HP morally questionable? Discuss...

[Lyda Clunas]

No: HPFGUIDX 16915

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Horst or Rebecca J. Bohner" 
<bohners at p...> wrote:
>> "In each of the stories there is some force of evil which 
threatens Harry or his friends, and the force is not defeated until 
Harry breaks some rules or tells some lies.  The consequence of his 
rule-breaking and lying is victory and success; indeed, victory in 
some measure *depends* on his misbehaviour."<<

Harry's rule-breaking and lie-telling is often, in some way, 
punished, and does not always lead to victory. For example, in CoS, 
not only does Harry have to take a detention for his and Ron's car-
stealing escapade, but the Howler makes him feel incredibly guilty. 
Further, after Snape catches Harry with the Maurauder's Map in PoA, 
Professor Lupin (while he does save Harry's skin) also gives him a 
guilt trip and takes away the Map. 

I don't think that Harry's victory *always* depends on misbehavior; 
in GoF, I cannot even recall an instance where Harry was *really* 
misbehaving, except perhaps the egg-incident in the hallway. But even 
that was a little nothing compared to his previous escapades-- 
illicitly mixing a potion in a girl's bathroom, venturing into the 
Forbidden Forest illegaly, sneaking into Hogsmeade. Could you say 
that Harry has 'learned his lesson?' No, I don't think he'll ever 
really stop bending the rules, because some of the rules go against 
his personal judgement. (See Kohlberg's moral ladder discussion at 
end of this post.)

>> "This concept is reinforced by some of the characterizations in 
the books. The authority figures who are easy-going and laissez-
faire, who are happy to overlook Harry's misconduct -- characters 
such as Headmaster Dumbledore -- are likeable, trustworthy, and 
competent.  But those authority figures who insist on obedience to 
the rules and who offer to punish misbehaviour -- characters such as 
Professor Snape -- are portrayed as sinister and meddlesome. ... Out-
smarting and humiliating [characters like Argus Filch and Mrs. 
Norris] is positively a virtue. ... but the moral laws [of a good 
story should] require that a character's actions bring 
consequences."<<
<snip>
>> We don't know what would have happened in SS/PS if Harry had gone 
straight to Dumbledore, told him the whole story, and enlisted his 
help.  In CoS Harry was on his own, because Dumbledore wasn't there 
to consult.  In PoA, Buckbeak and Sirius are rescued with 
Dumbledore's knowledge and with his full cooperation -- in fact he 
practically tells Harry what to do.  And in GoF, I don't recall that 
Harry's success in the tournament or his escape from Voldemort had 
anything to do with his breaking rules or telling lies.<<
<snip>
>> Dumbledore doesn't jump all over Harry for every school-rule 
infraction, true.  But D. appears to represent the spirit of the law 
rather than its letter; he takes into account Harry's motives and he 
also doesn't waste time fussing over trifles.  But he does admonish 
Harry about moral issues; he does warn him about dangerous behaviour; 
and he does even punish him on occasion.  By contrast, Snape and 
Filch are obsessed with rules *as rules* rather than the moral 
principles that they represent.  They are legalists, as it were, who 
look at the outward appearance rather than the heart.  That's how a 
selfish and malicious git like Draco Malfoy can stay in Snape's good 
graces (in appearance, anyway), simply by not allowing himself to be 
caught openly breaking school rules.<<

What the author of this article neglects to include is the fact that 
Harry can get by with the stuff he does because, as Cornelius Fudge
says in PoA, it's "Harry Potter, you know... we've all got a bit of a 
blind spot where he's concerned." And almost everyone *does* have 
that blind spot for him; he's 'the boy who lived' and it is shown in 
how others regard him. It's comparable to how we judge celebrities; 
tell me that OJ Simpson would have gotten off had he not been an 
athlete? Harry *is* a celebrity; some are distasteful of this, and 
others give him leeway because of it.

Dumbledore-- well, Dumbledore encourages, as you say, the moral 
standings of the law. And he's not a big "follower of the rules" 
himself; he's going directly against Fudge in his actions after the 
Tournament. But, it's for the better good. Dumbledore fosters 
deliberation before making such action; he upholds the idea that one 
should make choices that build character and are for the good of 
others as well. Snape and Filch are enforcers of authority and rules; 
they strongly feel for consequences should a person step out-of-line; 
but, this is not necessarily a sense of morality, IMO. Some rules are 
not just or fair(perhaps not in HP canon, but hypothetically), yet 
Snape and Filch, as upholders of the rules, would enforce those 
anyway.

I think this can be explained best using Kohlberg's ladder of moral 
development. (You Psychology buffs will know what I'm talking about. 
Further, I know I'm going to be argued with. I'm only in AP 
Psychology, don't flame me too much! ^-^) IMO, Harry and Dumbledore 
work at the Postconventional level (stage 6, I'd say) of moral 
development, meaning they use conscience and ethical principle to 
make judgements. They use basic guides, generally accepted standards 
of moral conduct, rather than simply the rules, to make their choices 
and decide upon actions. If Harry thinks he's doing something that is 
for the better good of everyone, then he does it regardless of rules 
(SS: he wants to prevent Voldemort from getting the Stone, even 
though this action will put him in danger, and is deliberately 
against the 'rules'. CoS: he goes after Ginny, although he's 
technically not supposed to. Etc. etc.). They follow conscience and 
make decision based upon personal moral standing.

For Snape, Filch, and Hermione, I think they are operating at the 
Conventional level. Snape and Hermione, I think, float between stage 
4 (conventional)and stage 5 (postconventional), while Filch I would 
place in simply stage 4. Anyhoo, at stage 4, actions are met and 
guided by the law: doing your duty, respecting and defering to 
authority, upholding social order and the rules. Snape defintely fits 
here; he's obsessed with authority and maintaining order. Filch fits 
as well, as does Hermione. But Snape and Hermione also show 
characteristics for stage 5 Postconventionalism: they recognize the 
rights of others (Snape returning to Our Side so as to preserve and 
help others, rejecting the rules and order of the DEs so that general 
priciples of society may be maintained), and they see the general 
rules accepted by society as binding but subject to change (Hermione 
and SPEW, she wants to change a view in society, and she decides to 
attempt to go about it). They have high morals in their priniples, 
but they also have the rules which they feel must be enforced and 
obeyed.

OK, that's my little spiel. Go nuts, Psych majors, I know you're just 
itching to get your hands on this, my highly unqualified 
assumptions. :)

Lyda