[HPforGrownups] Re: Bang! You're Dead. (was:Voldemorts animus...)

[Kathryn Cawte]

No: HPFGUIDX 85976



> Now ~Kate
> The Hitler point was only an example, albeit a poor one...it was the
> closest thing I could think of to a RW equivalent of Voldemort...
>
> However, is the wizarding world not at war with Voldemort?  It seems
> that way to me....forgive me, but your own logic seems to point in my
> favour...Harry would be "somewhat justified" if he killed Voldemort
> then?  (I personally don't think anyone would complain in the WW if
> he did....)
>
>
K

I said that killinng someone in a war *when they are fighting back* is
justified. Not just killing them if they are unarmed and not resisting. I
said that killing Voldemort in a fight was fine but killing him in cold
blood when he wasn't doing anything wasn't. There's is no inconsistency in
that arguement.


> K again:
> <snip>Voldemort has done Harry
> > great harm in the past but that doesn't put Harry above any legal
> or moral
> > considerations. He has no right to become judge, jury and
> executioner.
> >
> > K
>
> Kate again:
> My point is that Harry *is* the judge, jury and executioner...it says
> so in the prophecy.  Kill or be killed.  End of story.  Life or Death
> situation.
>
K

The Prophecy is a prediction of what is going to happen (possibly -
predictions throughout mythology have proven to be somewhat tricky things)
not a decree from on high. It doesn't give Harry any special rights. He may
end up in a position where he has to kill Voldemort but the choice is his.
If Voldemort is for some reason not trying to kill anyone at the time
(presumably he would have to have been beaten in afight for this to happen)
and Harry kills him that is cold blooded murder. You say that Voldemort has
done things to Harry in the past which make it justified for Harry to kill
him. I say that that is vigilanteism. No individual has the right to decide
to cold bloodedly kill someone just because, in their opinion, they deserve
it. I refuse to believe that after the moral lessons and such that we have
seen in the books (our choices are what define us, discriminating against
other 'racial groups' is wrong etc) the finale is going to say that killing
someone is OK if you're a hero normally and anyway he was a really bad
person. Indeed the theme of love and sacrifice seems stronger in the books.
I think it far more likely that Harry will try and sacrifice himself in some
way to somehow 'save' Voldemort.

Kate
  If Harry didn't kill Voldemort, would the other
> lives that would undoubtably come to an end as a result of
> Voldemort's continued reign not then fall on Harry's shoulders?
>
K

No of course they wouldn't. Our choices are important. Harry is responsible
for only his own choice of whether or not to kill Voldemort. Voldemort is
responsible for his choice to go on killing if he were to survive.

Kate
> It's not like Voldemort can just be locked up or anything.  He can't
> be put into jail and rehabilitated.  He's not just going to decide
> one day that he doesn't want to try to rule the wizarding world
> anymore.  It's just not going to happen.
>
K

I understand the rehabilitation point - but why can't he be locked up
somewhere?

Kate
> This is not a question of morals anymore.  It is a question of
> survival.  Kill the virus, or succumb to it.  Haven't you seen 28
> Days Later? ;)
>
K

If Harry abandons all sense of morality and kills someone in cold blood
*anyone* then frankly I'd rather he *didn't* survive. if Harry has to kill
Voldemort in a fight then fine, I have no problem with him doing so in
self-defence (or defence of another for that matter). But if Harry has the
option to capture/contain/or not kill Voldemort in some way and chooses to
kill him anyway then really i don't care about him anymore. And Voldemort is
not a virus he is a sentient being (I'll leave the issue as to how human he
is open). No I haven't seen 28 days later btw.

K