Different moral standards (was : On the other hand)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 93146

> Del:
> 
> <huge snip> 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....
 
> 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.
>
Carol:
I don't think it's their moral code that differs from most other
people's. As middle-class British Muggles, they were undoubtedly
taught the same (Western) values as everyone else in their social
class. What I think is "different" about them is a double standard for
the two boys. With Harry, they apply an old-fashioned "spare the rod,
spoil the child" mentality. They'll keep him from doing "evil" (magic)
through punishment and constraint. Dudley, their own *Muggle* child,
requires no such suppression in their view. Instead they apply a more
modern (and equally ineffective) method of child-rearing, confusing
indulgence with love (and in Vernon's case, confusing the brutality
cultivated at Smeltings with manliness). They know good from evil. How
could they not? They just choose to ignore bend the rules a little
when it comes to Harry, who is both different from themselves and
therefore, in their view, not entitled to the same rights and
privileges, and potentially dangerous, and therefore, in their view,
must be kept under control. (I am not trying to defend them, only to
analyze their psychology and behavior.)

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.

Carol:
This idea that maleness equals domination, femaleness equals
passivity, gentleness, and submission, seems very far from JKR's own
views. At least three of her male characters (Lupin, Arthur Weasley,
and Neville) are both decent and gentle; at least four of her female
characters (Molly Weasley, McGonagall, Hermione, and Umbridge) are
dominating and the last of the four is sadistic. Molly Weasley may
stay home, but she is very definitely the dominant partner in their
marriage. Petunia and Vernon seem to trade off as the dominant
partner, but she is capable (as in OoP) of standing her ground.

A lion is not a man or a lioness a woman. What distinguishes human
beings, even fictional ones like the Dursleys, from animals is the
capacity to form a moral code (or to acknowledge or reject a moral
code formed by others). The Dursleys are quite aware that they can't
kill, seriously injure, or starve Harry. They keep their abuse and
neglect within the legal limits imposed on them by middle-class
morality and English law. The dominant male concept doesn't hold water
in JKR's world (or the RW in which the book was written, either), nor
does it excuse Vernon's portion of the abuse. As for Petunia, who also
abuses and neglects Harry (though she imposes limits on herself and
perhaps her husband, it doesn't explain her conduct at all).

I agree with you that the Dursleys fear Harry and that their treatment
of him stems from that fear. But as far as I can see, that's the only
point we agree on.

Carol