Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing)

[slgazit]

No: HPFGUIDX 121013


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
> 
> Lupinlore:
> 
> As this discussion continues, I am growing more and more convinced 
> that JKR is, at heart, espousing a rather old-fashioned form of 
> Christian moralism in the Potter Saga.  That is, I truly think at 
> heart she is a Christian Platonist, someone who believes that Good 
> and Evil are very real metaphysical principals, and that the 
> goodness or evil of actions, beliefs, and even human beings is not 
> determined by their intentions or reasoning, but by the extent to 
> which they obey the harsh demands of one principle or the other.  
[deleted]
>  I think all our recent 
> conversations about grey areas are, in a way, missing the heart of 
> JKR's morality, because I'm just not very sure she really believes 
> in grey areas as such.  It is a very harsh morality, but let me give 
> some examples.

I think that JKR models her WWII much after our own WWII. And that one
without a doubt was a black and white affair. Either you supported the
pure evil personified by Hitler (aka Voldemort) or you did not. And in
JKR's world, just as in the real world at the time, those who would
not make a choice would end up being crashed. Witness Sirius' brother
who went for the evil side not truly comprehending his choice and was
then murdered when he tried to get back. In JKR's world there is no
gray area as there hasn't really been in the real WWII. During more
peacefull times people can proceed without making real choices, but
not in war. Then you are either for me or for my enemies.

> Nevertheless, does it really MATTER if she believes in grey areas or 
> not? IMHO, she surely shows those grey areas in the books. 
> Therefore  I am not sure that we are missing  the heart of her 
> morality, when we discuss grey areas of characters' behaviour.

There are many gray areas and we have definitely seen despicable
characters (the Dursleys, the ministry officials, etc.) who
nevertheless have not by and large made the choice to support evil as
well as seemingly good characters who end up being evil (Quirell,
Fake!Moody). By and large the "gray people" way (Fudge, Marrietta,,
etc.) is to follow their own interests and staying in line thinking
that all will be well then. This works so long as the war hasn't
started. Once it has, they would have to make choices or be ground
between the warring sides.

> Lupinlore:
> Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys.  I have been 
> extremely critical of this decision, and I have been hoping we would 
> see some exploration of its consequences.  [deleted]
>  DD did what was necessary to uphold 
> THE GOOD in a Platonic sense.  His action was RIGHT, full stop, no 
> apology or sense that perhaps the morals and priorities weren't 
> clear or that Harry deserves a chance to challenge the assumptions 
> that have caused him so much pain.  That is extremely distasteful to 
> me to admit, but I am becoming convinced that such is JKR's stand.

DD is the lead general in a war. His goal is to preserve the ultimate
weapon he has to win the war and prepare that weapon for the task
assigned to him by prophecy and chance. Harry therefore has to be
protected at all costs to himself or others (you realize that his
residence with the Dursleys puts them in mortal peril - I could hardly
blame Vernon for deducing the logical conclusion from the events even
if he did it in a very mean fashion). In addition, Harry has to be
toughened. He can't be coddled too much and has to be given great
challenges early on to raise him to fulfill his destiny. It's harsh
perphaps but that was the only way he could survive.

> In the case of Percy and Draco once again I don't think JKR sees a 
> true grey area.  Percy and Draco have chosen to uphold the Evil 
> principle.

Except that I am guessing that Percy will indeed descend further into
evil and then at some point will try to move back. He's one of those I
expect to not survive but that he'll end up doing some good at the end
before he goes.

> The fact that Draco has not ever had a 
> counterexample in his family once again I don't think cuts any ice 
> with JKR.  There is good and there is evil and Draco has chosen the 
> wrong side, full stop.

Draco unfortunately shows no gray area, he has chosen the evil side.
The only possible remedy might be a life debt (i.e. if Harry saves his
life). One of the chapters in the upcoming book is named "Draco's
detour". So maybe this will actually happen?

> The question of Snape is one of the opposite case.  Snape supports 
> the side of THE GOOD.  His reasons for doing so, I think in JKR's 
> eyes, are ultimately irrelevant.  The fact that he causes pain and 
> heartache wherever he appears also seems to be irrelevant to JKR.  
> There is good and there is evil and Snape has chosen THE GOOD, full 
> stop.

Except that Snape is a very conflicted character. For some unknown (as
yet) reasons he is allied with a group of people he generally detests
against other with whom he should fit as a glove. I would not be
surprised if he turns out to be a double-double agent or that when
Dumbledore dies he turns back to where his nature would have him. The
only real loyalty he has is to Dumbledore, but he will probably die
before the series end.

Salit