KANTIAN--
Gollum's saving Middle-Earth reflects no moral initiative on the creature's
part; his biting Frodo's finger to obtain the ring for himself was a wholly
self-serving act. And as one should never employ another solely as a means to
his own end, our alleged protagonist Frodo fares no higher on the moral scorecard;
he indulges Gollum only for the latter's usefulness to his own purpose.
The moral being should only act in such a way as he/she could reasonably promote
to become universal law. Thus, however incidentally desirable the ends brought
about by their acts of selfishness, we should by no means laud the examples
of either Gollum or Frodo lest we celebrate self-interest as a priori.
RAWLSIAN--
At first glance, the Council of Elrond would seem to provide an excellent model
for the organization of a just society. It comprises representatives from all
interested races and regions. And it results in the drafting of some very practical
First Principles:
a) the big problems facing society should not be left for later generations
to solve, but should be met head on. In this case, the seductive option of hiding
the ring with Tom Bombadil was bravely dismissed in favor of an immediate and
permanent solution. Namely that,
b) the One Ring of the Dark Lord should be destroyed, being an otherwise inescapable,
imminent, and absolute threat to all citizens.
c) He who speaks loudest, i.e. Boromir, does not speak last.
Nevertheless, the Council of Elrond has made no attempt to adopt for its members
the Veil of Ignorance necessary for unbiased and truly democratic decision-making.
As it happened, with all parties seated at a roundtable in full view of one
another, the Council was highly susceptible to the considerable peer pressure
exerted by the intimidating presences of a Wizard and, especially, the lord
of the manor himself.
Therefore, while clearly a sentimental favorite, the Council of Elrond does
not provide us with a legitimate model of government for a just society.