[HPforGrownups] TBAY - Moral Relativism?Dicentra look (was Snape the Killer)

[wynnde1 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 47159

Sitting at a table with Dicentra and Eileen, Wendy finds that she is feeling 
a bit nervous about continuing this conversation. She doesn't want to step on 
any toes, (or ruffle any feathers - WAY to many feathers around here for 
that! <G>) and she knows from personal experience with her real-life family 
and aquaintances that her views are not always easily accepted in the current 
"political climate." But, taking a deep breath, she decides to forge ahead 
anyway, as it really is a subject of great importance to her. 

She turns to Dicentra, and begins, "Earlier you said, 'Having moral courage 
sometimes means doing one awful thing to prevent something worse from 
happening.' And I made the comment that that's not my definition of moral 
courage. I think it takes more courage to choose a path of non-violence."

Dicentra shakes her head. "Non-violence might not be an option in some cases. 
 Non-violence works only if your enemy has a moral code but is blind to the 
fact that they're doing something evil.  <snip example of Ghandi and Britain> 
But Ghandi himself said that against the truly immoral and brutal, 
non-violence wouldn't work at all, because the immoral don't *care* if  
they're being immoral, and showing them their evil doesn't cause the least 
bit of remorse."

"Yes, but even ignoring the issue of who defines what is truly 'immoral and 
brutal'," Wendy adds, "this isn't solely about defeating your enemy, is it? 
After all, an argument can be made that there are worse things than death. I 
would say that turning into the thing you are fighting would be worse than 
dying for your principles. Fortunately, I've not yet had to "walk that talk" 
in my "real life," but this is part of what I don't like about 
Assassin!Snape, and like even less about 
GivingTheOkayToAssassinSnape!Dumbledore. If you use terrorist tactics to 
fight terrorism, you have just become a terrorist yourself. Full Stop. In my 
humble opinion, that is. 

"I overheard someone here say that different rules of morality apply during 
war.* And while I'll agree that this is a widely held opinion, I think it is 
not only wrong, but a dangerous thing to believe. It is a belief like this 
that opens the door to things like the dehumanization that Eileen and Judy 
have been discussing in their Choleric!Snape discussion. True morality 
doesn't waver. That's not to say that values and mores can't shift over time. 
But *true* morality - what really constitutes good and evil, if you will - 
doesn't waver. If it does, then the whole concept of morality becomes 
meaningless. And maybe that's the truth, after all - that all morality really 
is just a human, societal construct and is, ultimately, meaningless. But 
that's not what I'm wanting to argue here. My point isn't necessarily the 
relation between two differing sets of moral codes, but consistency within 
one. No matter what your moral code is, it seems that some things should 
stand. If killing people is wrong today, then it's still wrong tomorrow."

Dicentra says, "As a way of determining what is good and what is evil, 'moral 
relativism' really bites: It's a compass without a needle.  Ultimately, moral 
relativism says that no one can ever be wrong--no one is ever mistaken, 
blinded, misled, deluded or operating under false assumptions. To cite a 
contemporary example, a certain large country has recently come under attack 
by a group of folks who believe that the large country is a threat to them.  
It is possible to see how this group of folks might genuinely believe that 
the large country can seem threatening--or even *be* threatening--to the 
group of folks. <snip> The group of folks are genuinely wrong in this case. "

Wendy frowns. "Maybe I'm not really talking about moral relativism here. But 
to follow up your example, if that first group of folks comes along and 
crashes a plane into one of the country's major metropolitan areas, that 
doesn't mean that it's now okay for the country to go out and kill those 
folks. It would still be wrong. And to say "different rules apply now, this 
is war" is just a rationalisation. A convincing one, one which will get most 
of us through the day and not trouble our sleep at night. But it doesn't make 
the killing that happens any less wrong, nor does it mean that the country 
would not be breaking a moral code by which it previously claimed to be 
living. So if, under this rationalisation that "they deserved it," or "there 
is no other way to stop them and we must protect ourselves," you commit acts 
of terror, then you have become exactly the thing you are fighting against - 
a terrorist. 

"But, in any case, to bring this back on topic, I guess it isn't our opinions 
about morality and good and evil which matter here, it's what JKR believes. 
Or at least, the framework she is using in the Potterverse."

Dicentra says, "Moral relativism isn't an issue in the Dumbledore/Voldemort 
war. JKR has already set that forth in the now-famous statement from PS/SS 
'There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek 
it.'  Voldemort's side don't perceive themselves as being 'right'--they want 
what they want and they'll do anything to get it. For that reason, Dumbledore 
isn't always going to have a clean means
to victory.  He will often have to choose between the lesser of two evils.  
And if it so happens that executing Karkaroff will bring Snape back into 
Voldemort's good graces, for the purpose of getting vital intelligence and an 
operative on the inside, then that will have to be what he does."

"Well," Wendy begins, "I think you are only half right in saying 'moral 
relativism isn't an issue in the Dumbledore/Voldemort war.' It may not be an 
issue for Voldemort, but it is certainly one for Dumbledore - or should be, I 
think. If he does as you suggest," Wendy says, looking disconcerted and more 
than a bit sad, "he's no better than Voldemort, is he? Well, perhaps that's a 
bit extreme, but I would definitely say that he's not lived up to the moral 
code I expect from Dumbledore, and from the "good guys." I, for one, would be 
extremely disappointed if Dumbledore, and Redeemed!Snape were to premeditate 
a killing as part of their fight against Voldemort. *That* is what would 
really muddy the waters between good and evil for me." 

Wendy,
(Who hopes she managed to keep this post on-topic, after allowing her 
inner-Quaker and inner-Buddhist help her decide what to say. :-) AND who has 
now spent so much time on this post, that the others she wanted to answer are 
going to have to wait <g>).

* I'm sorry - I don't remember who said this, and couldn't find the reference 
in any of the posts I've still saved in my inbox. I just don't have time to 
go searching back through the past week's worth of posts, so if it was your 
quote and you want credit for it, please jump in and say so! :-)


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