JKR, Harry Potter, and the Nature of Evil

[rja.carnegie at excite.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 19547

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Scott" <insanus_scottus at y...> wrote:
> --Good is choosing to be. Likewise evil is choosing to be. No that's 
> not right.

How about: good is choosing to be good - or rather, to do good;
evil is anything else?

So then we have to define "doing good".  How about "making the world
a better place".

So then we have to define "better".  If you have a religion, and
didn't take a different turning on a previous line, then the answer
to this one has probably already been written down somewhere for you;
for the rest of us, I'd guess that the world is better if it more
readily accommodates the people, animals, plants, and perhaps
artifacts, ideas, and mores that we care about - did I leave anything
off the list?  Should I drop artifacts, ideas, and mores?

This is relativism, of course; it allows both Voldemort and Lockhart
to deny to themselves that they're evil - because neither of them
cares about the people that they hurt.  But then, the object of the
exercise isn't to convince them of the error of their ways, but to
make up our own minds.

_Newsweek_ isn't necessarily where I'd turn first for an anatomy of
evil - but the quotes from the article seem to carry the notion that
evil is a deficiency in care, concern, and charity for one's fellow
creatures.  Unfortunately, it's also how some people make a living,
or get [word deleted on moderator advice] to high office ;-)

Robert Carnegie
Glasgow, Scotland

"I read them all when I was seven and I hated them" - unnamed American
office worker on the Harry Potter books (www.dilbert.com, List of
Stupid Things Overheard)