Sauron's lack of Death...

[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.

[Formendacil]

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.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.

Hookbill's point about Tolkien's love of pantheons seems spot-on to me, in terms of Tolkien's motivations vis-a-vis the Valar, but I am going to have to voice a bit of disagreement regarding the Valar being, "ultimately... the creators" and Eru the indirect creator. Quite possibly, we're actually saying the same thing, in terms of intention, but I am a pedant and must persist.

The Music of the Valar, though it provided the template for Arda did not create Arda. Certainly, in the Music, Eru was only an indirect Creator--though I would argue that the the composer and conductor of a piece of music is more than an indirect participator, but rather a major player--albeit, since this is a work involving great amounts of improvisation, by no means the only player. All the same, I would emphasise that Arda was not created by the Music--it was created when Eru said "Eä: Let these things be!"

Obviously, the Valar then have a great role in shaping Arda, just as they had an influential role in the Music, but they are not the actual creators. Eru creates very much ex nihilo, and this is one of the major differences between him and the Valar: the Valar can only work with what they are given, whereas Eru can cause things to be that we not.

To my mind, this makes Eru the direct creator, and the Valar but sub-creators (and indirect creators insofar as they shaped the Music which Eru called into being).

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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'?

I didn't mean to suggest that the unethicality of killing an unseen foe applied in Sauron's case. When you're up against a demon tyrant who throws his armies in myriads against you, commanded by undead wraiths, while hiding in an impregnable fortress, and all he lacks to overpower you completely is this little piece of jewellery which by sheer luck has come into your hands, some exception to the usual rules for treatment of enemy combatants is OK, I think.
As for Aragorn challenging Sauron to a personal duel, Gil-galad and Elendil tried that approach the last time around, and all it accomplished was to postpone the threat for a few millennia. As long as the Ring remained undestroyed, killing Sauron bodily wouldn't solve the problem.
To get back to the question of ethics: there are, of course, situations where it's justifiable and indeed necessary to ignore sporting fairness, honour and even the rules of normal ethic behaviour in order to protect innocent lives - where the only responsible thing is to get your hands dirty and take a minor guilt upon you, because by avoiding it you would incur an even greater guilt. (As Donaldson's Thomas Covenant would put it: innocence is wonderful, but it's powerless; power leads to guilt, and only those willing to accept guilt can achieve something good.)

But from another angle: considering that the part of Sauron he put into the ring is as much of him as we ever get to see directly, I think it's important that Frodo took it all the way to Mount Doom himself and had to resist its influence at such a terrible cost to himself. This, if you like, is LotR's version of the hero confronting the chief villain, and it's another reason why simply eagle-dropping the Ring into the fire wouldn't have worked. For the victory over evil to have weight and meaning, somebody has to struggle and come to terms with evil personally. (This isn't about ethics anymore, and I don't have a good name for what it is about; 'spiritual believability' comes closest.)

Thanks for the Atomic bomb quote! That's about what I'd have expected from him.

Originally Posted by Inzil

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

Yeah, well. 'All shall love us and despair.' (But I'll be a good boy and not head off on a political tangent there...)