[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

There seems to be a generally unequivocal stance on the moral implications of choices. But what about the moral implications of having no choice? Let's rephrase the question: Evil is said to be a by-product of free-will, but people do not choose to be born with free-will. And rectifying the phenomenon of free-will (i.e: through slavery, capital punishment and martial law) would be generally considered tyranny (and thus evil).

The slaves of Sauron and Morgoth are condemned for imitating the characteristics of their masters. And yet, being born under the yoke and thus having known nothing else other than the teachings of their forebears, they were probably the least evil of the lot. Of course, they get tempted by power and prestige like other "Free Peoples", but they should not be held responsible for their evil characteristics like Gollum or Bill Ferny. Aragorn did not hold Butterbur and Bree as ingrates because they did not give the Rangers credit for their protection.

Again, it seems like that the traditional stance did not offer any migitations for evil caused from being granted free will. (I believe Tolkien did write in HoME about having the need of some "Christ" coming to save the Edain under Morgoth, but that certainly did not materialise).