Rule Breaking & HP

[David]

No: HPFGUIDX 29218

Penny:

>When Harry breaks the rules to sneak off to Hogsmeade, it is for his 
own pleasure (there is no higher good involved here).  He doesn't get 
detention or expelled.  Lupin saves his neck from Snape.  *But,* if 
you recall the conversation that Lupin had with Harry after they left 
Snape's office, you will remember that Harry thinks to himself that 
he felt far worse after what Lupin said to him than he had at any 
point in Snape's office.  He wishes, in fact, that he was back in 
Snape's office.  No consequences?  Pshaw.

Pippin, referring to the other Potter:

>Peter, after all, is never found out or punished for his daring 
escapade in Mr. MacGregor's garden. Instead, he ends up miserably ill 
and deprived of his possessions, just like 
Harry.

See also Pippin's message 23737, on the Commandments (when is no.2 
coming out, BTW, Pippin?):

>As in the Bible, the reader should not assume that an individual has 
gotten away with something simply because he or she has eluded 
discovery... et seq.

I think at bottom this comes back to how we perceive rules.  We can 
see them either as there for our (collective) protection and 
edification, or there because right is right and must be enforced.  
In the former case the rules are there for a reason, and when we 
break them, the reason comes back and hits us in the face - which is 
what happens, broadly speaking, to Harry. (He doesn't get attacked by 
Sirius, but his devaluation of his own worth, which underlies the 
apparent triviality of the rulebreaking, is brought home to him.)  
This interpretation allows for inappropriate rules, and for the 
exercise of judgement, and it also means we may be faced with choices 
where every course could be wrong and we will never know if we could 
have done better. (I had a barrister friend who took the view that 
traffic lights are advisory - never got a chance to hear him argue it 
with a policeman.)

In the latter case, a process of moral equalisation (usually 
described in terms of a final judgement) is required, or we have to 
say the universe is unfair.  In fiction which claims a moral purpose, 
we need for every misdemeanor to get a legalistic punishment or for 
the perpetrator to own up to the authorities.

Which view do we want children (and grownups) to develop?

David