Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the phantom
I'm not a clone of Tolkien, so that's bound to happen occasionally. I'm fine with that.
|
But, when you are discussing Tolkien's works, you ought really accept the context within which they are set. Of course, we are discussing the film here, so it is a different context.
Looking back at that Wyatt Earp thread (which I was reminded of too), I ought really to qualify my comment that, in Tolkien's world, the end does not justify the means. It depends what the "means" is. If it involves doing what (only) the evil characters would do, then I would say that it cannot justify the end. Hence the number of well-argued and (to my mind) reasonable responses to the question that
Telchar posed.
The strategy of distracting the Enemy (and exploiting his weakness in doing so) so as to allow Frodo and Sam a better chance of destroying the Ring is not such a means. It is a perfectly acceptable tactic in my view. The Wyatt Earp anaolgy is off in any event, since it involves shooting someone in the back, whereas Frodo and Sam went right up to Sauron's doorstep (behind enemy lines) and, in any event, had very little chance of success.
And it is entirely different from killing a non-combatant in cold blood. Although, as I have said, we are discussing the film here, so perhaps the standard is different.