Good moral core (Re: Dirty Harry/Clean Harry)

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 117213


Neri wrote :
"Oh dear, I didn't mean to get into this philosophical and moral
ground. Now lets see if I can talk my way out of it. "

Del replies :
I didn't mean to either, and I don't like it because I think I'm
reading way too much into a simple hero vs. villain story.

Neri wrote : 
"Free will is not just a philosophical concept, it is a practical and
legal one, and it is the basis of modern society. Suppose we were to
put a 16 yrs old boy (Tom Riddle, for the purpose of the discussion)
on trial for the murder of a girl (Myrtle). Would you acquit him
because he never knew his parents, or because he claims he has a
condition called sociopathy, or because he felt that only power is
important to him, or because it was just the combination of nature and
nurture that made him do it? I think not. You would say that, even at
this young age, he is responsible for his own actions, and if he
doesn't understand that murder is bad, at least he must be able to
perceive that society does not allow murder."

Del replies :
Agreed. I would hold Tom *legally* responsible because he obviously
knew that society disapproves of murder, and that it will enforce
consequences on you if you do it.

However, if it became apparent that Tom doesn't have a moral
understanding of what's wrong with murdering people, I probably
wouldn't hold him morally responsible.

I guess I would then throw him in prison and at the same time I would
put him in therapy (if there's a therapy for such cases). And as long
as he doesn't grasp our morality, I'm afraid society would have to
keep him in a position where he can't hurt people. I would *not*
expect him to reform on his own, since any reformation not based on
morality would only be a *surface* reformation, a lie.

Neri wrote :
" So acquiring free will takes time. I think this is also some answer
to Del saying that free will can be restricted by experience,
conventions of culture and so on. When a person grows up, he/she has
the option to ask questions, to learn more and transcend the
conventions of his/her culture. Even if  racism against muggleborns is
common in Slytherin House, Tom Riddle still met muggleborns from other
houses, and he had the opportunity to discover that they aren't worse
or better than purebloods. But he apparently chose not to use this
opportunity."

Del replies :
Two things.
1. He didn't use that opportunity to modify his morality to make it
more conform to ours, granted. But one question is : why would he ? He
had his own belief system that satisfied him, so why would he change
it ? People usually don't change their morality unless something in
that morality makes them uneasy. Tom hated Muggles and Muggleborns
because he believed his Muggle father had abandoned his witch mother
because she was a witch. This was a pretty compelling reason, even if
it was a completely selfish one. Then he goes to school, and discovers
that many Muggleborns are just as fine as wizard borns. So what ? He
still hates his father and he still has this unreasonable desire for
vengeance. Muggleborns will suffer in the process, but so what ? Tom
has no empathy for them, he doesn't care for their hurt and death, he
cares only about himself. 
2. You say : "Tom Riddle still met muggleborns from other houses, and
he had the opportunity to discover that they aren't worse or better
than purebloods." But this again implies a scale. What scale are we
talking about ? Muggleborns are no better or worse than wizard-borns
*according to what* ? In Tom Riddle's mind, Muggleborns *are* worse on
the "purity of blood" scale, which is the one that matters to him.
This scale might make no sense to us, but it apparently did to him. 

Neri wrote :
" Where does free will come from and how can it be reconciled with the
mechanistic view of nature and nurture is certainly a very deep
question in philosophy, science and theology, and I'm not sure I want
to go there. But practically, most of us accept that free will exists
despite nature and despite nurture. If you think that people are
responsible for their own actions then you accept free will."

Del replies :
I didn't mean to get that deep either.
But when it comes to free will, I must admit I have different views
for different situations. I believe there are different levels of free
will, and even different types of free will. Tom had a legal free
will, of course, but what I'm wondering is if he had a moral one.
Harry always has a practical free will, but the way he doesn't seem to
hesitate to take crazy decisions makes me wonder how much of a
psychological free will he's got. It's like he's wired to
systematically make the heroic decision, without ever considering any
other possible option. As he himself explains, he doesn't *want* to be
the hero, he doesn't *choose* it, that's the way he *is*. He can
choose whether or not to act on his heroic compulsions, but those
compulsions don't let him free to consider other alternatives than
just "do it or not do it". I guess that would help to explain why he
got so mad at Hermione in OoP when she suggested something different
than going to the DoM. His compulsion was telling him "go and save
Sirius, or don't go and let him die", so what Hermione was telling him
wasn't making any sense. This is quite scary to me, because it shows
that he's almost prisoner of this compulsion. But Sirius died because
of it : that's bound to change something.

Neri wrote : 
" JKR had the option to make the dark side in her story represented by
some kind of monster, but she chose to make him a person. Moreover, it
is a person who is very similar to Harry, and JKR tells us through DD
that the only difference between Tom and Harry is the different
choices they made. This implies to me that she is tackling the
question of free will."

Del replies :
You're putting the finger on something that's always bothered me : the
fact that LV is such a cartoonish, 2D villain. He might have a human
shape, but technically, he IS a monster. He displays only the faults
of humanity, never any good side. He never has qualms about what he
does. We never see him being influenced in the slightest by anything
good, even at the age of 16. He never had any noble or altruistic
intention. He doesn't have *any* good side, and he never did so far as
we can see ! JKR even said that he never loved and she implied that if
he had he could not have become LV. There's *none* of the good side of
humanity in him, and it seems like there never was. I do call that a
monster. An emotional monster. Definitely not a real person.
(Hey, Samurai Jack is on TV, and I'm suddenly struck by how similar
Aku and LV are. But Aku is not and never was human : he was born the
embodiment of evil. In fact, Harry's and Jack's stories are eerily
similar. Humph.)

Ok, Neri, or anyone else, tell me I've gone overboard and I'm loosing
my mind, because I don't like where those reasonings are taking me.

Del