Nilpaurion Felqagund -
I am reading Aragorn's decision as strictly a question of morals. Time and again, Tolkien makes the point that we must focus on the
immediate problem at hand and make a judgment according to what is right or wrong in that situation, even if long range considerations would seem to suggest otherwise.
In a similar way, Frodo makes the decision to show mercy and concern for Gollum even though this would not seem prudent in terms of his long-term plan of destroying the Ring. It would seemingly make more sense to "get rid" of Gollum by any means available. Yet, by doing so, Frodo would have lost the core of who he is.
This also applies to Aragorn. What kind of the king would he make if he is the type of person who deserts those closest to him? Not the kind of king whom Tolkien could respect. Aragorn's first responsibility lies with the hobbits: they have trusted him as their leader, and he can not betray that trust. In a similar way, Gandalf "throws away all" to fight the Balrog (you know---the wingless one
), even though he must have known it was a fight he could not win. There is a point where moral issues come to the fore and dwarf all other considerations. You do the "right" thing and hope that other things will fall in place. At the same time, you use every means available to try and extricate yourself from the situation in practical terms. If he and the hobbits had found themselves "starving", Aragorn would have made every effort to find some way to overcome that problem. Still, though practical considerations are important, it is the moral questions that come first.
One more example of "visible souls".....