Rowling and Philosophy

[asandhp]

No: HPFGUIDX 53687

The method I've got for getting these posts around my server is a bit 
slow, so what I've written here might be bit behind the flow of this 
thread, but that's the best I can do. By the same token, thanks to 
all who responded to my other posts (GulPlum and others?), and I hope 
to repond to them soon, but that's not likely to be until Sunday at 
the soonest.

This is a general reply and continuation to everything that's been 
said.

The lines of good and evil are drawn between Voldemort and 
Dumbledore, at the peak; Snape and Lupin, in the middle; the Dursleys 
and the Weasleys, also in the middle; and Draco and Harry at the 
bottom. I think it is a serious point of JK's that Draco and 
Voldemort are on a continuum which all counts as evil, *even though* 
many of the things they do (or at least that Draco does) are similar 
to the things that Harry and the other good guys do. In other words, 
Draco is not as evil as Voldemort, but he's still a little evil, 
while Harry is a little good.

Now, I think the best way to figure out what JK means by good and 
evil is to list what distinguishes the members of these pairs from 
each other. Then we can go on to agree or disagree with these 
distinctions vis a vis real life, but at least we should be able to 
decide fairly conclusively what distinctions JK has made between good 
and evil.

So, starting at the bottom, we have Draco offering many unprovoked 
insults for the singular purpose of putting people down. HRH never do 
that. They respond in kind very often, but they never put people down 
out of the blue. (Even Fred and George's put-downs to Percy are 
aimed, basically, at restoring equality in the face of Percy's 
superior airs.)

Draco has minions, not equals, for "friends." HRH are quite equal. 
Draco tattles to teachers; HRH do not. Draco tries to get Hagrid 
sacked; HRH try to save the stone from Snape, but they don't report 
him to anyone in order to get him fired. (They wish it, but they take 
no action to accomplish it.) Draco and co. unfairly sabotage the 
Quidditch game in PoA; Harry helps Cedric improve his chances in GoF. 
Draco's prejudiced against Muggle-borns; HRH aren't.

To be fair, what they have in common is that they both gloat over the 
other's failures and problems, but HRH do nothing to cause Draco's 
failures and problems, while Draco does plenty to cause theirs. 
Another difference - Harry never waves his new brooms tauntingly in 
Draco's face, he waits for Draco to come over and feel bad himself. 
Draco happily taunts Harry with his Nimbus 2001 in CoS.

This adds up to junior-level evil = unprovoked action or speech 
deliberately aimed at putting people down or causing them harm.
Junior-level good = generally treating others as equals, and only 
hurting or insulting others in immediate retaliation. (Getting back 
the next day doesn't count as good; only retaliating immediately in 
the heat of the emotion is forgivable (but not admirable).)

Now compare Snape and Lupin. (Even though Snape is on the "good side" 
his behavior is not good by any stretch of the imagination. I think 
it is brilliant of JKR to show the realistic existence of bad people 
supporting the "right" causes, and good people supporting "wrong" 
causes (Fudge).

So - Snape plays favorites; Lupin has favorites but doesn't act on 
them (as far as we know). Snape doesn't give people chances; Lupin 
does. Snape insults Harry (but hypocritically not Draco) for not 
following the rules; Lupin appeals to Harry's conscience to follow 
rules. Snape threatens Harry with expulsion, poison, truth serum, 
etc., to admit to breaking rules; Lupin refuses to hear Harry's 
confessions. Snape insults vulnerable students with no provocation; 
Lupin gives lots of unprovoked compliments and generally tries to 
make people feel good. Snape doesn't admit his weaknesses; Lupin 
does. Snape holds 20-year grudges; Lupin does not. (His feelings 
toward Pettigrew are a combination of revulsion and a desire for 
justice, which he controls just fine when Harry defends P.)

This adds up to mid-level evil = unprovoked action or speech 
deliberately aimed at putting people down or causing them harm.
Mid-level good = generally treating others as equals (even when you 
don't think well of them), treating people with respect and kindness, 
and defending justice with reason and good judgement.

I'm running out of steam, so I'll leave the other pairs to others of 
you to do, but even with Voldemort, it adds up to unprovoked action 
or speech deliberately aimed at putting people down or causing them 
harm, with the "putting people down" part more highly emphasized. 
Voldemort wants immortality, yes, but he's not interested in sharing 
his immortality with a bunch of equals. He wants absolute power over 
other people as much as he wants eternal life. Dumbledore, in 
contrast, "gives people chances." He's always ready to treat people 
well and as equal, free agents.

So that's my take on what's evil and good in the Potterverse. It 
doesn't matter if you're human or not, and it certainly depends on 
one's choices, as all have said, but the bottom line is whether 
you're dominating and hurting people for the sake of domination and 
ego-boosting, or whether you're generally respecting and being kind 
to people for the sake of equality and fairness.
 
But now I want to add something else. It's been commented on 
repeatedly that JK's all for "choice" as the basis for morality. 
Hear, hear! But there is a long list of other moral positions that 
she makes in her books, that rarely get mentioned, and I'd like to 
give them some air-time.

1. PS: Harry's very unhappy that Voldemort got away at the end. 
Dumbledore (the voice of moraliy, of course) tells him that it's OK. 
Paraphrase: "As long as there are people to keep fighting evil, one 
can hope it will defeated again and again, and that's enough." In 
other words, you don't have to solve the world's problems once and 
for all to be a hero. Every effort to spread good and defeat evil is 
good, worthwhile, and meaningful, regardless of the size of the 
victory. This is demonstrated even more by Neville's points at the 
leaving feast. He stood up for what was right, even though he 
accomplished nothing, but that in itself was good, worthwhile, and 
meaningful.

2. In PoA, Harry's unhappy that Pettigrew got away, that Black was 
not exonerated, etc. Dumbledore tells him that that's OK too. 
Paraphrase: "You saved an innocent life. That is worth everything in 
the world." In other words, again, don't waste time worrying about 
the big picture. A real good accomplished in your own backyard is 
worth dozens of grand acts of heroism that never get done. And, more 
importantly, human life is too precious to measure. Saving one person 
is so precious that you can never overlook it, no matter what else 
happens. This is a statement of the overriding sanctity of human life.

3. In GoF, Harry learns to take life one day at a time. More of the 
same sort of stuff in time rather than space: Do your bit and don't 
worry about the big picture until it comes under your nose.

4. Lupin's speech in PoA about wasting James's and Lily's sacrifice 
for a bag of magic tricks makes a point about responsiblity that Ron 
and Harry seem to accept.

5. PS, CoS and GoF are full of comments about and depictions of the 
(fickle) nature and (lack of) importance of fame.

6. Hermione in PS tells Harry that the most important things are 
(paraphrase): "bravery, and friendship, and ... [I forget what]."

7. The whole series is permeated with the idea of the importance of 
friends, and even more, of family. The reason that family is so 
important is not spelled out, it's just presented as powerfully (self-
)evident.

8. Rule-breaking is seen as a risky, but not necessarily evil option. 
Rules are man-made and can be fallible, as Dumbledore tells H&R when 
they come up from the chamber of secrets. Paraphrase: "I told you 
that if you broke the rules again, I would have to punish you 
severely. Well, I guess there is only one thing to do now. Eat my 
words." When HRH break rules for well-thought-out reasons, they 
sometimes get into trouble, but are not despised. When they break 
rules for fun, they sometimes don't get into trouble, but they 
eventually lose their self-respect. The moral: Think a dozen times 
before breaking rules, but if you have to, you have to, and then you 
still might have to take the consequences.

9. HRH still haven't learned not to break up and refuse to speak to 
each other, but that doesn't mean that JKR condones such behavior. 
It's probably just a lesson that is yet to come.

10. The Dursleys are all about anti-imagination. Clearly imagination 
is considered a prime value in the Potter books, though you don't see 
much of it happening in the Potterverse. Lack of imagination seems to 
be blamed for making people intolerant, while imagination presumably 
helps a person imagine why that Other might be OK.

11. Lying doesn't get any respect in the books.

12. Technology gets no respect either, and seems to be the antithesis 
of imagination-magic. Is this a way of promoting the humanities over 
the sciences? Wizards, says Hermione, often have no logic. Is this an 
approval of literature vs. a distaste for Math(s)? At the same time, 
the WW is not more comfortable or happier than the Muggle world, just 
more fun for us to read about. So all this imagination-lack of logic-
magic-humanities doesn't prove itself in the long run, while the 
Dursleys seem to prove that technology doesn't prove itself when 
taken on its own either. Is JKR aiming for a Kantian reunion of the 
humanities and sciences (and religion, if future books make good on 
that score)?

13. In PS, discussing the Mirror of Erised, Dumbledore tells Harry 
not to dwell on dreams and forget to live. This is odd coming from 
the author of thousands of pages of a best-selling fantasy. However, 
JK actually makes it easy (relatively speaking) not to dwell on her 
dream. For one thing, as I wrote above, her WW is not more 
comfortable or happier than RL. There are still tests and bullies and 
unfair teachers and homework and illnesses and dangers and so on. And 
the castle is cold in the winter and hot in the summer. The lighting 
isn't great. And significantly, there aren't enough fun things to do. 
In their free time, the kids play gobstones and exploding snap over 
and over. We have yet to hear about any clubs and other 
extracurriculars other than Quidditch. No one plays music or even 
listens to music. Moving pictures are fun, but I'm very surprised the 
Muggle-borns don't sometimes wish for a good movie. Telephones are 
better than owls for most things. Anyone who's interested can 
continue this list.

Another interesting thing about this "dream" that JKR wants us "not 
to dwell on" is that none of the non-human creatures is appealing. In 
LOTR, it is easy to wish one were a High Elf. In Narnia, one could 
wish to be a lion (till one gets the symbolism). In HP, there isn't a 
single creature one could wish to be. Even the centaurs are portrayed 
as quite limited.

So ultimately, the moral message is: Don't wish to magically be 
someone or someplace else. Be happy with who and where you are. Have 
imagination, yes, but use it to enhance your relationship to RL, not 
to substitute for it.

I think that's plenty for now.

The Admiring Skeptic