[HPforGrownups] Re: killing voldemort/ dumbledore cold & calculating?

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 14355

Scott wrote:

> I didn't need a red nose to participate in red nose day
> *loud hacking coughs and seezes ensue*

Oh, you poor thing. My kids have been trading a virus around like they'd
toss a beach ball--somebody's been sick, seems like, for months. I can
relate.

> --As a society we have accepted the idea of "fighting fire with fire".
> Therefore it's no suprise that the theme of "fighting evilwith evil"
> or "giving someone a dose of their own medicene" is a common as the
> situtations in which it arises. But I agree with Amy (?) that it is a
> dangerous message to send in the HP books. I think it would be counter
> productive to the whole message of the series.

A good point. But so far as I can tell, the whole message of the series
has to do with choices. Harry's choices so far have mostly been
no-brainers, from the perspective of the reader--by that I mean, you
*know* what he should do, and what he'll probably do, if you know what I
mean. They're getting more complex, though--choices which could go
either way, which are not "preselected" by the reader, like his choosing
to prevent Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew. I imagine they'll
get more complex still.

A complex choice is complex precisely because the answer is not easy.
That sounds simple, but it means that there's a measure of bad and good
in *any* decision, which must be weighed. When you get to really morally
complex choices, you start getting to "intent counts." And I think one
can morally make a choice that involves commission of some degree of
bad, if the intent and pursuit and purpose is good. But not easily, and
not unscathed, and not unchanged--which is part of the choice, that
understanding that you alter yourself, not necessarily to the good. [I'm
reminded of that "using an evil creature (basilisk) for a good end"
discussion some months back, where as I recall, I said you can*not* use
an evil tool to a good end, at least without becoming evil in measure
yourself.]

However, I'm the first to admit that the extremes of considering intent
can go both ways--forgiving a child who manages to do some horrible
thing, because they did so innocently, it was an accident, etc. (good),
or the whole hate-crimes issue, where killing someone is supposedly
worse if you did so because of racial motivation (bad). [they're not
just as dead? it's not a horrible crime regardless? not to mention the
fun of proving motivation]

JKR's world is an interesting mix of both black-and-white (Gryffindors
good, Slytherins bad) and gray (prejudice, fair treatment of
house-elves, etc.). So I think her treatment of any final confrontation
could go either way. I suspect that her world will get grayer as Harry's
perceptions mature.

> The way I see it if Harry uses AK to kill Voldemort then he is
> stooping to Voldemort's level and is therefore no better than the evil
> he is destroying.

Yes and no. It depends on the situation. Seeking someone out, after
mapping their moves and planning your strategy, is assassination any way
you slice it, for any purpose. I would hate to see Harry brought to
that, for that would indeed be on Voldemort's level. But using it in a
combat situation, or as a reflex to prevent the deaths of others, then
any curse he knows is a weapon to hand. In my mind, the latter situation
does not bring Harry to Voldemort's level.

> --It's really a tough moral question. I understand this reasoning, but
> I'm not sure I personally agree with it. Even though one might look at
> the big picture it's still disturbing.

Which is often the reason that most of the WWII vets don't brag a whole
lot. It was a job, it had to be done, they did it, but with no joy and
often carrying the weight forever after. It wasn't just the sacrifice of
leaving hearth and home; it was knowing you were going into a situation
that could, would, change you.

> I don't think I could (or would) end the life of another human no
> matter what the circumstances.

James Mason, actually, got loads of flak (no pun intended) for his
pacifist stance in the war. He refused to take service, and went through
the system set up in Britain to be declared officially a pacifist
non-participant. It's been speculated that he did so to be in a position
to snap up roles left available by the enlistment of other actors, but
all the real research I've done seems to indicate he truly felt the way
you do [It's also been speculated that this refusal to serve was a
reason he was never knighted]. I don't know if the U.S. had a similar
system to be declared a helpful nonparticipant; I would hope so.

> If I did my guilt would most likely be worse than any
> physical reprecussions, and the same goes for Harry.  If the "larger
> goal" is to end evil, or a paticular evil, then how is using evil
> (killing) ever going to stop it, or even slow it down?

Well, answer that one and I'll put your name in for a Nobel in
philosophy. Or human relations. I guess the answer lies in the voice
within, that says whether a particular choice is worth it. Most people
understand that evil will probably not ever be completely stopped,
except Here and For A While, and if you can do that, well, it's helped a
bit. So I guess the extent to which you are willing to go depends on
your own Here and For A While. For example, honestly put yourself in the
position of someone living during the Blitz, with friends and family who
had died, understanding that if your country fell, that horrible things
would most likely happen to the entire rest of the world (for such was
likely)--can you still say with such certainty that you would not make
some effort toward the fight? Harry's Here and For A While will likely
be such high stakes.

> --I agree that by the time Harry has to make a decision of this
> importance and magnitude he will have matured enough to make it
> wisely. I'd say that's what Dumbledore is doing- preparing him to
> learn how to make decisions and act on his own. I think that makes
> Dumbly calculating as Caius said but not exactly coldy calculating as
> he does it with Harry's best interest in mind.

I agree that Dumbledore has had to be calculating. I don't think it's
cold, but it's deliberate. I'm reminded of an example from a book called
"Hanta Yo!" about the Lakotah Sioux, where a man rode out to find his
son after he [the son] had been out doing a fast all day. He found him,
sleeping under a tree, and it says that the man wanted to do nothing
more than to pick up his son, cradle him against his breast, and carry
him home. But what he did do was sneak down next to him and do a war
yell, to test and train him. There is very little room for mistakes in a
hunting, warlike society, and thus very little room for indulging
sentiment. Dumbledore, I think, is in a similar position with Harry.
There's doubtless been times he wanted to be more involved and more
paternal, but he also has very little room for mistakes and thus very
little room for indulging personal sentiment.

> Also here's an alternative thought. What if someone shows Voldemort
> love. Dumbly says that Voldemort cannot understand love. (Is that b/c
> he's never experienced it or b/c he has forgotten it in his road to
> Evil Overlordship?) If Harry were to forgive Voldemort despite his
> past actions what effect would it have?

Oooh. Interesting thought. I'm not sure Voldemort is human enough
anymore for this to make any difference, although his human part is
Harry's blood (pure) and Wormtail's hand (beholden to Harry). But still,
anything that is nurtured on venom is probably past it. You can care
tenderly for a snake, and it will still try to strike you. It may be
part of Harry's choice that he must recognize that Voldemort's own
choices have moved him beyond the pale of humanity. Ugh.

Wonderful post, Scott. Thanks.

--Amanda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]