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

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 93111

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
<snip>
> 
> 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. 
<snip> 
> 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?

The fact that people may have contradictory opinions in moral matters 
isn't necessarily due to pragmatic considerations. In fact, in your 
example, I fail to see where pragmatism enters at all. I am pro 
choice and against the death penalty - but since neither are 
personally relevant for me (thank God!), my opinions on these issues 
have nothing to do with pragmatism. 

Moral issues are often complex. Let's take abortion, for instance. 
You compare it to the death penalty, I assume, because of the single 
similarity between them, which is that it is the voluntary 
termination of a life. But I support the one and oppose the other, 
because of the differences between them, especially that in abortion, 
there is more than one life involved.  

In the same way, I think you are reducing DD's decision regarding 
Harry's upbringing to a single dimension. Your argument is, the 
Dursleys are a horrible foster family, DD knew this, therefore DD was 
morally wrong to place Harry with them. But you fail to take into 
account other circumstances, primarily that Harry's safety could be 
guarranteed *only* if he were accepted by Petunia. DD had to *weigh* 
the different considerations to arrive at the best solution. And 
best, in this case as in RL, is the least worse. But that's what 
morality *is* - considering, for each case, the various aspects of 
it, and arriving at the most moral decision. 


Naama