[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Wow, brilliant thoughts indeed, Hookbill and Lommy!

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Throughout the book we find Gandalf as one unwilling to submit to the enemy in any way; this includes resorting to the enemy's way of doing things. Using his power to fight Saruman would make him no better than the forces he was trying to bring down.

The Ring is the ultimate example of this, I suppose. It is mentioned (I think it's in the Council of Elrond) that if one used the Ring to conquer Sauron, then that one would set him/her self up as a Dark Lord in his place. Galadriel's "in place of a Dark Lord" speech springs to mind. Among the many things the Ring can represent, the use of power to conquer, coerce and control is one of them, I think. Therefore, Gandalf refuses it. He knows that is not the way.

Truly. And you made me now to remember something. Last semester, I was bidden to write a short paper for one Ethics course which was supposed to ponder something "in some book or film we read or watched" from the point of view of some ethical problem. I picked (of course ) LotR, and I focused in particular on the topic of the Ring as a representation of a tool to gain ultimate power. I wonder whether I shouldn't try to translate the paper to English and post it here, as some thoughts from there would fit here. In any case, I will now quote a few things which seem good to point out from there (sorry for no smooth translation, I was translating "on the run"):

...Boromir... proposes that with the Ring the "Free lords of the free" should overpower Sauron. (...) Boromir may see the Ring as a tool to strenghten personal power for the sake of strenghtening the unity of different communities who would not defeat Dark Lord by force because of their disunity. I believe the author to transcend here the simple polarity of "empire of Good vs. empire of Evil" and to show that Boromir would de facto become a Dark Lord, in other words, a dictator for the sake of overthrowing the enemy, and the "free peoples", as they are often named in the book, would under his rulership cease to be free.
(...)
Saruman the Wizard, Gandalf's former ally and the leader of the council of the wizards represents the extreme position in the relation to the Ring, almost machiavellian. When Gandalf visits him with the pledge for help, he presents an unexpected offer: to join the Dark Lord, in whose defeat by the Free Peoples Saruman does not believe (after a very rational calculation); however his offer is not just forming an alliance - Saruman proposes that as "trusted friends" they could eventually earn the trust of the Dark Lord and thus influence his decisions; pity the losses on the way, but head for the goals they always wanted - knowledge and order, which they could not reach, because they lacked the power. (...) [Eventually proposing to take the Ring for themselves even without the Dark Lord] it's clear that Saruman does not hesitate to use the power as coercive measure, and whose goal is neither just social justice nor mere unity for the sake of defeating the enemy (which does not see behind the horizont of war, but does not ask the question whether the ruler who would possess the Ring, would after the end of the war give up his dictatorship without questioning); Saruman's vision is a smoothly running machinery of totalitary realm (...) such a machinery would possess the inner strength to withstand the Dark Lord, however Saruman does not take into account that his rulership would differ only a little from the rule of the Dark Lord (if ever).

Here I think is the key, and something I would like to point out, concerning the Ring: using the Ring, even for "common good" as Lommy mentioned, is something which ultimately ends bad. And now why, when surely Galadriel could have taken the Ring and "set the things to right"? Personally, this is just about the coercion. The use of power in this way - and the Ring here represents only a tool to make it fast. You could have as well made it so that Galadriel would make herself Queen of the Middle-Earth by other means. It would make no difference. But, at the moment of taking this absolute (note once again: absolute) power to "set the things right" on her own wilful intent, ultimately some trouble will arise which will be certainly for the bad. Which would be usurping the power. Which would be violating something. As with Boromir's proposal: The Free nations will no longer be Free.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Coming back to the Ents (sorry, I got side tracked), they seem to be strange. They do use their strength and power to defeat Saruman. You may argue that they had every right to; he had destroyed their trees and used them to fuel his war machines. This is, I think, the point. The Ents could be seen as Saruman's greed coming to bite him in the behind. He uses the trees to further his power, and ultimately, it is those very tools, as it were, that come to bring him down.

And indeed, isn't this also proved in the RL history? And this does not of course concern just power, but in fact, well, everything.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

It's rather a lot like the passage in The Bible where, upon being arrested, Jesus tells one of his disciples that he could call down legions of Angels to aid him, but he doesn’t. Real power, as it were, is not about forcing and conquering.

Quite, quite. And speaking of the Bible, I would say the whole tale of the Ring, resp. the nature of the Ring is kind of a "meditation upon the subject of Jesus' temptation in the desert".

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

To paraphrase Gandalf, it's foolish to deal out death and judgement; not even the very wise can see all ends. That's Sauron's way; death, destruction, conquest, the imposing of a will. Gandalf speaks for a way of peace and none violence. I happen to like that.

And not only you

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

A fair point, but now this got me thinking... about suffering personal losses. Fëanor didn't do the thing that would have cost him something personally. But if we take other examples, how do they relate to personal losses? Refusing to use the power is not always good for the characters' personal good. For example, Galadriel refuses to take the Ring and in that she accepts the diminishing of her power and the loss of her realm, and ultimately, gives up Middle-Earth itself. (Hey, wow, now this is very interesting, for it sets Galadriel and Fëanor - okay I know this is problematic an a little far-fetched but who cares - the two most powerful of the Noldor, in a nice comparison. Fëanor chooses personal good over common good and the result is bad. Galadriel chooses common good over personal good and the result is good. Wouldn't it work nicely? Now, the problem of course is that we cannot judge Galadriel's decision in such a black-and-white way, because it was also partly good for her personally not to take the immense burden on herself and also, it would have been kind of for the common good if she had taken the Ring and started to make things right. Ha, actually my "problem" sounds rather feeble. Maybe it's more black-and-white after all and we can make such a comparison? Interesting...) I see I got a bit carried away, but it's very interesting. I think there's a lot to explore in the relation between common good and personal good when it comes to using or not using the power...

I actually think your comparison is not far-fetched at all and that it actually fits quite well and even more, the Fëanor-Galadriel comparison is more than fitting by itself, as these two are in a big contrast. Only if we take - also related to the topic of power - the reasons of their coming to Middle-Earth in the first place, while of course Fëanor was driven by the lust for revenge and regaining the Silmarils, they both had the intention to found their own realms in Middle-Earth. Especially Galadriel's tale I find just fascinating and very complex. I would not run about it in full here, but I will point out several interesting things: Galadriel's first idea was to have some realm to rule, to put it plainly. It's written just like that. When she came, she had to accept the position of a mere refugee, what more, she was one of the "accursed Noldor" in Thingol's realm, had there not been Melian, I can imagine she could have suffered worse fate of being expelled from Doriath etc. Yet still, at the end of the First Age, there's a new hope for her and she again has the chance to have her own realm in M-E. But again, this comes into ruin, and as at last she takes the realm of Lórien, it is not - I am sure - the way she imagined it; it's a small island lost in time and eventually slowly fading in the fading world, she "missed the train" (or the Age), the world is no longer the world of great Elven Kings and their realms, as Gil-Galad falls as the last. It is also noteworthy that neither she nor Celeborn adopt the titles of "King" or "Queen" of Lothlórien, but are merely called "Lord and Lady". And now the great paradox, funnily enough, at this very moment, when slowly she learns and then she ceases to desire for power at last, the Ruling Ring itself comes into her hands. I find this simply fascinating. She gets (in fact) everything she desired for in her "youth", or even more actually (rulership of the whole Middle-Earth if she took the Ring), yet only at the moment when in fact she does not want it anymore and the only thing she wishes for is so that all this could end and if there only was a ship to bring her back to the West.