Rowling and Philosophy

[Tom Wall]

No: HPFGUIDX 53676

Replies to Pippin, GulPlum and
Kathleen in this post:


I wrote:
Treason, the betrayal of a trust, is a pretty hefty crime. 
But we don't have Voldemort on it yet.

Pippin replied:
Of course we do!

" I was sympathetic, I was kind. Ginny simply *loved* me. *No 
one's ever understood me like you, Tom ... I'm so glad I've got 
this diary to confide in ... It's like having a friend I can carry
around in my pocket...." -- CoS ch17.

Ginny certainly was betrayed. As for rebellion, Tom was a 
prefect when he set the Serpent of Slytherin on the school.

I reply:
Do you really think that those are similar examples? I'm not sure 
that they are. For instance, I'd say that he didn't really betray 
Ginny as much as he tricked her in the first place, because Ginny 
wasn't really Tom Riddle's friend, was she? He just sort of got her 
to open up so that she'd tell him stuff, and do the dirty work - 
after all, Tom never actually says that he 'likes' Ginny, or that 
they *were* friends - just that Ginny trusted him. So, in that sense, 
yeah, it's a betrayal, but it's not the same kind. I was thinking of 
betrayal in the sense of betraying friends or family, like, Barty 
Crouch Jr., Wormtail kind of treason.

I guess I mean the same when I think of him as a prefect 'betraying' 
his fellow students. I think I see where you're coming from on this 
one, but isn't that more of a general kind of betrayal, as in, its 
bad enough he did this without being a prefect on top of it? The 
prefects, after all, are supposed to be looking out for the students?

That's sort of like how cheating on a test is a violation of 
the 'honor code?' But that's an obligation to the whole school, so 
it's not really the same, IMO, as the profound trust on which friends 
should be able to rely. For instance, if I found out that he set the 
basilisk on one of his buddies, someone he associated with, then I'd 
agree here.

And since we have every indication that his father disowned him, I 
don't even think that Voldemort's own patricide is really a betrayal 
in the sense that I was thinking. I think that in some ways it is a 
betrayal, but still, it's not the kind of 'selling your loved ones 
down the river' kind of treason for which Brutus, Cassius, and Judas 
were responsible.


GulPlum wrote:
<snip>
Riddle/Voldemort (and Slytherin before him) believes that wizarding 
society should be strong. In itself, there is nothing wrong with that 
perspective. As it happens, Dumbledore (presented as 
Riddle/Voldemort's nemesis) believes the same thing.

It's in how that strength can best be achieved, and how to maintain 
it, that they differ. Riddle believes that strength lies in 
separatism, purity and superiority. Dumbledore believes that strength 
lies in inclusiveness, variety and an acknowledgement of our 
weaknesses.
<snip>

I reply:
I couldn't agree more with you on this distinction. When I went back 
to reread some of Draco's first words to Harry in Madam Malkins, 
PS/SS, Draco hasn't yet taken the slanderous 'mudblood' approach to 
his bigotry. What we do see from him is this interesting desire for 
a 'pure' culture. He says:

"They're just not the same, they've never been brought up to know our 
ways. Some of them have never even heard of Hogwarts until they get 
the letter, imagine. I think they should keep it in the old wizarding 
families."
(PS/SS, US paperback, Ch.5, 78)

And I think that it's possible that a lot of the bigotry in the ww 
isn't so much hatred of Mudbloods as it actually is a manifestation 
of the fear that the culture will get diluted or weakened. Desiring a 
strong cultural identity isn't the same as hating outsiders. I see 
this in my own life all of the time, like when Greeks, Jews, or 
Catholics tell their kids to marry within their own national, ethnic, 
or religious groups.

In other words, the idea of 'competing goods' is something that 
resonates very strongly with me, because it seems to be so in step 
with everything that actually happens in life.


Kathleen wrote:
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. 

I reply:
I concur here - they're not all *equally* bad. However, might I 
venture a thought? Fduge didn't just 'murder' Barty Crouch Jr. He had 
the dementor suck the guy's soul out, which is worse than death, 
right? So, does that actually make Fudge come out lower on the 
morality scale in this case?

I like your three attributes, incidentally. Very lucid. 


Kathleen wrote:
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 reply:
One-hundred percent agreement, here. I wasn't trying to place them 
all on the same level. I was just responding to the notion that the 
good wizards weren't corrupted. I also agree with your point on the 
way the author shows us these situations, so that we end up rooting 
for and liking the rule-breakers the most. 

IMHO, her moral system is delightfully real, and (I hope) will prove 
to be very insightful before the end of the series - and we know that 
there's more to come on this - I recall reading an interview where 
JKR declared that Dumbledore's words on the difference between 
(paraphrased) 'choosing what is right over what is easy' was going to 
be very important in the future novels.


Kathleen wrote:
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.

I reply:
Yeah, probably hypocrite wasn't the best choice of words to describe 
what I was thinking there. I guess 'corrupt politician' might cover 
it, but it's not exactly the same thing since Arthur's really much 
more of a bureaurocrat than a politician. 

What I was trying to get at is that, like with the fun campaign 
finance stuff, building the loophole is a violation of the *spirit* 
of the law. Sure, others could get away with it, but I doubt that a 
lot of people read the law to that extent, and I doubt that too many 
wizards would do their research thoroughly enough to conclude that 
you can tinker with stuff magically as long as you don't intend to 
use it after it's been charmed. I mean, that's sort of sneaky wording 
there. 

So, is he a hypocrite in the sense that he's restricting others' 
actions while doing whatever he wants to do? No, I guess he's not.

But I think it's arguable that he's, um, what *is* a better word for 
this? Well, how about: he's corrupt for deliberately writing a law 
with a loophole built into it when the loophole has no legal 
importance, but is instead motivated purely by self interest. 

He wrote a law that really won't do what it's supposed to do. It's 
Arthur taking advantage of semantics.

-Tom