[HPforGrownups] Ethics and Choices (was: On Power)

Wed Apr 30 04:02:44 UTC 2003

No: HPFGUIDX 56544

Susan Fox-Davis <selene at e...> wrote:
This is a quote that came to me from a "Positive Quote of the Day"
mailing.

"Power is the ability to do good things for others. -- Brooke Astor"

As it applies to this list, this is the kind of ethics they need to
emphasize to Slytherin students. Why isn't "Magical Ethics" seen in
the Hogwarts curriculum?

psychic_serpent wrote:

Slytherin students are hardly the only ones who need this.  (Don't
know why, but I don't trust some of those clever Ravenclaws, and
I've long suspected that Crouch, Jr. was in this house, not in
Slytherin.)  If only the 25% of the students deemed to be at highest
risk for darkness get ethics lessons, that would probably just
exacerbate the problem--you'd either get Slytherins rebelling just
for the sake of rebellion, or a student in one of the other houses
would fail to be reached by some very necessary lessons.

We don't know for certain that the students won't get lessons of
this sort before they finish all seven years, as we've only seen
Harry go through four, and his PoV gives us most of our
information.  (We didn't know about Hogsmeade visits for third years
and up until Harry was a third year.)  The most logical place to
teach ethics, it seems to me (and this will not be a shock to anyone
who's read my fanfiction) is in the DADA class.  It seems to me that
the first way in which you must learn to defend yourself against the
dark arts is to prevent yourself from being seduced by the lure of
power--conquering the darkness within.

Me:

This would actually help to explain why Dumbledore hired some of the
teachers he has hired for this position.  Reasons to follow in the
appropriate places.

psychic_serpent:

This would mean, however, that the DADA teachers would, at some
point, need to be more than they have been thus far.  Quirrell, at
the time Harry started school, had been teaching at Hogwarts for a
while, but had the reputation of jumping at the sight of his own
shadow.  And if he'd been any good at resisting darkness, he never
would have become Voldemort's pawn, so he evidently wasn't in a
position to teach ethics.

Me:

Ok, granted, when Quirrell was originally hired, he wasn't Voldemort's
puppet.  Maybe at the time he was hired because he actually knew his subject
matter.  But I think the kids who were attending Hogwarts during Harry's
first year got an even better lesson in the end, which would go right into
the whole ethical area.  Here we have a guy who is afraid of his subject
matter.  Upon encountering something straight out of his textbooks (granted,
it wasn't your typical vampire), he capitulates without a fight and allies
with Voldemort.  Quirrell taught by being an example of what not to do.  In
this case, let fear conquer you to the point where you find it easier to
give in to darkness at its first sighting instead of fighting against it and
resisting.

psychic_serpent:

  Lockhart probably taught his most
important lesson to the students inadvertantly--don't believe every
blowhard you come across or everything you read (Lockhart's books).
He was also rather dark, having been living a lie and taking credit
for what others had done, and he had no compunctions about just
taking people's memories from them so that he could continue his
comfortable life of lies.  He wouldn't know ethics if one came up
and bit him on the arse.

Me:

Again, you're right, Lockhart is not qualified to stand up in front of a
classroom and teach ethics (or anything else, for that matter).  Again,
thought, he was able to teach that lesson you cite just by being himself.  I
have always wondered why Dumbledore ever hired this guy.  Lockhart may have
been the only applicant for the job, but one would think that Dumbledore
himself would have taught the class instead of hiring the first person off
the street out of desperation.  But maybe Dumbledore was aware of Lockhart's
self-inflated personality and brought him in to teach the students what the
power of fame can do to a person.  In Lockhart's case, the desire to be
famous was so overwhelming that he would do anything to get it, even hurt or
kill (or let an innocent die) to gain and attain fame.  Yeah, it sounds like
this lesson could be directed specifically at Harry, who only found out a
year ago that he was famous, but the siren call of celebrityhood can affect
anyone.  Just take a look at Ron's jealousy of Harry in GoF.  I am hoping
that Dumbledore actually believed on hiring him that Lockhart actually knew
something about his subject matter, or I would still have to wonder at the
decision to hire Lockhart, as the students didn't learn anything that year
in that class ("Expelliarmus," the one Defense they DID learn, was taught to
them by Snape).

psychic_serpent:

  Lupin was a good teacher, and even seemed
like he could have given the students some lessons in ethics if only
he hadn't been hiding a rather large secret about himself (there's
his inner darkness, in spades).

Me:

In this case, maybe a huge lesson about ethics was preempted.  It is unknown
whether Dumbledore and Lupin planned to keep Lupin's lycanthropy a secret
permanently, or planned to out it when people had become used to Lupin as a
person.  It is far easier to fear something unknown than it is to fear a guy
you've known for two or three years and that you have seen to be a good,
decent person.  However, after certain events in PoA, Snape ruined that
lesson plan.  Then again, Lupin was probably brought in to teach more for
his Dark Arts knowledge and Dumbledore's trust in him (and desire to help
the poor Lupin actually get a job) than for any far-reaching plan to further
students' relationships with other people/creatures than themselves.

psychic_serpent:

  And the ersatz Moody certainly
wasn't interested in teaching the students to be ethical, as if
Barty Crouch, Jr. would know what ethics are any more than
Lockhart.  (Killing his father, who helped him escape from prison,
in addition to all of the other things he did, including
participating in torturing Neville's parents when he was only a
young man.)

Me:

You have a point there.  Moody was most likely hired because he truly does
have knowledge of the Dark Arts and is very skilled at defending himself
against them.  With Wormtail having returned to his master and the prophecy
saying that Voldemort would be on the rise, I can see Dumbledore wanting to
be sure his students were actually receiving an education this year.  There
is also the point of Karkaroff and his Durmstrang students being at Hogwarts
all year and Dumbledore wanting some extra precautions, but I consider this
unproven, since HRH came up with this when they were busy suspecting
practically everyone.  But if one wants to bring in the ethical viewpoint,
if the real Moody had shown up to teach, he might also have regaled the kids
with some stories of his time as an Auror and, if you will recall, he was
one of the few Aurors who disapproved of the extreme measures granted to
them during the last war (killing suspects on sight instead of capturing
them, approval of the Unforgivable Curses).  Potential ethics lesson there
but, instead, we got one who would rather turn students into ferrets and
bounce them down the hall.

Kelly Grosskreutz
http://www.idcnet.com/~ivanova