killing voldemort/ dumbledore cold & calculating?

[Kimberly]

No: HPFGUIDX 14415

Scott wrote (and somehow it came out in wonky sentences I can't seem 
to fix):

                 > --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.

Amanda said:
                 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.

I hope you're right that they'll get more complex - that's a part of 
growing up, and I think it's important that people realize this.  For 
instance, *not* choosing, is a choice in and of itself.  I wish 
someone had taught me that as a child.  I just think that the choice - 
no matter how complex, has to be based on the accumulated experience 
and wisdom of the individual, and (in the case of the decisions of a 
fictional character) in keeping with the moral/ethcial framework set 
up by the author.  I admit I may be projecting my own framework onto 
the books unknowingly, but from my perspective, the choice to kill 
would not ring true.

                 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.]

I agree with you here.  It's why the idea of Harry killing V gives me 
such trouble.  I don't think he can do it without, in some measure, 
becoming like Voldemort.  It's a decision to kill another person, and 
if it's a considered decision rather than a reflex out of fear or rage 
or desperation or something, then I think it's even more serious.  And 
once you've made such a decision and carried it out...  there's now a 
part of you that not only has killed, but has chosen to do so.  If you 
can do that once, and the results are good and the repercussions are 
small, then what happens the next time someone threatens your family, 
or hurts someone you love, or... gets in your way?  It's such a 
slippery slope once you consider killing a viable option for any 
reason.

                 <snip>

Scott:
                 > 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.

Amanda:
                 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.

But the fact is, if he were to use AK, then it *would* be planned.  It 
would be assassination, because there's no other reason Harry *would* 
know AK.  He would have chosen to learn it for the purpose of killing.  
It's the only thing AK is good for.  And what an anticlimax after all 
of the ingenious ways that JKR has written for Harry to survive and/or 
prevail up to this point, such as destroying the diary in CoS.

<snip>

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


Scott, I agree with you completely here.  There is no 'once and for 
all' (at least in this world) in the destruction of evil, and evil 
does not exist in any one body.  Killing someone who does evil does 
not destroy the evil, and 'using' evil makes it more commonplac and 
less of an outrage to those who are against it.  I don't want to be 
desensitized.

Amanda:
                 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.

But there's an enormous difference between being unwilling to kill and 
not making some effort toward the fight!  Not killing is by no means 
the same thing as doing nothing.  In your example there were those who 
took care of the sick and injured, there were those who helped people 
to hide and who carried messages.  Some people destroyed bridges to 
keep supplies from getting across... all of those people were making 
some effort toward the fight.  I'd rather do any of those things, or 
even die in a futile attempt  to make peace, than kill someone.  To me 
this is one of the things that can fall under the 'easy' catagory.  
When Dumbledore talked about choosing between what is right and what 
is easy,  I think he was referring to the kind of decision that 
Pettigrew made, but I think it also applies to this - using evil means 
to achieve good ends.  It's often a lot easier to say that person X is 
evil and irredeemable and execute them than it is to try to find 
another way to deal with the problem.  I think the effort to affect a 
positive change in a positive way makes a difference, even if it's not 
immediately clear.  

                 > 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.

I'd hate to think that anyone is completely beyond the effects of 
love.  It may not cause a complete turnaround, but surely love mercy 
and forgiveness have *some* impact.  As long as there is, I'm happy to 
play Sisyphus indefinitely.

The thing is, I think Harry has seen Voldemort as nothing more than 
the Evil one who killed his parents and is after him since book 1.  I 
don't think it would be much of a stretch for him to recognize that 
Voldemort is 'beyond the pale' (cool terminology), as I don't know 
that he's ever seen him in any other way.  I think it would be far 
more difficult for him to come to the realization that Voldemort *is*, 
in some sense, human, with all that that entails.  I guess that's 
another reason that I struggle with the idea of Harry killing him.  To 
me, in the current culture of action movies and cop shows, *that's* 
the easy way out.