Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question -...

[dicentra63]

No: HPFGUIDX 38437

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
 
> > 
> > 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 ... 

I'm not a humanist, and you're right, I'm not particularly happy with
it.  But I don't entirely reject it, either.  Recognizing that
everyone has to grapple with questions of morality in their own way is
simply acknowledging reality, not necessarily taking a moral stance. 
I am not comfortable with systems that don't recognize that it's
possible for someone to "get it wrong," however, which is how the
humanist view is often represented. (I hasten to add that I know that
not all humanists are absolute relativists, and that Pippin wasn't
proposing that there is no such thing as wrong.)

I have a hard time interpreting Dumbledore's non-intervention in
Harry's upbringing as not wanting to tread on the Dursley's "right" to
be total gits.  I also don't think that Sirius and Remus were
recognizing Harry's "right" to have a different moral code than their
own: Harry got to spare Peter's life because he was James's son and
heir.  Had Hermione stepped forth and protested, I don't think they
would have listened.

I also don't think that JKR is aiming for this definition of right and
wrong.  Magic in literature is inevitably a metaphor for power, and I
think "how you use it" is going to be the determining factor of
whether something is good or evil.  

I'd like to propose the following: good and evil are based on the
relationship between weak and strong. If, like Voldemort, you believe
that the strong should overpower the weak when it suits them, that's
evil.  If you believe that the strong should assist the weak, that's
good.  In other words, predation is evil, nurturing is good.

Take Dumbledore: he is definitely a nurturer.  Giving Hagrid, Snape,
Sirius, and who knows who else a second chance is a nurturing thing to
do.  He gave Harry to the Dursleys because he didn't want Harry to
grow up with a big head (their "parenting" style was simply
unfortunate).  Predation, on the other hand, sounds to me like the
working definition of eating death.

Respecting others right to have a different perpective definitely fits
in to nurturing, but I don't believe it's the bright line between good
and evil that the novels will eventually uphold.

--Dicentra, who won't hesitate to call someone else's value system
wrong if it's predatory