[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's importance and threats of expulsion

[Troels Forchhammer]

No: HPFGUIDX 57214

At 12:13 07-05-03 +0000, you wrote:
>Bboy wrote:
>
> > >
> > >In the past, someone wrote a long essay on the stages of moral
> > >development, and pointed out that, as strange as it may seem,
>obeying the rules is a very low stage of moral development. Sometimes
> > >disregarding the rules is the morally correct thing to do.
> >
>
>Troels wrote:
>
> > That it is sometimes necessary to break rules in order to do
> > the 'right thing' should be obvious to most, but claiming
> > that obeying rules is a low stage of moral development is,
> > IMO, a morally reprehensible statement. Rules are created
> > to allow a society to function. Disregard the rules and you
> > destabilise the society - it really is that simple!
> > Creating and maintaining complex societies are, IMO, a
> > victory for human morals. The realisation that we must
> > submit ourselves to the common rules to make that
> > society work is perhaps the highest moral state humanity
> > has yet achieved. The next step is when the rules become
> > unnecessary.
> >
>
>BBoy doesn't need me to defend him, but I seem to remember the essay
>he was talking about, and other discussions we've had on the topic,
>to mean that blindly obeying the rules indicates low moral
>development.

I have no problems with it if it's restricted to blind and
unquestioning following of the rules. I will still, however,
maintain that a society with rules (any rules) are at higher
moral stage than anarchic group. Even Saddam Hussein's
government was better for Iraq than no government (it is
to be expected that something that is better than either
is on the way now).

>Troels:
>
> > The problem is that he also often breaks the rules for
> > reasons that are selfish or downright stupid - not very
> > moral there.
> >
> > PS-9: The Midnight Duel. Breaking school rules just to
> > get a chance to pursue a personal vendetta.
> >
> > PS-14: Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback. Breaking both
> > wizard laws and school rules to help a criminal whom he
> > happens to like.
> >
> > CoS-5: The Whomping Willow. Theft, breaking the
> > International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy (the very
> > reason for the Ministry of Magic) and probably also the
> > Decree for Reasonable Restriction of Underage sorcery.
> >
> > CoS-12: The Polyjuice Potion. Hiding information from
> > the Headmaster because he fears it might make him look
> > bad - even /after/ he's had Dumbledore's assurance that
> > he is not under suspicion.
>
>
>I was with you on the first three. Harry was baited into the Midnight
>Duel by Draco, but yeah, he could have showed better judgement (ickle
>Drakiekins ALWAYS does the right thing, though, so maybe the rules
>weren't broken - sarcasm)
>
>"Help a criminal who he happens to like" is a shade harsh, don't you
>think? We're also talking about Harry's first friend in the Wizard
>World, and really, first friend ever.

Of course it is a shade harsh ;-) I wanted to make a point and
sometimes exaggeration helps understanding. I'd still say
that Harry's decision to help Hagrid out in this case is
questionable at least from a moral viewpoint.

>I agree about the car, but c'mon, that "damage" to the Whomping
>Willow was just pure Snape griping. I have a feeling that, had the
>boys hit the dumpsters behind the kitchens, Snape would have yelled
>at them for breaking valuable trash containers.

Sorry - just mentioned the chapter title. My 'accusations'
were of theft and breaking of the Statute of Secrecy.

>And in the cases of the car and Norbert, they get caught and get
>punished. Perhaps not as severe as Snape would have wanted (or some
>on the list) but their actions were not without consequences.

The wizarding world appear to be quite accepting of fatalities -
the Triwizard Tournament only got discontinued when the
death toll mounted /too/ high, and at the annual broom race
in Sweden the spectators cheer the survivers. And then there's
duels ...
I get the impression that breaking the Statute of Secrecy
is considered worse than causing the death of another wizard
by accident or in a duel.
Seen in that light, I really think the boys got off far more
easyly than anyone else would have done - because young Mr
Potter was involved.

>But the fourth one is not a breaking of a rule. It is perhaps poor
>judgement -- had he told Dumbledore about hearing the voices,
>Dumbledore might have figured out the basilisk thing -- but you
>cannot be compelled to share your innermost thoughts with a teacher.
>If that's the RULE, that your thoughts are available to authority
>figures, then sign me up for rule-breaking!

You're of course right. He didn't break any rules there.


> > Using illegal means to spy on Malfoy who they suspect
> > just because they don't like him (OK - Hermione is the
> > one who suggests this).
> >
>
>They were wrong about Malfoy, but there were certainly other reasons
>to suspect him besides dislike. He screamed "You'll be next,
>Mudbloods" among a "mass of students" (Pg 106, CoS) when they found
>Mrs. Norris petrified.
>
>Salazar Slytherin, the kids discovered, was the originator of the
>Pureblood is Best Doctrine and Draco certainly espouses that point of
>view, to the point of openly, without regard to his audience, calling
>for their death.
>
>Any reasonable investigator would take a look at the kid. And since
>Harry is going to be investigated simply because he's a Parselmouth,
>I think we've established that what you say (and how you say it) can
>bring down suspicion. Sorry, no Draco-persecution here.

I actually agree that Draco Malfoy was a likely candidate.
What I protest is the Trio's moral right to take it upon
themselves to carry out an illegal investigation of him.
They ought, IMO, to have left the investigation to the
teachers. Would we have accepted it if Draco had used
Polyjuice Potion to disguise himself as Ron in order to
check out Harry? The evidence against Harry was - in the
eyes of most of the school - far more serious than the
evidence against Draco.

> > PoA-10: The Marauder's Map. Going to Hogsmeade for fun
> > even after he has realised why he was certain to be
> > prevented from doing it. Repeating it after Christmas.
>
>And again, he suffered consequences, not in the form of punishment,
>but in the form of a lecture from Lupin that seemed to really get to
>him.

Yes - this time he really gets to feel bad about what he did,
which I think he deserved more than any punishment Snape could
have invented.

> > PoA-16: Professor Trelawney's Prediction. Going down
> > to Hagrid as if they were the only ones capable of
> > comforting him.
>
>Wha???? C'mon, this is a reach. "Only ones capable of comforting him."
>
>They are his friends. They wanted to help, but I don't see how that
>translates to what you say is blatant arrogance.

;-)
They knew that Dumbledore is a good friend of Hagrid and that
he had supported Hagrid in the process. I know that they had
some good motives for what they did, but I don't think that
compassion in this case is a sufficient motive to justify the
rule-breaking.

> > His transgressions are worse that most. Stealing and flying the
> > car in CoS and going to Hogsmeade in PoA are the worst cases.
>
>And as I said, brought punishments...

While the lack of punishment in the many other instances
possibly means that Rowling find those justified. I can only
say that I disagree with her.


> > I'll remind you that what is right in that case is actually
> > upholding the laws, while the easy way out is letting
> > Voldemort and cohorts run roughshod over any rules they
> > don't like (like e.g. that you're not allowed to kill
> > Muggles).
> >
>
>Whose laws? Fudge's? I have a feeling a LOT of those rules are going
>to be broken very soon, and will be justifiable each time.

The laws of the magical community as they are at the time when
Dumbledore made that speech.

>What if Fudge,

I will not play the what-if game.
It's really a non-sequitur to a discussion of Harry's past
transgressions. We agree that most of his transgressions have
been justified, I just wanted to point out that he was not
quite the shining paragon of virtue that Steve seemed to me to
suggest (my apologies to Steve if I misunderstood him, of course).

Troels