Harry and Morality

[Ersatz Harry]

No: HPFGUIDX 57381

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Troels Forchhammer
<t.forch at m...> wrote:
> As far as I am concerned there is no way of formulating an
> ethical principle that allows Harry to do something and
> doesn't allow Draco to do the exact same thing. The only
> way to distinguish is to point out that Harry (usually) do
> things we agree with, while Draco normally do things we
> don't agree with, but if we raise that to an ethical
> principle, we automatically raise ourselves (as
> individuals) to be the final arbiters of right and wrong -
> something I would feel very uncomfortable with, and
> something I cannot see any moral justification for.

I think I have to agree in part and disagree in part.  I agree that
Harry's (or Draco's) raising himself to be the final arbiter of what
is right would be (is?) a problem.  But I can imagine principles --
using the term a little loosely -- that would effectively distinguish
between Harry and Draco by virtue of their different circumstances.

Here's one possibility, though I don't happen to agree with it:  it is
ethical to kill someone who has, say, killed your parents.  If we
accept this as an ethical principle (and maybe it's too narrow to fit
the definition of a principle), then we could construe Harry's killing
Voldemort as ethical but Draco's killing Voldemort as not.

Ersatz Harry