evil, good, betrayal, Kneasy, Pippin, Potioncat

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 100221

Potioncat wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/99258 :

<< The idea that comes up, both in canon and in posts, that those in
Slytherin House are inately evil bothers me. And to me, makes no
sense. Because if that was the intent, why wouldn't all Slytherin
students be promptly expelled or transferred to a Magical St. Brutus'? >>

To me, the wizards in the Potterverse don't have any agreement that
good is good or evil is evil. They view it much more as a personal
choice, like preferring "liberal" or "conservative" in politics is for
Muggles. That may have something to do with why the wizarding
government is always making laws and rarely enforcing them. The good
wizards and the evil wizards will co-operate to keep their world
hidden from Muggles or to have on-going competition in Quidditch, but
to me, then they fall into dispute over whether one wizard who
murdered another wizard should be sent to Azkaban, or was it the
victim's fault for being such a fool as to be deceived by that trap,
or too weak at magic to fight his way out?   

Kneasy wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/99180 :

<< Two of the major themes in the story are betrayal and the
motivations for choosing sides. 'Betrayal' is itself conditional. In
some circumstances it could be considered 'good'. >>

Oh, Kneasy, how very exactly true to canon. There are two matched
pairs of betrayals in canon. Each pair consists of one good, one evil.
The easy pair are the House Elves. Dobby disobeyed his owners in order
to thwart their plans, protect their enemy, and get them in trouble.
He may have twisted some commands to allow him to do so, or he may
have outright disobeyed and then ironed his hands. Kreachur disobeyed
his owner in order to thwart his plans, protect his enemies, and get
him in trouble. He is stated to have twisted some commands to allow
him to do so, and I don't remember if he ever put himself through the
clothes-wringer. Each House Elf broke the House Elf rules by serving a
human of his own choice versus his master -- each House Elf was loyal
to the ideology in which he believed.

Most every reader agrees that Dobby was good and Kreachur was evil,
but Kreachur was the *unselfish* one: Kreachur was serving an ideology
in which House Elves, such as himself, were treated like vermin, while
Dobby was trying to get out of a situation in which he was being
tortured all the time.

The hard pair are Snape and Pettigrew. Each turned against his old
school friends, spied on them to aid their enemy side, and caused
their deaths. This is harder because there is more for the imagination
to fill in. It is canon that Pettigrew betrayed his friends to their
deaths. There is no canon that Pettigrew sought out Voldie to offer to
sell the Potters to him for some payment, nor out of spite against
their 'friendly' mockery of him. The only motive canon states for
Pettigrew was to save his own life. They call that cowardice, but he
might have been broken by torture first. Sirius said he was gone from
his hiding place with no sign of struggle, but hy might have been
tricked into going voluntarily to some place where they wouldn't be
disturbed while torturing him. He might have been less bad of a human
before he spent 12 years as a rat.

Snape's old friends were Rosier and Evans, who were killed by Aurors
(at least one by Moody), the Lestranges, and Avery who talked his way
out of Azkaban. It seems unlikely that the useful information that
Dumbledore testified that Snape gave him had nothing to do with those
deaths. It seems quite unlikely that Severus was motivated by trying
to save his own life -- vengeance against Voldemort is more likely, or
deciding that Voldemort was the wrong winner -- but whatever motive,
he let his friends be killed for it.

Pippin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/99310 :

<< As an adult, a teacher with responsibility for the students under
his care, he knows that he should tell Dumbledore about Sirius's
animagus abilities. But he doesn't, not because he thinks that it is
safer for Harry or Dumbledore not to know, but because he doesn't want
to get himself in trouble. >>

Because he didn't want Dumbledore to gaze reproachfully at him -- JKR
said he wants [too much] to be liked, not that he fears punishment.

But this can be taken as another case of betrayal:good/evil. If your
friend (and Sirius was Remus's last surviving friend) is wanted by law
enforcement, do you betray your friend to them? Not in the world of
heroic epics. If his friend needs killing, the epic hero does it
himself. ("Professional etiquette suggests an extorted confession,
followed by poison for two in the library.") Would he have told the
children that he was dithering between one hand, the duty to protect
children and avenge James's death, and the other hand, loyalty to his
friend Sirius ("I once promised I would die to save any of them, as
they me"), and the thought of Dumbledore's reproach was only the last
straw?

Pippin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/99725 :

<< JKR tells us that we shouldn't rely entirely on our feelings to
distinguish between good and evil, or at least we should be
suspicious if something feels both right and pleasurable. >>

Snotty answer: she herself got married (twice), had children (twice),
wrote books, and bought a house, and has made statements indicating
that she finds those things pleasurable. How suspicious was she that
these things might be evil because they feel good?

Less snotty answer: If not by our feelings, how is one to tell when an
unpleasant, difficult choice is evil? Like Bella and her cowed
menfolks trying to retrieve their Death Lord (and shouting out in
court: "We alone were loyal!") when all their peers were simply
grateful to get on with their lives without Azkaban? Like Kreachur
leaving his house to seek out Narcissa?