Intrinsically Good magic, and motives over ends (Fwd from OTC)

[serenadust]

No: HPFGUIDX 59236

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" <lupinesque at y...> 
wrote:
>  Let's say Lily's 
> > sacrifice was pure love, unmarred by any other motives.  Just 
the 
> > same, fourteen years later, Cedric Diggory died because her son 
> > lived.  No Harry, no Harry in the TWT, no reason for Cedric to 
> stray across the path of Voldemort. 

  <snip> 
                                                                  
But what we *do* 
> > know is that in *this* timeline, Cedric died because he had the 
bad 
> > luck to be in the same place as Harry Potter.
> > 
> > So we may be able to say that on balance Lily's sacrifice 
> > accomplished more good than evil (though only the gods can 
know), 
> but 
> > we can't say it accomplished only good.
> > 
> 
> 
Innermurk replied:
> You can't say that Cedric died *because* of Harry, or *because* he 
> was in the same place as Harry Potter. If he had gotten to the cup 
> first and was whisked away to the graveyard, he would most likely 
> have been killed anyway. And Harry wouldn't have been there. He 
would 
> have died, not being in the same place as Harry.



I'm not Amy, but I think that the point she was making was that if 
there were *no* Harry Potter at Hogwarts to compete in the TWT, 
there would have been no reason for the cup to portkey Cedric to the 
graveyard (or for Voldy to *be* in the graveyard for that matter, 
since he'd still have his original body).


Innermurk continued:

> Harry does blame himself for this, as he shares your viewpoint on 
the 
> matter. That is, that Cedric died because of him. BUT, DD very 
> clearly points out that Cedric died because he was unlucky enough 
to be in the same place as *Voldemort* 
> 
> He died because *Voldemort* wanted him to. 
> 
> Harry had little to nothing to do with it. Voldemort was after 
Harry, 
> yes, but as you point out, if Harry had died and he wasn't even in 
> the equation, Cedric would most likely have perished already. 


I don't think it was *likely* that Cedric would have perished 
already.  I think that Amy was saying that he could *possibly* died 
anyway, but there's nothing in canon to show that the Diggorys were 
in any way special targets of Voldemort. It's most likely that he'd 
be alive in a very different sort of WW with Voldy in charge.

Innermurk again:
> In light of how intricately every choice we make interacts with 
> everyone else, I don't think you can say that one choice was good 
or 
> bad because down the line it affected so and so this way, or so 
and 
> so that way. It has to be more of an immediate thing IMO.
> It has to be a *direct* result of *that particular choice* and 
*that 
> choice only* or else there is no way to judge it fairly.
> 
> Harry had the distinct choice to take the cup himself, or let 
Cedric 
> have it. Cedric had those choices too. I would say that these 
choices 
> were what affected the death of Cedric, much more than Lily's 
choice 
> to save her son.

Again, I don't want to speak for Amy, but I think that her point was 
that none of the later choices would have presented themselves if 
Lily hadn't saved Harry. I don't think she was saying that Lily's 
choice was bad so much as that not all of the results of her choice 
were good.


<snip listing all the other choices characters have made leading to 
Cedric's death> 
 
Innermurk concludes:
> So, I don't believe you can judge that her choice was good or bad 
on the fact of Cedric's death.
 > And it *was not* Harry's fault that Cedric died.

No, it's certainly not Harry's fault that Cedric died.  However, it 
*was* an unintended consequence of Lily's sacrifice, which I think 
was Amy's whole point, ie you can never predict that all the 
consequences of a "good" act will all be good.

Jo Serenadust, who apologises in advance to Amy if she's 
misinterpreted anything from her post.


>