Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 121017


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.  

Jen: You make a good argument for this type of moralism. The problem 
I have with wholeheartedly agreeing that JKR is headed in this 
direction is two-fold. First, the boring answer--we're getting a 
filtererd view of the WW through Harry's perspective. Harry has the 
moral development of a 15 year old and is prone to seeing situations 
and people in very black/white terms. Until OOTP, I'd say the 
majority of his time was spent thinking in terms of good/evil. Now 
we're beginning to see where questions and moral ambiguity exist in 
the WW.

The other argument is this: where a vacuum exists, matter rushes to 
fill it. The basis for the Platonist argument is also the basis for 
ESE!Lupin, IMO. Lupin shows signs of cowardice, he makes poor 
choices at times, he rationlizes his choices. He doesn't always 
choose what is 'right over what is easy', therefore he is evil. For 
those who believe Lupin is evil, it's not a moral dilemma. But for 
the rest of us...

And Harry does seem to struggle with complex moral issues like why 
a 'good' person such as Seamus doesn't believe his story. And why 
Dumbledore would trust a 'bad' person like Snape. And how the once-
sainted James can be a good person and a bully at the same time. His 
moral complexity grows with his character. 


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.  I have been hoping that 
> eventually we would see a greater confession on Dumbledore's part 
> that this was an extremely grey area and that he proceeded with 
great 
> misgivings and heartache, as well as a greater acknowledgement of 
> pain Harry has suffered due to Dumbledore's decision.  But I 
regret 
> to say I am becoming convinced we will see no such.  In the harsh 
> morality of the Potterverse I don't think there is room for such 
> heartache and acknowledgement of Harry's pain and the injustice of 
> DD's decision on any plane.  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.  

Jen: Dumbledore gave an explanation that the community good and the 
future of the WW were more important in his mind than one 
individual. That's a lousy choice if you're Harry, but not so much 
if you're the rest of the WW. 

There was no 'good' choice for Dumbledore to make in that situation. 
Every choice would have an unintended or unwelcome consequence, 
either for Harry or the WW. In PS/SS we had our first clue that 
Dumbledore did not relish the choice he had made: "For a full minute 
the three of them stood and looked at the little bundle; Hagrid's 
shoulders shook, Professor McGonagall blinked furiously, and the 
twinkling light that usually shone from Dumbledore's eyes seemed to 
have gone out." (SS, chap. 1, p. 16)

Lupinlore:
> Is JKR trying to say something about complex morality in the HP 
> saga?  The more I think of it the more I think she is saying 
> something in exactly the opposite direction.  She seems to be 
> implying that morality is harsh, Good and Evil are real, and human 
> ideas about justice or reason or individual worth or even the 
right 
> to be loved and comforted are not very important in the great 
scheme 
> of things.  You either support the good principle or the evil 
> principle, there is no middle ground and there is no quibbling.  

Jen: I can't quite see this in the story, not to the extent you see 
it, Lupinlore. It's because of the cognitive dissonance Harry 
experiences, something we are privy to through his internal 
dialogue. Like when he discovers James and Sirius were bullies. He 
can't quite dismiss the former impression he had of his father and 
best friend, yet he doesn't dismiss the new information, either. It 
would be so much *easier* to dismiss the new information or the old, 
and hold only one idea at a time, but Harry doesn't choose to do 
that. He's consistently willing to struggle with opposition which 
implies complex moral thinking. And as Harry goes, so goes the story.

Jen