[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry and Morality

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 57377

Not a follow-up to a specific post, because I want to go off in a slightly 
different direction... I've spent most of today reading the last three 
days'-worth of posts in one go, so although I don't recall who said what (I 
have rather foolishly deleted all the messages), I have a vague idea of 
what has been said thus far.

First of all I'd like to make a comment which has relevance not only to 
this topic but to discussions in general. I've been more than a little 
disconcerted by several people using a slightly underhand debating trick, 
and I'd respectfully ask people to be a bit more careful about keeping this 
in mind when in the cut-and-thrust of debate.

What I'm talking about in this instance is raising the issue of (to 
paraphrase) "the superior morality of not following unjust rules". I don't 
think anyone in their right mind would dispute that maxim, and I really do 
wonder what it has to do with the topic at hand.

The fact is, that issue is completely irrelevant to every instance of 
Harry's behaviour which has been debated. Thus far in the books, the only 
instance of an unjust (or rather, dubious) rule or regulation was Crouch's 
"shoot first, ask questions later" order during Voldemort's first rising 
(although, it should be said, most of the rules the Dursleys lay down for 
Harry are unjust and unfair, and perhaps it's interesting that Harry obeys 
them to a far greater degree than he does the Hogwarts rules).

The issue of "superior morality" has been repeatedly used as an argument in 
Harry's favour in this debate, but as I said above, it bears no relevance, 
because the rules we're talking about him breaking or bending are school 
rules which are there (inter alia) for *his* protection. To use that 
argument is, IMO, a cheap method of sidelining the original point without 
actually addressing it. (Without getting personal, there are at least a 
couple of people here who regularly engage in that kind of ploy, and I'm 
sure it's entirely unconscious, so as I said, I'm simply asking people to 
be more careful about the way they phrase their point of view.)

Sorry about the digression.  As it happens, though, the issue of "superior 
morality" is part of the point I want to make, so I shall return to it a 
little later.

My point of departure is an observation Troels and Darrin (?) made earlier 
today, that Harry appears to break rules far more frequently than Malfoy 
does, yet we like Harry but dislike Malfoy.  I'd like to phrase that 
another way: Harry behaves honourably (even when breaking rules, by and 
large) whilst Malfoy acts dishonourably, even if it might, technically, be 
within the school rules. Or, to use sporting language (after all, Quidditch 
is a large metaphor in the books for the battles raging off the pitch), 
Malfoy (and the other Slytherins we've met) is prepared to participate in 
"unsportsmanlike behaviour", whilst Harry (and the Gryffindors) is not. The 
moral is not necessarily in whether or not *Harry* is punished, but whether 
or not Malfoy learns anything.

Taking one of the scenes which has been one of the backbones of this 
discussion and which is usually the primary sequence quoted by moralists 
who decry JKR's skewed view of morality: the Remembrall scene during the 
first flying lesson. The usual way people look at the morality of this 
scene is that "Harry is ultimately rewarded for breaking the rules and 
therefore JKR is setting a bad example."

Hang on, though... Those are not the end and beginning points of this 
sequence! That is not the way I've ever seen the morality of the scene, and 
I'm not just post-rationalising here - this is the way I've read the 
sequence since the very first time:

The beginning point is Malfoy stealing the Remembrall and slagging off 
Neville (in his absence, it should be noted; i.e. dishonourable behaviour). 
Harry, honourably, stands up for his absent classmate. Malfoy then taunts 
Harry and sets him a challenge. Harry (moved by boyish pride rather than 
honour,  it must be admitted) rises to the challenge. Regrettably, 
McGonagall sees him breaking an an-hoc rule (of which it is perfectly 
possible McGonagall was unaware!) whilst she does *not* appear to witness 
Malfoy's breaking of the same rule. Harry is led off, while Malfoy and his 
cronies snigger at Harry's bad fortune. That evening, when he sees that 
Harry hasn't been expelled, Malfoy challenges Harry to a duel.  He has no 
intention of participating in the duel but somehow gets word to Mr Fitch 
(Filtch *knows* that there are at least two pupils in the trophy room - his 
presence wasn't an accident).

Doubly (if not triply) dishonourable: duels are by definition combats of 
*honour* which Malfoy has no intention of seeing through; he wants to get 
Harry expelled so he tells someone in authority; he himself stays well 
away, of course. Harry,  despite having ZERO duelling experience, accepts 
the challenge, and as a matter of honour, shows up. He escapes thanks to 
Hermione's quick thinking. Later on, when Harry gets his broom, he tells 
Flitwick *in Malfoy's presence* that he has Malfoy to thank for his place 
on the team and his new broom (which is ultimately true).

We should, of course, remember that during their first encounter, Malfoy 
said he hoped to smuggle a broom into Hogwarts and attempt to bribe himself 
a place on his house team. Now he's added attempting to get Harry expelled.

Malfoy got none of these things, but is responsible for Harry having his 
place on the team and a state-of-the-art broom.  He engineered a situation 
where honourable (re)action ultimately won the day.

What's the moral of the sequence now? "You won't get what you want by not 
playing fair." Has Malfoy learned it? Nope. Certainly not by the end of the 
fourth book, at least...

As I see it, generally speaking (certainly in PS/SS), when Harry bends 
school rules for honourable purposes, he is not found out or punished. He 
is, however, both caught and punished otherwise. I am absolutely in the 
camp which holds that helping Hagrid dispose of Norbert was dishonourable, 
and it was fair and right that he was caught and punished (though, 
typically, the full extent of what he had done was unknown).

By that stage, he knew that Dumbledore trusted Hagrid (and vice versa) and 
he knew that Norbert was dangerous. What he *should* have done was to try 
to have a quiet word with Dumbledore and say, perhaps in vague terms, that 
he knew a dragon was in the Hogwarts grounds and ask what he should do. He 
should NOT have presumed to know what was best and take it upon himself to 
rescue him. Also, it was utterly irresponsible of Charlie Weasley and his 
(adult) friends to assist. The whole thing could have been done officially 
with Dumbledore's assistance. The moral of the sequence is that rescuing 
Norbert was Right (TM) whilst doing it in secret and in the dead of night 
was Wrong (TM).

Totally incidentally, I have a suspicion that Hagrid told Dumbledore the 
details about Norbert, and it was with the knowledge that the Trio lost 150 
points that night that Dumbledore engineered the infamous 160 points - and 
added 10 points for saving Norbert (Dumbledore has a thing about dragons: 
he *did* discover the 12 uses for their blood!) - at the End of Year Feast 
which has been the subject of another thread.

School rules are in place not to oppress teenagers, but to keep them in 
check, and to keep them *safe*. Such rules are usually reasonable, 
justified and just. From what we've seen of Hogwarts' rules, that certainly 
applies. It is *NOT* up to individual pupils to determine - whatever their 
motives! - whether or not to follow those rules. Most real-world judicial 
systems treat most juveniles more leniently because it is recognised that 
they don't have the skills, experience or judgment to appreciate the full 
consequences of their actions. That is why adults responsible for teenagers 
constrain them in other ways. It's a truism that teenagers don't usually 
appreciate it, but eventually realise that it's for their own benefit.

Harry appears to be one of the rare teenagers who *does* appreciate that 
his judgment can be faulty, and thus tries to establish facts before acting 
on his suspicions. In PS/SS he tries to tell Dumbledore, and in his 
absence, McGonagall, of his suspicions. He is dismissed and is thus obliged 
as a matter of honour to pursue his path alone (but Ron & Hermione tag 
along, thankfully). In CoS, his instinct is to pass his information on to 
Lockhart, but then realises (once it's too late) that Lockhart's judgment 
is even more impaired than his own might be.

In PoA, the Trio try to save Buckbeak by legal means (i.e. honourably), and 
are resigned to accept his death until Dumbledore (of all people!) all but 
orders them to break not only school rules, but a very important law of the 
magical community. Harry and Hermione do not depend on their judgment of 
what is right and wrong. Without Dumbledore's say-so, they'd never have 
come up with the plan to save Buckbeak from the unjust application of an 
otherwise just (AFAWK) law. (Note: this situation was, again, dishonourably 
engineered by Malfoy and honourably resolved by Harry - it's not 
coincidental that the creature in question needed to be shown *respect* in 
order to become co-operative).

Pettigrew behaved "dishonourably" by refusing to be prepared to sacrifice 
himself for the greater good; Harry behaved honourably be saving him.

PoA also includes the most blatant example of Harry breaking school rules 
and WW regulations (which were put in place specifically and deliberately 
to protect HIM!) for *purely* dishonourable/personal reasons, when he 
visits Hogsmeade (as others have pointed out, he originally is prepared to 
be honourable and accept that he cannot go, but it is the Twins, and 
others, who persuade him to break those rules). Not coincidentally, it is 
Lupin's reaction, not Snape's, which makes him feel small. Dumbledore had 
admonished Harry to use the Invisibility Cloak "wiseley" (i.e. honourably) 
- Lupin makes a point about Harry's prank dishonouring his father's memory 
(the Cloak is the only physical legacy Harry has from his father).

GoF is *all* about honour and acting honourably. On the face of it, Harry 
breaks the Tournament rules by telling Cedric about the first task, but 
it's only to even the odds because others have acted dishonourably. Harry's 
participation in the tournament was one whole dishonourable plot. Cedric's 
eulogy underlines his *loyalty* and *fair play*. Crouch Jr. is the very 
essence of disloyalty and dishonour, as is the graveyard gathering.

So, what happens next? As someone else asked, how is Harry to react in the 
face of "Fudge's laws"? It is generally accepted that Dumbledore and 
Hogwarts (including Harry) will be set against Fudge's appeasement 
policies. Is it right for Harry to fight such policies? Of course. But is 
Harry aware of all the implications and repercussions of his actions? No.

In any case, Harry's main priority is to continue his education and get the 
best OWLs he can at the end of the year. Politics outside Hogwarts are not 
directly his concern, but of course, being The Famous Harry Potter, he will 
be dragged into them against his will. Will he do what's right? You betcha! 
Will he choose what's right over what's easy? Of course! However, as in PoA 
or (to a lesser degree) GoF, he will be taking Dumbledore's lead, and do 
his utmost not to enter situations blindly or to act on his suspicions 
without attempting to satisfy himself that they are justified.

--
GulPlum AKA RIchard, who's been writing the above for over four hours and 
doesn't have the strength to re-read it but hopes it makes sense anyway...