You can’t enjoy mutilation and raping children and burning villages down without some moral fiber. Or else why would you enjoy such awful things opposed to having some ice cream or playing a game. They like to do evil shit because they’re evil and should not be shown any mercy, they’re hideous horrible monsters bred for death and war, they’re bad. I hate leftists so much.
Why does that matter? If someone knows the difference between good and evil, and they choose evil, then you shouldn't show them mercy.
I think everyone is realising that the Orcs actually represent non-whites. Cinemaphile always knew, so that must be Reddit.
Maybe le heckin author should've done a better job at not creating a world filled with so many transparent real life counterparts.
3 months ago
Anonymous
no it's your fault for not getting out of a modern mindset. for example, orcs are a variant of medieval demons -or perhaps a stand-in for ugly humans- but not code for africans or any other ethnicities.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I thought they were mongol-vikings
3 months ago
Anonymous
>In summary, the medieval imagination bequeathed to posterity many names of monsters but little to substantiate or differentiate them
>mocks modern mindset >champions a dark ages mindset instead
Based moron.
did it escape you that lotr is set in the not!dark ages because tolkien was fascinated by it and wanted to create a myth based on it?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>everything is allegory again
okay moron
3 months ago
Anonymous
what r u saying moron
3 months ago
Anonymous
>mocks modern mindset >champions a dark ages mindset instead
How does the ability to talk or knowing about morality contradict orcs being pure evil at all? Remember, Tolkien did not buy into the moral relativism bullshit.
I guess it means that they could think in human terms and thus could be evangelized into acting morally. But now we know some mental disorders make you capable of understanding morality yet incapable of not being a piece of shit.
>I guess it means that they could think in human terms and thus could be evangelized into acting morally.
That's not true at all. Being able to communicate does not mean you have shared values. Especially not in a universe like Tolkien's. I can talk with a sadist, but nothing communicated between us will stop them from taking pleasure from other peoples pain. Orcs every instinct is evil, that's not something you can be reasoned out off.
>Tolkien did not believe in moral relativism.
Which makes him a gullible dumbass but ok.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>he's gullible for NOT falling for muh moral relativism
please be bait
3 months ago
Anonymous
Sounds more like you are evil but trying to justify yourself to yourself.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>morally good is what I think it is, there are no divergent circumstances or points of view
Moral absolutists are just as "evil" as the relativists, except they lack any form of self reflection. Sure is easy to brand someone as evil because he doesn't subscribe to your arbitrary set of beliefs.
3 months ago
Anonymous
And it sure is easy to justify any action through moral relativism. If someone does more evil than good, then they are evil. If they do more good than evil, they are good. A debate can be had over what is good or evil, but under moral relativism then suddenly evil actions are okay because it's either for the greater good, or the person you are doing it to deserves it or all the other mental gymnastics evil people twist themselves into to justify their actions.
Humans are fallible and it's easy for us to justify to ourselves. Moral relativism makes that worse.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>And it sure is easy to justify any action through moral relativism
It isn't, relativists are concerned with doing the best thing possible for most parties included, and not just adhere to a strict set of arbitrary rules that someone else came up with. Rules are fine but they can't be designed to hold up their moral value for every single situation this chaotic world. You can call relativists "opportunists" if you like, but sometimes breaking the rules is the right answer.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>relativists are concerned with doing the best thing possible for most parties included
Which is, also, relative. Colonizing missionaries were convinced they were saving peoples' immortal souls, that trumps everything surely?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Isn't that an objective morality system though? Proselytizing missionary work, I mean.
But yeah I'd just straight reject the idea that because people are wrong you have to follow things that don't fit a particular situation. The right answer to any problem is "whatever produces the best results as determined by the fixing individual"
3 months ago
Anonymous
The rules being set forth being incomplete or flawed does not invalidate the notion that there is right or wrong. After all, the rules has been created by fallible beings such as we are. In your very own terms, if breaking the rules is the right answer, then that is good. If it's not right, then it's evil. And we can have a conversation of when the rules are wrong and needs to be corrected or added to. But only if we agree that there exists such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong.
You seem to have me confused with someone that claims they know what is right and wrong, either through some divine entity or arrogance.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Your post sounds very relativist to me.
3 months ago
Anonymous
How so? As an example, is it wrong to steal from somebody else? A relativist would say it depends on from whom, how much you have yourself, and how much you steal and the consequences it has for the person you steal from. I think that's evil thinking made so people can justify to themselves why it's okay for them to take something that doesn't belong to them.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>The rules being set forth being incomplete or flawed does not invalidate the notion that there is right or wrong
Right, but absolutists are fundamentally obsessed with moral-related rules, which is my original point. They are more concerned with following those rules, flawed or not, simply because their moral system dictates them to. To break those rules is to be amoral.
Of course good and evil exist to the observer, but they are entirely subjective. There is no universal good or bad that every conscious thing agrees on, it's an emergent biological property, and like everything natural, it is not immuteable. What's good one day might be considered bad the next. All value hierarchies are in constantly reacting flux.
3 months ago
Anonymous
So because the people believing in moral absolutism are flawed, that invalidates the belief system? Well, I guess not a single belief system ever created is valid then.
If I'm bad at math, does that make math as a field invalid?
3 months ago
Anonymous
I never said relativism is perfect, just that it makes more sense and gets a bad rep while absolutists pride themselves in being morally correct fundamentally. Ironically, if strict adherence to an outdated morality system causes unnecessary suffering, it is actually amoral.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Not him but I have yet to meet or see a true moral relativist. They almost invariably happen to be morally absolutionist when it comes to politically convenient viewpoints. They use moral relativism as ideological WD-40 to slip their absolutes through the absolutes of others.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Well and I can name an endless list of moral busybodies that use their 'morally superior' cause an excuse to propagate their agenda, very much at the expence of others. What's your point?
3 months ago
Anonymous
My point is that they're the same people most of the time. Relativist when it suits them, absolutist otherwise.
3 months ago
Anonymous
And you are getting confused by the fallibility of humans and blaming it on moral absolutism. Any individual person with morals will sometimes fail to live up to them. Their failure does not make morals invalid.
Who cares, your enemies are meant to be killed, frick off with your 21st century peace and love bullshit, this world is built upon a foundation of violence and all of nature is a nightmare of cyclical bloodshed and horror.
If you are so convinced then go out and kill instead of writing dumb shit here.
>orcs are not completely irredeemable.
I don't really care. If an "Orc" kills a human, then their entire race should be wiped out, which is what happens in Lord of the Rings. That's the moral of the story.
They didn't genocide all the orcs because of a single orc's actions, get off the drugs.
I wasn't talking about they, and I meant what white people should do IRL. I'm filtering the thread now, and then returning to filtering threads full of Orcs, which is what I've done for years. Please enjoy your Mordor portion of the board.
>They didn't genocide all the orcs because of a single orc's actions
They should have. It would all have gone a lot more smoothly if they'd just got it started once he tried to use the fake $20 bill.
Orcs aren't breaking into my house and killing my family but you can bet if they did and I were given the opportunity I'd toss every single one into a wood chipper.
Convinced of what you stupid fricking homosexual? That the orcs were obviously bad news and Aragorn was just in slicing through them? What's the issue with that homosexual?
>morally good is what I think it is, there are no divergent circumstances or points of view
Moral absolutists are just as "evil" as the relativists, except they lack any form of self reflection. Sure is easy to brand someone as evil because he doesn't subscribe to your arbitrary set of beliefs.
If every moral perspective is equally valid, where do you get off criticizing other peoples' when you haven't got anything better?
Effectively, your moral perspective is that there are none. His is better for that reason alone.
The fact basic morality has changed over and over throughout human history and across cultures, that should tell you everything you need to know about moral "absolutism".
That's a pissy statement from someone believes in no morals whatever. Or rather, you do have morals and are ashamed to admit it because you find the notion degrading. You believe something is right but you won't act on it because don't want to be in the same boat as the rest of us mortals.
Is the explanation for why you think your moral code is the correct one at all linked to why your religion is coincidentally the one true faith?
3 months ago
Anonymous
It's the correct one because I believe it. If I didn't believe it was correct, it would not be my moral perspective. You are the same, but try to pretend at more.
I believe in morals, just not that they are immuteable or universal.
So there is such a thing as a moral, the value of which varies according to circumstance? So if every factor can be controlled for, the circumstances reproduced, the same things are moral every time? Sounds immutable and universal to me.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>if every factor can be controlled for, the circumstances reproduced, the same things are moral every time? Sounds immutable and universal to me.
Yeah, but it can't. Not in this universe anyway. So.
3 months ago
Anonymous
it's the thought that counts
3 months ago
Anonymous
You got me there with your previous point, but like I said, the world is too chaotic in nature for absolutistic morality to make sense. If you are religious, you're not gonna like this but morals are ultimately a utilitarian byproduct of evolution. Value structures help us make order our decision making behaviour to maximise survival chances. Even monkeys societies in the wild have been observed to have very basic morality structures, religion has nothing to do with it. But as to my original argument, there is nothing absolute about morals, never was. Good/valueable and bad/detrimental change depending on the hyper complex situations everyone finds himself in all the time.
3 months ago
Anonymous
What is the point of all this meaningless homosexualshit your lame nerd ass posted when the context is about orcs in lotr you absolute fricking dweeb. They were evil they were running around shitting everything up constantly gleefully attacking everyone else, why the frick would anyone in any position to stop them stop to consider the morality of responding to their genocide? They fricking started it.
He actually wrote something about this in response to what I believe was some fan mail by a little girl. It basically boiled down to, orcs are not entirely evil because they are corrupted men, and men being part of [Tolkien's version of God] creations have some of his light within them. Thus orcs are not completely irredeemable.
I don't really care. If an "Orc" kills a human, then their entire race should be wiped out, which is what happens in Lord of the Rings. That's the moral of the story.
Tolkien never really decided on what Orcs were before dying. It's very importanr in Middle-Earth lore that God and ONLY God can create life, every other Valar, even Melkor, can at best create automatons that stop moving when they stop thinking about them. So Orcs are at their sources a creation of God who in Tolkien's vision is all-just and all-powerful, so creating a purely evil being (even through Melkor) is hard to justify. Most people go with the interpretation that is in the Silmarillion that elves got captured by Morgoth and twisted by torture into orcs, but the wording is relatively ambiguous and the Silmarillion remains a work in progress that will never be finished.
Apparently he also toyed with the idea of Frodo and Sam meeting good orcs that would help them get into Mordor at some point but didn't find a good place to include it in LOTR.
>everything must be le shades of gray!
morons. They represent the mindlessly cruel bloodlust and contempt of life of war, and that's it. No one cares if they pay taxes or if they have baby orcs waiting at home.
Cinemaphile's the only place that has almost a personal vendetta against Redditors yet still posts any shit pile from there on the daily
When will you homosexuals just kys?
Wouldnt that make them WORSE, not better? Its one thing to be an amoral monster that's non-sentient but driven to cruelty and violence, but a whole other of you're fully aware of the suffering you're inflicting and gleefully doing it anyway.
Correct. If we’re going off Catholic beliefs, demons can reason and know morality but they are evil and beyond God’s mercy so humans should have nothing to do with them except spiritual warfare
You only deserve redemption if you seek it out. An orc is a living being with a soul that was corrupted against it's will into an abomination instilled with evil. From the perspective of a true Christian one should give every orc the opportunity to ask for forgiveness and give them an avenue to redemption. A true human being with a functioning brain should see every orc, a being that will always have to act against its base nature to defile and destroy everything, as a credible threat that must be destroyed to maintain order and peace.
Tolkien wrote that orcs and goblins were elves taken by Melkor and twisted by his evil magic which really makes them victims as opposed to loyal subjects. He wrote about this issue with a friend while writing the story.
Seriously what is this fricking thread even about, that Aragorn and company didn't apply modern sensibilities and morality to the question of the orc problem? Do these same people watch Star Wars and get mad that Luke didn't render immediate medical aid to Vader so he could be tried for his complicity in blowing up Alderaan?
>what is this fricking thread even about
It's about nothing moron. It's a dick measuring contest there's nothing to win or learn from engaging in this type of discussion.
>til
Sounds pretty fun fact imagine (and thats a good thing) to me, chief.
how did they know about morality tho, they were sadists and joyous about torture and mayhem.
Aragorn and the hobbits didn't seem very upset stabbing them to pieces either
It is not morally wrong to kill someone who is trying to take away your life
wut? ofcourse they did, Frodo is scared as shit
You can’t enjoy mutilation and raping children and burning villages down without some moral fiber. Or else why would you enjoy such awful things opposed to having some ice cream or playing a game. They like to do evil shit because they’re evil and should not be shown any mercy, they’re hideous horrible monsters bred for death and war, they’re bad. I hate leftists so much.
Jews understand morality
>they could talk and knew about morality
Why does that matter? If someone knows the difference between good and evil, and they choose evil, then you shouldn't show them mercy.
I think everyone is realising that the Orcs actually represent non-whites. Cinemaphile always knew, so that must be Reddit.
they were germans
Mongols, actually. Tolkien said in one of his letters.
There were all hamas supporter
you're the exact same kind of cancer as the people that want modernize Tolkien with RoPe
fantasy is about the past not the modern world
tolkien was gigapozzed, he would have welcomed it
>all good human nations are Germanic/Celtic
>all evil human realms are Arabic/Turcomannic
J.R.R.Chuddien.
imagine if the roles were reversed and it was the brown races who are disgraced and betrayed by their own malformed specimens
Isn't that just Rings of Power?
>author says to not see allegory in his works
>morons try to read allegory into his works
many such cases. sad!
Maybe le heckin author should've done a better job at not creating a world filled with so many transparent real life counterparts.
no it's your fault for not getting out of a modern mindset. for example, orcs are a variant of medieval demons -or perhaps a stand-in for ugly humans- but not code for africans or any other ethnicities.
I thought they were mongol-vikings
>In summary, the medieval imagination bequeathed to posterity many names of monsters but little to substantiate or differentiate them
did it escape you that lotr is set in the not!dark ages because tolkien was fascinated by it and wanted to create a myth based on it?
>everything is allegory again
okay moron
what r u saying moron
>mocks modern mindset
>champions a dark ages mindset instead
Based moron.
cute that you think there's a contradiction there
They were arabs.
>t. pollack
How does the ability to talk or knowing about morality contradict orcs being pure evil at all? Remember, Tolkien did not buy into the moral relativism bullshit.
I guess it means that they could think in human terms and thus could be evangelized into acting morally. But now we know some mental disorders make you capable of understanding morality yet incapable of not being a piece of shit.
>I guess it means that they could think in human terms and thus could be evangelized into acting morally.
That's not true at all. Being able to communicate does not mean you have shared values. Especially not in a universe like Tolkien's. I can talk with a sadist, but nothing communicated between us will stop them from taking pleasure from other peoples pain. Orcs every instinct is evil, that's not something you can be reasoned out off.
>That's not true at all.
See the bottom half of the post. Now we know it isn't, but he lived in a different time.
And as I said in my first post, Tolkien did not believe in moral relativism.
>Tolkien did not believe in moral relativism.
Which makes him a gullible dumbass but ok.
>he's gullible for NOT falling for muh moral relativism
please be bait
Sounds more like you are evil but trying to justify yourself to yourself.
>morally good is what I think it is, there are no divergent circumstances or points of view
Moral absolutists are just as "evil" as the relativists, except they lack any form of self reflection. Sure is easy to brand someone as evil because he doesn't subscribe to your arbitrary set of beliefs.
And it sure is easy to justify any action through moral relativism. If someone does more evil than good, then they are evil. If they do more good than evil, they are good. A debate can be had over what is good or evil, but under moral relativism then suddenly evil actions are okay because it's either for the greater good, or the person you are doing it to deserves it or all the other mental gymnastics evil people twist themselves into to justify their actions.
Humans are fallible and it's easy for us to justify to ourselves. Moral relativism makes that worse.
>And it sure is easy to justify any action through moral relativism
It isn't, relativists are concerned with doing the best thing possible for most parties included, and not just adhere to a strict set of arbitrary rules that someone else came up with. Rules are fine but they can't be designed to hold up their moral value for every single situation this chaotic world. You can call relativists "opportunists" if you like, but sometimes breaking the rules is the right answer.
>relativists are concerned with doing the best thing possible for most parties included
Which is, also, relative. Colonizing missionaries were convinced they were saving peoples' immortal souls, that trumps everything surely?
Isn't that an objective morality system though? Proselytizing missionary work, I mean.
But yeah I'd just straight reject the idea that because people are wrong you have to follow things that don't fit a particular situation. The right answer to any problem is "whatever produces the best results as determined by the fixing individual"
The rules being set forth being incomplete or flawed does not invalidate the notion that there is right or wrong. After all, the rules has been created by fallible beings such as we are. In your very own terms, if breaking the rules is the right answer, then that is good. If it's not right, then it's evil. And we can have a conversation of when the rules are wrong and needs to be corrected or added to. But only if we agree that there exists such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong.
You seem to have me confused with someone that claims they know what is right and wrong, either through some divine entity or arrogance.
Your post sounds very relativist to me.
How so? As an example, is it wrong to steal from somebody else? A relativist would say it depends on from whom, how much you have yourself, and how much you steal and the consequences it has for the person you steal from. I think that's evil thinking made so people can justify to themselves why it's okay for them to take something that doesn't belong to them.
>The rules being set forth being incomplete or flawed does not invalidate the notion that there is right or wrong
Right, but absolutists are fundamentally obsessed with moral-related rules, which is my original point. They are more concerned with following those rules, flawed or not, simply because their moral system dictates them to. To break those rules is to be amoral.
Of course good and evil exist to the observer, but they are entirely subjective. There is no universal good or bad that every conscious thing agrees on, it's an emergent biological property, and like everything natural, it is not immuteable. What's good one day might be considered bad the next. All value hierarchies are in constantly reacting flux.
So because the people believing in moral absolutism are flawed, that invalidates the belief system? Well, I guess not a single belief system ever created is valid then.
If I'm bad at math, does that make math as a field invalid?
I never said relativism is perfect, just that it makes more sense and gets a bad rep while absolutists pride themselves in being morally correct fundamentally. Ironically, if strict adherence to an outdated morality system causes unnecessary suffering, it is actually amoral.
Not him but I have yet to meet or see a true moral relativist. They almost invariably happen to be morally absolutionist when it comes to politically convenient viewpoints. They use moral relativism as ideological WD-40 to slip their absolutes through the absolutes of others.
Well and I can name an endless list of moral busybodies that use their 'morally superior' cause an excuse to propagate their agenda, very much at the expence of others. What's your point?
My point is that they're the same people most of the time. Relativist when it suits them, absolutist otherwise.
And you are getting confused by the fallibility of humans and blaming it on moral absolutism. Any individual person with morals will sometimes fail to live up to them. Their failure does not make morals invalid.
Believing in moral absolutism and believing some people are evil/godless by design are not the same thing.
Who cares, your enemies are meant to be killed, frick off with your 21st century peace and love bullshit, this world is built upon a foundation of violence and all of nature is a nightmare of cyclical bloodshed and horror.
If you are so convinced then go out and kill instead of writing dumb shit here.
They didn't genocide all the orcs because of a single orc's actions, get off the drugs.
I wasn't talking about they, and I meant what white people should do IRL. I'm filtering the thread now, and then returning to filtering threads full of Orcs, which is what I've done for years. Please enjoy your Mordor portion of the board.
>They didn't genocide all the orcs because of a single orc's actions
They should have. It would all have gone a lot more smoothly if they'd just got it started once he tried to use the fake $20 bill.
What piece of television and/or film does that relate to?
Orcs aren't breaking into my house and killing my family but you can bet if they did and I were given the opportunity I'd toss every single one into a wood chipper.
Convinced of what you stupid fricking homosexual? That the orcs were obviously bad news and Aragorn was just in slicing through them? What's the issue with that homosexual?
Caveman republican voter IQ.
t. “male children are women”
The frick are you talking about? Time for your fricking meds.
most-enlightened third world “thinker”
>le black and white morality enjoyer
You sound like a woman.
If every moral perspective is equally valid, where do you get off criticizing other peoples' when you haven't got anything better?
Effectively, your moral perspective is that there are none. His is better for that reason alone.
The fact basic morality has changed over and over throughout human history and across cultures, that should tell you everything you need to know about moral "absolutism".
That's a pissy statement from someone believes in no morals whatever. Or rather, you do have morals and are ashamed to admit it because you find the notion degrading. You believe something is right but you won't act on it because don't want to be in the same boat as the rest of us mortals.
Is the explanation for why you think your moral code is the correct one at all linked to why your religion is coincidentally the one true faith?
It's the correct one because I believe it. If I didn't believe it was correct, it would not be my moral perspective. You are the same, but try to pretend at more.
So there is such a thing as a moral, the value of which varies according to circumstance? So if every factor can be controlled for, the circumstances reproduced, the same things are moral every time? Sounds immutable and universal to me.
>if every factor can be controlled for, the circumstances reproduced, the same things are moral every time? Sounds immutable and universal to me.
Yeah, but it can't. Not in this universe anyway. So.
it's the thought that counts
You got me there with your previous point, but like I said, the world is too chaotic in nature for absolutistic morality to make sense. If you are religious, you're not gonna like this but morals are ultimately a utilitarian byproduct of evolution. Value structures help us make order our decision making behaviour to maximise survival chances. Even monkeys societies in the wild have been observed to have very basic morality structures, religion has nothing to do with it. But as to my original argument, there is nothing absolute about morals, never was. Good/valueable and bad/detrimental change depending on the hyper complex situations everyone finds himself in all the time.
What is the point of all this meaningless homosexualshit your lame nerd ass posted when the context is about orcs in lotr you absolute fricking dweeb. They were evil they were running around shitting everything up constantly gleefully attacking everyone else, why the frick would anyone in any position to stop them stop to consider the morality of responding to their genocide? They fricking started it.
I believe in morals, just not that they are immuteable or universal.
if you kill your enemies, they win
We ain't had nothin' but pure evil for three stinkin' days!
They know the difference between good and evil, they just love evil.
He actually wrote something about this in response to what I believe was some fan mail by a little girl. It basically boiled down to, orcs are not entirely evil because they are corrupted men, and men being part of [Tolkien's version of God] creations have some of his light within them. Thus orcs are not completely irredeemable.
>orcs are not completely irredeemable.
I don't really care. If an "Orc" kills a human, then their entire race should be wiped out, which is what happens in Lord of the Rings. That's the moral of the story.
You can tell people with "criticisms" like this have never read a word he wrote, this is all covered in Strider's tax code.
>corrupted men
I thought they were corrupted elves?
Tolkien never really decided on what Orcs were before dying. It's very importanr in Middle-Earth lore that God and ONLY God can create life, every other Valar, even Melkor, can at best create automatons that stop moving when they stop thinking about them. So Orcs are at their sources a creation of God who in Tolkien's vision is all-just and all-powerful, so creating a purely evil being (even through Melkor) is hard to justify. Most people go with the interpretation that is in the Silmarillion that elves got captured by Morgoth and twisted by torture into orcs, but the wording is relatively ambiguous and the Silmarillion remains a work in progress that will never be finished.
Apparently he also toyed with the idea of Frodo and Sam meeting good orcs that would help them get into Mordor at some point but didn't find a good place to include it in LOTR.
>everything must be le shades of gray!
morons. They represent the mindlessly cruel bloodlust and contempt of life of war, and that's it. No one cares if they pay taxes or if they have baby orcs waiting at home.
Cinemaphile's the only place that has almost a personal vendetta against Redditors yet still posts any shit pile from there on the daily
When will you homosexuals just kys?
but what about aragons moral dilemmas?
Aragorn decapitated an unarmed diplomat in front of everyone. Aragorn is NOT a hero.
~~*diplomat*~~
>Ugh, we just want to troon out your children in school, goy, why are you so angry I’m just a diplom-AACK
if you take your medication today mommy will give you a sticker
>implying he has parents and isn’t raised by the state/his grandma
>brings up trannies out of nowhere
One gender... to obsess them all...
“Trannies” isn’t a gender, you diseased pedophile. The joke was piggybacking off the other anon putting “diplomat” in parentheses. Dilate, freak.
You will never have a trans gf. 😉
Good!
No he's right, you're fricking obsessed with trannies dude. Touch some grass and quit Cinemaphile for a week, your scatterbrain needs detox.
do americans really?
Not in the book
>books didn't elaborate on Aragorn's tax policies
I think we can safely discard those books as pulpy trash and throw them into the garbage where they belong.
Wouldnt that make them WORSE, not better? Its one thing to be an amoral monster that's non-sentient but driven to cruelty and violence, but a whole other of you're fully aware of the suffering you're inflicting and gleefully doing it anyway.
Correct. If we’re going off Catholic beliefs, demons can reason and know morality but they are evil and beyond God’s mercy so humans should have nothing to do with them except spiritual warfare
Why couldn't Tolkien be all enlightened and progressive and have black-coded disabled orc rogue women in magic wheelchairs who don't need no man?
DnD or Pathfinder?
neither, it's Pokemon.
wtf I hate israelites
You only deserve redemption if you seek it out. An orc is a living being with a soul that was corrupted against it's will into an abomination instilled with evil. From the perspective of a true Christian one should give every orc the opportunity to ask for forgiveness and give them an avenue to redemption. A true human being with a functioning brain should see every orc, a being that will always have to act against its base nature to defile and destroy everything, as a credible threat that must be destroyed to maintain order and peace.
Tolkien wrote that orcs and goblins were elves taken by Melkor and twisted by his evil magic which really makes them victims as opposed to loyal subjects. He wrote about this issue with a friend while writing the story.
>orc life matters
Seriously what is this fricking thread even about, that Aragorn and company didn't apply modern sensibilities and morality to the question of the orc problem? Do these same people watch Star Wars and get mad that Luke didn't render immediate medical aid to Vader so he could be tried for his complicity in blowing up Alderaan?
>what is this fricking thread even about
It's about nothing moron. It's a dick measuring contest there's nothing to win or learn from engaging in this type of discussion.