Originally posted by BlackCaptain
Well It's quite simple... Evil, by definition, is being Moraly bad or wrong. Also, causing ruin, injury, or pain. Boromir, caused ruin, injury, and pain upon himself. That would make him evil. But that's all technical, but strong techincal points.
First of all, let's clearly define "evil". Webster says:
1. a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>
This is the definition that we are debating. Was Boromir morally and inherently bad? No, he was not. He failed morally when he tried to take the Ring from Frodo, but it was not such a failure as to indicate a completely corrupt character. Even Frodo was overcome by the Ring at the Cracks of Doom! He endangered the whole future of Middle-earth, but I'm sure that we would agree that Frodo was not completely "evil". He failed once, as did Boromir. After all, Boromir did repent and redeem himself in the end, did he not?
Originally posted by BlackCaptain
Yes, Boromir was taken by the Ring. Yes, Boromir was a great man. Yes, it was the Rings fault that Boromir tried to kill Frodo. But, the bottom line, is that Boromir did try to kill Frodo, knowing how much depended on Frodo's survival.
So besides that major techincality with the 'causing ruin, injury, or pain' argument, the 'The Ring Made Boromir a bad person, even if it was only temporarily' arguement can also be looked at.
Now, am I just confused or did Boromir only try to take the Ring from Frodo, not kill him. The Ring did not make Boromir a completely evil person. What the Ring did was essentially make him go out of his mind for a short period of time. It did not make him completely morally evil and corrupt, as you seem to think.