The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Snape)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 116092


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> 
>Granted, Pettigrew got away
> and through him Voldemort was restored, but that was not a necessary
> consequence of Harry's mercy. Pettigrew was chained and got away 
only
> because Lupin turned into a werewolf.

It wasn't a necessary consequence, but it *was* a consequence.  And 
therefore causal effect and responsibility has to accrue to Harry's 
push to save Pettigrew's life.  Now, however, if we want to REALLY 
get into inconsistency here is the place for it.  JKR has indicated 
time and again that the HP saga is about choice.  Yet here she 
introduces a seemingly inescapable prophecy -- i.e. Trelawney's 
prediction that "the servant returns to his master."  So, seemingly, 
Harry's choice was not a choice at all.  Pettigrew was predetermined 
to live.  Or perhaps Harry was predestined to make a particular 
choice.  Either way, the inconsitencies start flying thick and fast 
and the philosophical issues get murky, to say the least.

 What Pettigrew did afterwards is
> not what mattered.

Well, that depends on your point of view, doesn't it?  It is entirely 
possible to argue from a consistent moral position that what 
Pettigrew did afterwards *very much* matters.  From a utilitarian 
standpoint, for instance, the wise and moral decision would have been 
to cut the rat's throat when they had the chance.

 What mattered is that two grown men did not murder
> another man in front of three children, setting them a terrible
> example by indicating that vengeance and murder are acceptable
> solutions. We might as well throw away the law and let the DEs and
> their enemies fight an endless series of feuds, one murder spawning
> another till the WW drwons in a pool of blood.


And yet that in effect is what is happening anyway, isn't it?  I 
mean, not to sound sarcastic, but I highly doubt that Voldemort is 
going to get handcuffed and taken off to a jury trial.  No, they are 
going to kill him and probably many of his followers, using whatever 
method they end up using (evidently love of some sort), because that 
is the kind of situation they are in. I fail to see how killing Peter 
would have been materially different, although I grant that it *may* 
have been emotionally different.  But emotion, at least in theory, 
has little to do with law, and its place in morality is very 
dependent on your own interpretations.  I also don't think we are 
likely to see some sort of reconciliation between the different 
factions of wizarding society in the end.  In fact they seem to have 
tried that at the end of the last war, and JKR seems to be clearly 
stating it was an enormous mistake.  One faction of the wizarding 
world IS going to end up with their foot on the throat of the other 
faction.  Once again, that's just the kind of situation they are in.  
Quibbling over the death of one traitor seems rather irrelevant in 
the face of all the death and destruction that is looming (at least 
in part due to said traitor's actions).

A final question for the mill.  How should the wizarding world relate 
to Harry's decision to free Pettigrew?  Many I dare say would have 
the opinion "D--n you to H--l!  Thanks to your soft conscience and 
care for your friends' souls my husband/daughter/son/friend has been 
tortured and murdered!  What gives you the right to ease your 
conscience at the expense of our suffering?  If one murder could have 
avoided a war, it would have been well worth the price!"  Now, I'm 
not really arguing that point, but MANY people would, and I have to 
admit that it is a fairly consistent and workable way of looking at 
things.  Also JKR isn't at all consistent on the whole issue of ends 
justifying means.  Dumbledore, the epitome of goodness, did abandon 
Harry to a loveless and abusive home, after all (although I grant 
that probably isn't the way JKR wants us to see it).

Lupinlore