Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?)

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 120792


Eggplant wrote:
"Betraying a good organization is evil, betraying an evil organization
is good"

Del replies:
How do you know whether an organisation is good or bad when you don't
have all the info about it?
Regulus apparently didn't think the DEs were such an evil
organisation, when he first joined. It's only upon learning more that
he changed his opinion of them.
And I'm curious to know how a self-proclaimed unethical person like
you defines a good organisation vs an evil one? I'm not even sure what
meanings the words "good" and "evil" have for you, if you don't have a
personal morality? I must admit I'm curious.

Eggplant wrote:
"Why? Hermione couldn't be certain of the loyalty of nearly half the
members of the group. If you planed on keeping your word it won't
matter in the slightest if she put a hex on the parchment or not; and
if you didn't plan on keeping your word then I just have no tears for
you."

Del replies:
Except that the DA *didn't* give their word. Hermione *made* them sign
the parchment, and then added that signing it meant keeping the DA
secret. Not a single member of the DA *deliberately* swore to keep the
group secret : they were all *tricked* into more or less promising to
do so. In my book, a promise someone never really made is not binding.

And again I'm wondering : what gives any value to loyalty and keeping
promises, for you? For me, it's personal morality that ensures the
existence and value of such things. If I had no morality, I wouldn't
feel pressured to keep my promises, for example, and I would see
little need to be loyal to people or causes. So I'm wondering what
those concepts mean to you.

Eggplant wrote:
"If Hermione were to actually act in the way you recommend she would
be so sweet, so very very sweet it would be revolting, like the sickly
sweet smell of a decaying corpse. "

Del replies:
That's your problem if you don't like it. But don't turn what is
strictly your opinion and preference into a fact, because it isn't a
fact. I personally happen to love very very sweet people.

Pippin wrote: 
"Hermione's hex didn't even keep Marietta from further betrayals -- it
took Kingsley's memory charm to do that. "

Eggplant answered:
"Nonsense. Without the hex Umbridge would have learned everything 
while she was still in her office before they even saw Kingsley or
Dumbledore or McGonagall or Fudge or Percy or Harry. "

Del replies:
It's not what Marrietta told Umbridge that mattered, it's what
Marrietta told Fudge. Even if Marrietta had told the whole truth to
Umbridge, it wouldn't have counted anywhere as much without
Marrietta's direct witness. And this direct witness is what Kingsley
prevented her from giving. Not Hermione's hex.

Eggplant wrote:
" so I believe in choosing the path that will work over the one that
will not."

Del replies:
Then it's quite simple really : did Hermione's hex prevent Marrietta
from ratting on the DA? Nope. Hence it was a useless hex. The *only*
thing it did was exposing Marrietta publicly as the traitor, which was
quite useless really because I doubt Umbridge would have kept this
piece of information secret. If anything, the whole affair could
backfire badly : Harry and Hermione could discover that people are not
willing to trust Hermione because of her deviousness.

Eggplant wrote:
"If morality causes more pain to more people than immorality then 
what's the point of being moral?"

Del replies:
You're obviously missing the whole point of morality. By definition,
morality does not submit itself to numbers, or to brute force, or to
anything. Morality exists for its own sake, not for any other point.

Eggplant wrote:
" I'm unethical and proud of it, the world would be a better place if
more people were unethical.

Either that or your ethical ideas are seriously out of whack."

Del replies:
You have the right to be unethical, but you have no right to try and
impose your unethicality on anyone else. Just like nobody else has any
right to try and impose their own morality on anyone. You can freely
state your own opinions as opinions, but I object to you presenting
them as facts.

And while we're talking about facts : there was NO official war going
on in OoP. Marrietta had NO obligation of any kind (including moral)
to believe Harry when he said that LV was reborn, she had NO
obligation to side with him. And she had NO obligation to keep a word
she NEVER freely gave. Even less so if you think ethics are pointless.

I must admit I'm really puzzled by you, Eggplant. On one hand you
argue that ethics and morality are useless and we should do away with
them, but on the other hand you argue that some things some characters
did were wrong, for no other apparent reason than that it was immoral
to do so. In Marrietta's case, for example, you argue that Hermione
shouldn't concern herself with ethics, but you seem to argue that what
Marrietta did was wrong strictly for moral reasons (if you gave any
other reason, I apologise for missing it). That's quite a paradox, and
I'm wondering if you could explain how you resolve it for yourself.

Del