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

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 38462

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.
> 
> Eloise responds:
> 
> And this is where Pippin, you and I agree, I think. Moral virtue can 
> be measured by whether we recognize the rights of others. You simply 
> take it a step further: recognition of rights is futile if it doesn't 
> lead to action.
> 
> Dicentra reiterates:
> 
> I'm afraid that I'm not in agreement. First, talking in terms of 
> "rights" is misleading, inaccurate, and inadequate. "Rights," 
> properly used, is a term used to describe the relationship between 
> governments and the governed. A government grants rights to 
> individuals; these rights draw a line between the government and the 
> individual that government is not allowed to cross. When speaking of 
> interpersonal relationships, rights are never the issue.  As a 
> private citizen, I cannot violate anyone's rights because I'm not the 
> government.  I can harm, irritate, kill, coerce, belittle, and 
> otherwise interfere with your life, but I cannot violate your 
> rights.  I know we use "rights" to talk about interpersonal 
> relationships; I believe this is an unfortunate practice for all 
> kinds of reasons, all of them too off-topic to go into here. If you 
> want a story about rights being the Ultimate Good, see Norma Rae or 
> 

Eloise <beginning to wonder if she should cut and run or, for any Fast Show 
fans out there, say, "I'll get my coat">

OK, maybe we shouldn't use the term 'rights'. I'm obviously guilty of using 
the word in a way that's not technically correct.
I have no training in philosophy, ethics or law. All my ideas are entirely 
home sprung and in addition I'm really thinking out loud, which I suppose is 
dangerous in a forum such as this.
So apologies if my thoughts sometimes seem confused. And thanks for the 
opportunity to work them out.

I started responding to Pippin's answer to my post because at first I felt 
that I disagreed. I still hold to the tenets of what I said previously (post 
#38317),
but I then realised that what Pippin had said allowed me to develop my 
thinking on this matter. My theory, which is developed in relation to Snape 
as GEORGE'S SISTER DIANA (see Hypothetic Alley; am I allowed to mention 
this?) is that the conflict in HP is not between good and evil but between 
the recognition and denial of moral values. As such, it neatly sidesteps the 
actual problem of what we mean by good and evil, so perhaps I shouldn't have 
got involved here!

> What Pippin proposes, if I'm not mistaken, is more of a "live and let 
> live" view of morality. It means that the Ultimate Good is to uphold 
> others' right to decide what Good and Evil are. But that's too weak 
> for me. I can accept it as a subset of Good, but not the apex--not 
> the embodiment.  (I do recognize that Pippin said "I think 
> Dumbledore's code includes the right to determine good and evil 
> according to one's own conscience," thereby indicating that 
> recognizing others' rights is a subset of That Which Is Good, so I 
> won't assume that she is making it the sum and substance of her 
> 

That's certainly what I was attempting to say. I was suggesting that it is 
useful as a *measure* of moral behaviour. Actions speak louder than words, 
and all that. It is all very well to claim the moral high ground, but our 
actions (principally those towards others) show whether these are empty words 
or not. And I also pointed out that Dumbledore's 'live and let live' policy 
only went so far. Ultimately we get to the point where a stand has to be 
taken.

Dicentra:
> The second reason I can't go along with "rights"-based morality is 
> that the Potterverse doesn't address the issue, either directly or 
> tangentially.  (The Elf-Liberation issue is an example of 
> government/governed rights, which is not the same as "live and let 
> live.") As I said in an earlier post, when Sirius and Remus told 
> Harry he had the right to decide Peter's fate, they weren't talking 
> about Harry's civil rights or his personal space: they were talking 
> about his relationship to James. No one in the Potterverse upholds 
> someone's right to have unpopular or evil ideas and counts it as 
> courage or morality. (This theme does, however, show up frequently in 
> 

Eloise:
This, I think, is what I was trying to address when I pointed out that the 
Tough attitude of the WW is at variance with Dumbledore's view.
The attitudes of, for example, Fudge or Malfoy are those of respected parts 
of the establishment. It is Dumbledore's attitude that highlights their moral 
bankruptcy.
Dumbledore does on the other hand (it seems to me) uphold people's rights 
(for want of a better word) to have unpopular views and sometimes to act in 
less than ideal ways. His laissez-faire attitude towards staff and students. 
What are Snape's attitudes and actions if not unpopular and by general 
standards pretty evil?

Dicentra:
> I need to backtrack a bit.  In a previous post, I said that the line 
> demarcating Good and Evil was Predation vs. Nurturing.  I'm going to 
> retract the term "nurturing" and replace it with another, because I 
> believe that contrary to popular opinion, the Potterverse does indeed 
> 

> The examples abound:
> 
> Lily sacrifices her life to save Harry's, James sacrifices his life 
> to save his family, Sirius risks his life to protect the Potters, Ron 
> sacrifices himself in the chess game, Harry risks his life to prevent 
> Voldemort from getting the stone, Harry and Ron risk their lives to 
> save Ginny; Fawkes risks his life to help Harry, Sirius risks his 
> life to save Harry from Peter, Harry and Hermione risk their lives to 
> save Sirius, (Dumbledore could have gotten himself in trouble, too.), 
> Harry risks his life and the championship to save Hermione and 
> Fleur's sister, Sirius risks his life to return to Hogwarts when 
> Harry's scar burns, Harry risks his life to take Cedric's body back, 
> etc.I think it's safe to say that these incidents are presented as good 
> 

Eloise:
Yes, but....

Dicentra:
> us with numerous examples of self-sacrifice 
> that aren't necessarily good: Peter sacrifices his friends to please 
> Voldemort, sacrifices 
> his finger to frame Sirius, and sacrifices his hand to bring 
> Voldemort back.  Voldemort, however, is not grateful for his 
> sacrifices, and gives him his bionic hand because it suits him to do 
> so (and he makes sure everyone knows he could just as easily have 
> left Peter cringing in the graveyard).  Likewise, Mrs. Crouch 
> sacrifices herself to free her son from Azkaban, and he repays her by 
> murdering Crouch Sr.  
> 
> Aw @#$%^!!!  Now we have to define when self-sacrifice is Good and 
> when it's Evil.  
> 
Eloise:
Exactly. That's why I was having problems with Gwen saying that my 
(recognising the concept of morality/ denying the existence of morality) 
theory tidily bagged up  fanatical characters.

Dicentra:
Ok.  Let's try this: Self-sacrifice is good unless 

> you're a SYCOPHANT.  Does that work?
> 
> ::crickets chirping::
> 
> No?  How about this: Self-sacrifice is good only when you are not the 
> ultimate beneficiary. Peter severs his body parts to help no one but 
> himself.  He doesn't revive Voldemort because he feels sorry for him. 
> No, he wants Voldemort back so he can be a stronger wizard.  There.  
> That's better.  And Lily's sacrifice benefited Harry, not herself.
> 
> So that puts the axis along the selfish/selfless continuum.  I think 
> 

Eloise:
Well, I think that's actually what I was trying to convey, although obviously 
not clearly enough.
But what about Gwen's fanatics, the ones who really believe the terrible 
things they do are for the good of others? What about the Mrs Lestranges? As 
I said, in the Potterverse, I can rationalise these characters because of the 
Voldemort credo. The Potterverse situation is also simpler because it appears 
to have no god, no religious ideal.  But it doesn't deal with the real life 
situations with which we are all too familiar, where people who *do* belive 
in morality, in higher virtues still do unspeakable things, often in the name 
of the highest authority. Perhaps I shouldn't be straying into real life, but 
if a book is giving a moral message, as the HP series appears to be doing, 
then we should be able to transfer this message to real life.

Dicentra:
> Yet I still prefer the term Predation as a superset of ingratitude, 
> selfishness, disrespect, or any other type of term you choose, 
> because it clearly illustrates the practice of taking what you want 
> irrespective of how it affects others. 
> 
> The trouble with "respecting others' rights" as Ultimate Good  is 
> that it's passive.  To frame Lily's sacrifice in terms of "rights" 
> damns with faint praise. I can't bring myself to say she died because 
> she respected Harry's rights, or that Voldemort kills people because 
> he doesn't respect theirs.  It doesn't cut it. It's too weak, too 
> 

Eloise:
True. Though Lily sacrificed herself for her own child, which I think is 
something a lot of us could relate to. It is, dare I say it, not necessarily 
the highest expression of virtue. <ducks brickbats> It's something that's 
more, well instinctive, I suppose. I can see myself doing that. I can't see 
myself.....I don't know.....well, to take an example from Cindy, deliberately 
subjecting myself to a Cruciatus to save my fellow DEs from one.  That isn't 
to say that Lily's act isn't one of supreme good, if we must use that word, 
but just that it's an instinctive act of goodness, one that in effect, she 
had no control over. Sacrificing myself for my child would be an act 
motivated by a number of things: instinct, love, the knowledge of how 
unbearable life would be knowing I had not saved him/her. But I'm afraid I 
can't envisage myself sacrificing myself for something I believed in, 
sacrificing myself out of moral duty. Maybe it's because I'm not a fanatic, 
but I think there are many who have done so without being fanatics. I am sure 
that this is what Dumbledore will do and that it will be a supremely good 
act, one motivated by his belief in what is right. 

But whilst I am in total agreement with you that 'respecting others' rights' 
may be too passive to be the ultimate expression of good/evil, I do think our 
treatment of others is a useful yardstick by which we can measure how we're 
doing. Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. 
And yes, I would say that truly respecting others actually involves putting 
their needs first.

> 
> So I will have to respectfully disagree with Pippin and Eloise--not 
> 

My problem is that I'm trying not to disagree with anyone, and evidently not 
succeeding! :-)

Eloise










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