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

[innermurk]

No: HPFGUIDX 59241

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "serenadust" <jmmears at c...> 
wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
serenadust replied:
> 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 replies again:

You have missed my point entirely.
But I'll refute your points to try and make it clear.
The Diggorys might not be a target of Voldemort's now, but if he were 
in power (and Amy made this point which is why I didn't elaborate on 
it) they as good wizards would probably have become targets later on, 
and Cedric might've been killed already, or later since he's a decent 
person and not likely to accept Voldemort's terms. The point is, 
alive or dead, Harry has *nothing* to do with Cedric being a target.


> 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.


serenadust replied: 
> 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.
> 

Innermurk replies:
See the first part of my response above for the main point I was 
trying to make.
In fact, here it is again for clarity's sake:
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.


> Innermurk concluded earlier:
> > 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.


serenadust concludes:
> 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.
> 

I innermurk conclude now:
*My* whole point was that Cedric's death was *not* a consequence of 
Lily's sacrifice. There were too many other choices and people and 
things involved to trace it back to that.
The only way you can make it a consequence of Lily's choice is to 
make it Harry's fault that Cedric died. Since you concede that point, 
it is not a consequence.

JMO,
Innermurk