Different moral standards (was : On the other hand)

[Doriane]

No: HPFGUIDX 93200

 
> > Geoff said :
> > 
> > > As a Christian, I believe that there are moral absolutes
> > 
> > Del replies :
> > 
> > I'm a Christian too, but not everyone is. And even as fellow 
> > Christians, it is possible we don't have exactly the same moral 
> > absolutes.
>  
> Geoff:
> That is a contradiction in terms. An absolute is an absolute is an 
> absolute. What is an absolute in France is an absolute in the UK 
> is an absolute in the US.

Del :
As far as I am concerned, there's only one absolute : God's Word. 
But I'll bet all my Galleons that you and I wouldn't even agree on 
what God's Word is and says. So what's left as an absolute ?
Can you find me anything that would be an absolute in rural US, 
rural Nigeria, rural Indonesia and rural China, for example ? (I 
chose only *rural* parts, because those parts are the ones which are 
more strongly influenced by traditions, rather than city parts) It 
won't be easy !

> > Del replies :
> > 
> > I must respectfully disagree. I just have to look around me
> >  to see that most people, Christian or not, don't care about 
> > loving their neighbours. They want to be loved, but they don't 
> > care about loving. Big difference. It's always "me first".
> >  Just like the Dursleys. The only true mortar of society that
> > I can see, so far, is that everyone is looking for their own 
> > fulfillment, in their own way. 
>  
> Geoff:
> I don't think this is the true mortar of society because what
> you are describing is a phenomenon which ultimately threatens to 
> undermine society. It is the "I'm all right Jack" approach and the 
> materialistic attitude of governments such as the "enterprise 
> culture" of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s (which preached that 
> success was two cars outside a lavish house, green wellies, a 
> child called Crispin and a dog called Tebbitt) that has eroded the 
> traditional links of society and rubbished the spiritual element 
> of life - spiritual in its broadest sense in this context.


Del :
But it has always been that way ! Can you tell me when and where 
things were different, and what they were like then ? Life has 
always been about having more : more security, more prosperity, more 
land, more freedom to do as we will, whatever. That's precisely in 
my idea what's so terrifying about the Dursleys : they represent the 
epitome of our way of life (more for me, naught for others).


Geoff said :
> The problem facing the Dursleys is the same which faces people in 
> the real world who try to say that we can have different moral 
> stances. If we take this view to its logical extreme, then anyone 
> can hold any view and argue that it is right because it is their 
> view of morals. we have to accept that anyone can claim that their 
> interpretation of life represents their stance.....

Del :
Yep, exactly.
The only difference between now and "before", is that now our 
society has become permissive enough as to let everyone *express* 
their views. It used to be that only the "right" way of thinking 
could be spoken, but people still had each their own opinion, they 
just didn't *say* it ! And if they had enough power or at least if 
they were discreet enough, they could live their own way and not be 
bothered, just like the Dursleys do. Now many people want to live 
their own way AND to be approved for living that way, which creates 
a dilemma for most of us : we don't mind their living the way they 
want, but we don't want to approve of it, so what do we say ?

Geoff said : 
> Nazis could argue that the elimination of Communists, the killing 
> of people of Slavic descent and the Holocaust were quite in order 
> because they believed that this was a perfectly correct moral 
> attitude.

Del :
I'm sick of hearing about the Nazis ! The Nazi case only shocked us 
because it forced us to admit that racism and hate do exist on a big 
scale in our so-called enlightened societies, and most of all 
because we let it happen !!! That tells A LOT about our own moral 
code, doesn't it ? And do you know why we did it ? Because deep down 
we *agreed* with them ! How many Jews were killed throughout the 
centuries all over Europe ? How many were persecuted, beaten up, 
robbed, falsely accused ? And everyone supported that : after all, 
they were the Jews, the Evil People who killed the Lord, right ? So 
killing them isn't such a bad thing after all, right ? The only 
problem with the Holocaust is that it forced us to take the measure 
of the hate and racism we had accumulated through the centuries, and 
we simply couldn't digest it. And of course, it gave us an easy 
scapegoat to hate for the war and to unload all our anger and hurt 
on.
And by the way, it was neither the first nor the last massive 
massacre in History : think Carribean Indians for example (yes, the 
Carribean Islands used to be populated with Indians), or think 
Rwanda, Turkish Armenians, Cambodia, Bosnia, even Australia. It 
happened everywhere, at all times. So that LV wanting to get rid of 
all Muggles rings very true to me : it's absolutely logical, in the 
order of things.

Geoff said :
> Ian Huntley could argue that it was quite alright for him to abuse 
> and murder the two girls at Soham because he felt it fitted his 
> own moral standpoint. A paedophile could argue that their abuse of 
> children was quite in order because they saw nothing wrong with it 
> within their own moral code.

Del :
And that's exactly what some say. Some don't even understand when 
you tell them they are *abusing* children. In their idea, they are 
loving them. It is their idea of love, and whose fault is it if they 
don't know any better ? Not just their own in most cases, I'd say... 
I saw a report the other day about imprisoned abusing mothers. You'd 
think that's the ultimate depravation, for a mother to sexually 
abuse her own kids, right ? But when it turns out that *all* 30 of 
those in that prison had been abused themselves as kids, it suddenly 
makes things infinitely more complicated... I'm not saying they were 
right to abuse their kids, I'm just saying we need to act more on 
what we believe and what we know. We believe that it's wrong to 
abuse kids, and we now know that a percentage of abused kids will 
turn abusers, yet we do nothing or next-to-nothing to prevent that. 
Just like DD knew that the Dursleys had a major problem with 
anything magical and still dumped Harry on their doorstep : that was 
completely irresponsible, the Dursleys acted in a perfectly 
predictible way, nobody did anything, and now everyone is outraged ! 
DUH !!

Geoff said :
> I apologise if these ideas are anathema to some readers but they 
> are the logical conclusion of assuming that you can have a "free 
> market economy" in moral views. Either you have absolutes or you 
> have the mish-mash of anyone's choice of a moral pick-and-mix.

Del :
Wake up Geoff ! We *already* have such a mish-mash ! Which is 
precisely why we must speak out, instead of trying to prevent others 
from speaking. There are way too many voices shouting out there, and 
pretending they should just be silenced so only yours can be heard 
is both unrealistic and useless. You can't force people to choose 
your way by just barring all the other ways. You can only invite 
them, show them why your way is best, and love them. That's 
precisely why I'm disgusted at the way Harry's friends have chosen 
to deal with the Dursleys at the end of OoP : they want to *force* 
the Dursleys to treat Harry right. Okay, I understand that there's 
no time to develop a better strategy, but this one will be next to 
inefficient. Harry will probably not be hurt, but the Dursleys will 
hate him even more. The better solution would have been to untie 
their emotional knot, talk things over with them, love them, 
understand them, and get them to actually know and love Harry. But 
that would take time, that would require some people to apologise, 
others to forgive, and most to change, and nobody wants to bother 
with all of this.

Geoff said : 
> We see this in the Wizarding world in the long discussions we have 
> had over the question of pureblood versus half-blood and mudblood 
> where folk such as Voldemort (who, in the same way that Hitler was 
> not German and did not meet the ideals he laid down for the 
> Herrenvolk himself, was not a pureblood) and purebloods such as 
> Lucius Malfoy presume that they can consider themselves to be 
> above the rest of wizarding society and assume a moral ethic which 
> includes the ethnic cleansing of lesser beings.

Del :
Can't you see that the WW only mirrors what is happening in the Real 
World ? My husband could talk to you about ethnic cleansing : he was 
born in Yugoslavia, and though he's neither a Serb nor a Bosnian, 
the whole thing still hurt him. Those things are happening right 
now, and just saying indignantly "they should not happen !" won't 
stop them from happening ! They are the only way too many people 
know how to deal with each other, just like the Malfoys want to get 
rid of the Muggleborns, and the Gryffindors would love to get rid of 
the Slytherins.

> > Del answers :
> > 
> > I've read some articles on human biology that say exactly the 
> > opposite. Some scientists truly seem to believe that 
> > *everything* in human behaviour, including love and compassion, 
> > can be explained by either biology or social strategy.
> >
> 
> Geoff:
> Hm. I find it difficult to believe that biology or social strategy 
> make me prefer walking to being a couch potato or preferring 
> raspberries to bananas.

Del :
You'd be surprised.

Geoff said :
> I am sure there are many of our posters who will agree with me 
> that we are humans created by God while some may not go all the 
> way with me but still accept the idea of a higher being rather 
> than suggesting we are a random error in the fabric of the 
> universe.

Del :
And there are many who will go to *great* lengths to disprove the 
very concept of a higher being. Don't underestimate them just 
because you're convinced they are wrong. Don't think that they will 
realise the error of their way someday because most likely they 
won't. Especially if you and I just wait silently for all the other 
voices to shut up...

Del