Humanity, Kant, Caricatures, and Draco (was Re: Real child abuse)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 146181

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I'm really uncomfortable with that sort of philosophy.  Rather   
> > than using rules fairly applied to everybody, some rules are     
> > made for one sort of person and other rules are made for another 
> > sort.  So, Draco deserves to be physically tortured because of  
> > who he is.  But Neville should never be challanged because of   
> > who he is.  Hagrid is allowed to physically endanger his        
> > students.  Snape is not allowed to emotionally endanger his.

> >>Nora:
> <snip> 
> What Betsy proposes here is very Kantian: rules are rules and they 
> apply perfectly equally to everyone.  

Betsy Hp:
Point of clarity: that's a bit of an extreme version of what I was 
saying.  Though I will also say that basing your rules *entirely* on 
situation and the character of those involved is another extreme.  
I'm betting JKR's going for the more complex and harder to define 
middle.  Rules are for everyone, and a good person applies them to 
everyone. (McGonagall as an example of good; Snape as an example of 
bad.)  However, some rules are wrong, and a good person knows when 
to break them. (Harry as an example of good; Percy as an example of 
bad.)  It's up to the individual to figure out which statement 
applies, when.  Though I will say no rules whatsoever seems to be a 
pretty bad thing all around.  (Umbridge and Voldemort are good 
examples of the evils of chaos. I can't think of any examples 
of "good chaos".)

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> And her [JKR's] morality really *is* quite situational and        
> considers character as a fundamental issue.  I'd say yes, some    
> things are okay when done by some people and not by others, thanks 
> to the context.  
> Correct motivation matters a great deal, for one thing (and we can 
> use Kant there, for sure).  Methods, too. 
> However, what sets this apart from the DEs is that a different set 
> of criteria is used, based on people's character and actions      
> rather than any abstract blood quality.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think rather than saying "rules are rules" I'd say, humans are 
humans.  And if someone is trying to make the argument that sarcasm 
is cruel enough to be labeled abuse when used against a child, it's 
rather strange to turn around and say bouncing a child against a 
stone floor is *not* abuse.

In order to make that argument with any sort of sincerity you'd have 
to show that the bounced child either doesn't feel pain, or is 
somehow so wrong in essentials they actually deserve to be treated 
so brutally.  (And remember, we're coming from the standpoint that 
sarcasm is too brutal for the average child.  So we're talking a 
*massive* amount of brutality here.)  Either way, to lower the bar 
so drastically calls for some sort of moral compromise.  e.g. The 
bounced child isn't quite as human as the other children. (It's 
interesting that Draco is turned into a ferret before he's tortured 
by Fake!Moody; his humanity is literally taken away.)

I have no idea if this is Kantian or not (My Philosophy 101 class is 
safely ensconsed in the long, long ago <g>) but I think that sort of 
treatment for *any* child, no matter the character, is wrong.  At 
least in Potterverse.  Because I think JKR thinks along similar 
lines.  All of her children, even the Slytherins, are human, even if 
our protaganist doesn't want to see them as such. Just look at how 
the bouncing incident is played out.

The attack is against Draco, Harry's school nemesis.  It's done by 
the incredibly cool new professor, beloved of the Gryffindors (Fake!
Moody is praised by the twins and Lee immediately following the 
attack), who soon becomes Harry's champion.  And it comes on the 
heels of Draco throwing a hex at Harry's turned back.  It seems 
perfectly acceptable to cheer Fake!Moody on and see McGonagall as a 
bit of a spoil sport.

But by the end of GoF, the scene comes across as something very 
different.  For one, Moody isn't a cool professor and he's certainly 
no champion of Harry.  He's one of the more fervent Death Eaters 
we've met so far (Bellatrix's loyalty combined with an ability to 
create and follow a plan), and he was an integral part of a plan to 
kill Harry.  He didn't target Draco because of Harry; he targeted 
Draco because of Lucius.  (Fake!Moody certainly has no problems with 
attacking someone whose back is turned. And interestingly enough, 
one of the last acts of magic in GoF has some of the "good guys" 
attacking from behind.  So much for Death Eater character lessons.)  
And the attack isn't stopped by the biased Snape, it's stopped by 
McGonagall, who is generally incredibly fair-minded.  Even if she 
were to show a bias, it wouldn't be *for* a Slytherin.  (And 
McGonagall seems horrified by what Fake!Moody's doing.) 

In one of his posts, Lupinlore suggested that JKR giggled her way 
through writing this particular scene.  I'm not sure that's true.  I 
can't really see her laughing at a Death Eater taking his anger out 
on a child.  And Draco's reactions, once McGonagall restores his 
humanity to him, are rather dignified.  He's described as being in 
pain, but he doesn't moan or shriek as he did in CoS.  Instead he 
faces Fake!Moody with quiet defiance, in a rather Harry-like manner, 
calling on his father as Harry calls on Dumbledore.

I don't think JKR is Roald Dahl.  Very few of her characters are 
full out caricatures.  Draco certainly doesn't behave like a 
caricature in this scene.  I think to try and judge this scene in a 
cartoonish way, to see Draco as less than human, is to misjudge the 
series, and possibly miss one of JKR big points.  *Harry* sees Draco 
as a caricature, I think.  Or at least, he tries to.  And he tries 
to see Slytherin House as a house without virtue.  But I don't think 
this is how JKR wants him to remain.  It's a point of view she's 
deliberately having him grow out of.  At least, that's how I see it.

Betsy Hp, who tried to tie this in to the House points in PS/SS but 
thought that would get way too confusing -- or at least, she was 
confused. <g>