Goodness - Free Will - Harry (Harry's good core)

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 117407


Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG
rownups/message/117075 :

<< What do you think is the reason for Harry to choose the side of
good? >>

Actually, I don't think Harry 'chose the side of good' until some time
after he went to Hogwarts and heard so much talk about the Dark Side
and the Light Side. I don't think young Harry often chose 'to be
good'. I think he often chose to help people and not to hurt people,
which had much the same result as choosing to do good, because of the
circumstances in which he found himself. 

The two motives could sometimes conflict -- canon examples from DD: he
chose to do good while hurting Harry and annoying the Dursleys by
putting Harry with the Dursleys so that he could survive, he chose not
to hurt Harry by telling him of his destiny and his link with LV back
at the end of PS/SS, but admitted at the end of OoP that that was the
wrong decision.

(Young Harry did sometimes choose to hurt people. Early in PS/SS, he
talked back to Dudley, saying "The poor toilet's never had anything as
horrible as your head down it -- it might be sick." I took that as a
happy sign that the Dursleys hadn't managed to beat the spirit out of
him, not as a tendency to evil.)

And the reason that Harry often chose to help people and not to hurt
people (yes, I'm going all the way around Robin Hood's barn to answer
your question) is that he had empathy for (most/many/some) people. He
'felt their pain' and therefore tried to help. Sometimes he enjoyed
people's pleasure, as in his first interaction with Ron. (Whether that
enjoyment was empathy, which would have caused him to enjoy seeing
Cedric and Cho so happy with each other despite his own loss, or some
sort of pride "look what *I* did, look how happy *I* made him" is a
detail.)  

There has been a lot of inconclusive research on how to teach children
empathy. One idea is to give them a puppy, on condition that they take
care of it. Another is Religious Instruction. Young Tom would have
been lectured about the Bible, sermonized, and rehearsed for Catechism
by the same hated orphanage workers he blamed for all his other
miseries. Young Harry would have received similar but less strict
instruction (because of the different decade) from a schoolteacher or
clergyman or television show whom his hated Dursleys despised, and
therefore felt less inclined to dismiss it all as hypocrisy. 

I rejoice in the excuse to repeat my theory that Harry has learned a
LOT from television. We saw in PoA that Uncle Vernon watches the
morning news; I assert that Uncle Vernon also watches the evening news
and professional sports, Aunt Petunia watches home-making shows,  
gossip shows (especially about the royals?), tear-jerker movies, and
the popular game shows, and Dudley watches *everything* in search of
sex and violence. And Harry sits in the back of the living room,
because that way he is more convenient accessible to run fetch more
snacks for Dudley or another beer or Vernon than if he were in his
closet. Television is not usually considered to teach empathy, but in
Harry's case, he would have been influenced to feel sorry for the
character being beaten up because Vernon or Dudley was cheering for
the beater.

Del wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGr
ownups/message/117163 :

<< But why did he tell Ron to go and have a pasty to start with ? As
the narrator reminds us, Harry never had an opportunity to share
before, so he doesn't know that sharing creates good feelings.
Moreover, the Dursleys taught him by example that it is better *not*
to share, that the ideal way is to have as much for yourself as
possible. So *why* did he invite Ron to his feast ? What prompted him
to share? >>

He saw Ron looking hungry and felt empathy.

Dungrollin in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG
rownups/message/117151 :

Also emphasized empathy, altho' I don't agree with her that
'anticipatory guilt' had a whole lot to do with young (before maybe
GoF) Harry's choices. As for Riddle, lacking both empathy and guilt
freed him to be evil and cruel, but I believe some people can lack
empathy and maybe even guilt and still lead relatively harmless lives
inventing calculus or building strange sculptures out of junk yard
scraps. 

Riddle WANTED to do evil, cruel things -- he wanted to hurt people and
be feared -- rather than wanting e.g. to be let alone to discover the
first language humans ever spoke by learning all modern and ancient
languages and finding what they have in common. It seems very clear
that Riddle's cruelty and hate came from rage at what he suffered as a
child, but what caused Bellatrix's cruelty and hate? 

(Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/117135 :

<< Harry may have been one of those kids who, having nothing & being
bullied, rather than succumbing simply chose to try to be different.
And when it FELT GOOD, he knew it was the right course. It's not
THAT uncommon, nor do I find it to be unbelievable. >>

"If it feels good, do it"? Well, I don't think "If it feels bad, do
it" is any better a guide to ethical behavior. 

Kelsey wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/117194 :

<< Maybe it's love (capacity for and ability to) that is that
infamous "moral core/moral choices" difference between Harry and
Voldie. And if that's true, then Harry can't go against that
moral core and do something morally wrong (i.e. murder, blood-baths,
etc.) to become "Dirty Harry" [the grandfather of this thread] and
defeat Voldie. He's going to have to do something morally sound
through love to defeat Voldie. >>

But plenty of real life people who have the capacity for love also
have the capacity to do evil things and become murderers.