[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry and Morality

[Kelly Grosskreutz]

No: HPFGUIDX 57360

From: "Troels Forchhammer" <t.forch at mail.dk>
>
> The laws of any society must be considered just when
> they reflect the moral viewpoint of the majority of
> the society, and not when a small group of individuals
> are unhappy with them - otherwise we end up justifying
> acts that we find reprehensible - like the specious
> argument I used before. Therefore we shouldn't, IMO,
> /normally/ accept it when people break laws.

I understand you were replying to the pedophile bit when you talk about
justifying reprehensible acts, but this bit did bring to mind a different
scenario, OoP related.  The MoM, to the best of our knowledge, makes the
laws for the WW, or at least the British portion of it.  Ostensibly, these
laws reflect the majority's views.  I definitely see Fudge as being a guy
who will do what the majority of his constituents want him to do.  Right
now, I do believe that the majority of his constituents (pre-Cedric's death)
wish to believe Voldemort is gone for good, the dark days are over, and they
and their families will remain safe.  It helps (or doesn't help) that Fudge
personally is in agreement with his constituents' desires.  Because of his
personal beliefs, and because of his desire to maintain power, he will
uphold his constituents desires so, therefore, the events of the Triwizard
Tournament had nothing to do with Voldemort.  It was just a tragic accident,
and everything else was the story of a boy seeking more fame (Harry) and a
few teachers who wish to start a panic (Dumbledore, Snape).

Ok, wandering into speculation here.  We have heard that there will be a
rift in the WW between those who side with Dumbledore and those who side
with Fudge (that's not to count those siding with Voldemort or those who
don't know what to believe).  Let's say that the majority, for whatever
reason, choose to side with Fudge.  They don't want to believe the Dark Lord
has returned, or they truly believe that Harry Potter vanquished him 14
years ago, whatever.  Therefore, we now have a majority who side with the
MoM and whatever laws they wish to create.  Of course, we know that
Dumbledore and those loyal to him will oppose Voldemort until they are all
dead or until he is dead.  By opposing Voldemort, they will most likely, at
some point, find themselves in opposition to the laws laid down by the MoM
as well.  Which has the potential to make them lawbreakers, criminals, in
the eyes of the MoM.  Since Dumbledore's group is a small group of
individuals who are unhappy with the view the MoM has taken, does that make
DD's group immoral?  Does this mean the MoM is moral simply because they are
in the majority?

In the previous war with Voldemort, Aurors were given the power to kill
suspects instead of bringing them in.  They were given the sanction to use
the Unforgivable Curses.  As we saw with Sirius Black, it was ok to send
suspected DE's to prison without a trial.  Because these measures are
supported by a majority, does this make them moral?

I understand that laws are made in part to prevent a small group of
individuals from justifying reprehensible acts (like pedophilia), but I
think we need to be careful before saying that any law made and enforced by
a majority is automatically moral and should never be broken.  I understand
that this could be true even 90% of the time (or even higher), but that does
not mean it is true 100% of the time.

Kelly Grosskreutz
http://www.idcnet.com/~ivanova