[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I have the impression Tolkien held that for killing to be at all ethically justifiable, you had (among other things) to face the reality of the act. When you read his WWII letters to Christopher (who was serving in the RAF at the time), you gather that he considered anonymous killing by dropping a bomb from a plane on people you don't really see assignable to Mordor (which got its own Special Flying Corps in the book) and was deeply concerned about the possibility of his son being spiritually harmed by taking part in this kind of warfare, even though he was realist enough to see that it was necessary under the given conditions.

Tolkien indeed apparently deplored the fact that such warfare had become necessary, but he understood that was what the situation required. So did Gandalf, who to me seems to embody the voice of the author more clearly than any other.
Destroying Sauron by proxy was the only thing the West could do, the only chance they had. If Tolkien himself thought the manner of Sauron's death 'unsporting' or dishonourable, there would be some reflection of that in the books. But there isn't. After Sauron's death there is only rejoicing by the West, and no lamentation of the evil that was gone. Aragorn doesn't say 'I wish I could have faced him in person, matching my sword with his'. In fact, if a one-on-one showdown was the 'right' thing to do, why couldn't Aragorn have taken a page from Fingolfin's book, and told the Mouth 'I want to face your master in single combat. The outcome will decide this war'?

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Anybody want to guess what he would have thought of nuclear weapons, which make it possible for a politician to unleash outright genocide by simply pushing a button? (Can't remember if there's anything about that in the Letters - if someone has them at hand and can post a quote, I'd be grateful.)

Here you are:

The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of those lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world! Such explosives in men's hands, while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope 'this will ensure peace'. But one good thing may arise out of it, I suppose, if the write-ups are not overheated: Japan ought to cave in. We are in God's hands, but He does not look kindly on Babel-builders.

Letter #102

In another he says that with the atomic bomb the West had decided to use the Ring for 'most excellent' purposes'.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

One criticism that I've heard most from people who have only watched the films is that it's all 'men with swords killing one another'. This, I don't need to tell you, is not really the case. The battles don't tend to get as much attention as the ramifications. Battles make for entertaining cinema, perhaps, but more emphasis is put on the characters in the prose. The way Aragorn and Eomer interact in Helms Deep, for example is an interesting one.
Moreover, the fact that the Wild Men fight at Helms Deep adds and interesting dimension. These are not the horrible and disposable Orcs that come in their thousands, but men like the Rohirum. Also, think about the kinds of fears the Wild Men have of the Rohirum. That they will kill them and burn them and be merciless. So when they show mercy, it is surprising to them. Tolkien appears to prise mercy, even to enemies.

Certainly mercy was a virtue to Tolkien. The most obvious examples are with Gollum, who is spared by three different Hobbits at various times. Gandalf explained it to Frodo as 'Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need'. The 'without need' is the important bit. One is not obligated to avoid killing at all costs; to refuse to pick up the sword when enemies raise theirs against you. But when mercy is an option, it is for the wise and moral to seize the opportunity to show it.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Unlike El / YHVH, Eru / Illuvatar is not so involved in the creation of the world. He is indirectly responsible, perhaps. But ultimately, it is the Valar who are the creators, for it is their music (though a convincing argument that it all came from Eru anyway could be made). The point is, Eru seems to have handed most of the responsibility over to the slightly inept and bumbling Valar. Once again, this probably has a lot to do with Tolkien's love of Pantheons.

Ilúvatar was the Prime Creator, of course; the holder of the Flame Imperishable. Eä was his direct creation. If he is the company CEO, the Valar are 'department heads', charged with running the 'company' in line with his directives. As created beings themselves, the Valar are certainly not infallible, sometimes necessitating some direct action from the Top.