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

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 146183

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> Betsy Hp:
> Point of clarity: that's a bit of an extreme version of what I was 
> saying. 

My pardon; I thought it was implied in the phrasing, and the extreme 
version actually is what Kant argues for.

> Though I will also say that basing your rules *entirely* on 
> situation and the character of those involved is another extreme.

I don't think she's working entirely from situation, but I think 
she's working with rules which absolutely cannot be separated from 
character and motivation.

I think the motivations of the characters make a world, a giant 
heaping massive world of difference.  To answer a tangential 
question, I think this is why JKR finds Draco a negative character 
(mostly, if you think about the combination of how he's presented and 
her comments about him in the past) but Ginny delightful (absolutely 
unquestionable from comments), when they do some things which some 
listies have argued are basically the same.

We-the-readers don't have to agree with that, but it may well come 
out solidly enough in the results that disagreeing is banging your 
head against the textual reality.
  
> 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".)

I find there to be a few too many cases where, again, it's the 
motivation and not the rule in and of itself is important.  Or in 
other words, the rule as an abstract has to interact with the 
specific situation to determine the correct course of action.  And 
that's likely to result in the kind of 'skewed' writing which JKR 
does seem to indulge in.

In fact, I find it hard to go through and list the concrete rules 
which are supposed to be applied to everyone by the good people, 
because we seem to have more of a way of acting presented than 
principles for action.  Emotion and heart over calculated intellect.  
(Dan, are you listening?)

> 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.

I wouldn't argue that the latter situation isn't unpleasant.  
However, what certainly plays into how JKR constructs and plays the 
scene are the motivations of the characters involved and why exactly 
what is happening *is* happening to them.  The Draco situation is 
double-layered, and doesn't come out cleanly at all, because of two 
factors.  It's Barty on a nasty personal vendetta, we get from the re-
read--but it's still Draco instigating and attacking from behind.  
That means (for me at least) there is this undercurrent to the scene 
the second read-through, but the urge to indulge in Schadenfreude 
isn't eliminated because the instigation remains and is not mitigated 
in any way.  I think it's possible to read the scene that way; it's 
not the kind of straightforward funny which some of the characters 
find it as it happens, and while we may end up pitying Draco, there 
are limits on it. 

> 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.

Interpersonal comparison of emotion and utility is a no-no, or so I 
always get told by my social science type friends.  But again, I 
think the specifics around each situation make the world of 
difference.

<snip>

> And interestingly enough, one of the last acts of magic in GoF has 
> some of the "good guys" attacking from behind. 

In response to yet another provocation.  I think that degree of 
instigation *does* matter, even through JKR does also paint the 
violent response as not intelligent, in many cases.  Why does 
instigation matter so much?  It seems to have to do with the 
skepticism towards institutions and the glorification of the 
individual.

-Nora longs for the free time to crank through some of this stuff 
again