Nice to see you around
Boro!
And this question of what is fair or justified is a most compelling one - and I just hope I can make this shortish...
Now after the time of Napoleon there has been this idea of meritocracy where every individual should get what they deserve. It's an idea that one earns the goods one gets and that's fair.
Bilbo is a case in point. He struggled and had dreadful adventures and thence it's only right he got what he got, as you say.
But how about Frodo's cousins? They were never given a chance to "show their qualities" as that eccentric Bilbo decided to pick Frodo as his heir. I mean isn't it in a way like Madonna adopting a baby from a third world country? Was it that youngster's merit as an individual that got him taken as an adoptee and to lift just him from poverty and suffering to the utmost luxury there is in this planet?
So was Frodo something like the one who should be immediately put in the front from all his cousins? If you say, yes he had some characteristics from his birth you at the same time rip Frodo's personal merit from the choice as it is something he already has from his birth and to no merit of his own... and if you say it was random then you agree that the opportunities are given randomly and thence are not based on merit...
I mean let's take a parallel. During the eighties, in the garages of the Silicon Valley, there were hundreds if not thousands of nerds creating operating systems for computers. Then this Bill G. just happened to meet the right people at the right time and his format actually got through the competition with the financial aid of corporate level top-guns (like with the old video-cassette formats where the far superior beta-system lost to the VHS with the aid of the porn industry). Now he's one of the richest people on earth. Now should we say that like Bilbo he has earned his fortunes- and that fact that he gives away a host of his treasury is the final justification of his astonishing wealth?
With Mr. Gates and Bilbo we find a shared trait: they got into where they are with chance - and they proved to be able to stand the challenge.
But how about the equality of chances then? As well as some other nerds might have produced us with far more flexible and working operating systems it might have been that Ted Sandyman, Fredegar Bolger, or any of the Frodo's un-named cousins might have been even more succesful ringbearers? I mean in the way of making it with less casualties and with more efficiency...
So is the meritocratic way the way one should look at the justice or fairness? How about the disabled people - are they worth less? Those coming from broken families with alcohol-problems? If they take pains is it their fault? According to the newest studies - those people with less space in their working memory? Are they poor at school because of a dismerit of their own, like because they somehow have earned their position? And those with a large working-memory have earned their good results in learning? Now that is genetic, not earned... and the former case is forced and not chosen...
So can you say that it's up to you what you earn - like what you can merit - and still retain the idea that we are talking about justice or fairness?