[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry and Morality

[Troels Forchhammer]

No: HPFGUIDX 57279

At 21:42 07-05-03 +0000, Steve wrote:
>bboy_mn:
>
>I was making a comparison, and that comparison was NOT breaking the
>rules is a higher stage of moral development than obeying the rules.
>Following your conscience and a universal set of moral principles, and
>doing what is right independant of the rules is a higher stage of
>moral development than blindly and unquestioningly obeying the rules.

To which I have agreed. I apparently misunderstood your
position, for which I apologise.

>Moral right is a higher moral standard than legal right. Remember that
>everything that is immoral is not against the law/rules, and
>everything that is against the law in not necessarily immoral. Even
>when things are legal, you still have a higher obligation to follow
>your conscience.

Yet there are things that people consider right that I am glad
are against the law. You can't put the individual's conscience
above the law /always/ - pedophiles are actually capable of
defending their actions as morally right (while I consider
their acts disgusting). The point I want to make in this
connection is that good laws have the added moral strength of
being expressions of the moral views of the society and those
have, IMO, a higher moral status that individual conscience.
On the other hand there is bad laws just as there are people
with reprehensible moral standards. On one hand one shouldn't
just blindly and unquestioningly obey the laws, but on the
other hand one shouldn't accept people breaking those laws
just because their conscience tell them to.

>I won't go through your post or the others item by item, instead I'll
>just make some general comments directed at the subject.

I'll just take up the few points I don't agree completely with.

>When Harry sneaks off to Hogsmeade, he can't see the harm in it.

When Harry sneaks off to Hogsmeade he knows that it is wrong.
He knows that Black is supposed to be after him, he knows that
Black has been seen not far from the school and he knows that
the Ministry and the school authorities are working hard to
protect /him/. If he had listened to his conscience, he would
have stayed at the castle.

>If you think kids will respond to prefect little Sunday school
>stories, you are sadly mistaken. The reason kids get some much
>out of these books is because the books have degrees of moral
>ambiguity.

I'm frankly a bit surprised over this. I never intended to
imply that I thought Harry's transgressions detracted from
the books in any way - we certainly agree that the books
would be extremely boring if he never broke any rules at
all.
/If/ Rowling's position to the various transgressions can
be read in the amount of reward/punishment he recieves for
them, then I don't agree entirely with her - under that
assumption she seems more accepting of rule-breaking than
I am, but that really is a minor point.

>This is the story of a flawed little boy, frightened, abused, and
>alone in the world. A little boy who shoulders enough to crush most
>grown men, and shoulder it he does, and he does it well. He makes
>mistakes, but then don't we all. In the end, we must step back from
>nitpicking every little mistake Harry makes and condeming him for it,
>and look at the overal character of the boy and see what kind of boy
>he is. I would say he is a boy of strong moral character with great
>courage and determination, and he is kind, considerate, selfless, and
>caring. For all that, I can forgive a few mistakes.

I /like/ Harry's flaws - he is sufficiently unbelieveable as
it is and that might be why I prefer to emphasise his faults
rather than gloss them over, which I feel you are doing here.
I relish it when Harry is stupid or immoral - it makes me
better capable of believing in him.

Troels