Evil Is As Evil Is, But What Is Evil?

[abigailnus <abigailnus@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51593

Cindy wrote:

>>Personally, I don't have a teaspoon of doubt about Draco's Evil 
nature. Draco presents the unusual case where there's really not a 
great deal of ambiguity surrounding most of his actions. He doesn't 
try to conceal what he is doing or why. He declares his motives. 
That makes the question an easy one, for me anyway. 

See, to be Evil does not require one to be the epitome of evil. One 
needn't be Supremely Evil. I think one can be Evil *under the 
circumstances.* One can be Evil when compared to others, I 
suppose. After all, "evil" is rather broadly defined, isn't it?

Evil is defined as "Morally bad or wrong; wicked. Causing ruin, 
injury or pain; harmful. Purportedly bad or blameworthy. 
*Characterized by anger or spite; malicious.*" (emphasis mine).

Spiteful? Malicious? Causing injury or pain (and at times 
attempting to do so but being foiled in the attempt)? Yup, that's 
our Draco.>>

To which Heidi responded:

> > I think I first must admit that I haven't followed the "ever so 
> >evil" discussions to date to the level of knowing exactly what 
> >definition of *evil* we're working from but if I'm to accept 
> >Cindy's, well, then... 
> > 
> > Isn't every single character in canon, other than possibly Eloise
> > Midgen, ever so evil? 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > Causing ruin, injury or pain? Ron, during the Yule Ball
> > Purportedly bad? Harry, going to Hogsmeade
> > Blameworthy? Lupin, who didn't take his Wolfsbane
> > Characterized by anger? McGonnagal, taking points from Harry, 
> >Hermione and Neville

Cindy again:
 
> True, there are many characters in canon who have done things that 
> are malicious, harmful, hurtful or spiteful.  Are those characters 
> evil?  
> 
> The answer, I think, is that you have to look at the whole character 
> to the extent that we can do so within the confines of canon.
> 
> Was it evil of Hermione to slap Draco?  Let's say that it was.  Is 
> Hermione an evil person?  No, I don't think so.  The reason is that 
> her isolated acts of evil are far outweighed by her acts of good.  I 
> could list them here, but we all know what they are -- everything 
> from saving Sirius' life to helping Harry prepare for the tasks to 
> helping Neville.  On balance, Hermione is not evil in my mind 
> because her acts of good far outweigh her missteps.  As no one in 
> real life or in HP is perfect, then examining the whole character is 
> the logical way to separate evil characters from good ones.

I think Heidi was onto something when she wondered what definition 
of evil was being used in the discussion, because it seems clear to me 
that two different concepts of evil are being confused.  There seems 
to be no seperation between what, for no other reason than 
convenience, I'm going to term Bad and Evil.  (Note that these are just 
my definitions for this post.  I've seen people use the term evil for what 
I'm going to describe as bad, and vice versa.  To avoid confustion, I'm 
going to capitalize Bad and Evil whenever I use them within those 
definitions.)

In the simplest possible terms, Bad is something you do, Evil is 
something you are.

Everyone, in or out of the Potterverse, does Bad things.  Some of them 
are worse then others.  Snape's casual "I see no difference" is worse 
then Hermione slapping Draco.  Bad acts conform to the definition Cindy 
offered.  They are malicious, spiteful, hurtful.  They obviously reflect on 
the character of the person who perpetrates them.  However, 
committing a Bad act doesn't make one inherently Bad anymore than 
committing a good act makes one inherently good.  Conversely, a Bad 
person can commit good acts and a good person can commit Bad acts.

I'd like to say that Evil is a moral determination, but I think it goes much 
deeper then that.  We talk of Evil, in this sense, as something alien.  A 
malevolent entity posing as a person.  An Evil person is rotten to the 
core, completely irredeemable, an abomination.  A century ago, this 
would have been an easy notion to accept, but today it's troubling.  If a 
person is inherently Evil, what happened to free choice?  If being Evil is 
something you can't help, then how can we blame someone for being 
that way? Shouldn't we classify an evil person as mentally ill (in fact we 
have - we will often call a person who displays Evil characteristics a 
sociopath or a psycopath)?  

I think it's obvious that Rowling has rejected this notion of Evil.  
Voldemort wasn't born Evil - he chose to do evil things.  Snape also 
chose to do those things, but because he has free will and is not Evil, 
he also had the freedom to choose not to do them any more.  It's 
obvious that the Bad acts that LV has committed have corrupted him 
- morally and physically - but they have not yet robbed him of his free 
will.  In my opinion, there are no Evil characters within the Potterverse.

[We at HPfGU have confounded the issue further by introducing the Ever 
So Evil category, which in fact is not a moral determination or a 
commentary on any specific act, but the claim that a specific character 
has secretly alligned themselves with Voldemort.  Obviously, a person on 
LV's side is morally repugnant and has probably committed Bad acts, but 
the ESE tag is not a direct allusion to either of them.]

I also haven't been following the discussion on Is Draco Evil very 
closely, but from what I've gathered, the debate seems to be 
between the opinion that Draco is irredeemable (in evidence of 
which are given the large number of Bad acts Draco has committed) 
and, in the opposite corner, the opinion that Draco is capable of 
redemption.  This is where I think the confusion sets in.  Only a person 
who is Evil is irredeemable.  The Draco Is Evil proponents are trying 
to argue that being Bad makes one Evil.

We can say that Draco is a Bad kid.  That his upbringing is against 
him.  That his character is fixed.  That he is too spoilt, to accustomed 
to having his own way to be able to muster the strengh of character 
required to change.  We could, in short, conclude that it is bloody 
unlikely that Draco Malfoy will change his ways.  But that doesn't give 
us the right to determine, at the age of 11, at the age of 14, or at 
the age of 112, that he is beyond redemption.  I would go so far as 
to say that it is a theme of the series that redemption is not impossible 
for anyone.  Lucius could choose to mend his evil ways.  *Voldemort* 
could do it.  I don't expect them to, and I'm of two minds on whether 
Draco will be redeemed, but that's only because I recognize that, as 
a work of fiction, the books require that certain villains remain black 
hats.  If I were to look at Lucius and LV as real people, though, I would 
have to conclude that they still have free will and are therefore not 
Evil.  (This doesn't, by the way, mean that I wouldn't find them 
reprehensible.  The fact that a person wasn't born Evil does not, in 
my opinion, make his Bad acts any more acceptable.  In fact, it makes 
them worse.)

> Cindy -- who would like a great big helping of Redeemable!Pettigrew 
> but who can't quite stomach NotAMurderThereforeNotEvil!Draco

My own personal view of Draco has for a long time been that he's the 
Potterverse equivalent of A.J. Soprano - the privileged son of a corrupt 
father who is simply too soft to successfully take over the family 
business.  I believe, as many people do, that Draco will find himself 
unequal to the task of being a DE, although not necessarily for any 
moral reasons - he simply won't be able to hack it.  And I also agree that 
in such a case, there's a very good chance that either Lucius or LV will 
kill him.  Frankly, I don't see any way that the series could end without 
Draco being either redeemed or dead.

Abigail
Who is studying for a Physics final, can't you tell?