We have been recently working through Matthew Dickerson's A Hobbit Journey (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press/Baker Publishing, 2012). Dickerson has a PhD from Cornell and teaches at Middlebury College in Vermont. In A Hobbit Journey, he attempts an exposition of Tolkien's world-and-life view as it emerges in The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion.
At one point he takes up the issue of why Tolkien is loathed by many of the high priests and prophets of our secularist age. He argues that it is due in significant part to Tolkien's notions of objective morality and moral responsibility. He explains:
Objective morality--or what some people call "moral absolutes"--is a definition of good and evil that is real and true for every person (and every culture), regardless of whether that person (or culture) happens to believe it to be true. [Dickerson, op cit., p. 127.]
Tolkien's mindset believes in objective morality and moral absolutes. The modern world does not. Therefore, for many amongst the chattering classes and the Commentariat, much of his corpus appears odd, at best, childish,simplistic, and superstitious at worst. His is the shawl of the Grand Anachronism.
Dickerson employs an illustration to explain the contrast between Tolkien's philosophic and religious principles and those of the modern age.
Consider a computer virus. No matter how inconvenient or destructive it is, a computer virus is just an impersonal collection of computer code composed of bits (zeros and ones) on a computer. A virus has no will of its own and cannot be considered evil or immoral. . . .Does this sound familiar? It is everywhere around us.
Now suppose that a person who commits a heinous crime is only acting as he or she is programmed to do, as a materialist world view states is the case. . . . Then by no means can that person be evil; only the programmer of that person can be evil. In this case, however, the programmer is believed to be a blind, impersonal force. In short, where there is no choice at all, there can be no moral (or immoral) choice. In a merely material world, we may at worst consider another person's actions as inconvenient to us; we cannot call them "evil" or "immoral." Or, if we do, then we are really only calling "immoral" the universe itself . . . . I any case, the word immoral has no meaning in this context. [Ibid., p. 128.]