Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 116769



I, Del, wrote  :
"Stealing is not only against the school rules, but also against the
law. This was no mere "formal breaking of the rules"."

Alla replied :
"I can analogise it a bit with DA army. I can only cheer them up for
such "breaking of the law""

Del replied :
Except that the DA Army was not against the law, it was only against
an Educational Decree. The law concerns everyone in every aspect of
their lives, while the Educational Decrees concerned only some kids in
their quality of students, and some adults in their quality of
teachers. It was a bit a matter of absolute vs. relative. The kids who
joined the DA had to choose between their duty as students and their
patriotic and moral duty. They put their patriotic and moral duty
above being good students, which is a good thing. But when the Trio
stole from Snape's office, they went against both the law and the
school rules, and followed only their own self-serving morality. I'm
not saying it's a horrible thing to do per se, especially at the age
of 12, I'm just saying we can't ignore it.

Alla wrote :
"Yes, if Harry is the kid who often breaks the rules, lies, cheats and
steals without any good purpose,  that is the good question. Why the
idea of killing his worst enemy should bother  him that much?

I'd say becuase he is not that bad in the first place and does not
want to kill even his worst enemy."

Del replies :
First of all, don't make me say what I didn't say. I never said that
Harry didn't have good purpose to do what he did. He always had some
good reason behind what he did, even if that reason was good only in
his own eyes.
Moreover, I didn't say in my previous posts that Harry is a bad boy. I
*did* say things like : "I agree that Harry has a very good core", and
"I know that the Trio was working for the good". This might not sound
like enough praise for you, but you cannot deny I wrote them.

Second : I used that example only to counter *your* argument that
intention excuses the act. It's OK to steal if you do it for a good
reason ? Then why wouldn't it be OK to kill LV for a good reason ?
After all, LV *deserves* to die. If he could be caught and judged, he
would most probably be condemned to the Dementor's Kiss, which for
many is even worse than death itself. So if Harry killed LV, he would
be considered a hero, not a murderer. He would not be condemned by
*any* law or rule or whatever.

But you see, Harry realises that there's a limit to the excuse that
"it is for the good". He can justify many things he did this way, but
he gets stumped by the matter of killing. Stealing, lying, cheating,
even torturing (attempting Crucio) under stress is OK. But not
killing. He realises that there's something bigger than law, something
bigger than being on the good side itself. He realises morality is
important.

What I *am* saying, is that I disagree with his day-to-day morality,
and that the fact that his personal morality allows him to lie, cheat
or steal without remorse, indicates that he's not a pure angel. He's
got his own dark side (and I readily admit that this dark side is very
much kept in check by his good one), like everyone else in HP. In
fact, the question is rather to know if some people have any good side
at all...

Del