|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
I actually was happy with Harry's "Crucio" spell
![]() His crucio did alot to that guy. So, maybe we under-estimate Harry's spell strength when others are in danger.
__________________
"You said to us once before, that there was time to turn back if we wanted to. We've had time, haven't we?" - Hermione Granger
|
Sponsored Links |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
How about the ambiguity of how goblins should be treated? The author did not seem to maintain her usual egalitarian idealism there, the goblins can be very brutal and underhand and even Hermione does not care for them much.
I wonder how the Death Eaters viewed centaurs, merpeople and the like. |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Who's talking about duplicity? It's a simple matter that in many business and interactions success comes down to successful use of the language and if you can't or choose not to cover your words appropriately. People who don't grasp or ignore this are setting themselves up for a cropper.
__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Yes, the Crucio curse of Harry's was great! And, as he said what Bella said, that you had to enjoy it.....well, Harry did enjoy it! Yes, his magic is strong, as the trio reached the forrest, and Harry fired his Patronus, and it filled the sky!
With 'the language', so what.....just watch a TV programme, there is so much 'bad language' shown....it's glad I'm broad minded! |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Quote:
Some people (say, Group One) only count the literal meaning of words. They consider it the listener's or reader's job to examine the literal meaning of words through a microscope and even then -- caveat emptor! It's a dog-eat-dog world! You have to work on the assumption that the other party will cheat you if possible. Other people (say, Group Two) count the non-verbal aspcts as part of the communication: the unspoken implications that a reasonable person would assume to be meant, the setting of the communication, tone of voice, etc. For people who think like this, what makes it lying is the intent to deceive. For them, the relevant sayings are, "A gentleman's word is his bond," and "Let your yea be yea." Life is perfectly possible and more pleasant (some of us think) among people who agree to the Two definition, although we have to be aware of the Ones. (As the saying goes, "Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves.") Fred warned Harry that Griphook belongs to Group One. Harry then acted in a Group One way toward Griphook. Fair's fair? Maybe. When people come into an interaction with different views in this, it causes problems. At first One has the advantage, and Two gets tricked! "Fool me once, shame on you," says the cheated Two. But, "Fool me twice, shame on me." Two is angry at the violation of trust. At an absolute minimum, Two will act like a One when deadline with One again, and will try to trick him back. Two may also refuse to have anything to do with One, and One loses Two's business. Or Two may even make it his mission to get back at One, triggering a feud. This is surely part of how relations between wizards and goblins got so strained. Harry ends up intending to manipulate Griphook just as Griphook would have cynically predicted. The Trio convince Griphook of their good intentions, using their concern for house elves, even pumping up their devotion to SPEW, just to get him where Harry wants him. Actually it's rather similar to the way Hermione used the Centaurs in HPB, and they didn't like it either. I got the feeling that JKR thought this kind of systematic deceit was okay even though she was very careful to have Hermione pay for any stolen food, which to me is kind of like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. What I'd call a moral ambiguity. Harry felt bad about deceiving Griphook, to his credit, and got away alive only by luck, and lost the sword anyway -- but somehow I didn't get the sense that JKR had a real problem with it as there were no real negative consequences to the deceit. Negative consequences would have entailed, I think, being worse off than if the choice had been honesty. As it was, there were no consequences to the deceit, any different from the consequences of being honest might have been. The plot point, for me, evaporated there. Last edited by fruitia pickleweed; August 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 pm. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Agreed.
Just want to bring back the point that JKR has said these were not "moral tales" as it be. It also points out the fact (just as in real life) that sometimes even when we don't like it the "end justifies the means" and "for the greater good" are good reasons to detain people, torture, kill, drop bombs, invade countries, destroy governments, profiling, invasion of privacy, etc. etc. Specially when you are in a war environment, killing more enemies, will make you a hero regardless of the way in which you achieve your kills. "Kill one person they call you a murderer, kill a million they'll call you a conquerer" If you don't agree that this is the world we live in then you obviously live in utopia. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
To willingly cause another to hold beliefs one knows or believes to be false is the moral equivelant of a lie, regardless of the veracity, or limited scope of one's words. Whether one specifically makes false claims is irrelevant compared to ones intentions. As Dumbledore would say, our choices define us.
To suggest that all ethics is situational is to ignore the need of a value trandscenedent enough to guide the resolution of those situations. It might not even be coherent, but it would have to give a "Why " to how to resolve the situation. Even a value as lame as self-interest offers a foundation. Plenty of people have won in the short term but lost in the long term by treating all of life as a game. But many have never been called to task for it. How does that validate it ethically? The point to remember is that those who decieve depend upon the efforts of the others who maintain truth telling and honesty as the norm. As Kant would say, Lies have no sense (or value) apart from backround conditions of honesty. If everyone did treat Morality as just a game, then the game would be much different, along the lines of Hobbes, " nasty, brutish and short." The "Rush Hour Traffic Drivng Game" illustrates this pretty well. What seems to be confusing people about what JKR means us to take away is that there are many different characters, each with their own subtly different morality. Lupin's notion about killing in war was clearly widely held, both here and in the book. It suggests that those killing in the defense of Hogwarts were not necessarily evil as the Deatheaters were. But if JKR wanted to validate Lupin's comment, it would have been by having one of the trio kill someone. The fact that they apparently managed to get thropugh the war without killing anyone, nor relying upon others to do it in their absense, means that JKR has not endorsed Lupin's notion so much as endorsed the idea that heros (like Lupin) need not be perfect, so long as they try their best. And this is certainly a recurring theme in the series. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Quote:
Hm. Interesting point and well put. |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Quote:
It is very likely that a member of the trio did kill someone - as I explain below - and I believe this highlighted the notion that killing in self-defense is morally acceptable. Lupin did not endorse killing. Lupin's reply when Harry asked him directly if he should have killed Stanpike was an emphatic 'Of course not'. Lupin knows killing damages the soul. Lupin's first statement recommended a stunning curse if Harry wasn't prepared to kill - but Lupin, who loved Harry and felt his saftey was paramount (which is why he lectured on the over-use of the disarming spell), was trying to explain to Harry that killing in self-defense was not the same as killing in other circumstances. Harry also asked if Lupin believed stunning would be better even if it leads to death, Lupin's answer was lost when Hagrid fell. However, in my opinion, it would have been the same: Yes - in self defense. better the DE than Harry. Harry was the prime target, AK's coming his way from all angles - returning fire is self-defense in such a circumstance and really one's only alternative (morally, all right). JKR in fact answers Harry's question that went unanswered by Lupin shortly thereafter. Tonks tells everyone that Ron had sent a stunning curse that hit a DE right in the head while they were in flight - which likely meant the DE fell to his death - so I would say the trio didn't get out of the war without killing anyone and no one heaped censor on Ron for what he had done (including Harry). In fact, Hermione hugging Ron and indicating that he had done a 'good' thing (and Ron's response), is indicative of what Lupin was trying to say to Harry - in self defense it is okay. Harry's silence at that time indicates he got the point (would he have rather Ron not issued the curse and have died? No). Killing in self-defense when you are under attack is necessary, morally acceptable and the only way to come out alive was the message in my opinion.
__________________
![]() Last edited by wickedwickedboy; August 25th, 2007 at 9:05 am. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Quote:
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Harry Potter is basically a good story which by and large have healthy storylines. While it describes war and wizarding battle, it is not discussed in gruesome details. In war, people die. So it is in the Hogwarts battles. But none of the deaths are describe in a violent and gruesome way. As for Harry as a main character, he won't want to kill if he can help it. It struck me even how Harry, facing the ultimate evil, Voldemort, won't even use the killing curse, but just the expelliarmus. We don't really know the good guy characters we like (Luna, Ron, Hermione, Neville, George, Mr and Mrs Weasley), had killed how many. But the author is also not wanting to emphasis this. I guess how many they did killed was not the main purpose at that point.
Winky45 ![]()
__________________
![]() |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Quote:
Dumbledore's use of people toward the defeat of Voldemort and the DE's is based on what he knows, both evidence (Harry's unique role, horcruxes, etc.) and Dumbledore's knowledge of the people he enlists in the fight. Harry realizes this after viewing the pensieve memories, knowing that he will choose to walk to his death because he wants to defeat Voldemort -- he realizes Dumbledore bothered to get to know him, Ron, Hermione, Snape, and countless others, putting them in positions to make the right choice. Dumbledore believed he could trust those people to ultimately make the choices that Dumbledore saw as leading to the best chance of defeating Voldemort. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
![]() People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff... ....I miss David Tennant.... |
#73
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Interesting thread idea.
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Draco, had he killed Dumbledore, would have been acting as an assassin, murdering Albus in cold blood on Voldemort's orders. Bad, unnatural, rips the soul apart. The characters in the battle were acting in defense of themselves and others, commonly considered a justification for killing if the opposition is also using deadly force. Thus, they were not murdering. Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
I do, however, not think that there is any action presented by the series as unforgivable, despite the name of these three curses. DH canon tells us that even a murderer (one guilty of the worst, most unnatural, most spiritually damaging crime) can heal if they experience true remorse for their action.
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() “Death is the only pure, beautiful conclusion of a great passion.”-D. H. Lawrence All was well. |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
I think that another major shift in the "greater good idea" in DH is the move from sacrifice to self-sacrifice - an idea on which both Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism were built. Grindelwald was willing to sacrifice others for the greater good, but Harry was only ever willing to sacrifice himself, much like Jesus or a Bodhisattva.
|
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Quote:
And the world is not divided into black and white. JKR portrayed Harry as idealistic, but human, and Harry realizes that by the end. Sometimes, you must choose between the lesser of two evils, because your options are limited. In the case of Griphook, Harry needs the sword to stop Voldy, and so lies about the agreement. What is the lesser evil, to lie, or to allow Voldy to rule the world? JKR portrays a realistic moral world, one just as fractured and flawed as our own, and so holds up a mirror. What we see there is our reality, as much as we may try to idealistically deny it. Here's a practical example. You're on a ship that is sinking. There are one hundred people aboard and you're the Captain. All communication has failed and the seas are rough. No one else can handle the ship, only you. There is a means to save the ship, but it is in a flooded corridor, too far for anybody to swim there and back. You have the crew available, and one happens to be a good swimmer. However, she is 16. What do you do, order her to her death and save the ship (remember, you as Captain cannot go on your own), or allow the ship to sink and take your chances on the open sea? In HP, DD ordered Mr Weasley to guard the DoM, placing him in direct danger. DD had the choice: put Mr Weasley in harms way, or give Voldemort the key to victory? He put Mr Weasley in harm's way, because denying Voldy that knowledge was more important than Mr Weasley's life. I would order the crewmember to her death, and I would have done the same as DD. That 's reality, and that's what JKR gives us. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
there were no real ambiguities throughout the series. there were, however, shifts in attitude and situations where people made the wrong choice to prove a point.
harry useing the unforgivable curses, the students useing killing force on others in the final battle, and the malfoys defecting, were all situations where choices were made and the outcome proved whether it was right or wrong to do that. harry useing the curses was wrong because he isnt that kind of person and he knows it. the killing force in the final battle was a self defense issue. if you are being threatened with death in your home, you can use killing force on an invader to defend yourself and others. as for the malfoys defecting, i dont know why they did that but they seem to have meant it and it kept them from serving life sentences in azkaban. they clearly made the right choice in defecting.
__________________
dont look now but theres a great big greasy spot of peanut buttery goodness on your butt. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
You would have no right to order anyone to their death, IMO. You would have to present the situation to the crew member and let her choose whether she wants to do it or not. This is what Dumbledore should have done as well. In Harry's case he told him he had to sacrifice himself when it was already too late for him to do anything else or attempt to find another way of destroying the Hocruxes. DD knew this. He knew Harry would sacrifice himself based on Harry's personality but he also backed him into a corner by revealing this need for sacrifice when it was already too late to try something else. Dumbledore did, in my opinion, act like a puppetteer. He sacrificed himself as well but the only difference is that he did it out of his own will and by his choice. Harry did it because there was no other way. There wasn't even any chance of trying to find another way. Harry's self sacrifice was the right thing to do, morally speaking, but sacrificing someone is wrong. The person has the right to choose whether they want to do it or not. Harry had the right to know about this and not be manipulated by Dumbledore into doing it.
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
I think you are trying to box everything into the right category here...what is good and what is bad. But life isn't like that. We are all hypocrites, we all react differently to different situations. The world isn't painted black and white.
As for Dumbledore not wanting to rip Draco's soul apart, yet people were happy to kill in the final battle: You have to remember, those who were on the good side who killed did it for the right reasons. They were HELPING thw wizarding world, they weren't killing in cold blood like Voldemort did or his death eaters and therefore I doubt their souls would be ripped. Just look at your basic Law (which im studying currently): A) You barge into someones house, and shoot them in the head for no apparent reason other than you wanted to - This is MURDER. B) Somebody is attacking you and your friends and it's either kill or be killed so you kill that person - This is SELF DEFENCE.
__________________
![]() ![]() I won Voldemort's Excellence Award for the Fifth Task ![]() ![]() |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Quote:
And DD did act like a puppeteer, yes. He acted as he believed he needed to. Personally, I would have told Harry earlier, as I think Harry still would have done what he needed to. Forcing someone to sacrifice themselves is wrong, but if no-one wants to go, then it may be necessary to force someone to go so that everyone else might live. DD would have done it himself if he could have, but what other option was there? Harry was the only one who could. And DD couldn't take any chances, so whether Harry went by his will or was manipulated, it had to be done. I dunno, if the lives of millions depended on you sacrificing yourself, could you really be selfish enough to say no? Could it be that JKR asks that question of the reader as well as Harry? I don't think anyone would know how they would answer until they were in that situation, but sometimes there isn't a better way. I wish there was, but that's life. There is actually a real-world parallel to this. During the Chernobyl disaster, soldiers were drafted in to remove some of the highly radioactive elements from the damaged reactor. The job was potentially fatal, and they could only work for a minute or so at a time. Asking one man why he did it, he said that if he didn't, someone else would have to. The job had to be done, and he couldn't ask others to do the job in his place. My point is that sometimes, in exceptional circumstances, such sacrifices are necessary, and sometimes the price is worth paying. |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Moral Ambiguities
Quote:
Often we are faced with choices in life where the circumstances that brought us to that point were not in our control. It may seem we have been backed into a corner. And do the consequences of our choice figure into the equation? Of course. But the choice of how to react, whether or not to intercede, put ourselves in harm's way, etc. is always a choice we make. Harry always had a choice as well.
__________________
![]() People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff... ....I miss David Tennant.... |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright © MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved. Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright © its respective owners. |