Only Children/ Likeable Slytherins?

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 38114

Hi,

Sorry I'm a bit late with my response. It's been growing bit by bit 
on my computer (at work, mind you), taking it's time and not hurrying 
anywhere. However, here it is.

I had said:

> > Well, some ends justify some means, but to use *any* means to 
achieve 
> > your end? That *is* chilling (I'm relying on the above quote, I 
> > haven't the books here with me.)
> > 

Heidi replied: 

> Playing devil's advocate here, I have to make a few points about 
the above 
> argument:
> 1. That was only in the Sorting Hat's song first year - that 
concept wasn't 
> in the song during their 4th year, although ambition was mentioned 
then. 
> Would a 1st year who only hears that year's song 
think "Yes! I am ambitious! 
> And I want to be with other ambitious people! Please! Slytherin! 
I'm not as 
> clever as the ravenclaws or as brave as tehe Gryffindors or as hard 
working 
> as the Hufflepuffs.I just want to be a best-selling romance 
novelist! Yes, I 
> have ambition! Put me in Slytherin!" And if the Sorting Hat did the 
same 
> thing it had done for Harry, would some sweet yet ambitious kid end 
up in 
> Slytherin as a fluke? 

Me:

No. Because the Sorting Hat would sense that this is a kid whose 
ambition isn't overriding. That this kid wouldn't use *any* means to 
achieve her goals. 

<snip>

Heidi:

> 2. Yes, using any means to achieve one's ends could be a chilling 
concept; 
> again, it depends on how you define it. And there are all sorts of 
wonderful 
> goals in this world that have terrible potential pre-steps to 
achieving them. 
> You want to cure all types of cancer? Great goal! But what if the 
main 
> ingredient of the cure is fresh water - and you have to deplete the 
planet's 
> stockpile to do it.  What if your goal is destroying an evil 
terrorist and 
> his henchmen? Great goal! But what if you have to drop an atomic 
bomb on a 
> city of one hundred thousand innocent people to do it? WHat if your 
goal is 
> feeding all the hungry in the world? Great goal! But what if you 
have to feed 
> them the dead bodies of other people to do it?

Me:

Precisely. Which is why the means and ends question shouldn't be 
answered symplistically (e.g., "the ends don't justify the means" 
platitude). Each case should be judged individually. 

Heidi:

> But what if you want to get an illegal dragon off school propery? 
Great goal! 
> But you have to sneak out of your down afterhours to do it. How 
many people 
> on this list would think you evil? Or that you're using any means 
to achieve 
> your ends? Quite.
> But what if you want to enforce school rules? Great goal! But you 
have to 
> sneak out of your dorm afterhours to do it. Not a problem! (see 
above) 
> Unless, of course, you're in Slytherin, in which case it seems to 
be deemed a 
> greater level of rulebreaking than the sneaking out that Harry did 
to get to 
> the mirror of erised, or to send Norbert away, or to stop Snape 
from getting 
> the stone (I know they didn't actually, but that's what they 
thought they 
> were sneaking out to do).

Me:

You really, honestly believe that Draco was trying to "enforce school 
rules"?! Please! He was trying to get Harry and his friends in 
trouble. He was *sneaking* on his school fellows – a much worse 
offense (in all the school books I've ever read) than the rule 
breaking that Harry et al. were engaged in.

Heidi:
> 
> I guess on an empirical level, taking someone else's Remembrall to 
stick it 
> (unbroken!) up a tree is worse than stealing potions supplies from 
a 
> professor so you can make a potion so you can sneak into someone 
else's dorm 
> room so you can learn if he's the Heir of Slytherin. And it's 
possible that 
> reporting a teacher to a staff member for being involved in a plot 
to steal a 
> valuable stone is not as bad as trying to get a teacher fired from 
his 
> position for incompetence. And kicking a cat is certainly not as 
bad as 
> trying to get a Hippogryff decapitated, no matter what that 
Hippogryff did to 
> you. 

Me:

About Ron. When did he kick a cat? I can't remember this incident. I 
seem to remember him pushing or maybe trying to kick Croockshanks. If 
that's what you mean, then I'd like to point out that at the time he 
thought the cat was trying to eat his pet rat. Buckbeak, on the other 
hand, presented no ongoing threat to Draco. There was one incident, 
quite unlikely to repeat itself. Which means that Draco had no other 
motive but revenge (and that's when you discount the most probable 
motive – pure spite). How can you compare the means when the goals 
are so morally different (saving a pet – taking spiteful revenge).
Well, the "valuable stone" is a way for the most fearsome Dark Wizard 
to achieve immortality. Trying to save the world – trying to get a 
teacher fired. Hmmm. Again, the ends are too different for the means 
to be sensibly compared.
Taking a Remebrall and sticking in up a tree isn't particularly 
nasty. However, stealing potion supplies – *at great risk to 
oneself* -  in order *to save lives* is a noble thing to do, on a 
completely different moral level than doing something that is merely 
not very mean. Again – not comparable!


Heidi:
> 
> And knocking a classmate out isn't as bad as insulting him.
> 
> Oh, wait, um, no. I'm not so sure about that last one.  Given that 
the 
> stunning was inadvertent, and caused because of the simultaneous 
set of 
> spells rather than the individual spells themselves, I can't 
personally 
> determine that one is worse than another. But that's just because I 
still 
> believe that "Sticks & Stones" rhyme, and think that giving someone 
the 
> Furnunculus curse because he insulted you isn't as practical as 
shoving him 
> out the door and spell-locking it so he can't get back in. But that 
> wouldn't've been half as dramatic as it was.  
>

Me:

Hmm. I don't think that this incident belongs in a "means and ends" 
discussion. Harry et al. weren't using questionable or problematic 
means to achieve some end. They weren't trying to achieve anything. 
They reacted reflexively on their anger. They were provoked and they 
lashed out. 
Of course, it's an interesting ethical question in itself: Does anger 
justify acts of violence? What type of provocation justifies what 
type of violence? Is it partial or complete justification? etc. But I 
don't think it belongs in a list of examples about people using 
bad/questionable means. 

Me:

> > Besides, the things you enumerate are really very mild rule 
breaking 
> > on H R& R part. The point about the Slytherins is, I think, that 
they 
> > are willing to do things that are clearly not moral in order to 
> > achieve their goals. Any person might sometimes ventures into 
morally 
> > grey areas, especially when trying to achieve an important goal, 
but 
> > the Slytherins are depicted as people who easily go into morally 
> > black (=obviously wrong) areas when it comes to fulfilling


Heidi:
 
> Okay, I clearly missed this part among the students who are 
currently there. 
> Can you show me some scenes in canon which show Slytherins doing 
things (i.e. 
> not just *saying* things)  in which they're venturing into morally 
black 
> areas?  

Me:

Well, in practically every Quidditch game that Gryffindor plays 
Slytherin, the Slytherins foul the Gryffindors in some spectacular 
way. Draco grabbing Harry's broomstick comes to mind. Or, Flint 
scoring five goals, exploiting the fact that everybody's attention is 
on Harry – who is hovering between life and death. Or, Millicent 
Bullstrode choking Hermione. Also, Draco's attempt to get Buckbeak 
decapitated. Trying to get Hagrid sacked. These are very real things 
that he tried to achieve. You think that because he went about 
achieving these things through "saying things" makes it somehow less 
black morally? (Maybe I don't quite understand your argument, 
however.)
Anyway, when I say "Slytherins" (in this context) I don't only mean 
the current Slytherin students, but Slytherin students in general – 
past, present and future. That's the way it's used in the books, 
right? People talk of a person being a Slytherin/Gryffindor long 
after he or she had left school. So, I think that the fact that most 
Dark Wizards were from Slytherin should certainly be taken into 
account when assessing the Slytherin traits and tendencies.  

Heidi:

>I guess possibly the scene where 4 of them dress as Dementors to 
freak 
> Harry out, but they clearly knew they wouldn't be able to have the 
power to 
> suck out his happy thoughts and make him see horrible things, and 
they 
> already knew that Dumbledore would be able to stop him if he fell.

Me:

But even if you discount their attempt on Harry's life, it still 
remains a despicable thing to do. In the context of sports, which is 
founded on the notion of fair play, nothing could be worse than 
planning cold bloodedly to damage an opponent in order to gain a 
victory, don't you think? It's a perfect example of the Slytherin 
spirit of winning by hook or by crook. 

Heidi:

>And I 
> certainly don't think that Dumbledore considered some of the things 
that 
> H-R-H do as mild rulebreaking - look at his reaction when Ron and 
Harry flew  to school! 
>

Me:

Well, maybe it's not so much that the rulebreaking was mild, as that 
rulebreaking *as such* is only a mild form of "being bad". 

Heidi:

 > All this is meant to say is that I don't think that we can look at 
Slytherins 
> as "all black" (no reference to the NZ team here) without seeing a 
little 
> more of the current crop of students. 

Me:

I don't see the Slyterins as "all black' (what's the NZ team?). I do 
think, however, that JKR is painting a group of people who are 
characterised by  basic personality traits that make them more 
*likely* to do bad things, to the point of making them more likely to 
go completely evil. 
I'd also like to add that free choice and free will aren't undermined 
by the "dark Slytherins" picture. Even as a Slytherin, you have a 
choice between the good and bad sides. The fact that your basic 
tendencies make this choice harder for you emphasizes the issue, 
makes it more poignant. Rather like Christian anthropology - human 
nature is sinful but even so free will exists and, as a consequence, 
redemption is possible. 


Naama