Harry and Morality

[finwitch]

No: HPFGUIDX 57457

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ersatz Harry" > I think I have 
> 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.

Blood-revenge. There has been several societies where this was an 
active principle, not only accepted but required. Such as well - 
Shakespeare's Hamlet presents (Ghost of Hamlet's father demands his 
death to be avenged), or Ancient Greek, where it was a moral 
_requirement_ to avenge the death of one's parent...

Wizards seem to at least accept this. Draco Malfoy is first to bring 
it up (in question of Black) - Sirius and Remus both are to carry out 
avenge on their friend, but agree that the SON has more right to 
decide (on Pettigrew, the REAL traitor).

Harry decides to let him go. One might say that Pettigrew-business 
already addressed this point...

The fact that Harry, with revenge right and means, takes action to 
spare him from others willing to take revenge - perhaps _that_ is 
what makes it so heavy life-debt that it will be of use? That rat 
owes triple his life - once, because Harry's not taking revenge; 
twice for sparing him from Sirius; and third for saving him from 
Remus!

I _would_ like to see where this pays off! That rat hasn't done much 
good yet, has he?

-- Finwitch