On the other hand (was Re: Disliked Uncle Vernon)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 93050

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at s...> 
wrote:

> Playing devil's advocate a bit here....  You have no right to force 
> moral standards on the Dursleys?  Why not?  Are there no universal 
> moral standards for treatment of others?  I find that unpalatable.  
> Civilization depends upon certain mores and legalized moralities, 
> does it not?  
> 

Kneasy:
People often talk about having 'a' moral code. They never say they 
have 'the' moral code - because there isn't one. There are thousands. 

Generally speaking any prevailing moral code reflects the society
where it is practised and for the most part is a standard of behaviour
that is intended to allow that society to function with a minimum of 
friction. So, different societies, different codes.

"Ah," you say, "but that means that the Dursleys should treat Harry 
by the code prevailing."
"Ah," says I, "why didn't DD and the WW stick to *their* moral code
instead of stuffing Harry into the equivalent of Dotheboys Hall?" 

If anyone's morals are  at fault it's DD's. He *knew* how the Dursleys
felt about the Magical World, James and Lily and  the treatment
that would be meted out to Harry and did bugger all about it; and if
he didn't know beforehand, he should damn well have known from 
Mrs Figg in a very few years. Did he do anything? No. 

What reason did DD give to Minerva that night in Privet Drive? He 
didn't want Harry growing up spoilt and thinking he was somebody
special. What better place to avoid that than with kindly, solicitous
Uncle Vernon. 

The Dursleys acted in an entirely predictable fashion - one that I
suspect DD anticipated. How else could he be sure  that Harry
would leap at the chance to go to Hogwarts? But if Harry was
unhappy, then how much easier does it become to slot him into
his pre-ordained role in DD's plan?  

But of course morality has  nothing to do with the case, that's all
eyewash; it's about pragmatism. And how often that beats morality
to the winning post! As a glaring example (and this will raise blood-
pressure in more than a few) it is morally inconsistent to support the
death penalty and oppose abortion - and vice versa. To be for both 
or against both can be classed as a moral stance, but a split vote is
not. Yet how many do so and try to claim the moral high ground?
That's not morality, it's personal prejudice, like many stands that
are made on 'moral' grounds.

It's been a while since I last dipped into my collection of quotations,
but this seems an apposite time, so I'll give you two:

"Morality is a private and costly luxury" - Henry Brooks Adams

"You can't learn too soon that the most useful thing about a principle
is that it can always be sacrificed to expediency."
 W. Somerset Maugham

Kneasy