Conflict, imposition, and morality

[msbeadsley]

No: HPFGUIDX 140486

I was going to respond Del off-line because I didn't think I was going
to go into canon, but then I did, and so turned this into an on-list
post, which I'm still not sure is a good idea, but oh, well...

Lupinlore wrote:
"I am totally convinced that my moral code is superior to Snape's."

Del replies:
I'm not. I am convinced that *God*'s code is superior to anybody
else's, but that's because He's God.

Me:
But the only information you have about God's code was passed on by
"anybody else" (IMO), and is therefore suspect; there is no way to
know it isn't actually "anybody else's" code. There is no empirical
evidence I know of for any deity's existence or for the tenets of any
religion outside the humans who compiled/composed/received them.

Lupinlore wrote:
"If I was not so convinced, I would adopt Snape's code and abandon my
own."

Del replies:
Not me. I would never adopt Snape's code even if I abandoned mine,
simply because I know that Snape's code is a painful one.

Me:
Are you saying that it pains Snape, or that it would pain you?

Lupinlore wrote:
"There IS no objective stance in morality. The only thing that can be
done is for everyone to uphold the moral stances they honestly think
are correct, which means that, whether they admit it or not, they
think everyone who doesn't agree with them is the wrong and needs to
mend their ways."

Del replies:
I disagree. I do uphold God's moral stance, because He is God, and
therefore knows better than any human being. But I try not to judge
those who don't know God, I try not to judge their moral codes as
being wrong, *because we have no common ground from which to do the
judging*. I even defend their right to live by their own rules in
their own sphere if they want to, as long as they respect the law.

Me:
But the law has its basis in codes that go back to God as well; so
then, why is it necessary that "those who don't know God" respect the law?

Lupinlore wrote:
"But the very point of having laws and rules, the only possible
purpose for them, in fact, is to force people to do what is morally
right whether they want to do it or not, and whether they agree with
the assessment of what is right or not."

Del replies:
Yes, to force them to do what is morally right *according to the
morality of the majority*, not necessarily according to their own
morality. There is NO obligation for anyone to *adopt* the majority's
morality, there's only an obligation to *respect* it in a few
circumstances. Big difference.

Me:
There is no obligation for anyone to even respect the majority's
morality, IMO. There are only various consequences if they don't. An
obligation only exists if the person in question adopts the majority's
morality, even if they only do so in the sense of trying to use them
to modify *others'* behavior. Once they buy in, they're stuck. IMO.

Lupinlore wrote:
"One can say that Dumbledore is not a High King and Snape has no legal
obligation to obey him, but that is evading the point."

Del replies:
Not at all. It's refusing to face that fact that is evading the point,
IMO. Snape simply has NO obligation to adopt anyone's moral code,
period. As long as he respects the law, he's free to act in whatever
way he wants. That's what *freedom* is about.

Me:
Snape is furious, AFAWK, when Harry invades his privacy (memories in
the Pensieve). Privacy is part of a moral/social code outside of law.
Snape insists on other respectful forms as well; IMO, once he demands
that others adhere to a code of moral/social conduct, he obligates
himself as well. It is one thing to refuse to adhere to a code if the
reason is that you do not recognize it as correct or relevant or
useful; once you do, if you ignore it at only at your own convenience,
then, IMO, you are morally in error. Inherently. Regardless of the
code in question.

Lupinlore wrote:
"The point is who you believe is in the right. If you believe that DD
is in the right, then Snape absolutely has a moral obligation to adapt
himself to DD's moral code -- whether Snape agrees with the code is of
no importance whatsoever."

Del replies:
What if I believe everyone is in the wrong? Including DD? Because
according to your logic, that's what I should believe, since nobody in
the Potterverse upholds the One Right Moral Code: Christ's. Everybody
is only upholding their own, human-made, fallible, moral codes, so
everybody is in the "wrong". Granted, some come closer to The One
Right Moral Code than others, but so what? They are still all "wrong".
Or rather, in my view, they are all *right*.

Me:
"The One Right Moral Code" changes from country to country and
believer to believer. There is no absolute code, even in any scripture
on the planet, IMO (because all the ones I know anything about have
self-contradictions within).

Lupinlore wrote:
"The nature of human interaction is that a person will inevitably
think their code is right and everyone else's is wrong, and that other
people therefore have an obligation to do what is right."

Del replies:
Then I guess I'm not a human being O_o

Me:
Of course you are, Del, or you wouldn't be debating this point with
Bob. Just the fact that you are here in print actually supports his
point. IMO. ;-)

Lupinlore:
"Is that imposing my moral code on someone else? Absolutely. There
is no other way to be a moral person -- which is the same as saying
there is no other way to be a person."

Del:
Just because you can't conceive of another way, doesn't mean nobody
else can. Be careful in projecting your own mindset on other people.
(I'm not saying I'm not guilty of doing that too, mind you. I'm
*trying* not to do it, but I don't always succeed, far from it :-)

Me:
Personally, I recognize no deity; on the other hand, the idea of life
under no code or law strikes me as terrifying and appalling. I want to
live in a world where people balance their own wants and needs against
the wants and needs of others. I consider it a kind of social barter
system; I believe people grant each other rights because they want to
have some themselves, and, essentially, there is constant and infinite
bargaining going on. I think the need for religion will eventually go
the path of the appendix, if the race survives long enough. I'd like
to see Homo Sapiens grow up enough to no longer need celestial mommies
and daddies. I want to believe in people, and have people believe in
themselves and each other.

Sandy aka msbeadsley, hoping she hasn't broken the rules here more
egregiously than anybody else...