It isn't murder ...

[Richard]

No: HPFGUIDX 82211

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "berkana_dianic" 
<Berkana_01 at h...> wrote:
<snip of my (Richard's) prior comments>
> I agree with you Richard. Voldemort has tried to kill Harry since 
he 
> was a baby. He even invaded Quirell (wrong spelling I think), just 
to 
> get to Harry. He tortured Harry over his own fathers grave and 
> killed Cedric whilst he stood beside Harry. If Harry was to kill 
> Voldemort, in the end and I truly hope he does, then NO it wouldn't 
> be classed as murder, because Voldemort has tried to kill him more 
> than once. That to me is self defense, but now wasn't the prophecy 
> in OotP something like One can not survive without the other, so if 
> Harry dies, then Voldemort dies?

Richard here:
First, whether it is murder depends on the context of the act.

Some might argue that Harry murdered Quirrell, but this was decidedly 
an act of self-defense, and in part the death was due to Voldemort's 
departure from Quirrell's body (or so I believe).  Now, personally, I 
think the reason Harry's hands caused such pain for Quirrell was that 
Voldemort was in there with him ... which is also part of the reason 
I really wonder how literal the "die at the other's hands" part of 
the OotP prophecy is ... If Harry encounters in a similar crisis of 
combat and kills Voldemort then, it will be self defense, pure and 
simple.

If, on the other hand, Harry were to go out of his way to track 
Voldemort down with the intention of killing him, that gets into the 
realm of murder ... but I just cannot see Harry doing that without 
extreme provocation.  The middle ground, ethically speaking, lies in 
what other circumstances they might encounter each other.

If Harry simply keeps placing himself (and others) in positions of 
risk, he might eventually be considered to have displayed a casual 
disregard for safety or for human life, which gets into the realm of 
manslaughter.  Still, Voldemort, as the active pursuer of Harry's 
death, isn't likely to give Harry much of a chance for anything but 
self defense.

As for the prophecy, the "either" is the key to exclusivity.  One of 
them must die at the other's hands, but not both ... which 
regrettably does NOT mean that Harry can't die due to other causes 
AFTER Voldemort's demise.

> It has been a long time since read the book, so I am so sorry
> if I have just come up with that prophecy, but if I am correct,
> then there is no point talking about what if Harry murders
> Voldemort, or visa versa, because when Harry dies, then so will
> Voldemort and visa versa
<snip of closing remarks by Berkana>

The English "either" really does mean "one or the other, but not 
both," even if common usage has started to erode the meaning.  It is 
more sloppiness on the part of us mere mortals that the confusion 
arises.  As I have taught logic and computer programming, I can't 
tell you how many times I've had to pound it into students that "or" 
by itself indicates "one, the other or both," while "either/or" 
indicates "one or the other, but NOT both."  After about the 
twentieth time, I started to understand why my parents and my grade 
school English teachers were so insistent upon getting the meanings 
of words right each and every time.  The sad part is that though I've 
continued this insistence with my daughter, her teachers have been 
much less concerned with such minor details.  I therefore wonder if 
we are not raising a generation that will be incapable of stating 
important ideas in concise and unambiguous manner.


Richard, whose English major mother is again shining through.