The Morality Question

[derannimer]

Judy wrote: 

>I mean, if Harry lies so that he can do something
>that results in something good, that should be okay, right? Sorry, 
>but I have
>a problem with that. I'm not naive about this -- I wrestle with the 
>question
>of what would I do if I were hiding Jews in Nazi Germany and 
>soldiers came to
>my door? To this day, I don't have the answer to that.

If it helps, consider that the Christian theologian Dietrich 
Bonhoeffeur, whose name I am probably spelling wrong, was involved in 
an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler; in the normal run of life, 
assassination would surely be regarded as worse than lies. 

Consider also that in a fallen and tragic world, very few questions 
may be resolved into black and white. Most of them come in shades of 
grey; you must sometimes choose the answer that is the least wrong, 
because there is *no* answer that is purely right. 

I don't really have a problem with Harry's lies. 

(Anyway, Harry *does* feel bad about his lies, and I agree with what 
Steve wrote: Harry doesn't lie all that much, and he generally does 
it for truly exemplary purposes.)

Also, in re another point, Judy wrote:

>As for the "witchcraft" aspect of it -- I do not find this 
>threatening to my religious beliefs, and I can keep it in context. 
>However -- at the risk of outraging some of you -- I believe that 
>parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit (as 
>long as it doesn't break basic laws), including those who don't like 
>the witchcraft in the HP books and movies and so deny their children 
>access to them. Once those children reach the age of 18 and go out 
>on their own -- if they decide to read HP *then*, they are adults 
>and have that right to choose.

(Aww, you're not going to outrage any of us. We're pretty sensible 
people, on the whole.) 

And Mel wrote: 

>ALSO please note that I think that while these people are certainly 
>entitled to raise their children the way they see fit and to guide 
>their children's reading choices they are NOT entitled to raise MY 
>children and may not deny my children access to reading material. 
>Just because a book is on a library shelf doesn't mean it must be 
>checked out!

Yeah. You know what, though? I think--and I've never really thought 
about this before, but I think I might be right here--I think that a 
lot of parents don't feel that they have that much control over their 
kids. I think that they feel that if something is on the shelves, 
then it *will* be checked out, and that they will not be able to stop 
their kids from reading it. I think a lot of not terribly *effectual* 
parents try to ban the books, hoping that the school district will do 
their job for them. 

I think a lot of people also simply feel that the books are Evil With 
a Capital E and so *no one* should be exposed to them, whether that 
person can see the Evil of the books or not. The same way that you're 
not legally permitted to commit murder, whether you personally can 
see if it's evil or not. Which is a principle that I think most of us 
would agree with, in some instances at any rate. The question would 
be whether 

A: there was anything wrong with the books in the first place (no)

and 

B: whether the hypothetical thing that was wrong with them was the 
*kind* of wrong thing that ought to lie within the jurisdiction of 
the State (no)



Derannimer (who thinks, along with--she believes--St. Augustine, that 
no one should be compelled to accept the faith against their will; 
and who feels considerably more sympathetic towards the first group 
of book-banning parents than towards the second one)