The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?)

[alshainofthenorth]

No: HPFGUIDX 112914

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> On some of the wider arguments presented in this thread, I feel 
that 
> whether, as a technical legal matter Hermione had the right 
> to 'punish' Marietta is somewhat beside the point.  To me, the 
issue 
> is her character.  If I had been a minor member of the DA I think I 
> would have felt intimidated by the ruthlessness of Hermione's 
> action, especially as I would now know that I, too, would be 
> carrying a latent hex that I had not agreed to receive or even 
known 
> about (as a practical point the hex would have been a more 
effective 
> deterrent if people had known it existed - keeping it quiet makes 
> one wonder if Hermione was *banking* on someone talking, for the 
> shock value).  I doubt that in its wider implications the 'sneak' 
> hex was good for DA morale.

Alshain:
I just wonder how in the world one "agrees" to become the object of a 
hex? If someone hexes me and I'm too slow to block it and grow 
tentacles as a result, have I agreed to the result? Nope. If I've 
broken a promise I've made to somebody, no matter how good my 
intentions are, should I be surprised or feel hurt if there are 
consequences? I don't think so. That's what witness protection 
programmes are for, after all.

Furthermore, I agree that it may have been fairer play if Hermione 
had told everyone about the hex, but OTOH telling people would have 
been tantamount to open threat (don't squeal or else). And though I 
think Hermione has many faults, I'm prepared to sympathise with her 
for that weakness. The issue of the hexed list wouldn't even have 
arisen if everyone had played straight. When Marietta began to have 
conscience troubles she could have told someone about them (Zacharias 
wasn't punished for expressing doubts), could have dropped out 
quietly, but she didn't.

OK, Marietta and Hermione have different set of values here. What 
ensues is the familiar problem with value relativism. If Character 
A's set of values is just as valid as the opposing one of Character 
B's, then it follows, doesn't it, that the reverse is true as well. 
One of them can't be "just as good as the other one" and "morally 
superior" at the same time. Trying to pass moral judgment using one 
of those value sets is only nonsensical. You need a third and 
objective scale for that, otherwise you'll be going in circles.

Alshain, who had better stop reading philosophy for a hobby