Justafiable Means and Good using the Tools of Evil to Fight

[finwitch]

No: HPFGUIDX 36760

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> -Chyna Rose:
> > > Here is a semi-random question that entered my brain one 
> fine Wen moring. Is there a true, clear line between Good and 
> Evil? Does a means considered 'Evil' (use of 'dark' magic and 
> artifacts)automatically become good just because the 'Good' 
> side uses it? And who's to say that they are on the side of 'Good' 
> in the first place?
> > > After all, I'm sure that V's convinced 100% Right.
> 
> Finwitch:> 
> > Unforgivable Curses. *real* Moody never used them, even after 
> one  Crouch authorised it. Crouch was not good- neither one of 
> them, although the son was worse. None of the "good" side has 
> EVER used one  of them.
> > 
> > Dementors. They are NOT good beings.
> > 
> > Baddies consider obedience a virtue, goodies don't. (and I'm 
> NOT sure  which side Snape belongs to!)
> 
> 
> Are you sure about the real Moody?  IIRC, Sirius only says (ch.27 
> GoF) that he tried to bring people in alive, and didn't descend to 
> the level of the Death Eaters. He obviously didn't resign from the 
> Aurors after they were authorized to use the Unforgiveables. 
> Moody also brings people in alive so they can be turned over to 
> the Dementors, and from his lines in the Pensieve, he's okay 
> with that. 

At least he tried to avoid it the best he could. Much unlike 
Voldemort who uses Crucio on regular basis. And DEs as well. With no 
remorse.
 
> I think that in the Potterverse there is a division between good 
> and evil, but that it is shown as difficult for human beings to 
> judge. Obedience, in the Potterverse, is not a virtue in itself, 
nor 
> is it one of the traditional RL seven. In the Potterverse, it can 
be 
> either good or bad, depending on who is being obeyed and for 
> what purpose.

Not who. Doing something just because X says so is not good. Never 
mind who the X is. Molly is *good* person, but that doesn't mean the 
twins should abandon their dream just because she says so. Sirius has 
a good reason to tell Harry not to get involved with Krum (who very 
well might be under Imperius and told to do AK on Harry). Yet, it 
doesn't mean Harry should do it just because he's told to do so. Even 
so, these parental figures can be trusted to possibly know more and 
to care for you - the sort worth obeying most of the time.

> Chivalry is one of the Gryffindor traits, according to the Hat. 
> Chivalry implies obedience to the chivalric code, which turns on 
> the existence of a moral order. Gryffindor represents doing what 
> is right, rather than what is easy. Sometimes it would be easier 
> to obey the rules than to do what is right according to chivalry, 
ie 
> defend the weak and the innocent.
> 
>  In fact, when Harry breaks a rule for selfish purposes, he's 
> usually punished, either directly or metaphorically with the loss 
> of something he values. When he breaks a rule in order to 
> defend someone weaker than himself, he's generally rewarded.

Chivalry. Yes.. has to do with human rights, ethics etc. Doing what's 
Right. Doing good instead of evil. Defending those who can't defend 
themselves. (like Neville who wasn't there when Malfoy stole his 
remembrall). Well well, we have yet to see will a Gryffindor stand up 
for the poor little animals abused in class.

Say - Harry opposing turning a snake into a stick without at least 
asking the snake's permission first.

Neville opposing powdering beetles for a potion.

>  Harry's judgement is shown as maturing in this area. The 
> rescue of Norbert is carried on by wholly illegal means, for no 
> better reason than to keep Hagrid from getting caught doing 
> something he shouldn't have done.  Harry suffers the loss of his 
> cloak for it. 

Yet... What would have happened to the egg if Hagrid didn't get it? 
Little Norbert might have died for no good reason. This way, the 
little dragon was saved, sent to an expert in Dragon handling. But, 
they should not have been so overjoyed about Malfoy getting detention 
when he wasn't exactly doing anything wrong.

>  In Buckbeak's case, Harry first attempts to save the hippogryff 
> legally, and aids its escape only because he is convinced the 
> creature is innocent and harmless if properly handled, in 
> contrast to the dragon Norbert, whom Harry knew to be 
> unmanageable. 

That still doesn't mean the little Dragon didn't have right to live. 
Krum lost points for damaging the dragons. -- Does one need to kill a 
dragon in order to get it's heart-string for a wand, BTW? Risky 
business anyway.

Not that Harry&Co. never do anything wrong, but well, I'd see 
Dumbledore as /the/ Good One. Dumbledore /never/ demands for 
obedience just because he says so. He prefers requests to commands, 
possibly because if he happens to change his mind, it's easier to 
cancel. And one thing that definately puts Dumbledore as GOOD - no 
killing or torturing - when he's furious, he stupefies/breaks a door 
and even that was to save Harry! And about him looking scary... well, 
a strong wizard who is furious *is* scary.