The Limits of Evil

[fourfuries at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 27870

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Susanna Luhtanen" <s_luhtanen at h...> wrote:
> 
> 1) In an extreme situation there can be reasons to do what 
otherwise would 
> not be permissible, for some things more extreme than others.

But is there always a justification for every act, or are some acts 
simply unjustifiable?  For instance, can rape ever be justified?  We 
know it happens, we know it is only prosecuted in a fraction of its 
instances, we know it occurs in time of war, but is it ever 
justified?  Or should a man always be able to resist the urge to 
force himself on a woman?

Why do you think the Unforgivable Curses are called unforgivable?  
Not because they are not used, but because there is no excuse that 
justifies their use.  For the "Good" wizard, there are always other 
spells that will accomplish a noble goal.  Only a "Dark" wizard, one 
who has given him or herself over to lust, pride, greed, etc, would 
ever try to justify the use of the Unforgivable.

> 2) both motivation and consequences count.

I agree that both motivation and consequences count to the victims or 
objects of our actions.  But we can rarely foretell the consequences 
of any action, and the motivations are often complex, sometimes 
contradictory, and may even be the result of self deception.  Andrew 
Carnegie says in his "How To Win friends and Influence People" that 
every inmate on death row thinks of himself as a good (if somewaht 
misunderstood) person.

In any event, motivations often only become clear after the fact.  
But the actor knows, in his heart of hearts, the trueness or 
falseness of his intent.  That is why a theory of Evil that turns on 
the extent to which the actor is gripped by one or more of the Seven 
Deadly Sins is a reliable theory.  The only thing that counts in it 
is the one thing that the actor can control.  The condition of his 
own personal morality.

> 3) A mental disease makes a deed (caused by the disease) neutral in 
moral judgment.

Uh, I think it makes the person not criminally responsible.  The deed 
is still morally reprehensible.  It still evokes in us the sense of 
outrage, shock or horror.  The fact that it is committed by a child 
or an imbecile, or someone drunk or on drugs does not make the 
Consequence less evil.

 
> I've tried and tried to find an ethical/moral code to suit EVERY 
> situation, but I don't believe there is one.

Then try one of mine.  Evil is the self centered, destructive lack of 
restraint in the areas of Self Importance (Pride), Self Satisfaction 
(Lust,Greed) Self Indulgence (Sloth,Gluttony), and  Self Pity 
(Envy,Wrath).  Good is the opposite, or the appropriate and 
neccessary exercise of Humility, Self Discipline and Concern for 
Others.  I believe it works in every situation, but I welcome 
attempts to find an exception.

4FR (who just discovered Nietsche (whom Voldemort practically 
quotes), was moved by his writing, but not troubled by his 
philosophy, because words do such a poor job of conveying meaning)