Moral Ambiguity in Main Characters

[Someone]

No: HPFGUIDX 126970



<ABadgerFan2 at m...> wrote:
> 
> The first criticism was that the books "clearly teach that 
obedience 
> to rules or morality is required only when such obedience serves 
you 
> best." This cynical attitude of it's only wrong if you get caught 
may 
> well describe the "real world", but the argument is do we want to 
> teach our youngsters such values? The critiquer points to the 
amount 
> of rule-breaking and lying by Harry and his pals, the gradual 
> corrupting of Hermoine to share such situational values, and even 
> Dumbledore's rewarding or overlooking Harry's blatant disobedience 
to 
> rules, while acknowledging (in Book 4) his own ambiguous moral 
compass 
> ("It is my belief . . . that truth is generally preferable to 
lies.")
> 

John:
That's quite an astounding interpretation of (that aspect of) the 
books! I'm wondering, has this "critiquer" even read them, or did 
he/she fear being "corrupted" by those scurvy, lying curs HR&H? 

Harry and Co. certainly break rules routinely, but note that it is 
almost always in aid of a noble cause, the "greater good", as it 
were. It brings to mind that old question about whether bad, morally 
obtuse, rules/laws, are, in fact, rules/laws at all. If not, one 
would appear to be justified in breaking them.

As for DD, I think he's pretty cool about people breaking the minor, 
silly little rules (e.g. sneaking food out of the kitchens at 
night), because doing so doesn't really leave any lasting harm on 
anyone. Note how disappointed he was, though, after that episode 
with Ron, Harry and the flying car.

So the books are certainly "moral", unambiguously so IMO. They 
don't, however, go over the top, and that's what I like about them. 
Harry and Co. aren't squeaky-clean; they're regular kids who make 
mistakes; but they generally *try* to do the right thing, and that, 
for me, is the most important thing.

Just my opinion,

John.