I think what you complaining about is really that Tolkein wasn't a moral relativist and that shows clearly in his writing.
This is different to the original complaint about a dichotomy - belief that some things are ultimately good and some other things are ultimately evil is not the same as dividing everything into rigid categories of only good or only evil.
Calling it a pilgrim's progress tale is a bit unwarranted, or at least overly reductionist - it's not that simplistic and that's only one aspect of LotR anyway.
A few grey areas off the top of my head: various elven decisions, Denethor, Frodo, Smeagol/Gollum, Saruman's initial study of ringlore. In Tolkien's writing, individuals do clearly good things, clearly bad things, difficult to judge things, and and things that are some combination of the previous three. All this happens within the framework of the very traditional overarching light v. dark theme (which is also the source of the association between evil and 'dark' and 'twisted' characterisations that some like to complain about).
This is different to the original complaint about a dichotomy - belief that some things are ultimately good and some other things are ultimately evil is not the same as dividing everything into rigid categories of only good or only evil.
Calling it a pilgrim's progress tale is a bit unwarranted, or at least overly reductionist - it's not that simplistic and that's only one aspect of LotR anyway.
A few grey areas off the top of my head: various elven decisions, Denethor, Frodo, Smeagol/Gollum, Saruman's initial study of ringlore. In Tolkien's writing, individuals do clearly good things, clearly bad things, difficult to judge things, and and things that are some combination of the previous three. All this happens within the framework of the very traditional overarching light v. dark theme (which is also the source of the association between evil and 'dark' and 'twisted' characterisations that some like to complain about).
A lot of it boils down to taste.