Rowling and Philosophy

[happybean98]

No: HPFGUIDX 53653

This is an attempt to respond to all the posts that have appeared so 
far on this topic as they seem to be flying fast and furious.  

First of all, to <dimurcury>, I come from the other, Catholic "FU"-
Franciscan University.  (And I thought that was OUR joke...)  I am 
also interested in the philosophical and religious views of Tolkien.  

I would have loved to take that class.  I'm jealous.  I've had to 
satisfy myself with reading everything written by or about Tolkien.  
I've found out that a great way to get people talking about 
philosophy is by bringing up The Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter 
for that matter...

Tom Wall wrote:

"I think that quite a few of the wizards we have met could easily be 
described as `corrupted' to one degree or another. It depends, I 
guess, mostly on what you *personally* consider to be the appropriate 
standard for moral standing and superiority."

<goes on to point out degrees of  "corruption" in other (more 
likable) characters>

I respond:

Now that you've pointed out these situations, let's refine the 
definition of "corruption".  Let's not get sloppy with this term.  

Judging whether an action is good or "corrupt" requires us to 
consider three factors: absolute and objective principles, (ie: 
killing innocent life is wrong), relative and objective situations, 
(ie: this innocent person obstructs my will), and subjective motives,
(ie: I want to kill this innocent person so I can become 
immortal/powerful).  

All three of these factors must be right for an action to be good.  
Examining which of these factors are wrong in a given situation helps 
us judge the degree of culpability, (or "corruption") the person has 
for an action.

Let's take Hagrid.  Factor 1: Absolute and objective principle: 
Breaking just civic laws is wrong.  Hagrid fails on this factor.  He 
knows he isn't supposed to use magic illegally.  Factor 2: Relative 
and Objective situation: Dudley is being a nuisance (as usual).  
Hagrid's situation is sympathetic, but does it warrent breaking the 
law? Sorry Hagrid. Factor 3: Subjective motive: Hagrid wants to give 
Dudley his come-uppance.  Again, understandable but not excusable. I 
think the key here is that while Hagrid makes a bad choice, the 
objective principle, (breaking a just civic law), is not as grave as 
more serious crimes.
 
Let's take Cornelius Fudge's decision to kill Barty Crouch Jr. with a 
dementor.  Factor 1: Absolute and objective principle:  Killing 
someone is wrong. Fudge fails factor one.  Factor 2:  Relative and 
Objective situation: Barty Crouch Jr. was a murderer.  O.K., maybe 
this could lessen Fudge's culpability, but was there no other means 
to control Barty Crouch Jr.? Factor 3: Subjective Motive for the 
killing.  We don't know!  No one can ever know why Fudge killed 
except Fudge (and God). If we presume Fudge killed to protect 
himself, Fudge has less culpability.  If we presume Fudge killed to 
cover up a Ministry of Magic mistake,  Fudge has more culpability.

Now lets take Voldemort's decision to kill Cedric Diggory.  Factor 1: 
Absolute and objective principle: Killing someone is wrong.  
Voldemort fails factor one.  Factor 2: Relative and objective 
situation: Cedric is defenseless against Voldemort. Voldemort fails 
factor two.  Factor 3: Subjective motive: Well, again, we can never 
know for sure what is going on in Voldemort's heart, but from what 
Voldemort said, "Kill the spare!", it would seem that he killed 
solely because Cedric was an unforeseen inconvenience. Voldemort 
fails Factor 3.

The purpose of all this dissection is to point out that while almost 
all the characters make bad choices throughout the books, it is 
incorrect to then blanket all of them with the accusation of being 
equally corrupt.  

None of the actions you pointed out could be considered "good", but 
that does not mean that all the characters are equally bad.  
Voldemort and Fudge both killed, but we can safely presume, based on 
the three factors, that there is at least a possibility that Fudge 
may not have equal culpability for his murder.  

Killing innocent life is always more morally reprehensible than 
killing in self defense.  As for Hagrid, yes he did wrong, but 
breaking a just civic law is not as grave as taking someone's life.  
Therefore, you cannot say that Hagrid is "as corrupt as Voldemort".  
Arthur Weasley did wrong too, but creating an imperfect law out of 
weakness is still not as grave as killing someone.

I disagree that Arthur Weasley is a hypocrite.  He did make a law 
with a loop hole in it, to accomodate his own interest, but we can 
assume that anyone else with a knowledge of Wizard law could make use 
of the same loophole.  It's not as though he is excepting only 
himself from the law, he is making a law that will except anyone.  

Arthur may be guilty of allowing his own interests to distort his law 
making ability, but he is not a hypocrite.  A hypocrite would insist 
everyone else follow one set of rules, and put up an appearance of 
following those rules himself, but all the while he would be breaking 
the rules.

I agree with your main point, that our choices determine who we are 
and that we shouldn't try to shrug off responsibility for our actions 
by blaming them on the situation. I also agree that almost all of the 
characters, even some of our favorite ones,  make bad choices.  Don't 
we all?   But even so, it is overly simplistic to lump Hagrid and 
Voldemort in the same category of evilness.

I like the fact that JKR's characters make choices that force us to 
examine them.  We are encouraged to ask ourselves WHY we still root 
for Harry even though he breaks the rules?  WHY do (most of us) love 
Hagrid even though he puts students in danger?   JKR has expertly 
crafted these situations and characters that disarm and distract us 
from our pre-concieved notions.  This is a welcome challenge, and a 
needed one!

Kathleen