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

[Doriane]

No: HPFGUIDX 93204


> Annemehr:
> 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.

Del :
I must disagree. The more I learn about other cultures or sub-
cultures, the more amazed I become at all the different moralities, 
and the more conscious I am that there doesn't seem to be any basic 
moral truth that applies everywhere. Every single bit of so-called 
absolute moral truth is challenged in some culture or another. Even 
the most basic principles such as the value of a human life, the 
integrity of a human body, free will, and so on, are dismissed in 
quite a few cultures and sub-cultures.
The example of South Africa is indeed edifying of how the strong 
ones (but not the whole world, oh no !) forced a weaker one to 
conform in action to their ideal, but didn't care about what was 
going on in the people's minds. Apartheid might be out of the 
country's constitution, but it's still very much there in the heads 
and hearts of many South Africans. And the successive changes that 
took place there over the last centuries have left the country in a 
state of complete disarray. The level of criminality is sky-
rocketing, insecurity and poverty are all over the place. But who 
cares ? They don't have Apartheid anymore, so that's fine. But 
Apartheid was merely a symptom of the terrible illness the country 
suffered from, it wasn't the sickness itself. And now the country is 
dying from it, in total indifference.
So it is also with the Dursleys' treatment of Harry. It's not so 
much the problem as the most visible symptom of their real problem : 
their hate and fear of the WW. Forcing them to erase the symptom 
wouldn't change anything to the problem, it would only hide it.

> 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.

Del :
??? What makes you believe that haven't done just that ? As far as 
we know, what was right for them might have been keep Harry, and 
what was wrong maybe was throw him out, and they chose the right 
thing. And once he was in the house, what was right might have been 
feed him twice a day and put clothes on his back, and what was wrong 
might have been let him starve and keep him naked. There are many 
people out there for whom raising a child the right way (whether 
they have money or not) is feed them pasta every night, make them 
sleep on old mattresses on the floor, clothe them with charity 
clothes, and throw them out the door the day they turn of age. 

Annemehr : 
> 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.

Del :
DD has to be brought into it just like past abuse has to be brought 
into the case of an abuser. You can't fairly try and understand and 
judge an abuser if you dismiss the fact that he was abused too in 
his youth. It's all part of the same problem, and it's a problem 
that has to be solved before the main one gets truly solved too.
Similarly, it's too easy to consider that the Dursleys' abuse of 
Harry came out of the blue. They had a whole history of conflict 
with the WW prior to Harry's arrival in their house. They had 
suffered their own kind of abuse from the WW, they had strong 
negative feelings about it and they didn't want *anything* to do 
with it. In those conditions, giving them Harry was only furthering 
the abuse. It's no surprise they took revenge the only way they 
could : they repeated the abuse on Harry.
Or if you prefer, see it that way : they were allergic to anything 
magic, and someone forced a magical child in their house. It's only 
normal that they should do their best to eradicate the allergen. I'm 
simplifying, but you get the idea.

> 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.

Del :
But if you cause pain and death to the innocent, then you've missed 
your point anyway. Unless the pain of that innocent can be dismissed 
because somehow it's less important ? Then picture this : your child 
is abducted, raped, tortured and killed, and then his attacker is 
arrested by the police, who had monitored him all the time. They 
explain to you that they suspected he was a kid abuser, but they had 
no proof, so they had to let him do it once more so they can put him 
in prison. How do you react ?
There are no just wars. A people can defend themselves when 
attacked, but there are no justification for attacking. There are no 
justifications for killing and hurting innocent people in order to 
punish their leaders for something they haven't done yet !!

> 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

Del :
He was right, as far as human good and evil go. It's those in power 
who decide what's good and what's evil. After all, isn't it because 
God is the Ultimate Leader, the One with all the power, that we 
believe He knows the ultimate good and evil ? If God was just very 
wise with no power, if we didn't believe He can punish or reward us 
in the end, who would listen to Him ? I repeat what I said in other 
posts : it's always a matter of "what's in it for me ?"

Del