Double standards and believing

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 120969


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" 
<delwynmarch at y...> wrote:
> 
<SNIP> 
> Del comments:
> OK, this is something that has been bothering me lately. Let me 
start
> with some examples.
> 
<SNIP> A load of double-standards. That's what's used to judge the 
characters
> of the Potterverse. No wonder we never get anywhere.
> 


True, true.  I guess there are a lot of ways to approach this 
question.  Let me set out how I <think> JKR sets it up in the books.  
It seems to me, as I've said in other posts, that JKR has a lot of 
essentialism in the books.  That is one side is good and the other 
bad BY DEFINITION.  In a sense she has a very metaphysical construct 
of good and evil.  That is, good and evil appear to be existant 
states that have their own reality quite independent of any human 
belief or intention.  Dumbledore partakes, in a Platonic sense, of 
Goodness, whereas Voldemort partakes of Evil.  Hence her statement 
about "Dumbledore is goodness" and "Dumbledore is the epitome of 
goodness."

Now, given this set of affairs, how one acts and what one does are 
good or evil in that they support one of these two opposed 
principals.  Therefore, Percy is evil in defying his family because 
this supports the evil principal IRREGARDLESS OF PERCY'S INTENT OR 
REASONING.  Cho is good in defying her family because this supports 
the good principal IRREGARDLESS OF CHO'S INTENT OR REASONING.  In 
JKR's world, your actions are good or not according to an objective 
standard of who you're helping, your own personal beliefs and 
intentions and morals seem to have very little, if anything, to do 
with it.

Now that might not seem very fair.  But if one believes in Good and 
Evil as Platonic existants, as JKR seems to in the HP saga, it is 
perfectly logical.

Lupinlore