killerbeasts, ... morality

[Shauna]

No: HPFGUIDX 46901


> Grey Wolf:
> 
> >>I have from time to time heard of animals which will attack 
for 
> "the pure pleasure of the hunt" (for example, velocirraptors in 
> Jurasic Park), but I have never actually seen such animal in 
real 
> life, nor (I think) have ever heard of such species. Maybe 
> someone can enlighten me here. <<

Pippin:

> There are at least two: cats...and humans.


Just curious - do you know if cats still in the wild would do this?  
Because domesticated cats might still have a irresistible 
biological impulse to hunt, causing them to chase mice even 
when they're well-fed - which isn't quite the same as, say, a lion 
finishing her meal and deciding she wants to chase gazelles for 
fun.

As for humans - well, I certainly agree there.  My old school use 
to give us a holiday on the first day of hunting season.  (In 
exchange, we had to go to school on Martin Luther King day.  
Ironic, isn't it?)



Grey Wolf:

>  >> Dumbledore needs Voldemort to be mortal so it can be 
> destroyed (or redeemed, or whatever), and has guided 
> Voldemort into using a potion that is flawed. This method has 
> caused accidental deaths, and this is what the attack used to 
> say that Dumbledore is respoinsible for Voldemort's actions. 
> The fact that, left to his own devices, Voldemort would've killed 
> many more people has been ignored by the oposition (IIRC, 
the 
> last time that point was debated, I proposed a simple moral 
> problem: if you are faced with a building in flames, and you can 
> only save a room with eight people, or one with two, what 
would 
> you do?<<

Pippin:

> Eh? That is not a moral problem, Grey Wolf, it is a logistical 
one.
> If I were Dumbledore, I would use a simple flame-freezing 
charm  
> and save them all. Since I'm not, I would of course save the 
eight 
> people, but that is not the most virtuous solution, it is only the 
> most efficient one.

I'm not sure what the argument thus far has been (being as the 
utter lack of workable "up-threads" at this group astounds me) 
but I always thought the morality issue with the burning building 
was, do you save the group of 8 strangers, or the group of 2 - 
when those two people happen to be friends of yours?  Then it 
becomes a matter of putting principle above emotion (oooh.  
snapelike).


Pippin:
> One might consider efficiency a virtue in itself. Vernon Dursley 
> surely does, but Dumbledore? I can't think of any time when 
> Dumbledore did something or recommended a course of 
action 
> because it would be efficient. Can you?

Efficiency is probably a secondary virtue - barring other factors, 
I'd say Dumbledore would go by it.  But not necessarily at the 
expense of anything else.  I'd say most of Dumbledore's 
decisions are too complicated for efficiency to rank high in his 
decision-making process.

But as for the situation above (with potions?  ::rubs head, 
confused::) it strikes me more of as an 'ends justify the means' 
type mentality, which is not Dumbledoresque at all.  

~ Shauna