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

[annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 93221

Since we are in danger of veering off topic, I'll try to be concise
and relate my points to the Dursleys and Dumbledore.  If I snip out
something you really wanted me to address, please let me know.
> 
> > 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.
<snip>
> 
> 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.

Annemehr:
Yes, but they are not *completely* different moralities.  What they do
is emphasise some moral values and suppress some others.  Each culture
has a lot of the entire moral truth, but they differ in which parts
they lack.

Del:
> 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.<snip>
> And the successive changes that 
> took place there over the last centuries have left the country in a 
> state of complete disarray.<snip>

Annemehr:
The heart and mind is precisely what you can *not* force change upon.
 That doesn't mean you throw up your hands and give up stopping the
destructive behavior.  After that you can try to persuade people to
change their hearts, but they won't unless they come to want to. 
There are people trying to change minds in S. Africa, but you can't
force that, so it will be a slow process.  Besides, apartheid was
"order" for the white people, but it *was* complete disarray for the
black ones.

Similarly, in the case of the Dursleys, the first thing to do is put a
stop to their abuse of Harry.  After that, you can try to change the
underlying cause of the abuse, which is in the hearts and minds of the
Dursleys themselves.  You may be successful, or they may flat-out
refuse to change, but at least the abuse will have stopped.

At the end of OoP, Harry's friends took steps to stop the abuse.  I'll
admit it doesn't look likely anyone's going to have a heart-to-heart
with the Dursleys anytime soon, but perhaps they figure the Dursleys
should know better.


> > 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:
Obviously, that's not what the Dursleys thought was the way to raise a
child, because that's not how they raised Dudley.  I'll grant you that
they may have sincerely believed the best thing for Harry and
themselves was to squash the magic out of Harry. But if that's true,
then they also enjoyed abusing Harry even more, because it was their
own actions that brought out Harry's magic.
 
> 
> Annemehr : 
> > Why bring Dumbeldore into it?
<snip>
> 
> 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:
Dumbledore has nothing to do with what the Dursleys did to Harry *once
he was in their care.*  That's what I meant.  Obviously, the Dursleys
would never have abused Harry if he'd never been brought to them.

Whether or not Harry *should* have been taken to the Dursleys' is a
question about Dumbeldore's morality.  We do not yet know exactly what
went into Dumbledore's decision, so it's difficult to analyse it, and
the same goes for the Dursleys' decision (or lack of any choice, for
all we know) to take Harry in.
> 
> > Annemehr:
<snip>
> > 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 ?

Annemehr:
That's no example, because the pain caused goes way beyond what would
have by any stretch be necessary.  I said, "with the least loss of
life caused by your own actions."  It'd be more like this: you're at
the mall with your child when someone grabs him and begins running
away.  You are able to overtake the abductor and struggle enough that
he releases your child.  In the prcess, you have inadvertently elbowed
your child in the face and broken his nose.  You have hurt your
innocent child, and you could even foresee that he would have gotten
hurt in a struggle, but it is completely moral, because you have saved
your child from a much worse fate (and if you've also managed to
subdue the abductor, or at least mark him well enough, also saved
unknown future children from the same horrible fate).

That's a little more analogous to what Dumbledore is supposedly doing.
 And you have *not* missed your point if you cause pain or death to
the innocent, if it is the only way to prevent much more pain and
death to  innocents.  That is the "just war" idea.  I have duly noted
in my earlier post (quoted above) that only some people believe in
this; others (conscientious objectors) believe you can *never* take
any action that causes innocent casualties.  Both opinions have
sincere adherents who believe their idea is the closest to moral truth.

Del:
> 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:
Yes, there are just wars (IMO!), and you've just given the example of
one: a nation defending itself from attack.  I would add the equally
just examples of a strong nation defending a weak one from an ongoing
invasion, and one nation defending another from its tyrannical ruler
who is killing and torturing hundreds of thousands within his own
borders.  None of these involve punishing leaders for something they
haven't done yet.  All of them will involve the side of defense
causing some unintended but inevitable casualties. VW II will involve
another variation on the theme: a people (wizarding Britain) fighting
to prevent the rise of an evil dictator, and yes, the good side is
going to cause some innocent casualties if JKR is at all realistic.
> 
> > 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

Annemehr:
I don't think so.  Good and evil are real, objective things.  Each
person is able to try their best to perceive what they are, if they so
 wish.  Those in power have the ability to force the conditions of
society into their own ideas of good and evil, but that doesn't
automatically give each member of the society the same idea of
morality that the powerful have.  I can't think of any society where
each and every member agrees with those in power.

God's idea of what is good is really good in itself and has nothing to
do with the fact that he has power. My own belief, of course, but I'm
quite sure of it! 

Annemehr
whose mind is getting a real workout with this thread