Dirty Harry/Clean Harry (Harry's good core)

[Kelsey Dangelo]

No: HPFGUIDX 117504


Catlady wrote:
<<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. <huge snip> 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: < 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 replies now:
I think that you're right, that Harry chooses to help
people and not to hurt people, but I believe that this
is part of his intrinsic ability/motivation of his
morally good core. Which came first (his actions or
his moral core) is a matter of which came first, the
chicken or the egg? Harry is so GOOD, and he's a moral
brick wall of goodness, in the sense that his moral
senses are impenetrable and indestructible and
stubborn. It gets chipped and damaged once in a while,
but its steadfast. He won't hurt someone and he'll do
what is morally right (i.e. he's not going to steal
from the poor or kill people for the greater good). 

I like your point about how Riddle wants to do evil,
cruel things, to be evil. I think that TR/Voldie is
just evil. He likes it. He's Harry's moral polar
opposite. He chooses to be evil because that's what he
is. I think he enjoys it. It's his style. He enjoys
being powerful and hurting people and gaining things
he wants. Voldie isn't a misguided creature that
thinks he's doing something good for wizardkind (that
job's reserved for Fudge). He's like Iago of
_Othello_. He's perfectly aware of a greater moral
code; he just likes to be bad. He's evil, he likes it,
he's good at it, he has no excuses. 

So, if that is the case, I just think that Harry is
the opposite. He's good.

<Kelsey wrote: << 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. >

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

Kelsey again:
Yes, that is sort of the point that I made elsewhere
in that post. Why is Voldie incapable of love? I just
don't understand that. I don't see how that is humanly
possible. That's not the way things are in real life.
But that's what JKR says, so it must be so.

You're right, "plenty of real life people who have the
capacity for love also have the capacity to do evil
things". That's why it's impossible for any real
person to be evil through and through. That's why
people make mistakes and make moral compromises and
sacrifices.

But Harry is not real. He's not a real person. His
arch nemesis is not a real person (as I explained
above). On a cellular level, in his daily school
activities, facing the strains of adolescent hormones
and obnoxious teachers and cheating on homework, Harry
is a real boy. But when it comes to epic showdowns,
he's Harry the Hero, the Boy Who Lived, the boy
capable of love and born of moral goodness (however
you want to read that as Utilitarian or Kantian). He's
the one who saves Peter Pettigrew and rushes to save
Sirius and Ginny and Hogwarts, the boy who waits for
all hostages to be saved from the merpeople. He's the
hero figure that we all hope to be when we face the
epic showdowns.

[I'm not saying that all characters in the Potterverse
are unreal. Sirius Black is very capable of love and
murder. So is, in my opinion, Lucius Malfoy. In fact,
for some characters, moral ambiguity and heinous acts
are born out of love. I think that Harry will have to
face a big moral dilemma on the issue of love and
heinous acts (i.e. a debate between the greater good
and doing the right thing). I just think that he'll
choose the righteous and heroic path, as a any hero
character that stands as a "figure" would.]

I still think that a good hero character, who's main
strength is love, isn't going to commit mass-murder or
atrocious acts for a "greater good" because it would
cause him to become like his polar opposite, his
nemesis, Voldie. His intentions would be different,
but his actions and consequences would be the same.

Kelsey.