[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

If Tolkien thought that what he did was purely down to 'wickedness' then he had no understanding of psychology.

Irrelevant conclusion, since Tolkien never held such a position, nor did anyone else in this thread, as far as I am aware.

Originally Posted by davem

Rohirrim hunting the Woses just for a bit of a laugh.

I believe I have already shown in another thread that this is an unsuported speculation.

Originally Posted by Boro

LOTR has been labelled as a fight of 'good and evil' for a long time, and it's a label I've never fully agreed with. Sure there is the figure of 'Evil' and the side of 'Good' but let's not forget the grey areas.

Imo, you should have qualified this as a personal statement. As it appeared in the text, I thought it was Tolkien's; I spent some time searching for it. Anyway, we are in agreement of the existence of grey areas, as it can be seen from my statement you quoted. However, the fight between good and evil still is the central theme, and, if I understand you correctly, you agree.

Originally Posted by Boro

Sauron (or more specifically the Ring) did get control over Smeagol. So much control and power over Smeagol that his fate became bound to the Ring's.

Gollum's strong desire for the ring is one thing, while operative control of the ring of or Sauron over Gollum is another. Neither Sauron nor the ring could have used Gollum to return the ring to Sauron, no matter the effort.

Originally Posted by Lomy

Minor details aside, do you think the lion "deserves" to die because it kills a human or some humans because it's hungry? Or, actually, if this lion had killed a human in the savanna because it was hungry, would you say it deserves to die?

But comparing the morality of humans with that of animals is a false analogy, since the later don't, arguably, have morality. Anyway, imo, a lion should be killed if he represents an unavoidable danger to human life, or if the risk is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Lomy

The other persons you mention - Frodo, Bilbo, Boromir, Tom Bombadil - were not greedy and thus they managed as well as they did. Not beacuse they were somehow "better".

Are you arguing that a person can have any immoral values and still be as safe from the ring as Frodo, Bilbo, or Tom?

Originally Posted by Lomy

That is a personal (yet admittedly common) moral conception, not an universal truth, so I don't think you should present it as a fact.

What does define morality firstly in your view, if not intention?

Originally Posted by Lomy

While speaking about Gollum eating orcs and intending to eat Bilbo, some people seem to assume he had a choice.

I know of no evidence that he would starve on 'normal' food. And it wasn't something distasteful which he did as a last resort, he liked doing it whenever the chance.

Originally Posted by Lal

He goes on to use the Ring primarily to maintain his (very English) need for privacy and uses it to hide from neighbours and relations when he can't be bothered with them

Are you saying that avoiding annoying persons is immoral?