Harsh Morality - Combined answers

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 121088


> Jen wrote:
> "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."
> 
> Del replies:
> I don't see him as struggling very much. He readily classified 
Seamus as bad for not believing him. He refuses to accept that DD 
has good reasons for trusting Snape, he refuses to consider that the 
man might not be completely evil. As for James, Harry doesn't 
struggle for very long, and he lets Remus and Sirius convince him 
quite easily, which again is congruent with a Platonic view : since 
James ended up fighting LV, he was good, and it doesn't matter that 
he did some bad things.
> 
> In fact, I get a feeling that, far from getting more complex, the
> morality presented in the HP books is getting more simple : if one 
is on the side of Good, then one's faults don't matter, but if one 
is on the side of Evil then one's qualities, honesty and good 
intents are irrelevant.
> 

Valky:
No Del, it is the frame of reference you're using that is 
oversimplified. You speak of morality in a human character as though 
it should be some automated machinery turning cogs in set process. 
Harry's outrage at Seamus was NOT a *ready classification* at all. 
Harry was not classifying people into good/bad lists he was reacting 
emotionally to his pain and frustration, as a human would do rather 
than a morality machine, which, clearly, he is not.
The passage to which you refer above reads: 

" He was sick of it; sick of being the person who is stared at and 
talked about all the time. If any of them knew, if any of them had 
the faintest idea what it felt like to be the one all these things 
happened to... Mrs Finnigan had no idea, the stupid woman, he 
thought savagely." 

further on in the scene neville pipes up with his grans veiw and 
Harry feels a "rush of gratitude toward Neville.". *A rush of 
Gratitude*, not a flurry of thoughts concerning Nevilles *goodness*, 
Neville is fulfilling an emotional need in Harry, he is not being 
judged by any standard of morality at all.

As for Snape, why should Harry forgive him any more than he has 
already done. Snape chose to inflict the emotional wounds on Harry 
that he has done. It's Snapes choice and Snapes consequence to deal 
with. None of that is Harry's responsibility. Harry feels what he 
rightly should feel, some of his reactions are a bit unhealthy, but 
as a teenager he is likely to improve on those things if he tries, 
thats what his future is for.

Harry is a young boy with an emotional need for acceptance, his 
reaction to many years of emotional rollercoaster from isolation to 
acceptance and back to isolation again doesn't lend to a conclusion 
that he is morally hypocritical, a judgement like that is IMO 
indifferent to the degree of being cruelty. A person in pain is just 
that, a person in pain, if we are looking for logical perfection in 
human emotion then we are going to find ourselves dissappointed. 
 
> Tonks wrote:
> "We are told that Lord Voldmort... Never loved... this is what 
makes him the evil principle."
> 
> Del replies:
> Whenever I think of this, I get stuck into a logic trap. If LV 
never loved, that means he was always evil, which in turn means he 
was born evil. But JKR said that nobody is born evil. So I'm 
confused. Can you help me out?
> 

Valky:
But it *is* a jump from "not born evil" to "never loved", and the 
gap between is where your answer lies.
Tom Riddle *was* born isolated, so it's logical to assume that his 
opportunities for love may have been delayed until later in his 
life. I anticipate your answer to this will be that LV might be the 
product of his loveless environment in his early years then, and 
hence he is not essentially *evil* but is instead psycholocically 
rendered incapable of knowing good from evil, by childhood trauma, 
and that you can see no other explanation. We have had this 
discussion before. 
If this is your opinion, let me say now that I differ. I may be a 
student of science and a lover of logic, but I do have great respect 
for higher truths. Love is not confined to the limits of rational 
thought, there is no conclusive definition for it, but it exists and 
its power is known and cannot be denied. If JKR says that a real 
Love became an option in Toms Life and he chose against it, and that 
he clearly knew at the time his choice was evil and that Love was 
good, irregardless of his tormented past. Then I, for one, will 
definitely believe her.