Conspiracies and re-assessments

[Renee]

No: HPFGUIDX 111912

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
>> Nora:
> > I think James is certainly being cruel, and it's an awful 
action, 
> but  I personally am reluctant to term it 'evil', partially because
> of the  rather unclear motivation and intention--the pantsing 
> seems to be a  misdirected vengeance for Snape's calling Lily a 
> Mudblood.  There's  also questions of scale, and let's not 
> succumb to the slippery slope  here.<
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> I don't see any slope to slide down here. James's motivation isn't 
> unclear at all. He hated Snape 'because he exists' and his friend 
> was bored with celebrating. How is that different than hating Mr. 
> Roberts  and being bored with celebrating? 
> 
>  James was not a willing, conscious ally of Voldemort, nor do I 
> think he ever wanted to become one. But the world isn't divided 
> into evil people and non-Death Eaters either.
> 
> 
Renee:
No, it isn't. But I think its wrong to call someone evil basing 
yourself exclusively on his behaviour as an adolescent, especially 
as the text suggests James underwent a change of heart. If the sum 
of his life is that he's evil because he hexed people in school, 
regardless of what he did later, we can stop discussing Snape, too. 
He was a Death Eater once, so he's evil: his chosing Voldemort in 
his youth determines once and for all where he stands in the moral 
continuum.

I never had the impression that the philosophy of the HP books can 
be summarised as 'once a thief, always a thief'. What is necessary 
here, I think, is to make a difference between doing bad things - 
something no one can entirely avoid - and the principal choice for 
evil. Or rather, the choice for a personal philosophy that doesn't 
even acknowledge the existence of good and evil, but only believes 
in power and the ability to wield it.  

Renee