[HPforGrownups] Re: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question -...

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 38429

I'd just like to reply to a couple of points that were raised in response to 
my thoughts on this topic.

Pippin:

> At first I was with those who saw the theme of the books as a 
> struggle between those with a moral code and those without. 
> 

Eloise:
<blushing>
Thank you, Pippin!

Pippin:
 but  > have reconsidered. The Dursleys definitely live by a code, and it's 
> probably a moral one according to their lights, so I think we need 
> 

Eloise:
Now you go and spoil it. Do you mean, you think I'm not.....deep? ;-)

> 
> I think the theme is a struggle between those who live by a code 
> that recognizes the  rights of others, and those who do not. I think 
> Dumbledore's code includes  the right to determine good and 
> evil according to one's own conscience.  Thus Dumbledore's 
> goodness is limited: though we may regard Dumbledore as 
> morally superior, he does not claim to be so himself. This is 
> what distinguishes him from icons of goodness like Aslan and 
> Gandalf.  This is a very humanist point of view, so those who 
> despise humanism are probably not going to be happy with the 
> 

Eloise:
I am not a humanist, but I have no problem with what you are saying here. 
Determinining a moral code according to our own conscience, ultimately, is 
all any of us can do (albeit that some people's conscience will dictate the 
deliberate embracing of the tenets of a particular creed or philosophy). You 
are right:
Dumbledore does *not* claim to be morally superior. He is a wise man and wise 
men know the limits of their wisdom.
I would say that the test of whether one lives according to a code that 
recognises  moral values is precisely (as it can only be evaluated in terms 
of actions) whether one recognises the rights of others or not.
This surely equates to the Golden Rule, that one treats others as one would 
wish to be treated oneself. It is also pretty much the second half of 
Christ's summary of the Law, to love others as oneself.

I think that you are right that Dumbledore believes in the individual's right 
to determine good and evil according to his or her own conscience, although 
as I've tried to get away from the good/evil terminology, what I'd probably 
say is simply that he believes in people's rights to listen to their own 
consciences.  He follows in the line of the Romantic revolution, as you 
suggest later by reference to the American Declaration of Independence. Taken 
to its logical conclusion, I suppose that that would mean that he would 
embrace the right (in principle) of people to reject the idea of morality.

Pippin:
> ooked at this way,  the ambiguities begin to resolve. Although 
> Dumbledore doubtless disapproves of the Dursleys, he upholds 
> their right to be Harry's guardians, and their right to raise him as 
> they see fit.  Likewise, it appears he believes that Harry has a 
> right to face Voldemort, even though it puts him in danger. Snape 
> has the right to be a nasty git, so long as he doesn't exceed his 
> authority as a teacher. In the same way, Sirius and Lupin 
> acknowledge Harry's right  

Eloise:
What is the difference between Snape being expected not to exceed his 
authority as a teacher and the Dursleys being expected to remain within 
normal societal values for bringing up children? Otherwise, yes, I agree.

<snip>
Pippin:
> f this is the traditional morality of the wizarding world, then what 
> makes the Unforgiveable Curses unforgiveable  is that they 
> tresspass on  basic rights: life (avada kedavra), liberty (imperius) 
> and the pursuit of happiness (crucio). Though this concept of 
> rights appears in the American Declaration of Independence, the 
> American founding fathers derived theses values from the 
> Scottish enlightenment, so Rowling is not necessarily invoking 
> an American ideal here.  
> 
Eloise:
But are there not other ways in which the WW trespasses on human rights, ways 
which the WW still accepts? The Dementor's Kiss? Locking up a man in Azkaban 
without trial? The mental cruelty inflicted on an unfortunate student by a 
sadistic teacher? 
The traditional Toughness of the WW sometimes seems to militate against this 
moral view.

Pippin:
> Much of the conflict in the story revolves around how universally 
> those rights should be applied -- do House Elves have a right to 
> liberty? Do Muggles have the rights of "beings"? -- and the way 
> 

Eloise:
Yes, it does. But there is also another conflict, the conflict that any 
society faces, of how we reconcile the conflicting rights of individuals.

You see, as far as I can see, Voldemort has a right to his own views. I might 
find them obnoxious (you'll be reassured to know that I do), I might, 
according to my own morality, find them completely wrong, but I uphold his 
right to hold them. As views. What I don't uphold is his right thereby to 
infringe other people's rights, lives, liberty, happiness in their pursuit.

Dumbledore similarly seems to be willing to let people act according to their 
own conscience *but only to a point*. That point is, I think, a lot further 
down the road than many would go, but in the end it is reached. He is not 
going to lie down and let Voldemort walk all over him and the rights of 
others. If Voldemort had a conscience, perhaps he would argue with him. But 
he doesn't, so fighting him is the only option. Is that what he's doing with 
Fudge? Giving him the option to debate, to consider the moral position he's 
in? Giving him the benefit of the doubt that there might be the stirrings of 
a conscience in there?

So in a way, although he is not in so many ways declaring himself morally 
superior, he is implying the superiority of his view in preparing to take up 
arms against Voldemort. Dumbledore is clear that there *is* an enemy to be 
fought and as far as I can see, the essential difference between him and 
Voldemort is precisely that he has a conscience, a sense of morality and 
therefore respects the rights of others whilst Voldemort does not. 

Pippin:

> y rejecting Slytherin and accepting Gryffindor, Harry has chosen 
> to be educated in a House that emphasizes rights and 
> 

Eloise:
Or as Tom Stoppard recently put it,
             'The essence of liberty is not that my interests should be 
tolerated, but 
                   that I should tolerate yours.'


Now, I'm intrigued by the idea of the Dursleys living by a code, one that you 
suggest they probably regard as moral.
Yes, the Dursleys do live by a code. Its a code which encompasses 
respectability and self interest. Would they describe it as 'moral'? I 
suppose they probably would, as I think that for them morality and 
respectability are probably pretty well synonymous. Morality in the sense of 
not doing anything that society would regard as not respectable. Of not doing 
anything *immoral* in its narrowest sense.
<what a horrible vision that momentarily invoked ;-)>
But morality as anything deeper? As a code that imposes obligations as 
opposed to upholding appearances?
Nah... the Dursleys have never given morality a thought.

Gwen kindly said the following:

>What I also like about Eloise's interpretation is that it tidily bags
>up those characters who are convinced they are right, as well. For
>example, suppose there is a Death Eater who is so utterly deluded that
>their cause is right, proper, and just, that he will do anything to
>advance it? I'm talking the kind of rapturous fanaticism that
>accompanies the most ardent of martyrs. He believes with his whole
>heart that what he does--killing that Muggle, torturing that
>witch--will ultimately prove the righteousness of his actions. Thus,
>he, too, does not stop to consider. He does not second-guess. He does
>not doubt. And isn't that just as wrong as the one who simply doesn't
>care about morality at all?

Eloise:
This got me a bit worried. Was I actually saying by implication the exact 
opposite - that if one's conscience dictates that it's OK to massacre a bunch 
of Muggles in the pursuit of one's cause, that it *is* OK?

Yes, of course, as you say, it's just as wrong as the action of one who 
doesn't care about morality at all. So how have I tidily bagged up those 
characters I ask myself?

I'm glad of Pippin's point, because it's helped me to understand. The 
essential difference is that the fanatical DE -  Crouch Jr, or Mrs Lestrange, 
perhaps (who were lurking as worrying shadows in the back of my mind whilst 
proposing my original theory) - doesn't recognise the rights of others and 
thus fails my essential test of ethical behaviour. I'm not sure that 
righteousness has much to do with it, although I'll grant you that people 
like Malfoy might well feel it did. In the Potterverse, such characters are 
not so much of a problem IMO, as by supporting Voldemort they are already 
apparently already embracing a creed of 'no good and evil' and therefore have 
renounced morality.  Real life fanatics are another matter.

Eloise






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]