Moral Simplicity - a New Perspective.

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 121315


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:

<snip>

> Guide to a Good and Moral Life-
> 
> 1.) Do no Harm.
> 2.) Do some Good.

<snip>

> In addition, when Harry does cause harm, as when on occassion he
> curses Draco, he does not seek out Draco with the intent or
> willingness to harm him. Draco on the other hand does seek Harry 
> out with the malicious intent of provoking him. Harry can be 
> provoked into causing harm, but he does not seek to harm.
> 
> Snape is not nice, and certainly causes student emotional and
> psychological harm, or at least, pain. But, since his redemption 
> (ie: truly joining Dumbledore or so we assume for now) have any of 
> his actions truly been evil? Has he acted with the willful and 
> spiteful intent of causing harm? Not that I see. He's been really 
> nasty, his methods are definitly not very nice, but his broader 
> objectives are for the good (at least we assume so for now). 

Not to be a killjoy, but let me play Devil's Advocate again.

You have immediately run into the utterly classic problem of 
utilitarian ethics: defining harm.  How do you attempt to quantify 
something deeply personal?  The reduction to a purely physical 
standard is not generally considered adequate, for reasons obvious.

Is it proper to draw the line between methods and broader objectives 
for Snape, who often *does* seem intent upon causing emotional harm 
to the students (I'm thinking specifically Neville here, but there 
are other instances, oft-debated, that come to mind)?  You know, the 
also oft-debated 'sadistic' descriptor (JKR's words, not only mine), 
for someone who gets enjoyment out of the discomfiture of others.  I 
see that intention sneaks its way back into your formulations fairly 
quickly, which opens a whole new can of worms, the means and ends 
can.  Rowling has opened that can with the formulation of Slytherin 
ethoi as "any means to achieve their ends", which has been so far 
implicitly condemned.

> When we evaluate the character of characters, I think it is 
> important to make sure we make the distinctions between...
> 
> Nice and Not Nice
> Good and Bad
> Evil and Not Evil
> 
> You can be a person who does bad things and is not very nice, and
> still not be an evil person.

Is that a stative description, or an action-based one?  Is being a 
good person a state of being from which one takes actions, or...I 
think that makes the objection/plea for clarification here clear.

I think niceness is an underrated virtue, to be honest.  I'm talking 
about the genuine article, without the connotations of fakeness that 
it so often carries.  I would rather formulate it this way: to treat 
people in a way that is not nice is not a trivial thing, but rather 
a statement of how you regard that person and their right to 
subjectivity.  It is not generally possible to be a *good* person 
without treating people well.

So you can be someone who is not a good person, but still does some 
good things.

-Nora notes that all ethical discussions inevitably get larger and 
larger and eat the rest of the list (mmm, tasty)