The Ethics of Ethics (was No Sex, Please)

[grannybat84112]

No: HPFGUIDX 83834

Caipora continued the debate:

> >I felt particularly sorry for the 
> > hedgehogs transformed into pincushions in McGonagal's class. 
> > 
> > Even if they are fully magical, 
> > they're not fully human, and therefore they are lesser creatures, 
> > to be used for whatever purposes Magicals see fit.
> 
> When I was in junior high schools we dissected frogs. They were  
> dead of course, but they were killed (and raised) so that we could  
> dissect them. Surely the ethical questions that raises are more 
> serious than temporary pincushionhood. And yet we dissected them.

It was exactly ethical concerns such as these that changed policies 
in the schools I attended during the 1970s. Students who indicated a 
preference could opt out of dissection exercises and use plastic 
models instead. (Nowadays I supposed they'd use 3-D computer 
programs.) Not every school offered this alternative, and I think 
every district could tailor its own rules to their taste; in my 
class, only three students took the non-dissection track, and I 
believe all of us had top grades. 
 
I seem to recall reading something about Jo Rowling's house being 
picketed by members of PETA because of the way animals were treated 
in her books...but that may have been just a rumor.

> [I] said elsewhere, but on this topic:
> 
> > [M]y argument is that this is exactly why Dumbledore 
> > NEEDS to institute classes on ethics. The Magical world 
> > is so comfortable--or so far in denial--regarding its
> > immoral, institutionalized attitudes and practices that 
> > this society has to change or else it will keep devouring 
> > itself until it dissolves. What better place to start 
> > questioning an ingrained past than in school, 
> > where the future citizens are trained?
> 
<large-ish snip of Caipora's Muggle-world political examples>

> Suppose a real-world Secretary of Education (for that is 
> Dumbledore's  role) encouraged students to calculate the cost of  
> dairy subsidies, or to study the basis in ethics and law of the 
> American occupation of Iraq, or....<snip>
> 
> He would, excuse my language, be out on his ass in an instant. 
> There must be questions in the wizarding world which Dumbledore  
> must treat with delicacy. .... He's had a lot of trouble on 
> the simple issue of whether Voldemort had  returned.

True. Still, the Magical world does hold to some common ethical 
standards–witness the way Fake!Moody addressed the issue of The 
Unforgiveable Curses. He expressly noted that use of any one of these 
spells on a human being was cause for a lifetime sentence in 
Azhkaban. The blood purity extremists may disagree with that stance, 
but it does appear to be commonly accepted among the general 
Wizarding population (as far as we know–JKR doesn't let us beyond the 
confines of Hogwarts much). I'd say it is possible to start with 
existing, codified law (just why aren't house elves allowed to wield 
or even possess wands?) and extrapolate to the personal and political 
from there.

It could be that classes in ethical philosophy do exist, but only at 
the NEWT level. (In American schools, students often don't encounter 
courses on complex "abstract" concepts until college.) As Harry 
hasn't reached that academic point, we haven't seen inside those 
classrooms. 

(Regarding the likelihood of Draco making a homophobic insinuation 
about Harry & Ron's friendship)
>>> Dudley makes such a crack at the start of OotP, regarding Harry's 
>>> saying Cedric's name in his nightmares, so it's not beyond 
>>> Rowling's reach. 
> > 
> > I caught that, yes. But Harry was already so angry at the mere 
> > mention of the graveyard incident–and so fearful of what he might 
> > have let slip while yelling in his sleep–that the full impact of
> > the jab went right by him. 
> 
> ...I was once a teenage boy,
>  and this is just a generic insult. It's flung with wild abandon. 

OK, so it doesn't have the power to force a confrontation that I 
thought it did. Rowling will have to come up with some other trigger 
point. "Oh, go polish your wand, Malfoy. I have more important 
problems to worry about."
 
> > Next thing we know, Hermione will be subscribing to the 
> > Oprah Book Club–
> > 
> > Aha. Books.
> > 
> > She's quoting from self-help books she's absorbed for light 
> > reading. Books on romantic  relationships so she can 
> > deal with Viktor. Books on male adolescents acting out stress,
> > because her best friend Harry is under so much pressure. 
> > 
> I like your explanation. If it's that easy to explain, why do girls 
> bother? Why not just come out and say what they mean? 

That's the trouble: It's NOT that easy. Various people have covered 
all the points I would have in the Touchy Feely Armchair Psychology 
thread, so I won't rehash them here. Suffice to say that secondhand 
knowledge untempered by the wisdom of experience inevitably leads to 
disaster. I strongly suspect that Hermione acting the expert in 
matters of the heart will bring her directly to harm–especially since 
we've seen her buried alive by books in the course of battle at the 
MoM.

> Is there a door in the Department of Mysteries which explains 
>girls? 

There are probably divisions and sub-offices for The Male/Female 
Psyche at Age (fill in the blank) behind that locked door we assume 
leads to Love. Right next door to that tankful of brains.

Grannybat