Real child abuse

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 146193

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> 
wrote:
>
> Nora:
> 
> > And her 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 --
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Finwitch:
> 
> And I myself agree with situational ethics. Which is why I do not
> believe that a set of rules defining universal morality that can 
apply
> to each and every case can be constructed.


Magpie:

I believe in situational ethics as well, but I don't think that 
always explains everything going on in canon.  I mean, there's 
situational ethics and then there's just looking at the world as 
whatever you do must be justified and whatever that other person did 
was wrong and you're quite righteous for seeing so.  That's partly 
why I think it's significant that rule-breaking *in itself* is held 
up as the mark of a good person in canon, imo.  Knowing when you 
have to do something wrong can easily become rationalizing 
everything you do that might be wrong.  Also sometimes it's not 
really a case of situational ethics being presented but one that's 
much more common in schools, where a "good kid" who does something 
that might be considered wrong has his actions described in an 
affectionate way, where as a "bad kid" who does the same thing is 
judged in a negative way, and their actions are therefore judged 
differently, and that's just a double standard that both good kids 
and bad kids recognize.

-m