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

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 86059

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mightymaus75" <mpjdekker at h...> 

> 
> You do realise I wasn't being serious, don't you?


Kneasy:
I certainly hoped you weren't.
But I've had some *very* odd off-site mails that have taught me to
test  the  ground carefully before making assumptions like that.
 
Maus:
> Still, I don't really see why the behaviour of other species should 
> have any bearing on the moral standards of the wizarding community. 
> Even if the behaviour of others forces wizards to act in direct 
> violation of their own moral guidelines, that still shouldn't effect 
> the basic moral standards on which those guidelines are based.
> However, since you seem to insist:
> 
> In a world full of magic it apparently isn't possible to run a bank 
> without some very severe burglar deterrents. If some of the more 
> blood thirsty goblins derive some amusement from this, it is not as 
> if they haven't got good reason to do so. The goblins are treated 
> very much the same way as oppressed minorities have always been 
> treated throughout history: wizards have for centuries been denying 
> goblins certain freedoms, the MoM is abusing its powers to short 
> change the goblins whenever it feels this is convenient, and now it 
> seems the Minister of Magic is planning to rob them of their only 
> source of income. It's no wonder that there have been several goblin 
> rebellions in the past.
> 

Kneasy:
That's interesting.
Must make life for wizards bloody complicated too.
If all sentient creatures have differing codes of morality, then wizards
would have to adjust theirs when dealing with them.

For example, suppose Bill Weasley found that another wizard  was
lifting stuff from the Bank. In the WW this might  merit a couple of
years in the slammer. But if he reports it to his superiors, as no doubt
he is supposed to, it might result  in something more permanent. 
Does he let  him go or hand him over?
Which code of ethics does he follow?

We haven't  been told what  these 'rights' consist of and they don't seem
to  be very oppressed so far as I can see. Everybody seems to act  very
cautiously around them. Note that the 'goodies' are trying hard to
persuade the Goblins to join them, without a great deal of success; the
other side  is trying to recruit them too. This to me, implies a great deal 
of autonomy and power, too.

The Goblins are reported as being unhappy at not being allowed  to do
what they want, but it  could be  a mistake to assume that they are
naturally beneficent. They could have some very nasty practices that
they consider traditional and which might be very unpleasant indeed.
It is worth remembering that according to the introduction of FBaWTFT,
the Goblins did  everything they could to wreck  the meetings  called
to decide which creatures would have legal rights as beings and be
subject to any of the new magical laws then open for discussion, even 
though they would obviously  be classed as beings themselves. Was it 
because they didn't want any laws? 

The idea that the MoM wants to rob them of their banking business is
a load of old rubbish IMO. More sensationalist tripe from the Quibbler.

In traditional mythology Goblins are nasty verging on evil. I've seen 
nothing in the series to alter that perception. 

Maus:
> The centaurs on the other hand are a very proud race, which, because 
> of humans, has been forced to restrict itself to a limited number of 
> habitats. While FBWTFT mentions that unicorns and merpeople are only 
> too happy to stay within the territories designated for their use, 
> curiously it doesn't mention the centaurs. It's not without reason 
> that they react somewhat testy towards humans coming into their world 
> without their permission, they themselves aren't allowed to come into 
> the human world outside of the habitat.

Kneasy:
Not so.
FBaWTFT states that they *prefer* to live apart, objected to some other
creatures who were awarded 'being' status and declared that they would 
manage their own affairs. They are classed as 'beasts' at their own request.
They are classified as dangerous.
Personally, I see nothing wrong in allowing unforgivable curses to be
used against self-defined dangerous beasts.

They also have a pretty bad press in classical mythology.

 Maus: 
> Which brings us back to your statement that it's okay to kill 
> Voldemort as long as he isn't human. Saying that humans somehow are 
> more entitled to live than non-humans *is* a very dubious double 
> standard. I never objected to the fact that Voldemort should be 
> killed. I would also never presume to judge the morality of other 
> cultures. On the other hand, even though the goblin and centaur 
> behaviour you mentioned may be understandable and unfortunate, that 
> still doesn't mean we have to approve of such behaviour ourselves.  


Kneasy:
No, it's the Potterverse that apparently shows double standards. (Now if
it was me writing the books there'd be  bodies of all species, including
wizards, scattered over the landscape.) But I'm assuming that these
'double standards' are there for a reason, a reason more interesting 
than the all too common breast-beating "we are always in the wrong 
and must abase ourselves accordingly" tendency.

Nope, Voldy deserves no mercy, not even  if he were still human.
Any other outcome would be most unsatisfactory, IMO.
Can you  think of another  worth-while epic tale where the chief baddy
doesn't get his just  desserts and come to a sticky end?

Bugger morality, I want satisfaction.