[HPforGrownups] Re: Conflict, imposition, and morality

[Kathryn Jones]

No: HPFGUIDX 140598

lupinlore wrote:

>
> Of course there's something inherently wrong with that.  Moral wrong
> is by definition "inherently" wrong -- there is no other thing it can
> be.  Nor are all moral codes created equal -- in the Potterverse or
> any other.  It is the nature of being human to impose your moral code
> on others, whether that is what you think you are doing or not.  By
> definition, Snape thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong.  By
> definition, I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong.  But that
> does not mean that there is nothing inherently wrong with Snape's
> position.  From my position (and there is ONLY a personal position,
> there is no objective position on morality, including morality of
> relativism and/or tolerance) any position that does not agree with
> what I believe to be right is inherently wrong.  And everyone else in
> the world approaches morality in exactly the same way, whether they
> are willing to admit it or not.

    KJ writes:
        Interestingly enough, the New Catholic Dictionary defines moral 
good  as acts which are directed to
     Man's ultimate end, i.e., when in conformity with right rational 
nature. Unfortunately, right rational nature is
    defined as that which constitutes the "proximate norm" of morality. 
It also states that the quality of moral
    goodness is dependant upon three factors: a) the object of the act 
itself, b) the purpose, and c) the circumstances
    of the act. Some moral codes are based on legal codes. One's choices 
may be based strictly upon legal statutes,
    in this way living a completely moral life while engaging in 
behaviour which most of us find reprehensible. Other
    codes are based strictly on religious principles, which obviously 
vary from one religion to another. The choices
    based on this model have led to murder and mayhem for centuries, 
still are today, and seem to be the
    models which most require all others to believe in the same moral code.
        The  Moral Judgement Test on the Harvard website test morality 
based on decisions where the good of the many
    outweigh the costs to the few. This would seem to me the way that 
Dumbledore makes most of his decisions, and yet
    Dumbledore is held to be the epitome of good. It is a little 
uncomfortable for me to see him put an eleven year old in the
    path of danger in the hope of affecting an over-all good for the 
rest of the WW. I feel that he could have done better. I
   also have a little trouble with him sending all of his seconds into 
extremely dangerous positions, giants, werewolves, and
   Deatheaters, again in the hope of affecting a good out-come for the 
rest of the WW.
        Snape, on the other hand, has made clear moral choices: to save 
Harry's life, to go back to Voldemort, when it would
   have been much safer at Hogwarts, to provide false veritaserum to 
Umbridge, etc. The killing of Dumbledore would also
   become a clear moral choice if it satisfied the three factors stated 
above. The difference in these two individuals is mostly
   that Snape does not need to be nice or lovable to be moral. 
Dumbledore obviously feels that it costs him nothing to be
   nice and lovable and is more easily seen as being moral. Snape may 
even be seen to be the more moral of the two in that
   he has consistently tried to have Harry expelled, which would remove 
him from Dumbledore's sphere of influence, has tried
   to severely limit Harry's ability to get into trouble (Snape would 
never have given Harry an invisibility cloak), and has tried to
   prevent several things from being set in motion which would put Harry 
in a dangerous position.  Interesting.
       Morality is not as black and white as you state it.
  KJ

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>