Harsh Morality - Combined answers

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 121268



Betsy wrote:
"I disagree that Crouch is depicted as "evil."  He does start to use 
the tools of evil (or tyranny anyway), and I think most readers can 
see that the Crouch government is heading in a wrong direction, but 
evil seems a bit harsh.  Crouch is respected by other wizards, 
including those whose judgement we tend to trust, like Arthur Weasley,
and there isn't anything in the narrative that clues us into the idea
that this man is evil.  His story is one of tragedy - not moral justice."

Del replies:
Crouch brought his own tragedy on himself, by using evil methods.
He never became MoM because people were uncomfortable with his
morality. Once the war was over, they reconsidered his decision of
allowing the Aurors to use the Unforgivables and came to see it for
what it was : a decision of dubious moral value. And of course the
thing that definitely killed Crouch's career was the little matter of
his son being found with DEs torturing Aurors. This episode emphasized
2 points of Crouch's morality that people objected to : first the fact
that he would show so little compassion as to send his own son to
Azkaban without any apparent qualms and without showing any concern
over his wife sobbing and passing out at his feet, and second the
assumption that his son turned bad because his father put his career
before his family and never cared about his growing son.
Then Crouch's wife died because, among other things, she couldn't
stand the fact that her only son had been sent to Azkaban by her own
husband.
And finally Crouch's final tragedy would never have happened if Crouch
had not (1)illegally removed his son from Azkaban, (2)used an
Unforgivable on him, and (3)sacked his House-Elf who was the only help
he had.
As a result, Crouch suffered a most infamous fate: killed by his own
son, no proper burial (he was Transfigured into a common bone and
buried like some dog's toy), and his name fallen into disgrace among
the heroes.
I would call this story a story of moral justice indeed.

Betsy wrote:
"McGonagall doesn't say Dumbledore is good *because* he doesn't use 
Dark Magic, she says, "[he's] too -- well -- noble to use them." (SS
paperback, pg. 11).  It might seem like I'm nitpicking, but I think 
it's an important difference.  Out of his goodness, Dumbledore doesn't
use magic in a wrong way - the way he uses magic doesn't *cause* his
goodness."

Del replies:
Agreed : the way DD uses magic doesn't *make* him good or evil, it
*shows* what he is. This is very consistent with what he later tells
Harry about our choices showing who we are. But according to that
logic, Crouch's choices did show that he was evil, even if he had good
intentions and was fighting the Totally Evil Guy.

Betsy wrote:
"Which means that no matter what JKR says in an interview, as an
author she is *not* writing Draco as repulsively evil."

Del replies:
I actually agree : I personally pity Draco, I don't see him as
repulsively evil, more like pathetic.

Betsy wrote:
"Again, I don't care what JKR says in interviews.  If it's in the 
books, it's in the books."

Del replies:
Heh, I said that first, lol!

Betsy wrote:
"I believe it's Snape's goodness that has caused him to team up with
Dumbledore to overthrow Voldemort. "

Del replies:
And what was it that caused him to become a DE to start with? What is
it that prevents him from emulating the behaviour of his current
master and adopting DD's principles?

Del