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

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 38442

> 
> --- 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 ... 
> 
> 
Eloise:

I'd just like to point out that these are Pippin's words, quoted by me, not 
my own. I went on to say that from my own  non-humanist POV I found nothing 
in the above paragraph to object to, though I then went on to qualify this 
with reference to the rest of Pippin's post.

Dicentra:
>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.

And this is where Pippin, you and I agree, I think. Moral virtue can be 
measured by whether we recognise the rights of others. You simply take it a 
step further: recognition of rights is futile if it doesn't lead to action.

Are you familiar with the Chinese story which illustrated the difference 
between heaven and hell? It was strongly in my mind as I wrote my last post.
A visitor is given a preview of heaven and hell. In hell, the people are all 
starving; they have bowls of rice, but the chopsticks they are given are six 
feet long and they have no hope of feeding themselves. In heaven, the 
conditions are exactly the same: same bowls of rice, same chopsticks, but the 
people are happy and well nourished. Why? Because they feed each other.

Dicentra:
>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.

Eloise:
The very point I was making. Ultimately, the point comes when individuals' 
rights clash and the righteous, for want of a better word, have to make a 
stand.
As I said, if Voldemort wants to believe his evil credo, that's his business. 
It becomes society's business if he trespasses on others' rights in its 
fulfilment. This is the point at which Dumbledore acts.

Eloise



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