(long) Re: 7 Heavenly Virtues: Justice

[Rita Winston]

No: HPFGUIDX 5909

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, Peg Kerr <pkerr06 at a...> wrote:

> This sense that some things that are fair and some that are not--a
> sense of justice, in other words--is a natural stage in children, 
> according to theologian C.S. Lewis. 

I personally believe that children learn the CONCEPT of justice, of 
fairness, as well as the details of what is fair, from the adults who 
raise them. Rather than being inborn. That would explain why 
different people, especially in different cultures and/or historical 
periods, have such totally different ideas of what outcome would be 
fair. What do the people who have personally raised children think?

> If I had known when I first read PoA what I have since learned
> through the process of writing these essays, I would have
> instantly realized that Sirius Black had to be innocent, simply 
> from the fact that Dursleys, our examples throughout the books of
> moral antimatter, were convinced that he was guilty:

That only works because JKR is writing archetypes (as I said in 
today's chat, she is writing archetypes, which all too easily turn 
into stereotypes in the hands of a less able writer), so the Dursleys 
can be the archetype of 'moral antimatter'. In real life, even very 
evil people (e.g. people who disagree with me about major political 
issues) can't reliably be wrong all the time unless they have studied 
the issues. When they speak off the top of their heads, they might be 
right accidentally once in a while. 

I admit that occasionally when deciding to vote for or against a 
Proposition, I am reduced to looking at WHO signed the arguments for 
and against that are published in the ballot pamphlet. In fact, in 
this latest election, there was one run-off for an open municipal 
judgeship, and my trusted paper didn't endorse in that race, so I 
voted against the guy who was endorsed by groups which I consider to 
be the same as the American Nazi Party, even tho' the other 
candidate's endorsers included groups I consider feeble-minded.

Altho' it is relevant here to repeat that Tim announced to me that 
Sirius Black is a good guy as soon as he reached the part where Harry 
learns that wizards as well as Muggles are hunting him. Tim said, not 
that the Dursleys are moral anti-matter, but that JKR wouldn't go to 
such length to establish the idea that he is a villain unless she was 
preparing to astonish the reader by revealing that he is a good guy. 
I don't know how that bit of familiarity with the author's habits 
relates to the theme of moral development. (I feel sure that if CSL 
were alive and replying to this reply, he would mention familiarity 
with The Author's habits.)
 
> When Hagrid earnestly explains to Hermione that she's doing an 
> unkindness to the house elves by trying to agitate about their
> working conditions, because it's in their nature to look after
> humans (Chapter Sixteen),

Hermione was shocked by the cruelty with which Crouch treated Winky 
(altho', it turns out, Winky deserved it just as much as Aunt Marge 
did: it was Winky who talked Crouch into letting Jr attend the World 
Cup match and thus enabled him to escape and do all those bad things) 
and she would have been even more shocked if she had seen how evilly  
the evil Lucius treated Dobby. 

What she SHOULD have founded, to solve the problem bothering her 
without so much social rejection, was a Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to House Elves (rather than an Elvish Liberation Front). Like 
the Societies for preventing cruelty to children and animals, SPCHE 
would not expect its beneficiaries to stand up for their own rights 
or privileges, but that humans would enforce humane treatment by 
passing and enforcing laws among humans. (Lucius would stand trial 
and be fined or sentenced to community service or perhaps publically 
caned for abusing Dobby.)

As of the end of GoF, Hermione would still be outraged at the notion 
of SPCHE, telling me how insulting and demeaning it is to class the 
House Elves with children and animals instead of in the same category 
as adult humans who have standing in law to act for themselves. Can I 
cite her passion on the subject of slavery as a clue to the 
Afro-Caribbean ancestry that I believe she has?

> so I doubt that house elves will continue to be happily slaving for 
the Malfoy family at the end of book 7.

I have a feeling that private homes, even Malfoy Manor, have only one 
House Elf at a time, so once Dobby was freed, Malfoy Manor no longer 
has any House Elves.

> But it is clear at least that Rowling is interested in writing
> about situations where an unjust situation exists, but the culture
> has not quite yet recognized that injustice.

What I said. Up above, about people have such very different ideas of 
what is fair. 

> and, of course, assumes the identity of Alistar Moody as part
> of his scheme to deliver Harry to Voldemort.

ALASTOR. That's important, because Alastor is a real word (not 
merely the title of a poem by Shelley): it means an avenging 
spirit, the male equivalent of Nemesis. 

> Barty Crouch Jr seems to be merely a frightened innocent--but we
> don't know for sure, and the implication is that no one knows,
> because everyone is so angry at the crime that the true question of
> Barty Crouch, Jr.'s guilt or innocence is not being carefully
> examined.

Practical question: why didn't anyone check for his Dark Mark? He 
must have one, as he is one of the people with an assigned place in 
the circle. (At least, we are set up to believe at the end of GoF 
that he is the absentee 'loyally serving [V] at Hogwarts'.)

Metaphysical digressions: 1) He hates Death Eaters who walked free, 
because they denied their Lord (like Peter denied Christ three times 
before cockcrow -- either the Christian / Death Eater analogies are 
merely use of archetypes, or it is further dramatizing the evil of V 
by showing that it is blasphemous as well as merely murderous), but 
*he* denied his Lord at that trial. 

3) And, if the Lestranges, young Crouch, and the other man were 
trying to bring V back after he was overthrown by Harry, how could 
Sirius know much at all about it? Sirius's alleged crime was 
committed the day after V's overthrow, the conspirators' crime must 
have occured at least as late, Sirius was arrested at the scene, he 
would have been in Azkaban already by the time the conspirators were 
tried. 

3) It may have been unfair to convict Jr with the evidence presented 
and it may have been cruelly heartless of Crouch Sr to convict his 
own son -- but it was the correct thing to do. Being as how he was 
both guilty and a danger to the public. That is a question under 
Justice: what to do when the unjust action is the correct action?