Different moral standards (was : On the other hand)

[Doriane]

No: HPFGUIDX 93025


I, Del, wrote :

> > For people like the Dursleys, that's a perfectly valid excuse. 
> > There are tons of people out there who think that life should 
> > always treat them right, and that they are entitled to try and 
> > destroy or at least modify whatever is bothering them. Their 
> > children, in particular, should only give them pleasure and 
> > reasons to be proud. If they don't, they get punished. Many kids 
> > get forcibly coerced into becoming whatever their parents dream 
> > them to become. With disastrous results in the end, of course.
 
Annemehr answered :

> I don't see that as a defense of the Dursleys at all; it's more of 
> an inictment of them and goes to prove Geoff's point.  People who 
> think and act like that are Not Nice People.

Del replies :

Hey, I did say at the beginning of my post that I was a defender of 
the Bad People :-) !
However, I'd like to point out that the Dursleys know pretty well, 
in my idea, that they are not Nice People. But the thing is : they 
don't care. Being nice is not one of their priorities. Being 
respectable, fitting in, are their priorities. Being nice isn't. 
They have a different moral code. I don't care about fitting in, 
Vernon doesn't care about being nice, but that doesn't mean one of 
us is right and the other is wrong. We just have different moral 
codes.

Del said :

> > Yes, but it can be safely assumed that Harry would have shown 
> > magical powers anyway, even if he had been treated right.

Annemehr answered :

> Well, every incident of Harry doing uncontrolled magic, save one, 
> that we know of is the result of a Dursley's abuse.  The one 
> exception we know of is when he'd somehow turned his teacher's wig 
> blue; I *suppose* it was the teacher who'd stressed him that time, 
> but I guess we can't be sure.
> 
> When Hagrid was trying to get Harry to believe he was a wizard, he
> said "Never made things happen when you was scared or angry?"  It's
> the Dursleys who've been making Harry scared and angry enough to do
> reflexive magic.

Del replies :

Exactly :-) ! The Dursleys are the ones who manage to upset Harry 
most. So what ? It was to be expected, wasn't it ? I mean, the 
family circle is very often where a kid gets most upset, isn't it ? 
The fact that Harry rarely gets upset enough with other people to 
perform accidental magic is quite a compliment to his self-control 
(which is why I got so annoyed when he lost it completely in OoP - 
though I guess it was to be expected).

Del said  :

> > Nope ! Dudley is going to Smeltings (?), and the others too I 
> > guess - not that it matters anyway : without Dudley to lead 
> > them, nobody would care much about Harry.

Annemehr answered :

> No, Geoff is correct: only Dudley and Piers are going to 
> Smeltings. Dennis, Malcom and Gordon could well be going to 
> Stonewall; at least, the narrator doesn't mention them going to a 
> public (i.e. private in US) school when Dudley and Piers' school 
> plans are mentioned.  And I don't believe for a minute that they 
> would have left Harry alone just because Dudley wasn't around.

Del replies :

My apologies on that one, I misunderstood what Geoff meant.
But I stick to what I said otherwise : I'm sure Harry's life would 
have been much easier at SH, without Dudley around. Maybe what was 
left of the gang would still have picked on him, but the bullying 
would not have been as bad without Dudley to lead them.

Annemehr also said :

> I'll give you Dursley defenders the fact that they were *afraid* of
> taking in a wizard child.  But Harry would not have been constantly
> causing catastrophes in their lives; he grew up looking normal 
> enough that he was able to roam the neighborhood and go to school 
> and the secret never got out.  Nobody ever suspected a thing.  

Del answers :

We have to remember that Petunia grew up with Lily. She must have 
noticed that Lily did weird things once in a while, and she must 
have been upset about it. And when it was revealed that Lily was a 
witch, Petunia had to endure a terrible humiliation on top of her 
fear : her parents were *proud* of Lily for being a witch ! Little 
Petunia was scared and horrified and disgusted, but her parents were 
happy and proud ! That was the worst betrayal she could have dreamed 
of ! And then there was the whole business of LV, and James and Lily 
getting killed, to add to Petunia's fears. So I quite understand 
that she would have been mightily upset at the idea of taking in a 
magical child, and a dangerous one too maybe (protection implies 
danger, right ?).

Annemehr :

> Besides, they weren't afraid to let their son hit Harry, and they 
> weren't afraid to lock Harry into a cupboard.

Del :

I'd rather say that they didn't want to stop Dudley from getting his 
way, even if that meant hitting Harry. And they were too upset with 
the whole Harry thing anyway to restrain from doing their best to 
ignore it, including hit Harry to silence him, and lock him up away 
from view.

Annemehr :

> The Dursleys could not have been living in such a constant state 
> of terror that they were *unable* to see the innocent child who 
> was living with them.

Del :

I wouldn't necessarily say terror, but upset for sure. They were 
constantly upset by Harry and all he meant. And strong emotions like 
fear, anger, etc, *can* indeed prevent anyone from seeing the 
innocence of any child. Without a strong loving moral code to 
support them, the Dursleys simply have no reason not to give in to 
their anger and hate towards Harry and all he represents, they have 
no reason not to use Harry as a scapegoat and punching ball when 
they feel bad. And once the habit is taken of not considering Harry 
as a real child deserving love, it's really hard to break. Not to 
mention, of course, that I'm not so sure the Dursleys have *any* 
love to give...

Annemehr :
 
> The thing that makes me dislike the elder Dursleys is that they 
> could live with Harry for ten *years* by the beginning of PS/SS 
> and never soften toward him at all.  That is extremely cold-
> hearted.

Del :

Oh but I totally agree that the Dursleys are very cold-hearted ! 
They are perfectly selfish, self-centered and cold-hearted, 3 very 
big faults by our moral standards. But once again, I must emphasize 
the fact that the Dursleys simply do NOT share our moral standards. 
It's perfectly okay, in their idea, to be selfish, self-centered and 
cold-hearted. That's what they think is right, that's what they 
teach their son. And who are we to decide they are wrong to think 
that way ? It hurts us, it shocks us, but there's no way we can say 
they shouldn't think that way.

Annemehr :

> I think Vernon is the worst because I believe he is the only one 
> who would be perfectly happy to see Harry dead; I don't get the 
> feeling that Petunia is quite that far gone.  As for Dudley, I'm 
> hoping to see some sort of understanding develop between him and 
> Harry -- as JKR says, there's always hope, right?

Del :

That's kind of logical. Vernon is the father, the dominant male, out 
there to destroy anything that might threaten his mate and his 
offspring. Petunia is a female, which by definition means she has a 
(very deeply hidden :-) soft spot for young ones.

The way the Dursleys treat Harry revolts me too, but I acknowledge 
that they simply represent another morality, more "natural", 
less "humane". I read somewhere that when a new lion takes over a 
lion group, the first thing it does is kill all the offsprings of 
the old leader, and the mothers let it do it, because that's the 
natural order of things. Tough, but normal.

Del