Is morality too simple....? :^)

[rcraigharman at hotmail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 19803

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Vicky Ra" <andromache815 at h...> wrote:
> I don't know if this post has been answered already, and if so,
> sorry. Anyway, I think intent has a lot to do with evil. Lockhart,
> IMO, is evil because he doesn't seem to care about stealing
> memories or leaving people to die. His reasoning, of course, is
> purely selfish. Dobby, however, isn't evil in my eyes, because
> though he seems to make Harry's life miserable, the good intentions
> are there. He just doesn't rationalize.

I think as humans we think a lot in binaries and tend to put good
and evil on a sliding scale.  I think this leads to easy rhetoric
and propaganda, but also an unduly immature view of motivation and a
poor judgment on character.

I don't believe "good-evil" is the only ordinate on which qualities
should be projected.  Is vanity good or evil?  How about resolve?
Pride?  Inattention to detail?  The point I guess I'm getting at is
that the characters that Rowling has created should no more be viewed
through stereotype and projection than any real person.

Yes, there is a convenience in the shorthand of lumping Voldemort,
Pettigrew, Quirrell, Lockhart, the Malfoys, Fudge, Crouch Jr., and
even Snape under the rubric of evil, but it does a disservice to
understanding the complexity of who they actually are.

....Craig