves also. They are not very considerate towards other races when they have a grudge. Gimli might have counter Haradrim in the same manner. And elves od Mirkwood are by choince simple. Their kings actively refunsed the Valar and moved East to escape their guidence. They wants a simple live and mean to avoid evil not overthinking matters. As such Legolas outlook on live and world is artificially simplified. He has learned about Elbereth in Rivendell, but I doubt he had time enough to aquire its morals. Elladans and Elrohirs killings sprees against orcs are explained by them having seems what orcs have done to their mother. They knows what orcs are capable of and want them nowhere near normal people. But see that Erlond never joines them. He lets them, as this is part of their coping and grieving process, but never joines in himself.
3. Such war counting games humans have played against their human enemies for ages. As little as this affects human inherent dignity it does affect the orcish one.

 

[JJ48]

1. The text of LOTR is neither written by Eru nor by the Ainur. As such it only describes what hobbit understand about orcs and what orcs are for them. As such it is not surprising the text is not consistant in its view. The orcs of Saruman are described by Merry and Pippin and those in Cirith Ungol by Sam. Sam carried the ring and indomuch understands evil and corruption better then the both young hobbits.
2. The counting game in not performed by Glorfindel and Erlond but by Legolas and Gimli. Dwarves could play such a game with elves also. They are not very considerate towards other races when they have a grudge. Gimli might have counter Haradrim in the same manner. And elves od Mirkwood are by choince simple. Their kings actively refunsed the Valar and moved East to escape their guidence. They wants a simple live and mean to avoid evil not overthinking matters. As such Legolas outlook on live and world is artificially simplified. He has learned about Elbereth in Rivendell, but I doubt he had time enough to aquire its morals. Elladans and Elrohirs killings sprees against orcs are explained by them having seems what orcs have done to their mother. They knows what orcs are capable of and want them nowhere near normal people. But see that Erlond never joines them. He lets them, as this is part of their coping and grieving process, but never joines in himself.
3. Such war counting games humans have played against their human enemies for ages. As little as this affects human inherent dignity it does affect the orcish one.

1. Which passages are you thinking of which seem inconsistent? I don't know that the experiences of Merry and Pippin even factored into my argument at all.

2. Personally, I think you're making far too light of the counting game, and the underlying viewpoint driving it. It's not simply counting kills and seeing who got the most; it's the whole treatment of orcs as simply evil throughout the books. And it's not just a few characters; it's pretty much everyone throughout the entirety of Middle-earth. If the orcs are not completely and utterly corrupt and wicked to the very last member, then this view of them is itself inexcusably vile. And yet, if they are, then we're back to the earlier problems.

3. People have played such counting games during war. People have also slaughtered and pillaged villages during war. The fact that it has happened in our own history does not make it right or acceptable.

 

[Deleted member 207]

It's not just that orcs are evil; it's that Orcs are so thoroughly evil from the time of birth that anyone can simply attack any Orc on sight (or even make a game of killing them), without any other good folk so much as batting an eye. Orcs are placed on a level with animals (or lower), despite apparently coming from Elves. Baby Orcs are born into this situation simply by their nature, not due to any choices.

The fact we see how a people are treated isn’t necessarily evidence for that people’s nature. Treating a group as subhuman over an extended period has never been a true metric of that people’s moral standing in some (in itself a subjective concept)

You liken this to Men being born to die, but the two situations are not even remotely similar. Men dying is not their ultimate fate, but rather the process by which they get to their ultimate judgement and fate. Orcs, on the other hand, have already been judged and been found irredeemable. In a sense, they are like souls in Hell, who have had their choices locked in and can no longer change their minds.

You’re idea that orcs care some inherited original sin is certainly one perspective. However, to then extrapolate that all future orcs are irrevocably ‘lost’ and that it is morally and cosmologoically acceptable to treat them as little more than beasts is problematic. So is the idea implied, by connecting the dots, that it’s acceptable to treat animals in this way. I find it unlikely that elves in particular, would kill such cast numbers of animals in such a short span of time for sport.

So far, this doesn't seem like a problem. After all, if the Elves got twisted into the Orcs, there was probably some part of the process where they gave in and can be judged for it.

To me, I feel that say the torture and perversion of the orcs MUST necessitate a level of their own acceptance or willing involvement or voluntary submission, is a problem.

However, the main problem, as I see it, is the Orc children. Orc children are born with their ultimate judgement locked in, and no possibility of changing it. This is akin to souls in Hell still having kids who are then born in Hell with no possibility of escape. In this way, Eru is actively creating new lives solely to be evil, which is problematic when it comes to the nature of Iluvatar.

Completely agree here. It doesn’t make sense in the narrative for this to be the case. Unless Eru has been mischaracterised drastically.

I do see two possible alternatives, but both have their own problems. The first is that perhaps the souls of the Orcs do not come from Iluvatar. However, granting other beings the ability to create life in this way would bring Middle-earth dangerously close to becoming dualistic, which would severely weaken the work.

The other possibility is that Orcs may not have souls at all, eliminating the need for Eru to directly sanction their procreation. However, the text of The Lord of the Rings (particularly The Return of the King), suggests that Orcs possess qualities that place them above animals or automata.

Or, thirdly, they are a separate race whose origins and culture was never recorded by the other races of middle earth.

Again, I don’t want to argue that orcs are somehow misunderstood innocents. But I feel that if such clear options were available to understand them then Tolkien himself wouldn’t have had such a problem with them

 

[Odola]

1. Which passages are you thinking of which seem inconsistent? I don't know that the experiences of Merry and Pippin even factored into my argument at all.

Tolkien Profesor stated thet the switch between pure evil orcs and those "free-willed one"s in LOTR is between the orcs Merry and Pippin encounter and those that Sam encounters in Cirith Ungol. LOTR was written by Bilbo then Frodo and then Sam. But the experiences of Marry and Pippin can only have been reported by Merry nad Pippin, even if Frodo and Sam were thoe wrote them down. So there is a clear switch of perspective there.

2. Personally, I think you're making far too light of the counting game, and the underlying viewpoint driving it. It's not simply counting kills and seeing who got the most; it's the whole treatment of orcs as simply evil throughout the books. And it's not just a few characters; it's pretty much everyone throughout the entirety of Middle-earth. If the orcs are not completely and utterly corrupt and wicked to the very last member, then this view of them is itself inexcusably vile. And yet, if they are, then we're back to the earlier problems.

The counting game does not say anything about the orcs. It says far more about Gimli and Legolas themselves than about orcs.

3. People have played such counting games during war. People have also slaughtered and pillaged villages during war. The fact that it has happened in our own history does not make it right or acceptable.

Yes, exactly. It does not says anything about the "victims" of such a game. Only about the (sometimes willfull) ignorance of the people involved in it.

Projecting post-christian values on dwarves and elves (and especially Non-High-Elves) is imho an anachronistic aproach.
I do not think elves have an outward system of moral values per se in a set of formalised commandments and rules. Normally they would not need it. So projecting human rules and laws onto them is an error. As elves are basically "good people" they have less tolerance for evil than a marred human, who is avare of his own failures, would ever have towards another human. And Mirkwood elves are "more wild and less wise" then High Elves.

And the other books, who wrote them? Both the Hobbit and the Translations from Elvish ("Silmarillion") - Bilbo did. For Bilbo orcs serve more as an literaly device, he had no personal encounter with any which involved any kind of direct interpersonal interaction.

Orc being orc move inside their own spectrum and have to make they choices to make inside that frame as any other race has too, e.g. the Easterlings.

They role inside Middle Earth is giving face to the results of corruption and evil and as such making it obvious what Morgoth and later Sauron really are about, even when they still look preety, orcs are the fruit by which they can be recognised. As such orcs are a vital witness to the other races why they have to resist evil if they do not want to end like them.

I do not think orcs are dammed to "hell". There is The Void, but I do not think all orcs' spirits actually end there. Do not think an orc's spirit's fate is much different to an Avari's or even Silvan elf's who refused the call to Mandos.

 

[Jim Deutch]

I know many people tend to think that fate automatically equals a lack of free will. However, I don't think that's the stance Tolkien takes in his works. Throughout The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion; Tolkien shows us a world where events are fated to happen, yet at the same time, it's the choices of the characters which bring the events about.

Agree: it's not at all that Elves entirely lack free will. Yet they are unable to escape their Fate, while Men can (sometimes: not Turin!).

It's a subtle thing, probably related to free will, but not equivalent to it. It's been debated without becoming logically clear (to me, anyway), and yet it is something I can feel: it is a familiar concept in some way. I think maybe it's as closely related to Narrative Causality as it is to Free Will. The Story carries Elves along inescapably, while Men have the option of dropping out, or even of telling their own Tale. Agh, no: that doesn't really work either, does it?

Elvish Will can make the trees grow (Galadriel) but can't escape Fate. The Will of Men is both less and more effective, but explaining it may not be possible. Most likely, it's one of those ineffable divinity things. . .

 

[Haerangil]

Men can leave the world while elves can not.Elves are more part of Arda than men.That does not mean elves have no free will, they are just much more subject to the world (which also does seem to be a two-sided thing).

The theory that there is some well of Souls somewhere, where Souls are drawn from with every birth and so are not all of the time an act of Eru's direct will/intervention but an automatic thing of life/creation is intriguing and i like it.Yet it doesn't solve the problem why Orcs are irredeemable since they cannot be born irredeemable.

To think of them as somehow reborn or reembodied already fallen spirits seems to be the least disturbing not-cosmology-breaking explanation.

 

[Odola]

The theory that there is some well of Souls somewhere, where Souls are drawn from with every birth and so are not all of the time an act of Eru's direct will/intervention but an automatic thing of life/creation is intriguing and i like it.Yet it doesn't solve the problem why Orcs are irredeemable since they cannot be born irredeemable.

To think of them as somehow reborn or reembodied already fallen spirits seems to be the least disturbing not-cosmology-breaking explanation.

But that would make Shagrat and Gorbag impossible. There is a clear difference between them and e.g. the spiders of Mirkwood.

And imho orcs are not very much more in need of redemption than the whole humanity and/or Arda. As I mentioned before, what is the difference between a dead orc's spirit and that of a dead Avari who refuses Mandos? Beyond the generation 0, which might end in the Void, for the rest there is not much to be redeemed from. They are more victims than culprits really. They are more in need of healing if anything, but Lorien/Irmo is far away.

(A propos, when men became mortal their vault of souls would have run dry very quickly. So I do think that now men are created as they go. But according to the men's myths Tolkien mentioned the first generations lived longer so seemigly they were better suited for Arda. I suppose those were the ones from the vault. The 2.0 version seem more fitted to the final destination and as such to be even less connected to Arda than before, so they leave it sooner. But this doesn't apply to elves as this seem to have been a solutions applied after the whole of humanity has fallen and is directly connected to its mortality.)

 

[Haerangil]

No, the difference is still that at some point men can make a decision,they are born, they grow up and they choose if they
Want to become evil or not.Orcs seemingly never actively choose, they are not good as little children and then grow up and become evil by some choice , they ARE orcs and THAT is the entire problem.

The problem is not that Gorbag and Shagrat are like evil humans, that would not be any problem at all.The problem is that it is emplied they have been Gorbag and Shagrat all along and their entire culture is that way right from the start and they never stop to be because they won't and can't.No elf-souls and no well of souls and nothing solves this dilemma.

 

[Deleted member 207]

No, the difference is still that at some point men can make a decision,they are born, they grow up and they choose if they
Want to become evil or not.Orcs seemingly never actively choose, they are not good as little children and then grow up and become evil by some choice , they ARE orcs and THAT is the entire problem.

The problem is not that Gorbag and Shagrat are like evil humans, that would not be any problem at all.The problem is that it is emplied they have been Gorbag and Shagrat all along and their entire culture is that way right from the start and they never stop to be because they won't and can't.No elf-souls and no well of souls and nothing solves this dilemma.

It’s only a dilemma if we take it as read. Bearing in mind, if we believe the conceit then we believe the narrative focus is skewed toward Hobbit allies. Regardless, do we have any concrete facts to say that within this world humans actually are born innocent and choose good or ill. People may choose what to do with the time given to them, but surely choosing poorly doesn’t not make one irrevocably evil.

And if orcs are naturally born or raised with different moral compasses, can it actually be said they choose evil even if the above assumption were the case. If, by nature or nurture, they have no choice in the matter, and if evil is a choice, then can there be such a thing as a naturally evil being. Surely that is placing third party perspectives of good and evil onto another group with a different worldview. I don’t know if orcs consider themselves evil. I don’t even know if they have the concept of a moral evil. They obviously understand binary good and bad. As in, beneficial or harmful, but good and evil? And where orcs fall within that? They probably just think of themselves as orcs, end of. So can we condone gleefully killing a sentient race who don’t align with another party’s worldview? Even if they are naturally ‘evil’, isn’t the gamification of their slaughter still a damning indictment of the worldview of Gimli and Legolas? Or within that, am I perhaps committing the very same sin of putting my worldview onto two very different races. Maybe we just have to accept every race is what they are and that may not be good or ill, it’s just what it is? #orcsisorcs

 

[JJ48]

It’s only a dilemma if we take it as read. Bearing in mind, if we believe the conceit then we believe the narrative focus is skewed toward Hobbit allies. Regardless, do we have any concrete facts to say that within this world humans actually are born innocent and choose good or ill. People may choose what to do with the time given to them, but surely choosing poorly doesn’t not make one irrevocably evil.

And if orcs are naturally born or raised with different moral compasses, can it actually be said they choose evil even if the above assumption were the case. If, by nature or nurture, they have no choice in the matter, and if evil is a choice, then can there be such a thing as a naturally evil being. Surely that is placing third party perspectives of good and evil onto another group with a different worldview. I don’t know if orcs consider themselves evil. I don’t even know if they have the concept of a moral evil. They obviously understand binary good and bad. As in, beneficial or harmful, but good and evil? And where orcs fall within that? They probably just think of themselves as orcs, end of. So can we condone gleefully killing a sentient race who don’t align with another party’s worldview? Even if they are naturally ‘evil’, isn’t the gamification of their slaughter still a damning indictment of the worldview of Gimli and Legolas? Or within that, am I perhaps committing the very same sin of putting my worldview onto two very different races. Maybe we just have to accept every race is what they are and that may not be good or ill, it’s just what it is? #orcsisorcs

How the orcs view themselves isn't really an issue since objective Good and Evil exist in Middle-earth.

 

[Deleted member 207]

How the orcs view themselves isn't really an issue since objective Good and Evil exist in Middle-earth.

My point again is we only are told that there is objective moral good and evil in absolute terms from the same sources that imply orcs are evil. We can buy into the existence of the secondary world but in doing so we also have to buy into the fact that the moral framework is not an absolute truth as Tolkien has removed the absolute truth of the omniscient narrator by giving us an in-universe narrative conceit. We can believe the Silmarillion is historical, but to truthfully believe in it as presented, we have to read it as one reads the Iliad, only with the additional layer of the potential that the Greek gods involved may or may not have been/still are real as this secondary world may or may not involve such beings as written on if their legends

 

[Jim Deutch]

It's not just that orcs are evil; it's that Orcs are so thoroughly evil from the time of birth that anyone can simply attack any Orc on sight (or even make a game of killing them), without any other good folk so much as batting an eye.

The good folk of The Shire didn't bat an eye on the killing of Men at the Scouring. Perhaps that's not a great analogy, but are you so sure that a Man who had never heard of Orcs would feel that way? I'd allow that for Elves: they have a visceral reaction to their corrupted cousins. Do we know that Men do, too?

The only evidence I can think of is Barliman, talking about how some of the "ruffians" looked half-orc. But the good people of Bree killed all that they could, no matter what they looked like.