Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 1283780" data-attributes="member: 307">Yes, because Isildur claimed it as weregeld, a right granted to those who have had a relative killed by another. Isildur's ownership was just, which meant he might have been able to avoid the corruption of the Ring.(Note, everyone who comes into possession of the Ring by "unjust" means, such as Gollum, become instantly corrupted by it.) Taking the Ring by force, or trying to deprive its owner by force corrupts you, such that you will change your mind from wanting to destroy it to wanting to own it.A cop shooting a criminal is an ends justify the means argument. You commit an evil act (killing someone) for a good end (stopping a criminal). The right thing to do would be for Isildur to voluntarily destroy the Ring, but trying to compel him to do this, or trying to kill him to do it, would be evil no matter how you cut it.But in a world where God makes the rules, there is no lawful homicide. Elrond isn't a cop, he's an elf-lord, and has to follow the rules of morality set forth by God, and killing another being in an effort to deprive them of their rightful property is murder.Your problem is that you just don't understand Tolkienian morality (and to some extent, the part of Catholic morality that Tolkien used as the basis for his story).Thousands of years later.Yes, he does. But that is Isildur's sin. Trying to force the issue would have corrupted Elrond, and initiated a brand new sin on his part. And then Elrond would have had the blood of thousands on his hands. Fighting sin with sin never works in Tolkien, it only leads to ruin and death. The entire history of the Silmarillion is littered with the broken corpses of those who sought to fight sin with sin and were corrupted and drawn into the camp of evil.</blockquote>

Verification