[Aiwendil]

But Tolkien didn't draw a distinction between the moral value system of Middle earth & the moral value system of this world.

Yes, but I do. And so do many others. The essence of my argument, which I still think is sound, is twofold:

1. You cannot use Middle-earth's morality to prove a point about real world morality - the fact that you or Tolkien or anyone else thinks that these are the same does not logically necessitate that they are the same.

2. A debate over moral philosophy in the real world cannot prove a point about Tolkien's world's reality, because the latter simply is what it is, regardless of whether or not the real world's morality happens to be the same thing.

I understand that Tolkien thought that the morality of the real world is the same as the morality of Middle-earth; and certainly that makes it worthwhile to look at Tolkien's moral philosophy if one is interested in Middle-earth. But what matters here is Tolkien's view - regardless of whether or not that view is correct.

I say this because if real moral philosophy is to be debated, things will quickly come to an impasse. I also worry that we are on the point of seeing a claim like "if you disagree with Tolkien's moral philosophy then you don't fully appreciate his work". If such is in fact your claim, then there's no more to be said. And if such is not, then I don't see how anyone's opinion about real moral philosophy enters into the discussion, provided that one "suspends moral disbelief" as it were, when dealing with Middle-earth.

Bethberry wrote:

However, in my experience, the kind of unchanging moral worth being posited here is "absolute", meaning free of any 'arbitrary standard,not comparative or relative" , something 'unequivocal, certain, sure," something "full and perfect."

"Absolute" works for me. I don't really see a problem with "objective" - depending only on the object - the real world - rather than on the subject - the person viewing the world. But "absolute" in this context means exactly, or almost exactly, the same thing. I don't see, by the way, any reason that "absolute" must mean "full and perfect"; it simply means "the same across the entire domain", "not relative".