'The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy'

[mark12_30]

Would it really be any different than having said killer executed?

Yes.

Murder is very, very different than executing a person convicted via due process.

Many would say that Frodo would have been justified in killing Gollum. But he chose to show mercy, and Tolkien's oint is that the mercy of Frodo towards Gollum actually saved the world on Mount Doom.

Likewise in the book, Frodo shows mercy towards Saruman, and Tolkien uses the moment thus: "You have grown, halfling. Yes, you have grown very much."

A society has the burden of creating a safe haven for its inhabitants, and must make choices regarding such things as war and serial killers. Some place this burden on a king, others place it on a judge and jury, but the decisions should be made by law, not because of an individual's preference.

Tolkien valued mercy very very highly-- more highly, perhaps, than many of us do. Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn, and even in the end Sam, display this tendency towards mercy.

And since the slaying of a serial killer would likely benefit society does this make my emotional reaction moral?

Some might way yes. Tolkien, however, repeatedly wrote in favor of mercy-- even in such murderous cases as Gollum and Saruman and Wormtongue; Aragorn showed mercy to the men who had served under Sauron if they surrendered to him.

(Orcs don't get much mercy, nor does Sauron himself; yet I would class the orcs with demons, not neccessarily with people... likewise Trolls, etc... Tolkien seemed to draw a major distinction between the races that Morgoth twisted and those he simply enslaved. As I recall, in his letters he states that Trolls were incapable of mercy and orcs were too.)

[ October 29, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]