Did Gollum deserve death?

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Right here...

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I agree. Such a discussion is ultimately pointless as nobody will agree!

Anyway...there's a very good point about what words Gandalf uses. "I daresay..." is incredibly different to "I say...". Remembering that Tolkien was English, it's important to consider how English people use the language, and "I daresay..." is very often used when someone really means "I think you're talking out of your backside, actually". As in when you get into a taxi and the driver lets fly with a stream of racist comments - "I think they should all be sent home, the scrounging foreigners, blah blah blah" may be met by a reply from you along the lines of "I daresay they should, but have you ever thought what it's like for them at home? Could you send them back to being tortured?" "I daresay..." is an opening statement used when we wish to appease the ranter, and is usually followed by an opposing statement of common sense - as is Gandalf's own "I daresay..." Miss out on that subtlety at your peril.

I totally agree to the above generally, although I don't know where you got this typical english racist taxi driver scenario nonsense from - should it be brought up in the LOTR forum? I am from England, & here things can be meant in a different context to what is written in word. "I dare say he does" - this sounds like a sarcastic comment from Gandalf, he is saying he would be reluctant to give death as punishment. It does not mean he meant Gollum deserves death.

Rather than being put to death, perhaps Gollum could escape under the mental health act & be sent to the equivalent of a ME mental health unit (i.e. in the dungeons of the Elven realm of Mirkwood)?.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Bilbo didn't even attack Frodo (much less kill him) when he knew that Frodo had the Ring in Rivendel. And Bilbo had already born the Ring. Don't you suppose the lure was strong on him, too?

I'm not denying that fact. I happen to recall that Bilbo was even briefly overtaken by this lust, but managed to control himself.

Originally Posted by Folwren

And a lion, if it came to a village of people and started slaughtering the inhabitents, whether or not the lion deserved to be hungry and deserved to eat, the people would kill it.

Slaughtering many people is different from killing one person. 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?

Originally Posted by Folwren

But when he first saw the Ring and when he first had the ring, if he had been a good fellow, like Bilbo and Frodo both were, he wouldn't have 1. killed Deagol for it, 2. wouldn't have used it to steal things from his Grandmother as soon as he got it, and 3. wouldn't have been kicked out of society because of it.

I don't like dividing people to good and bad people, even if it's said to be relative. In my opinion Gollum was not evil. Certainly not in the beginning, but not in the end either. Sméagol was a normal guy. Not maybe the every girl's dream guy, but very human (or very hobbit, if that fits better ). The main fault in his character was greed. This was the perilous thing. If his fault would have been say laziness or rudeness, nothing would have happened. But it was greed. The Ring used Sméagol's greed. That's why he acted so quickly. 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".

While speaking about Gollum eating orcs and intending to eat Bilbo, some people seem to assume he had a choice. But how much choice did he really have? What is there to eat in caves? Not much, I say. Maybe the fish, but that's not enough. Catching sly fish with no helpful items is difficult. (It's probably more easy to catch an orc.) The stock of fish in the subterranean pools is limited. And I think that one orc fills your stomach much better than one fish. (Just look at the size of them.)

Originally Posted by Raynor

You still ignore that intention defines morality.

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.

[Macalaure]

I think we're drawing on the cradle-stealing too much. Tolkien tells us about it once and never again, as far as I'm aware. If it had a greater importance to even Tolkien himself, he would have told us more or at least would have referred to it again at some point in the story. If he didn't think it was that important, I think we shouldn't overemphasise it, too.

Concerning the ring. Don't beat me to provide quotes, but I have the impression that the ring has two main influences on a person. One is, that it increases the desires in the person and makes one think about how the power of the ring could further them, be it using the ring against Mordor (Boromir), doing good (Gandalf) or trivial things like getting away from the Sackville-Bagginses (Bilbo). This, to me, seems to be the first step. The second thing is the growing desire of possessing the ring. If we take Boromir's example, he first only wants the ring to be used against Mordor, and then later wants himself to be the one using it.

What's Smeagol's first thought when he sees it? He wants to have it - the ring appeals to his desire to have that shiny thing (the greed Lommy mentions). Smeagol wasn't a nice person from the beginning on, but was it already in him to murder? Probably. But at this time, the ring was just a shiny thing to him and I doubt Smeagol would have immediately murdered for any other shiny thing, so the power of the ring was clearly at work and this lessens his guilt, at least to an extent.

It's interesting to see that Gollum is at the same time a very weak and a very strong character. The ring appealed to his weaknesses, greed and lack of self control. His strength is his tenaciousness. He has not only a strong will to get his precious back (though influenced by the ring, it's still his will-power that drives him to go through all those hardships and keeps him from giving in even when tortured by Sauron), but also has an extreme will to survive and he isn't choosy when he needs to eat.

Originally Posted by davem

What's being forgotten is that by this time Gollum was insane, & hardly responsible for his actions.

This is the important point, I think. Was he responsible or not? It's quite evident to me that he wasn't fully responsible as he clearly was mad - to an extent. But if we argue him to not be responsible for his evils at all we're in a danger, because where does this leave us with Gollum's near-repentance? If he was entirely mad, then the repentance would have been void!

I think this makes this case so difficult. Gollum/Smeagol was wicked to a certain degree, but not entirely evil. Where did his wickedness end and the influence of the ring begin? I don't know, and therefore won't judge whether he deserved death or not.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

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

In the case of orcs I agree. But it is said that Gollum wasn't hungry when he met Bilbo, so it doesn't hold in this case.