Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 114859



Alla asked :
"Dell, could you please, please, tell me what your definition of 
compassion is? I honestly want to know. As some people on the list 
know I start getting frustrated when I don't understand where other
person is coming from and I often don't understand where you are 
coming from. So, please help me. I am not being sarcastic.

To me desire to save people is ALWAYS a good thing and often equals 
compassion."

Del replies :
Thefreedictionary.com gave me those 2 definitions which are fine IMO :
"a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering"
"the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and
wanting to do something about it "

To me, compassion has to do with relating to the *suffering* of
others. It's not about how horrible their circumstances are, it's not
about whether their life is in danger, it's not even about whether
they have a valid reason to suffer : it's about recognising that
someone is suffering, validating that pain, and wanting to do
something about it.

That's why to me, wanting to save people and having compassion for
them are not necessarily the same thing, and can even be at odds with
each other. Wanting to save someone when that person is looking
forward to dying because they are in too much pain, is not having
compassion on them IMO. Even wanting to save someone just for the sake
of saving them, without giving a care about what they feel and want,
is not having compassion on them. On the other hand, putting an end to
someone's suffering can be the most compassionate thing to do (but
let's not get into an euthanasia debate, because I believe it could be
acceptable only in very very specific situations and under drastic
circumstances).

For example, when my cat contracted a liver disease and started dying
slowly in painful conditions, my heart went out to him, and I had him
put to sleep. I didn't want to lose him, I would have given anything
to keep him a bit longer (and I could have, because he could have
lived several weeks longer if I had decided to submit him to a drastic
treatment), but I realised and felt how much he was suffering, that
his pain would only get worse, and that there was no hope of curing
him. So I did what seemed best to me for him, which was putting an end
to his suffering rather than keeping him alive.

Alla wrote :
" Harry only HEARS about Parvati telling Lavender "that Hermione was 
crying in the girls' bathroom and wanted to be left alone" - PS/SS, 
p.172, paperback, on their way to the Feast. When Hermione is absent
from class, Harry does not know she i. She is not his close friend or
even acquintance yet.

Why is he supposed to be worried?"

Del replies :
He's not supposed to be worried, but if he was truly compassionate, he
would *care*. I would. I did, in RL. When I hear that someone is
obviously in some kind of pain, I can't help but care. In Harry's
place, the Feast food would taste quite bitter to me, knowing that
someone is crying her heart out in a bathroom. I might not actually
*do* anything about it, because I don't always know what to do and I'm
afraid of people's reactions, but I would *care*, I'd be sad for that
person, it would spoil my own pleasure quite a bit.

Alla wrote :
" So, on his way to the feast Harry hears that Hermione was crying and
at the feast Quirrel tells about Hermione and Harry rushes to help.

Why is it not compassionate? Was he not supposed to help her?"

Del replies :
It's not compassionate because Harry didn't do it to alleviate
Hermione's pain. Hermione's *life* came into the equation, but never
Hermione's *pain*. But don't get me wrong : just because it wasn't
done out of compassion doesn't mean it's a bad thing ! Of course not
!! Compassion doesn't have to be the motive behind our every act. It's
not in that case IMO, but that doesn't take anything away from the
goodness of Harry's motive.

Oh, and by the way, no he was not supposed to go to Hermione's help
:-) It was a heroic thing to do, and he is to be admired for doing it,
but he was not *supposed* to do it. It would have been perfectly
acceptable if he hadn't done it.

Alla wrote (about Ginny being taken to the CoS) :
"Same question. How do you know that Harry does not care about Ron 
and Percy's pain?"

Del replies :
Because he tells us so. He does notice that Ron crumbles when learning
about Ginny's abduction, and that Percy is in shock, but we are not
told that his own heart goes out to them for that. He doesn't decide
to go and rescue Ginny in order to alleviate the Weasleys' pain, but
because he wants to save Ginny's life. Once again, the pain of other
people, and the desire to reduce it, don't count in Harry's decision.
It's only the fact that a life is at stake that matters. This is
heroism, not compassion. It's just as good, but it's not the same thing.

Alla wrote, about the Second Task :
" Contradiction, Del. First you say that Harry does not care  about 
girls dying and then you cite his "I don't want them to die""

Del replies :
?? Sorry, I don't follow you. What I said is that Harry cares about
the girls dying, not about what their dying would do to other people.
He cares about lives being at risk, not about any kind of pain anyone
could feel. And where there's no care for pain, there can't be
compassion, since compassion is *precisely* caring for someone's pain.

Alla wrote :
" Harry did not have much time to think  to figure out that girls are
not really going to die and judges actually recognised that."

Del replies :
Both Cedric and Viktor figured it out, though. Do you mean to say that
they didn't care if the other hostages died ? I don't think so. They
were both decent boys. If they had had any doubt that the hostages'
lives were actually in danger, they would have helped Harry fight the
Merpeople.

Alla wrote :
"Besides, what do you mean Dumbledore does not want contestants and 
other participants to die? Of course, he does not, but it does not
mean that they cannot. Remember  "the death toll mounted so high that
the tournament was dsicontinued" - GoF, p.187, paperback. Yes, I'd say
it was pretty reasonable of Harry to think that girls faced REAL danger"

Del replies :
No, I'm sorry, but it was completely unreasonable. Yes, the death toll
had been terrible in the previous Tournaments, but that's precisely
what DD wanted to avoid by creating the age limit.
Moreover, the hostages were NOT participants ! They had not
volunteered for that job, they had signed no contract, and they had no
say in their own fate. So it is only logical that if DD would do his
best to keep the volunteering contestants from serious harm, he would
not even think of putting anyone else in a potentially dangerous
situation. Especially not a foreign 8-year-old little girl !!

Alla wrote :
"I LOVE Harry's "saving people thing". Actually, I would simply call 
it being a hero"

Del replies :
And that's EXACTLY what it is !! It is heroism. It's not compassion.
Harry wants to save lives, he doesn't want to relieve suffering. He
doesn't suffer people's pain, and then wonder what could help them
best. He only wants to take them out of the situation they are in,
which is not necessarily the best thing to do.

Let's take an hypothetic example. Let's imagine a kid living with his
alcoholic mom. She doesn't physically harm him, but she doesn't take a
good care of him either, and he's suffering emotionally because of
that. A hero who would come to this house and see the harsh physical
conditions the little boy is living in, would consider it his duty to
make sure that this little boy is taken away from his mother. He would
send him into foster care, which would only enhance the kid's
suffering. But the hero would be satisfied that he's done his duty. On
the other hand, a compassionate person would rightly identify the
boy's main problem being his lack of emotional relationship with his
mother, he would feel the little boy's pain at not being taken care of
by his mother. He would also identify the mother's problem, the reason
she's an alcoholic. And he would work on improving the boy-mother's
relationship, on getting them closer to each other, at least
emotionally. If the circumstances forced him to send the boy into
foster care, he would recognise the boy's enhanced pain, and he would
do everything in his power to reduce it, by arranging visiting as
often as possible for example.

Do you see the difference ?

Del