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

[annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 93125

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

Annemehr:
First, a wave to Naama who's been arguing the position I agree with
(except for the abortion part), so now everyone knows where I'm coming
from.

And yes, there are thousands of "moral codes," but they are in
surprising agreement, and where they disagree is very often on what
aspects of morality to emphasise over others.  What they all do,
though, is more or less successfully approach absolute moral truth. 
Tolerance for differing moral codes has to be moderated by justice:
just as the world rejected South Africa's racist system and forced
change, so we can reject the Dursleys' treatment of Harry as wrong.

Kneasy:
> 
> "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?"

Annemehr:
What the Dursleys should do is try to see the difference between right
and wrong, make a reasonable attempt to do what is right, and treat
Harry accordingly.

Why bring Dumbeldore into it?  Whether DD was just a doddering old
fool who assumed the Dursleys would want to care for their nephew or a
Machiavellian who cared nothing about the abuse he foresaw, that has
nothing to do with Vernon and Petunia's guilt.  Culpability is not
like a pie where, if you assign a bigger portion to DD you're taking
away from the Dursleys.
 

Kneasy: 
> 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!

Annemehr:
As has already been pointed out, we don't really know exactly what DD
was chosing between: misery for Harry, death for Harry, death for
Harry and also for countless other witches and wizards?

How to save as many lives as possible with the least loss of life
caused by your own actions in the face of a very real threat is a
completely moral question, and one which DD is having difficulty with
himself.  DD apparently believes it is right to endanger or sacrifice
a relatively few lives in order to save many (this would fall under
the concept of a "just war," for anyone familiar with that).  Some
people will disagree and say it is wrong to cause anyone's death for
any reason at all.  This goes back to a point in my first paragraph
where I say many people's moral disagreements are often about which
aspects of morality should take precedence -- in this case the duty to
defend the innocent vs. the duty to avoid causing pain and death.

Kneasy:
 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.

Annemehr:
Well, I'm against both, and my blood pressure's fine, but I don't see
why a split vote can't be a moral stance; the people I know who are
against abortion and for the death penalty argue their case in terms
of justice.

Kneasy: 
> 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

Annemehr:
You've forgotten one that fits right in:

"There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to
seek it..."
Professor Quirrell

Annemehr