Moral Ambiguity in Main Characters

[cat_kind]

No: HPFGUIDX 127120


abadgerfan2:
> The first criticism was that the books "clearly teach that obedience
to rules or morality is required only when such obedience serves you
best."  ... is do we want to teach our youngsters such values? <

> bboyminn:
> 
> Other have already made the key point which is that rules and law
are not the same as morality. That which is immoral is not necessarily
against the law, and that which is accepted by law/rules is not
necessarily moral. Law and morality, while related, are not one and
the same.

> So, morality is not measured by adherence to rules and law, but by
conscience, and a genuine sense of right and wrong. While Law and
Morality, while related, are not one and the same.

> On a long list of history's most honored people, among them  Jesus,
Ghandi, and others, you will find a list dominated by people who chose
to live and die for Moral right, independant of or strongly in
opposition to legal and bureaucratic /right/.<
catkind: I agree strongly with this separation of morals and laws.  I
would also point out that morals can be a subjective question, and can
depend on people's religion or world view.  Different people have very
different ideas about when it is morally wrong to lie, for example, or
even kill (as execution, euthanasia, in a war etc.).

There is certainly a theme in HP about morals being more important
than rules - this starts right at the beginning of the series, with
HRH going down the trapdoor to prevent a moral wrong despite this
being totally against the rules and McGonagall's explicit orders. They
are rightly commended for their judgement.

In OotP it becomes even more clear, when a dictatorial regime is set
up in the school, and it becomes even more of a duty for our heroes to
resist that authority.  Dumbledore even resists legal arrest. All
absolutely right and necessary.

I think perhaps the sheer frequency with which the issue of breaking
rules to uphold right comes up conveys quite an anarchic message.
Highly moral, but anarchic.

However, I can certainly see where the original criticism is coming
from.  Rules are not only taken lightly in the series when they are in
conflict with morals. There is a lot of difference between breaking a
rule you feel is morally wrong, or to prevent disaster in an emergency
situation, and breaking a rule because it is inconvenient to you and
you won't be found out.  
I don't think Harry finds it morally wrong to stay in his dormitory
after lights-out.  Yet his wanderings are encouraged by Dumbledore
giving him the cloak, and by Lupin returning the map. Yes, it's a
minor issue, but imagine if all the students had invisibility cloaks
and felt they had the right to go where they liked. I do get the
impression that at times Harry thinks he's above the rules, and is
being encouraged in this by his main authority figures: DD, Lupin, and
Sirius. 

Of course, rulebreaking is common to most boarding-school books and
most kids.  The difference is that it seems to be encouraged by the
authorial voice here.

Even McGonagall exempts him from rules when Quidditch is at stake. I
was actually a bit alarmed at the exemption made in allowing Harry a
broomstick when the other first years aren't allowed one.  I think
that would generate an awful lot of resentment in a real school.
(Perhaps this is a case where HP falls on the fairy-tale side of the
divide instead of the realistic children's book side:-))

A lot of the time "our side" get away with things that would be
considered horrific if perpetrated by "their side". For example,
Arthur Weasley gets tickets for the world cup through pure corruption.
Hermione blackmails Skeeter, the twins try to blackmail Bagman. 
Plenty of people have commented here about the nastiness of some of
the twins' pranks, or the train stomping incidents.  

I think the polyjuice incident is pretty nasty too - stealing,
drugging innocent bystanders, impersonation, and the moral cause
there's dubious in my opinion too - whatever happened to innocent
until proven guilty? In this case, it turns out Malfoy is really
innocent.  
I do think OotP starts to question this better, with the pensieve
scene making Harry think, and the fact that Harry's disobedience in
not practicing Occlumency indirectly results in Sirius' death. I was
disappointed that after seeing the pensieve scene, Harry *still*
didn't hesitate in dealing revenge on Malfoy. It remains to be seen
whether he will pay more attention to Occlumency in the future.  I
hope he will agonise a bit about his attempt at an Unforgiveable too. 
catkind