Tolkien General Discussion II

[Cyclops]

I'd hardly say that the brother of the first king of Numenor could be considered "far kinship." While I understand that it is a bit of a stretch, considering Elrond's disposition, technically speaking, he is more closely linked to Westernese than any living man, with the exception of Earendil himself....

Earendil was elven and Elrond chose to be and I suspect this disqualifies them from kingship over men. I don't know of any elf taking a man for king, and very few men directly serve an elf king (Turin, Beren spring to mind as possible examples but I see them more as willing allies than subjects).

Elrond is the closest heir to Elros aside from this objection. However it seems to be absolute, as the point is simply nevber raised.

The lords of Adunie definitely had royal blood (from the distaff side) and had the inheritance rules been changed earlier they would've beenm the ruling house. The certainly were the "most royal" of the good Numenoreans after the downfall (although there might well have been royal blod among the Kings Men too, despute it nbeing much mixed with locals).

... At one point Gorbag even suggests that he and Shagrat should go AWOL with a few trusty lads and go somewhere with no big bosses, 'Just like old times'. ...

Good post, and an interesting possibility. Sauron has been back in Mordor for over 60 years at this point. Are these two orcs remembering their own youth before that time? Or just the "good old days". I know there's several versions of orcish life (made from elves or not, sexual reproduction or not), is this a hint they might be very long lived, or even immortal? The goblins of Goblin Town remember on sight two swords from Gondolin as well.

[Mhaedros]

and very few men directly serve an elf king (Turin, Beren spring to mind as possible examples but I see them more as willing allies than subjects).

Not really true, in the first age it is said many men took the service of the Eldar kings, house of Hador were servants of Fingon, many of the easterlings served Maedhros, even though many others would turn out to be turncloaks. But some sort of alliance might be a better way of putting it as you say.

[Gurak]

The point is that Orcs are basically (speaking in a meta way) humans gone wrong. They're a distillation of the bad traits of human culture(s) and the mean-spirited, violent side of human nature. They are humans without the potential for good...

This is certainly the commonly held view, but what evidence is there that the entire species is evil beyond redemption?
On the contrary, we see numerous examples in the books and movies where Orcs show pride, and courage and support for others of their group.
I'm starting to think that Orcs get a bad rap (not surprising, since all the reports we have were written by 'monkey boy' humans, effeminate scum Eldar or those fuzzy footed little horrors from the west - hardly an unbiased lot!)

I mean, sure, some Orcs have done a few nasty things, but considering their upbringing and living conditions, is that any wonder?
How much of that seemingly nasty streak is understandable anger at their harsh childhoods?
Nurture rather than nature?

Perhaps if they just had an opportunity to found their own communities, free from interference and hatred, the orc civilisation would surprise us with its stability and advances?

[Mhaedros]

Didn't Aragorn give a piece of land to orcs to live in after the War of the Ring, I certainly remember reading something like that the first time I read the RotK.

Who doesn't have a harsh childhood though, I don't think all their evilness can be blamed on that.

[Feanaro Curufinwe]

Didn't Aragorn give a piece of land to orcs to live in after the War of the Ring, I certainly remember reading something like that the first time I read the RotK.

Who doesn't have a harsh childhood though, I don't think all their evilness can be blamed on that.

That was Sauron's slaves in Nurnen.

[Ngugi]

I understand where you're coming from Gurak, though it is essential to remember that we may not apply normal, real-life human logic and moral to [all of] Tolkien's world* and [so it is with the] Orcs, because in it there is an unquestionable and operating God [Eru] and there is an evil Lord [Morgoth] who Orc comes from and it is his spirit that corrupted their spirits and makes them Orcs. The evil in Orcs it is not a result fo genes nor culture, but of theology. The will of Morgoth is in them and direct the Orcs, weitehr he is still in the world or not - and that is a key to understand the Orcs, weither it will bring determination they are scum to be trampled or victims to be pitied.

Technically a good Orc probably wouldn't even qualify as an Orc, no matter it's physichal qualities. And while an Orc may properly be 'saved' from this evil, that is seemingly not possible to gain trough other good Children of Illuvatar or themselves, only a salvation from evil that can come trough Eru/God.
For "good Orcs" even Gorbag and Shagrat, who are buddies enough to plan to desert and set up their own away from Sauron, get into kill each other over the treasures of Frodo. Not much to admire there. But then again, they are Orcs because of their evil taint and will not act in any better way, beside possibly out of fear or for their own greedy gains.

A bunch of relevant insights from HoME 10; Myths Transformed, with in red lines I deem especially interesting:

(* [footnote to the text] One of the reasons for [Morgoth's] self-weakening is that he has given to his 'creatures', Orcs, Balrogs, etc. power of recuperation and multiplication. So that they will gather again without further specific orders. Part of his native creative power has gone out into making an independent evil growth out of his control.)
(...)


Out of the discords of the Music - sc. not directly out of either of the themes,(17) Eru's or Melkor's, but of their dissonance with regard one to another - evil things appeared in Arda, which did not descend from any direct plan or vision of Melkor: they were not 'his children'; and therefore, since all evil hates, hated him too. The progeniture of things was corrupted. Hence Orcs? Part of the Elf-Man idea gone wrong.
(...)


See 'Melkor'. It will there be seen that the wills of Orcs and Balrogs etc. are part of Melkor's power 'dispersed'. Their spirit is one of hate. But hate is non-cooperative (except under direct fear). Hence the rebellions, mutinies, etc. when Morgoth seems far off. Orcs are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar. Also (n.b.) Morgoth not Sauron is the source of Orc-wills. Sauron is just another (if greater) agent. Orcs can rebel against him without losing their own irremediable allegiance to evil (Morgoth).
(...)


The origin of the Orcs is a matter of debate. Some have called them the Melkorohini, the Children of Melkor; but the wiser say: nay, the slaves of Melkor, but not his children; for Melkor had no children.(1) Nonetheless, it was by the malice of Melkor that the Orcs arose, and plainly they were meant by him to be a mockery of the Children of Eru, being bred to be wholly subservient to his will and filled with unappeasable hatred of Elves and Men.
(...)


Melkor was impotent to produce any living thing, but skilled in the corruption of things that did not proceed from himself, if he could dominate them. But if he had indeed attempted to make creatures of his own in imitation or mockery of the Incarnates, he would, like Aule, only have succeeded in producing puppets: his creatures would have acted only while the attention of his will was upon them, and they would have shown no reluctance to execute any command of his, even if it were to destroy themselves.
But the Orcs were not of this kind. They were certainly dominated by their Master, but his dominion was by fear, and they were aware of this fear and hated him. They were indeed so corrupted that they were pitiless, and there was no cruelty or wickedness that they would not commit; but this was the corruption of independent wills, and they took pleasure in their deeds. They were capable of acting on their own, doing evil deeds unbidden for their own sport; or if Morgoth and his agents were far away, they might neglect his commands. They sometimes fought [> They hated one another and often fought] among themselves, to the detriment of Morgoth's plans.
Moreover, the Orcs continued to live and breed and to carry on their business of ravaging and plundering after Morgoth was overthrown.
...

They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.
It is true, of course, that Morgoth held the Orcs in dire thraldom; for in their corruption they had lost almost all possibility of resisting the domination of his will. So great indeed did its pressure upon them become ere Angband fell that, if he turned his thought towards them, they were conscious of his 'eye' wherever they might be; and when Morgoth was at last removed from Arda the Orcs that survived in the West were scattered, leaderless and almost witless, and were for a long time without control or purpose.

This servitude to a central will that reduced the Orcs almost to an ant-like life was seen even more plainly in the Second and Third Ages under the tyranny of Sauron, Morgoth's chief lieutenant. Sauron indeed achieved even greater control over his Orcs than Morgoth had done. He was, of course, operating on a smaller scale, and he had no enemies so great and so fell as were the Noldor in their might in the Elder Days.
But he had also inherited from those days difficulties, such as the diversity of the Orcs in breed and language, and the feuds among them; while in many places in Middle-earth, after the fall of Thangorodrim and during the concealment of Sauron, the Orcs recovering from their helplessness had set up petty realms of their own and had become accustomed to independence. Nonetheless Sauron in time managed to unite them all in unreasoning hatred of the Elves and of Men who associated with them; while the Orcs of his own trained armies were so completely under his will that they would sacrifice themselves without hesitation at his command.*
And he proved even more skilful than his Master also in the corruption of Men who were beyond the reach of the Wise, and in reducing them to a vassalage, in which they would march with the Orcs, and vie with them in cruelty and destruction.


(* [footnote to the text] But there remained one flaw in his control, inevitable. In the kingdom of hate and fear, the strongest thing is hate. All his Orcs hated one another, and must be kept ever at war with some 'enemy' to prevent them from slaying one another.)
...

And though Angband has fallen and Morgoth is removed, still they come forth from the lightless places in the darkness of their hearts, and the earth is withered under their pitiless feet.

* or rather, Tolkien is very moral, but not quite so relativistic as we tend to be today hehe; very logic when there's a de facto good God with outspoken guidelines to heed after all in ME, if one do not belive so IRL

[Macilrille]

Didn't Aragorn give a piece of land to orcs to live in after the War of the Ring, I certainly remember reading something like that the first time I read the RotK.

Who doesn't have a harsh childhood though, I don't think all their evilness can be blamed on that.

You grew up in Finland Mhaedros...

[Gurak]

Thank you for your very detailed and informative answer Ngugi.
However, I have a few questions/observations.
You note that:

...The evil in Orcs it is not a result fo genes nor culture, but of theology. The will of Morgoth is in them and direct the Orcs, weitehr he is still in the world or not - and that is a key to understand the Orcs, weither it will bring determination they are scum to be trampled or victims to be pitied.

My first question regards the nature of evil. How do you define this?
The little I know of the events from the Silmarillion indicate that Morgoth was initially attempting to be creative but came into conflict with the other Ainur, and after some struggles was cast into the void. Clearly, this reflects the stories of the fall of Lucifer in the Christian stories, and like them all of the interpretations of the struggle are voiced from the position of the victors.
The winners of such major struggle often of course interpret and report such events in a strongly negative light.
Trying to look at things more objectively we see it basically comes down to a struggle between competing ideologies and aesthetics. The offspring of the victors tend to view things like green forests, mountain flowers, and small streams as 'beautiful' and 'good'.
However, there is a definite sense of awe and majesty in a volcano, and you can find great beauty in the dessert, or the almost Mordorian lanscapes of Iceland.
Is is valid to judge Orcs as evil and corrupted just because they have different tastes?

My second questions regards the theological elements of Orc society.
Who maintains and supports this. Is there an Orc Priest caste? Does Sauron have some influence over this? With Morgoth stuck in the void, and out of direct contact, I assume that its teachings are at least somewhat open to redirection? If so perhaps a strong Orc leader could shift the focus in a sort of Orcan 'reformation' to focus on the creative elements of Morgoth's actions, rather than the destructive events of his later struggles?

...only a salvation from evil that can come trough Eru/God.

Hehe, now you are starting to sound like a crusader!

...For "good Orcs" even Gorbag and Shagrat, who are buddies enough to plan to desert and set up their own away from Sauron, get into kill each other over the treasures of Frodo. Not much to admire there.

The scrap between Gorbag and Shagrat certainly seems extreme based upon current middle class western values, but we can clearly see similar examples from human societies.
Some elements of Asian/Latin/gang culture for example, are based heavily on respect and machismo, and small slights, even between close acquaintances can quickly and easily lead to bloodshed.
The two groups of orcs in Cirith Ungol are easily comparable to elements of human gang or tribal culture -able to comfortably work together with playful banter under peaceful circumstances.
But let their proud leaders get into a scrap over some minor slight, and it's 'knives out boys!'.
You could see similar scenes play out in Glasgow, or Manila, or Moscow, or LA on any Saturday night.
Would you label those gangbangers as evil?
Sorry, outside of the mythology (which I think may have some potential for bias), I'm not seeing any significant elements that make Orcs in any way significantly different to humans.

Finally, on a (violence and aggression) related note, where are all the Orc women?

[Tankbustaz]

Erm, the mythology is the base.

[athanaric]

[...] and you can find great beauty in the dessert,

Especially in Tiramisù or Tartufo...

or the almost Mordorian lanscapes of Iceland.

Except that Iceland is far from polluted or lifeless. Many places are actually rather green. Mordor is a landscape formed not least by war, destruction, and pollution. The description in LotR goes to great lengths to show us that.

Some elements of Asian/Latin/gang culture for example, are based heavily on respect and machismo, and small slights, even between close acquaintances can quickly and easily lead to bloodshed.

That's the nature of gang "culture" in general, no just in those places. Also, what you are alluding to are the sad extremes (often corrupted forms of former social institutions) of Asian or American cultures, not their core elements.

Would you label those gangbangers as evil?

Yes.
The orcs are actually (to a large part) based on them, or rather on their early 20th century English counterparts.

[Gurak]

Erm, the mythology is the base.

The problem with the mythology as outlined in HoME, is that it is clearly presented as Chris Tolkein's interpretation of his dad's attempts to create simulated mythologies for middle earth. Mythologies by their definition are stories told by different people over extended periods of time, and are by nature subject to evolution and mutation (intentional or otherwise).

Given a choice of basing my impression of Orc nature on those, or on the behaviors seen in the first person narratives of the Hobbit/LotR series, I would tend to go with the latter. Much closer to the source event.

That's not to say that I believe that the mythology is worthless, though.
All sources of information can help shape the picture.
In fact, going back to the source that Ngugi quoted earlier (HoME Vol.10, X), I notice that he omitted the following interesting line that precedes the 6th paragraph:

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil.

If we are using mythology as "the base", that would seem to clearly answer the question on whether orcs are innately evil (whatever that means).

Adding to the case that they were not naturally hateful creatures, is that their attitude towards there perennial enemies the elves was not innate either. In the same chapter we see that it was the result of lies and indoctrination:

For one thing Morgoth had achieved was to convince the Orcs beyond refutation that the Elves were crueller than themselves, taking captives only for 'amusement', or to eat them...

All available evidence seems to show that Orcs are manipulated victims and are unfairly maligned.
Liberated from their cruel masters, and the unceasing discrimination of men, and other scum surface dwellers, who can say what heights of glory Orcan civilization could achieve!

[Ngugi]

You're welcome
To Tolkien the greatest evil lie in the will to dominate others wills, in tyranny, from which other evil deeds stem.

Sauron, however, inherited the 'corruption' of Arda, and only spent his (much more limited) power on the Rings; for it was the creatures of earth, in their minds and wills, that he desired to dominate.
- HoME 10; Myths Transformed; VII; (i)

But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar, for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself.
...
And he feigned, even to himself at first, that he desired to go thither and order all things for the good of the Children of Ilúvatar, controlling the turmoils of the heat and the cold that had come to pass through him. But he desired rather to subdue to his will both Elves and Men, envying the gifts with which Ilúvatar promised to endow them; and he wished himself to have subject and servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over other wills.
- Silmarillion; The Music of the Ainur

In the powers and knowledge of all the other Valar he had part, but he turned them to evil purposes, and squandered his strength in violence and tyranny. For he coveted Arda and all that was in it, desiring the kingship of Manwë and dominion over the realms of his peers.
From splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless. Understanding he turned to subtlety in perverting to his own will all that he would use, until he became a liar without shame. He began with the desire of Light, but when he could not possess it for himself alone, he descended through fire and wrath into a great burning, down into Darkness. And darkness he used most in his evil works upon Arda, and filled it with fear for all living things.
- Silmarillion; Valaquenta

[Sauron] repents in fear when the First Enemy is utterly defeated, but in the end does not do as was commanded, return to the judgement of the gods. He lingers in Middle-earth. Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle-earth, 'neglected by the gods', he becomes a reincarnation of Evil, and a thing lusting for Complete Power – and so consumed ever more fiercely with hate (especially of gods and Elves).
...
But also [the Rings of Power] enhanced the natural powers of a possessor – thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination.
- Letter 131

etc.

As obvious is, 'evil' is not a thing in itself, and not something anyone 'is' at start but is something someone with a free will 'become' or 'are' as a result of their choises (concerning Orcs and free will see letter 153 further down).
What further is to be added, this is not real life's history but JRR is the narrator of a n invented world who provide us information beside all that is meant as 'surviving stories'. One must thus either accept what is written as how it really was, or chose that the Tolkien mythos is not reliable and all fan fiction is equal to his scriptures. The Hobbit is quite direct on the matter, btw:

The master of the house was an elf-friend-one of those people whose fathers came into the strange stories before the beginning of History, the wars of the evil goblins and the elves and the first men in the North.(...)
Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted.
- The Hobbit

What Orc concerns in LotR what they do that may appear 'not evil' is simply an example that they are not stupid, not that they are not evil. To be evil is not a state of blood rage trying to kill each and everyone in their sleep, in D&D terms á la 'chaotic evil'. Sauron is evil, non the less he can organize the greatest empire in the world and trough different kinds of actions make beasts and Orcs and Men to serve him.
While I do not view evil as an opposition to what [a] God defiended as good, I do not view 'evil' as something abstract that is outdated in a nihilistic world but a word with meaning, a description of acts and wills of illwill towards others, or utter ignorance of others for personal gain, with rejoyce there in. 'Evil' is not something that exist independently of will and act, which many who oppose the notion of 'evil' seems to assume is considered, but a lable for how we value certain actions.

And Orcs are not coming tabla rosa to the world nor are their will and act optional, but they are trainted with the will of Morgoth, and his will is evil - thus we may not judge them as we would judge humans in real life nor can we expect them - or we no longer talking about Tolkien's Orcs but, for example, Blizzard's Orcs. To not judge them evil require that we either remove the original Dark Lord from the mythos all together, or are made convinced that he was not evil - and based on his actions I am still waiting to see a solid case for that opinion

Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. 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 'subcreative' powers 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. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.) But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today.
- Letter 153

Hehe, now you are starting to sound like a crusader!

Deus Volt!
No, but only Eru can remove the taint of Morgoth from the world, thus only that can save the Orcs.

Orc women; Somewhere, hehe

There must have been orc-women. But in stories that seldom if ever see the Orcs except as soldiers of armies in the service of the evil lords we naturally would not learn much about their lives. Not much was known.
- Letter to Mrs Munby, 1963

(ugh, too hung over today )

[Lortano]

Didn't Aragorn give a piece of land to orcs to live in after the War of the Ring, I certainly remember reading something like that the first time I read the RotK.

He gave them six feet. Enough to bury them.

[Macilrille]

Seems to me that we have to distinguish between good and evil in our world; where it is more grey on grey morality and which Burak draws into the discussion, and evil in Tolkien's world; where there is such a thing as absolute good and absolute evil, and where some beings are given over entirely to it.

Now, Melkor is at the start good and has the wish to create, true. But in that he is rejecting and rebelling against the will of absolute good, and becoming evil; Morgoth. Moreover, though he is powerful enough to corrupt entire races, he cannot create. This is made quite clear in HoME 10 or 11. Morgoth's wish to destroy what is created already by absolute good (though tainted by Melkor's participation) will merely lead to emptiness, for he cannot create anything new. Hence, and that is actually quite a sophisticated interpretation of evil IMO, his will to do what he percieves as good, leads to evil.

Now Orks reflect their master's will, he corrupted them so deeply that they cannot be redeemed (by any save Eru), it is said in Sil that because the Elves were aware that Orks were corrupted Elves (and men as we learn in HoME), they would accept surrender, but no Ork ever did. And it is made clear in that passage that it was from their corruption/taint/evil. And if you look at Shagrat and Gorbag's relationship and wish to set up on their own; what they want to set up is not a place where they can live in harmony with their neighbours, they want a place "where there is good loot, nice and handy". Further, after their little set-to, the single Ork survivor does not run off and hide. No, he goes to the top of the tower to torture Frodo, in a situation where he does not have to- his bosses are not around, he could take off, but he chooses not to.


There is another Ork band that we might take a look at; the motley crew of Ugluk, him and his Uruk Hai does seem to have an esprit de corps much like an elite band or a band that has served at the front together (in fact they are both), but the band also includes perhaps the scariest Ork of all Tolkien's works- Grishnak; who reeks of secret police, reporting and torture in secret dungeons. In any case the entire band wants to torture Merry and Pippin for sport, they do not have to- they are free of Masters- but they want to, and in fact only the iron discipline of Ugluk prevents it. Not that he does not want to torture them, but he obeys orders.


Now returning to what Gorbag and Shagrat might set up, we have examples even of that; Goblin Town and Gundabad, these are powerful states free of direct domination by Sauron and can do as they please, yet they do not trade with their neighbours, they raid them. Even my infamous ancestors were as much traders and farmers as raiders and pillagers, but the Orks are not. They choose to do evil. Hence they are evil. And speaking of Orks that are free of Sauron's will, The disaster at the Gladden... these Orks are entirely free of Sauron, he was never more distant; yet the evil in his Ring draws them and makes them attack Isildur's band. If they were not themselves evil; how could it? Good being reject the Ring...


Now, Tolkien said; "in the trenches we were all Orks", and he was right, but the difference is that on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month (I hope you all celebrated it) they stopped fighting and they stopped doing evil and took their injuries to body and mind home to try and restart a peaceful lifestyle. Orks do not. Because, in Tolkien's Mythos there is an absolute evil- that is unquestionable- and they are fully given over to it. And if you cannot accept the premise that there is absolute evil, well... perhaps GoT is more to your taste.

[Veteraan]

Finally, on a (violence and aggression) related note, where are all the Orc women?

Don't know where they are, but they should exist because Orcs "had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar"
Perhaps it's discussed already in this thread, I must confess that I didn't read all 104 pages.
HERE is a link to a discussion on "Planet Tolkien" which I came across whilst looking for something else.

But let their proud leaders get into a scrap over some minor slight, and it's 'knives out boys!'.
You could see similar scenes play out in Glasgow, or Manila, or Moscow, or LA on any Saturday night.
Would you label those gangbangers as evil?

Never thought I would see the word gangbangers used in a serious Tolkien discussion.
Where I live it's usually only associated with something else than "knives coming out".

I take it therefore that it's an perfectly acceptable way to describe people who are members of a gang?

[Gurak]

...To Tolkien the greatest evil lie in the will to dominate others wills, in tyranny, from which other evil deeds stem.

By this definition we would have to consider such humans as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, or Columbus as 'evil'.
To some extent, and on a much lesser scale, much of humanity would be guilty of this! Similarly so with your definition of "...illwill towards others, or utter ignorance of others for personal gain". This seems far too common a human trait to merit a strong sounding term like "evil"

Most dictionaries seem to define evil as 'profoundly immoral', which means that the person (or god) does not conform to the accepted rules and conventions of the speaker's society.
Basically calling someone 'evil' is equivalent to saying, 'You don't think, look, or do things the way we do, so we don't like you'.
Basically a meaningless term. It's a moot point, and in any case, it was already established above that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil.
This also would seem to largely mitigate your assertion that, 'they are tainted with the will of Morgoth, and his will is evil'.
First of all, its in no way clear what it means to be, 'tainted with the will' of someone, and second, even if he did make the orcs (which the above line explicitly says he did not) then why would his badness necessarily transfer to them?
If an evil man makes a sandwich, does that make it an 'evil sandwich'?

One must thus either accept what is written as how it really was, or chose that the Tolkien mythos is not reliable...

Ah, you must remember that much of what Tolkien has to say on the subject comes in the form or statements from characters or his simulated retelling of mythology.
With that in mind, we can accept Tolkien as the undisputed master of his own stories, while also understanding that much of what he is presenting is not stated as unvarnished truth, but the (almost certainly) biased opinions of the individual characters, or the evolved over time myths told down through the ages.
Your example:

...Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted.
- The Hobbit

Is a good example of this. Bilbo is writing about his adventure so of course he includes his opinions.
Opinion is not fact though, and such generalizations about any race or species are always unlikely to hold water.

(ugh, too hung over today )

Hehe, sorry to try to ensnare you into such a deep metaphysical/theological discussion when you have a sore head!

Basically, I have been playing a campaign as Isengard, and trying to get my head around a bit of understanding of my 'boys'.
The white hand Uruks seem to be prouder, more disciplined and much more motivated than their Mordor counterparts.
Not much different than a lot of the hard lads I served with in the Military, to be honest!
It got me thinking that given a similar life background, would I necessarily be much different in character?
Not sure I would...

[Kiliç Alì]

By this definition we would have to consider such humans as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, or Columbus as 'evil'.

I don't get the Columbus' reference. Howewer, no matter how great they may have been, the first 2 surely were not an example of the typical "good guy".
Off to the top of my mind, Alex killed his best friend in a moment of rage (IIRC was even wrong in the discussion) and Napo lead a putch and then overthrew a Constitution he certanly had sworn to protect. Not to mention the fact he was a little "Bunga Bunga" man too.*

Most dictionaries seem to define evil as 'profoundly immoral', which means that the person (or god) does not conform to the accepted rules and conventions of the speaker's society.

This is just a partial definiton. Clearly a dictionary tries to give its reader a guide, but has other purposes than to teach people what is good and what is evil. I suggest rather to stick with another one then, maybe not perfect itself, but wich tries to find the definition into the outcome rather than the perception of an action: "causing harm or injury to someone" **, I add, for the purpose of this discussion, "willingly". Wich means that someone that wants to harm someone else is himself on the path of the Dark side.

If an evil man makes a sandwich, does that make it an 'evil sandwich'?

If he poisons it, I'd say yes. If not, no. I don't have the Silmarillion here, but quoting from my mind ( moreover translating from my own languege hehe):
"... but not all that come from Melkor was evil; for he had sought the extreme cold and mountains of ice, but also the fair snow come from his mind, and this [Ulmo] had not sung about..."
So he means that the things of Melkor were not rejected in block but instead put at work in the matter of the "real" world.
Orcs may have been not evil at the beginning, but since Morgoth poisoned their will and mind, their spirit and soul, then they are evil when the story happens.

With that in mind, we can accept Tolkien as the undisputed master of his own stories, while also understanding that much of what he is presenting is not stated as unvarnished truth, but the (almost certainly) biased opinions of the individual characters, or the evolved over time myths told down through the ages.

I agree with you completely on this point. I like to think of Tolkien's work like an attempt to create a live and open mythology rather than a static one, just like "real world" mythology are. For example, even the over-well-known greek and latin myths were present, at the same time, and sometimes even in the same author, in different versions.
Anyone know why Tyresias got blind? someone say onee thing, someone one other. Who must be considered "canon"? for me both are valid myths, for what counts here is not the story but the teaching behind it.

Not much different than a lot of the hard lads I served with in the Military, to be honest!
It got me thinking that given a similar life background, would I necessarily be much different in character?

Oh well, I was teached you can be said what is right and what is wrong, but not even the General can say you what is good and what is bad, for the latters are more related to the own feelings rather than the current moral, and feelings tend to be always the same, no the culture, religion or whatever.

EDIT that LT said General... must have confused something... of course he meant the President! eheh...

* Max Gallo, Napoleon, 2 volumes biography, excellently written IMO
** http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

[Lortano]

Columbus slaughtered a lot of Indians, as well as sending them back to Spain, which then started off even more slavery and misery as the Spanish saw what good workers they were.

[Ngugi]

All in all I am confident with lableing a race who by default consider to torture little Hobbits good sport, because they are tainted with the will of a Dark Lord who managed to corrupt the whole creation, evil.
If someone is uncomfortable with that lable, may they use whatever description or excuse that feels better, but it will just be hairsplitting in my eyes.

[Tankbustaz]

Or use the religion change script while playing as OOTM and become elves.