Evil Is As Evil Is, But What Is Evil?

[Cindy C. <cindysphynx@comcast.net>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51595

Abigail wrote:

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

I can go along with this to some extent, but I would go further.  

Bad is something you do.

Evil is something you are.

The way we know you are Evil is by what you do -- whether you do Bad 
things for Bad reasons.

If you are Good, you can become Evil by doing enough Bad acts.

If you are Evil, you can become Good by doing enough Good acts.

Abigail:

>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.

Yes, but doesn't that beg the question just a little?  I suggested 
earlier that you can make a determination of Evil by examining the 
good acts compared to the bad acts and examining the circumstances 
and so forth.  One bad act doesn't make you Evil, true.

But no one is claiming that Draco only committed one bad act.  I am 
saying he committed many bad acts, he commits them for bad reasons, 
and he commits no good acts.

How can that not be Evil?

>If a person is inherently Evil, what happened to free choice?  

I don't think anyone is "inherently Evil."  I think people choose to 
do bad things, and those choices can lead me to conclude they are 
Evil.  


>In my opinion, there are no Evil characters within the Potterverse.

Ah, I think this is where we differ.  I think there are lots of Evil 
characters in the Potterverse.  I think the reason we disagree is 
that I don't see any connection between redeemability and 
assessments of Evil status, myself.

As long as a person is alive and has free will, they have the 
ability to change their own path.  Good can become Evil and Evil can 
become Good -- it depends how a person chooses to exercise free 
will.  So I'd say there are most definitely Evil characters in the 
Potterverse, but there are no irredeemable characters, with the 
possible exception of Voldemort (for plot reasons).

I think my view that everyone is redeemable is why I find it 
difficult to become inspired by discussions of redeemability and why 
I'm not really wedded to theories about whether a character is or is 
not redeemable.  It seems to me that Voldemort is probably not 
redeemable for plot reasons (meaning JKR will undoubtedly keep 
Voldemort Evil, not that he couldn't change if he were a real 
villian).  Conversely, Harry will probably never be Evil for exactly 
the same reasons.  But as for all other Good or Evil 
characters . . . well, yeah.  Of course they are redeemable.  They 
*can* change their Good or Evil ways.  I just don't think that 
observation is especially earth-shattering.

Maybe I just don't understand the "redeemability" analysis very 
well.  It's possible, it's possible

> 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.  


If truth be told, I jumped in without reading the prior conversation 
either, so maybe I'm all wet.  ;-)

But as you probably gathered from these remarks, I am not a big fan 
of linking redeemability with assessments of current Evil status.  I 
think it is perfectly fine to argue that Draco is redeemable (as I 
believe everyone is) and yet concede that he is currently Evil.  I 
suspect others feel differently and believe conceding that Draco is 
Evil is somehow a concession that he will stay Evil.  I think that 
leaves folks quarrelling with the plain definition of the 
word "Evil," for one thing. And I just don't think that is 
necessary, myself.


>Only a person who is Evil is irredeemable.  

Yes, you have to be Evil to be considered irredeemable (if you buy 
the concept of irredeemability).

But if everyone can change, then it is not possible to label 
anyone "Evil" (under the theory Abigail is describing) while they 
are alive and have free will.  Personally, I have no trouble at all 
labeling certain people currently "Evil" -- regardless of whether 
they might someday change.

>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.  

I would say that as real people, Lucius and LV are currently Evil 
based on their Bad acts, but because they have free will, they are 
redeemable.


>Frankly, I don't see any way that the series could end without 
> Draco being either redeemed or dead.

Oh, please!  Can we go with Dead Dead Dead?  ;-)

Cindy