Judging right & wrong in the Potterverse

[fourfuries at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 25551

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., shall at s... wrote:
> historically, no one group has had a monopoly on acting rightly in 
the face of injustice - or even consistency in carrying through 
intensely righteous acts in one sphere into other aspects of their 
personal morality).  The fear of punsihment  argument does not stand 
up as a explanation for individual acts of conscience against the 
prevailing orthodoxy.  To bring this back on topic, why does Hermoine 
join in with Harry and Ron in the plot to get rid of Norbert?  
The "fear" factor is all on the side of standing back from it; what 
causes her to choose differently is that she has a number of 
possible 'good" actions and chooses to elevate loyalty to her friends 
and avoiding pain to Hagrid above the framework of the orthodox 
school moral code.
> Susan

Dear, Dear Susan:)

You and Ms. Snyder both make the same point from opposite positions 
on the subject: it takes more than fear of punishment to explain why 
people do "good" deeds.  Ms. Snyder says that her "good" deeds are a 
function of her faith, and a form of worship.  She denies that she is 
motivated by the fear of consequences (King Solomon's admonition 
that "the fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom..." not 
withstanding).

You and the original writer, usergoogol, both suggest that people do 
brave and good things because they choose to, without fear of 
consequences, or even in spite of consequences.  Wonderful!

If the atheists and the theists agree that there is more to courage 
and kindness than fear of consequences, maybe we can also agree that 
there must be a standard by which to judge whether someone is being 
brave and kind, or merely self-serving.  Keeping this on topic, as 
you say, what makes Hermione's loyalty to Hagrid or Harry any more 
appropriate than, say, Barty Crouch, Jr's loyalty to Voldemort?  Is 
loyalty in and of itself a good thing, or does the object of the 
loyalty matter?  What makes Dumbledore more worthy of loyalty than 
Voldemort?  What makes Harry's rule breaking more admirable than 
Draco's rule observing?

It can not be merely personal choice: if choice is all there is, then 
how can we judge whether a choice is good or bad?  If we go by 
outcomes, that makes the decison turn on who gets helped and who gets 
hurt, now doesn't it.  I suppose the rule would be that if my friends 
get helped by your choices, then you are good, but if your friends 
get hurt by my choices, I am evil, right?

Obviously, both theists and moral atheists recognize that there ought 
to be more to justice than the power to enforce it.  So both sides 
start talking in terms of "feel good" and "reward".  "Its a form of 
worship", "she had range of 'good' choices... and chose to elevate 
loyalty over orthodox rules".  Both camps beg the question equally 
well, that question being, what makes a good deed good.  If the 
answers is simply that it makes us feel good, then there is still no 
difference between what Voldemort does and what Dumbledore does.

The only way to be sure that a proposed action is in fact good is for 
there to be an objective measure of goodness by which to judge.  The 
religionists use God as this measure.  The moral atheists promote 
enlightened self-interest.  But in the end, the truth of the matter 
is that Good is simply greater than Evil in the absolute sense, and 
it does not matter how we choose, because Good wil choose who it will 
in order to prevail.  Yes, there is free will involved, but 
ultimately Good will prevail regardless of whether any particular 
individual chooses to help out or not.  I mean, really, how else 
could a baby defeat the greatest sorceror of all time, except it be 
fated, in the stars, pre-destined, or the will of that we call God?

4FR