Fantasy Morality

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Suffering does occur in all Tolkien's works, but Turin's suffering is singled out and expanded upon in almost novelistic terms, hence it is an interesting case study. I don't agree with you that the writer is inferring "nonsense", and I don't think Tolkien's internal metaphysics supplies an answer to the problem of evil in his world.

From a standpoint "in-world", Túrin's story would likely have been so well remembered in later times for the unusual elements of Morgoth's curse, and the incest event.
Túrin was singled out for special torment by an incarnate evil power, and thus could be said to have had more of an unjust lot than many, but that didn't preclude avoiding the curse, or at least lessening its impact by embracing a bit of humility and wisdom.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

The Valar are not omnipresent, omnipotent, nor indeed omnibenevolent, so their perspective, while powerful, is also provisional. Even were Turin to take the advice of the Valar, he would not have moral certainty of his life choices. We might say he would be better off had he chosen listen to the advice of Ulmo, for instance, but we cannot know for certain that his life would have turned out for the better.

True, the Valar are themselves created beings and are certainly capable of error. In the legendarium though, is there any instance of one of the Children coming to grief when they did obey personal advice from one of them? As has been noted, Tuor, of his own free will, decided to obey Ulmo and go to Gondolin.
Earlier in the First Age, Turgon listened to the words of Ulmo, founding Gondolin, and leaving behind in Vinyamar items later picked up by Tuor to use in his errand.
In LOTR, those who take to heart the words of Gandalf fare better than those who do not. Think of the differences between the fates of Aragorn and Denethor; Boromir and Faramir. All that isn't just a coincidence.