Different moral standards (was : On the other hand)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 93027

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" <delwynmarch at y...> 
wrote:
 
> 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.

"Just"!? What do you mean "just"?! The Nazis had also a different 
moral code, didn't they? So have every racist and fascist that ever 
was. It's the ideology that makes Voldemort the epitome of evil, not 
the lack of it. The Dursleys are not merely egoists but have an 
ideology of selfishness, you say, and you think that that constitutes 
a *defence* of them? It's the worse indictment there is. Nobody is 
consistently kind and considerate, that's part of being human, but 
are you seriously suggesting that an ideology that justifies 
selfishness and cruelty is a form of justification?!
 
<snip>
> 
> 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...

Exactly. They don't have a "strong loving moral code"; they "don't 
have any love to give". It is a judgement in itself. 

> 
> 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.

!?!?! Again, you astound me. If we can't decide that it is wrong to 
be selfish, self-centered and cold-hearted, then what meaning 
does 'wrong' continue to have? According to you, then, nobody can 
ever judge anybody else, as long as a person doesn't feel that he is 
doing anything wrong. So, if a psycopath kills and tortures people, 
but feels fine with it (since he is even more cold hearted than the 
Dursleys), we can't say that he is doing wrong?

<snip>
>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.
> 

It's the natural order of things for *lions*. It is also the natural 
order of things for fish to eat their young, and for a praying mantis 
to feed on her spouse. Rats horribly kill stranger rats. Ticks burrow 
into their victims' skin to suck their blood. Various types of wasps 
lay their eggs within the (living) body of insects, so their young 
can feed on it. 

Bringing natural selection arguments into the social-moral arena is 
demagogical, specious and extremely dangerous. This type of thinking 
laid the foundations to the worst atrocities humans ever committed on 
other humans. If you haven't heard of Social Darwinism, I suggest you 
start reading on it. The arguments you bring have a long history, a 
long history of refutation, and, like I said, a long history of 
terrible consequences. 



Naama, *not* a moral relativist