The Ethics of Ethics (was No Sex, Please)

[o_caipora]

No: HPFGUIDX 83839

Grannybat restated her cogent position:

> > > [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?

My response to this was possibly unclear and certainly verbose. Let 
me try again:

One of the principal purposes of schools is to make chidren fit into 
society. A head of public education who enourages children to 
question certain basic principles of society will not long keep his 
job. Not in the real world, and (since Rowling strives to make her 
world real) not in the wizarding world. 

HOWEVER, Rowling can use the wizarding world to teach ethics to her 
readers. She does so, and more power to her.

I find her economics implausible, but her ethics are dead on. 

> 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.

Probably been discussed here extensively, but the discriminatory 
treatment of other sentient non-humans is likely to be the crux of 
the next war, and the next two books.

> 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.) 

We don't see much - or any - abstraction in any Hogwarts class. The 
kids memorize spells, but no one ever says, "Today we're going to 
look at the principle of similarity and see how it's used in several 
basic spells." We hear that a potion made of mandrakes can reverse 
the effects of a basilisk petrification. We're never told why. Harry 
is asked where to find a bezoar; he's never told why it has magical 
properties, or how those properties differ from those of ambergris, 
and why.

Maybe at NEWT level the kids are finally taught some of the why 
instead of just the how. Perhaps they will learn ethics too. 

>(Regarding the likelihood of Draco making a homophobic insinuation 
> about Harry & Ron's friendship)

me:

> > ...I was once a teenage boy,
> >  and this is just a generic insult. It's flung with wild abandon. 

Grannybat:
> 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."

Here I was definitely unclear. A generic accusation of "gay" by 
teenage boys is no more an accusation of homosexuality than "son of a 
bitch" suggests immediate werewolf ancestry on the maternal side. 

A serious, reasoned charge of homosexuality - say, pointing out to 
the entire Slytherin table at breakfast in the Great Hall that Potter 
has a curly red hair stuck in his teeth - would indeed force a 
confrontation. 

> 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.

I hadn't caught that symbolism. Thank you.

I don't suppose you see additional evidence for the "potency" of 
Gryffindor's sword in Potters use of it - to give Slytherin's 
Basilisk a prick in the mouth?

Cheers,
Caipora