Conspiracies and re-assessments

[Matt]

No: HPFGUIDX 111941

>>> Pippin:
>>> IMO, grayness was studying illegal magic and leading 
>>> a werewolf through a populated area for kicks. Evil is 
>>> holding someone against their will and threatening to 
>>> strip them naked in public. Does evil have to be wearing 
>>> a robe and a hood before we recognize it?

Others:
>> [Bullying and failing to stop bullies are morally suspect, 
>> but not "evil."]

Pippin:

> For most of us, not being Tom Riddle wouldn't be a choice 
> between what's right and what's easy. Very few of us are 
> capable of following in Riddle's footsteps. Most of us 
> would not decide on our own to commit genocide or eat 
> little children, but history shows that a great many of us 
> are sadly capable of looking the other way while these 
> things are being done, or of being led to do them ourselves 
> if no one is brave enough to stop us. 
> 
> IMO, JKR is not addressing herself to potential Riddles, 
> she's addressing herself to the complacent and the 
> apathetic. 

This is a very interesting discussion, and an important one.  I agree
with Pippin that, in Rowling's morality (if I can use that term for a
code that is distilled, rather than explicitly set forth in the
books), those who stand idly by while bad things are done share some
of the blame.  The converse of Dumbledore's optimistic statement at
the end of SS is the adage -- frequently, though incorrectly,
attributed to Edmund Burke (for that story, see
http://tinyurl.com/6xde3) -- that "All that is necessary for the
triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

That does not, however, mean that the bystander is as bad as the
perpetrator, nor that the schoolyard bully is as bad as the bullying
teacher, nor that Snape is as bad as Umbridge, nor that Umbridge is as
bad as the Death Eaters, nor that the Death Eaters are as bad as
Voldemort.  

Are all of them "evil"?  What does it mean when Sirius says "the world
isn't split into good people and Death Eaters"?  Does it just mean
there are lots of kinds of evil?  That's probably close to what Sirius
means (he's talking about Umbridge).  But the same words also serve to
warn us that just because something (someone) is not evil, doesn't
mean it's good.  

I am not ready to call James' and Sirius' bullying evil, although I
can see why Pippin would.  It doesn't sink to my standard for
depravity, though it's close to the edge.  But I don't think it would
matter very much to Rowling where a reader draws that particular line.
 What concerns her more is the recognition -- which Harry arrives at
immediately and without regard to the individuals involved -- that
there is a line between what James and Sirius did and what Lupin did,
and another big line between Lupin's behavior and Lily's.  It is the
moral distinctions, not the names we attach, that are important.

-- Matt