Sparing Pettigrew and Harry's Ethics.

[ourobouros_1999 at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 17562

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., nera at r... wrote:

> I do not think that Harry sparing the life of Peter can be 
considered 
> a bad thing, no matter what Peter goes on to do.
> 

Yes. I'm speaking secularly here of course, but I think it actually 
is an interesting point of Rowling's. She has Harry show mercy. 
Besides, I don't think it would be proper, even if you think 
Pettigrew deserves it, to have him killed vigilante fashion. It would 
be better for all concerned, including Sirius, if Pettigrew were 
tried and brougt to justice publically. 

It would be rather utilitarian for Harry to spare him because he 
thinks Pettigrew might be useful to the cause later on, or because he 
hoped Pettigrew would pay him back. But I actually think more of 
Harry because he does this without hope of reward. I think this is 
better than if Rowling implied that the reason people should be good 
is because then good things will happen to them. What sort of message 
would this send to children? 

To me this turns doing the right thing, which you do because it is 
right, into something you do in hopes of a reward. Then could you say 
that you'd really be good, if you're doing it because of the probable 
consequences? Then this just turns evil into stupidity. Harry may be 
rewarded because of saving Pettigrew sometime. We don't know. But the 
point is that Harry wasn't thinking about this when he saved him. 

Charmian