Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 38472

Dicentra said:
>>>'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 responded:

>>>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 reiterated:

>>>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.<<<<

So, when the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these 
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 
are endowed *by their Creator* with certain inalienable rights, 
that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness..." it's being misleading and inaccurate? Er....I prefer 
the term "revolutionary". :-) 

The dictionary says a right is "something due to a person by law, 
tradition or nature."  That's how I shall use it.

If my rights exist only because they're referred to on a piece of 
paper, the same could be said of my marriage. Or my soul. Or 
my God. Rights are not a bloodless concept. I did not, however, 
say that rights are the ultimate good (and you didn't say that I 
did.)

I don't believe that we can, as humans, approach the Ultimate 
Good. Rowling does not attempt to symbolize it for us in the 
Potterverse, and this is, I think, why we are having so much 
trouble grappling with the question.  This does not mean, I 
hasten to say, that I don't believe an ultimate good exists, either 
here or in the Potterverse. Yet it is beyond our grasp, almost 
beyond our imagination, though perhaps we come closest to it  
when we give of ourselves.

 But our ability to give ourselves is sorely limited. It's tough to love 
our neighbors, it's harder to love our enemies, in the Potterverse, 
as  we see time and again, it's almost impossible to love the 
stranger.  Love is too narrow to embody goodness for me, at 
least as we experience it in the Potterverse. Crouch loved his 
wife, and she loved her son, yet that relationship led them to do 
evil, because they didn't consider  anyone but themselves. That's 
where I see "rights" coming in to the Potterverse, because, to 
me, "rights" defines the relationship between ourselves and the 
stranger, and Harry is the ultimate stranger. 

 What is it that allows Harry  to give to others beyond his capacity 
to love? Lily gave her life for Harry because she loved him,  but 
does Harry love Pettigrew? I don't think so, but he spares him. 
Pettigrew's life has no value to Harry, as he says, but his right to 
live does. Harry does not want to see Remus and Sirius become 
violators of that right. Dicentra might say that he doesn't want 
them to become predators. The trouble I see with that is that they 
are predators already--in the most literal sense, in fact. Sirius 
eats rats, Werewolf!Remus will prey on humans if he can. What 
is the difference between killing a man and a rat, morally, unless 
we say that there is some intrinsic value to a human 
being--some right to live? 

Dicentra says:
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 
American television.) I don't see it as the issue JKR is 
addressing.


Dumbledore:" --without Pettigrew, alive or dead, we have no 
chance of overturning Sirius's sentence."
*"But you believe us."*
"Yes, I do," said Dumbledore quietly. "But I have no power to 
make other men see the truth, or to overrule the Minister of 
Magic."

 Dumbledore, as McGonagall pointed out way back at the 
beginning of Book One, does in fact have such power, or would if 
he chose to use it. He's too noble: that is to say, he doesn't use it 
because he has "a highly moral character." (dictionary definition 
of noble)

Then in GoF, when Dumbledore has failed to convince Fudge 
that he should contact the giants: "You must act as you see fit. 
And I--I shall act as I see fit." 

 Dumbledore allows Fudge liberty of conscience, even though he 
believes Fudge is dangerously wrong. 

Pippin