Marrietta's betrayal

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 110875

Alla wrote :
"Well, there are could be mitigating circumstances, but I don't think
 it is arbitrary to condemn her based on what she DID without knowing
 what happened in her head."

Del replies :
Except of course that you're not condemning her for what she did, but
for why you think she did it :-) What she did is simply to obey the
law, there's nothing wrong with that in theory. All those arguments in
favour of obeying a higher moral authority (to which I adhere, even if
I don't write in to say so) clearly show that what is condemned in
Marrietta is not her *action* in itself but the *reason* and the
reasoning behind her action. And I *do* think that it is arbitrary to
*assume* that we know why people do what they do and to condemn them
based on that assumption, when they haven't had a single chance to
explain themselves.

Two examples : 

1. We can just condemn anyone who's killed someone for murder and not
care that they did it in self-defense, or inversely assume that nobody
would ever kill except in self-defence and so absolve every murderer. 

2. If what happened in his head and heart doesn't matter, then Harry
is just plain stupid for rushing like that to the MoM, end of the
discussion :-)

Knowing what went on in a person's head *is* critical when judging them.

Del