Evil Is As Evil Desires

[errolowl <nithya_rachel@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51618


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

Cindy:
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.

Dicentra:
To this I would add that evil has to do what you want, not just what 
you do. If you continually *want* to do evil deeds over good ones, 
you're evil, even if you don't actually do them.

Me, starting off by arguing with myself: 

One way of looking at it: DEGREES OF BADNESS
Bad is something you do; 
occasional/ without intent -->Careless is what you are
minor case/ with intent --> Nasty is what you are
major case/ with intent --> Evil is what you are.
Evil characters are all nasty: Nasty characters are not all evil.

Here, careless is relatively easy to classify. But what delineates a 
minor and major case? Is it the action in itself? The impact of that 
action? Or the thoughts/intents manifest in that action?
Is there a distinction really?

Is Filch a nasty character or an evil one? How about Skeeter? Where 
do the shades of Nasty/Bad turn to Evil/bad? Until we establish that 
range, we cannot decide which side of the divide Draco falls.
Filch carries a malicious intent toward the students. His self 
imposed mission is not just to maintain order on the premises, but to 
*capture* and *punish* those who disobey his rules. The chains in his 
room show horrible intent, and thus (As Dicentra pointed out),his 
thoughts alone should make him evil.

Another way of looking at it: DEGREES OF EVIL
Bad is what you do --> it's Evil working through you.
Evil is an existing outside force.
A person is never evil – People frequently manifest Evil.

Here, the more often (or more drastically) you give in to Evil 
impulses and do bad things, the more evil takes over your persona. 
You are said to be a totally evil person when the force of evil has 
unresisted access through you. You still have the choice to 
resist/repent, but you can also choose not to. 

Voldmort's example would make it appear that the second way of 
looking at it holds sway in the WW. He did bad things over and over 
again, and not only did he not resist the impulses, we have every 
indication that he welcomed and enjoyed them. He has now reached the 
stage where he is evil personified, showed by JKR as a gradual 
physical transformation to an in-human state (whiter than a skull, 
wide vivid scarlet eyes, slits for nostrils) 

So, on that journey from an unintentional bad deed, to evil 
personified, where does Draco lie? He's pretty well advanced,
I'd say, for a 14 year old. But he has a long, long way to go
before 
he is evil personified. Draco repeatedly does `Bad' deeds. And
he does them with intent. The degree of intent or the potency of the 
malice can be argued. He has grown up in an atmosphere where evil has 
free reign. He does not even question it. If he thought out his 
attitude to muggle-borns and judged them in his own mind and still 
called Hermione a `mudblood', his degree of evil is greater
than if
he just accepted it as norm and let his father do all his thinking 
for him. But evil it still is. 

Pippin, in her excellent post:
>>I think what is evil about Draco is precisely this: he's old enough 
to know that it's evil to let a maniac take over, he's old enough to 
know it's evil to take a human life, and he seems to be okay with 
Voldemort.<<

As Cantoramy put it, everyone has evil impulses within them. It is 
your resistance that keeps you from being evil. Draco does not seem 
to have developed a conscience. And as a result, doesn't resist
evil much. If this trend continues, Draco could be on an express 
track to personified!evil. If he ever stops to think, and picks up 
some resistance in the process, he might get off at an earlier stop.

Pippin:
>>I do not think that JKR means Draco to be read as purely evil.<<

Neither do I. Though she keeps stressing how Bad Draco really is, her 
portrayal is strangely lukewarm compared to how he could be written 
if he were a real manifestation of evil. 
Right now he seems like a misguided kid, prone to evil. He is not 
personified!evil yet by a long shot. But he needs to really 
contemplate his position on evil (and by extension this war) if he 
has not already done so
and I find it difficult to digest that he
has not yet done so. 

Jenny:
>>Unfortunately, Evil is subjective, because what I think is Evil, 
others may feel is justified, like the men who destroyed the Twin 
Towers. I think what they did was Evil, but they claimed they were 
fighting in a war and would go to Paradise because of their actions. 
The Malfoys believe in what they do, too, but Harry doesn't, Hermione 
doesn't, Dumbledore doesn't, and I don't. I still can't stand Lucius 
Malfoy, though, and won't shed a tear when he's gone.<<


True, as a child you tend to blindly follow your family beliefs on 
most counts. But by the time you enter your teens, you're
starting to think for yourself and rebelling (even against minor, 
oblique points <g>) against parental values. Draco should have 
started this process. And in a wizarding society where potential war 
looms, and thecitizenry are still getting over the previous conflict 
of good and evil, and the evidence of the misery caused by evil 
abound, I should think the dilemma would force itself on you. And it 
is not as if Draco lives at home to be brainwashed by his father. He 
is on hand to see the misery of Cedric's parents. 

But yes, it can be very difficult to see beyond your preconceptions. 
Indoctrination compounds the issue. But still, those who decided to 
destroy twin towers consciously agreed to it. It might be a misguided 
understanding of right and wrong, but they consciously aligned 
themselves with that particular way of doing something--with what we 
call the evil side. They might call it something else,  – but
that doesn't make a difference. Voldemort believes in his cause,
he 
believes it is right to seek immortality at all costs. Slytherin no 
doubt totally believed he was in the right about muggle-borns. 
Whatever your beliefs, if it goes against another persons rights as a 
human being, it is wrong. Believing in another system is *not* evil 
in of itself – expressing that belief system without concern for 
other creatures is. And if you consciously express yourself that way, 
that's pretty close to the definition of evil I'd say.


 It is this conscious adoption of a stance that sets Harry apart from 
Draco. Harry has wrestled with moral issues for a long time and by 
the end of GoF has a pretty strong stand on it. He would assume that 
Draco has done equivalent soul searching. That is what the hex scene 
in the train is all about. Harry and co are not reacting to Dracos 
words (words he's been parroting for years now), but are reacting
to the moral stance that his words indicate. 
Harry has firmly established his stance on prejudice and on the value 
of Cedric's life. Draco's words show that he is on the
opposite side, something Harry identifies as willful evil. The hex is 
a knee-jerk reaction to that evil
and emotions are still running
high 
after that major encounter with personified!evil. 

Pippin alludes to the series throwing off their fairy-tale ethic by 
the end of GoF. The moral dilemmas have become internalized, showing 
a growing maturity. If Draco were to have the same level of maturity, 
then would his words on the train justify the reactions? If Draco 
were pondering good and evil within himself, and then came out with 
those words, would people find them more offensive? All those who 
consider the hexing as over-reaction consider Draco's maturity to
be far less than the Trio's
something that is not supported,
(nor for that matter refuted), by canon. 

Errol, off to catalogue Draco's maturity.