Bang! You're Dead. (was:Voldemorts animus...)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 85964

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mightymaus75" <mpjdekker at h...> > 
> I do however wonder about the morality of Kneasy's statement that 
> it's okay to use the unforgivable curses on Voldemort just as long as 
> he is no longer human. It's precisely this sort of attitude that 
> results in resentment among the non-humans.
>  


It's not a question of morality, it's a matter of canon.
And the canon is fictional fantasy, not a civics textbook.
Whether you agree with it or not, it is the standard to be adhered to
in the WW and defined as such by  the  author.

A bit of a rant here; it's  been brewing for some time and if I delay
much longer the safety valve may blow. It's not aimed at any named
posters, but reflects thoughts on a trend that seems to becoming more
prevalent.
 
I  don't know about you, but in the stygian gloom of the midnight hour
I sometimes worry about the writers of some previous posts who seem
to have difficulty distinguishing between the two and extrapolate
fictional  constructs into the real world. That small hard core that seem 
to consider themselves to be the uncontested and unimpeachable moral 
arbiters of everything and everybody, including the author.

"This is not  right," they declaim, drawing their rectitude around them.
I, on the other  hand, take a different view. "Where is JK going with this?"
I  ask myself. "What is she up to? Can I second guess her? Why  is this
like that?" I consider, I hope, that this is what HPfGU is all about. I really
don't  see it as a notice board where posters vie with each other to
proclaim their personal moral absolutes, which are probably not applicable 
anyway.

I shook the dust of the lecture room from my feet almost forty years ago 
and have no wish to be on the receiving end of a fresh onslaught of 
words telling me what to think and why I mustn't say this or that. I hope
that you have noticed that though I often disagree with theories on the
site, I still  treat  them for what they are - theories. They may be right, 
they may not. What is  very different is a post that tells me I am morally
wrong when I take a particular line with a plot development because 
it does not conform to the tenets of some real world philosophy. 
I consider that to be a personal assault on my ethical integrity. 

Of course, we can all draw parallels between the behaviour  of imaginary 
characters, situations, etc. and our world, that, after all, is one of the 
functions of fiction. But many of the parallels are of our own choosing, 
mostly the result of our individual social conditioning. It is not reasonable 
to demand that a make-believe world *must*  reflect any individual's 
personal view. I for one do  not confuse the Potterverse with a political 
tract seeking to impose alien standards on my personal ethics.
 
IMO Voldy  has been deliberately set up  as a non-human entity, as the
essence of evil, to enable him to be destroyed without qualms.
That is a morality  nearly everyone can approve of.
Similarly, I like to think that there must be a loophole in the  laws
governing the use of unforgivable curses to allow the good side to
meet the chief baddy and his band on something like  equal terms.

Personally, I have no problem with it; after all, I'm unlikely to have to
defend my opinions by being confronted with an irate Goblin at my Bank .

Others, it seems, see themselves as pure-hearted moral guardians 
of the unreal, proponents of real world rights for the imaginary, defenders
against invented wrongs, castigators of those that play at "what if?" 

I am not impressed nor am I persuaded.

Kneasy