#but it also hinges on the expectation that the Valar will not do anything to take Morgoth down permanently

[elerrinacrownedwithstars]

That's kind of the point of the story of Fëanor, though. If it's unacceptable, it's because tragedies usually are. Fëanor's corruption, the way all his potential goes to waste because he won't let go of the Silmarils, tracks with Tolkien's themes of hubris, the Fall, and how power corrupts, and it's so compelling because he could have chosen to save himself but wouldn't. He chooses/prioritises his property over giving back to the society that nurtured him in its darkest hour, his own sons' lives, his family, and the lives of Teleri. Let him be awful! Let him be greedy! Let him go down in a blaze of infamy! Fëanor is nothing if not extra.

Moreover, I'm not sure where the idea comes that, prior to the Kinslaying, Fëanor's property is treated as public or that his right is undermined. What actually happens is that Yavanna declares the Silmarils are the only thing that could still restore the Trees, Fëanor is asked - asked, not demanded - if he would give them up (the only one forceful in this scene is Tulkas but he is redressed by Aulë), he says no, and the Valar accept his decision. As the one who made the Trees in the beginning and thus making it possible for the Silmarils to be made in the first place, Yavanna does have a right to ask, and indeed she does nothing but state what it would take to restore the Trees. Considering the Trees are not only what sustains life in Valinor but are also such powerful cultural and maybe even spiritual symbols that their images continue to be reproduced and adopted as standards even by people who never saw the actual living Trees, and how their loss is mourned even thousands of years later, the Valar have no choice but to at least ask if Fëanor will permit them to be restored, otherwise they are doing wrong against everyone else who lives in Valinor. Obviously, the question about giving up the Silmarils could have been posed in a much kinder way, but considering Fëanor's state of mind at this point, the tone and wording of the question would not have mattered.

Like I said in a previous post, Thingol and the Dwarves (and of course Morgoth) fall prey to that same spell of lust for the Silmarils, and I think this also proves that possessing even one of them is more than anyone except maybe Eärendil can handle. I'd wager at this point the Valar know this too, because what do they do when a Silmaril comes to Valinor? They set it up in the sky, where it will be forever beyond everyone's reach but can still be seen and appreciated as a memory of the Light that was before. (Also I don't think they ever lost interest in Middle-earth or that it was restored specifically by the Silmaril: their hands were tied by the Oath and the Doom of the Noldor. They can't and won't interfere with free will or its consequences, which the Exile and all following events is. I think they are allowed finally to intervene because Eärendil was built in as a fail-safe by Ilúvatar, as an anti-Fëanor so to speak.)

I also have to disagree with the idea that the narrative associates power with morality. If anything, Tolkien's message is about how power corrupts. Also stuff could be said whether one can ever satisfactorily apply modern day morals or property law to a text supposedly describing difficult moral questions of a very ancient, hierarchical and alien society where divine and satanic powers are not only proven facts but actual active forces and the nature of the world is recognised as fundamentally Marred.

As for what is the payoff for Fëanor giving up the Silmarils, if restoring the Trees is not good enough? Saving his soul.

Not going to lie, I find it weird and off-putting when people characterize Feanor (& sons) desire to reclaim the silmarils as 'greed'. Like.

Is it greedy to want your own shit back? Like is it outrageous to try to reclaim your own property that has been stolen AT MINIMUM once, and in one case twice, and in the ultimate end stolen and then subsequently taken as war booty by a neglegent if not outright hostile force? Is 'greed' the word you really want to use? Is that a word you would use you you translated the situation into something of your own? If someone stole your bike, or your wallet, or a piece of art that you made, and you expected it to be returned to you... would you want to be called 'greedy' for that?

idk there's just something weird about wanting to reclaim objects that are both a) important representations of calaquendi noldor culture and craft and b) a literal embodiment of the divine light that recalls better being described as excessive and unreasonable that rubs me the wrong way.

Just to be clear: I am not endorsing acts of violence to meet the above goals! But 'greed' does not denote excessive force or unjust means! It denotes unjust desire. Characterizing Feanor's drive to reclaim the silmarils as greed means that the desire itself is unjustifiable or unreasonable.