Values of Potterverse WAS: Re: muggle baiting vs/Being good and evil

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 155216

> Alla:
>
> > To me though in Potterverse goodness is defined not
> > just being on the right side, but in general being on
> > the right side as adhering to the right values, as
> > Pippin remarked earlier.
>
> houyhnhnm:
>
> Right values such as lying, getting drunk, stealing,
> disrespecting parents, breaking rules just for the fun
> of it, cheating on homework, hexing people because they exist?
>
> If these are the "right values" of the Potterverse,
> those who oppose the books may have a point (though
> they do so for the wrong reasons.)
>

Alla:

No, right values like opposing the ideology that one group of wizards
for some reasons is better than another group of wizards, saving
people from death for selfless purposes, standing up to the dark
wizard while knowing that you can be dead the next minute, right
values like being friends with "dark creature", like risking your
life while saving innocent man from terrible fate, like understanding
that friendship is worth a lot, **those** values.
One can disagree as to whether those values are right in the first
place, but to me there is a very little doubt that for JKR they are
right values.

After all she said that she values courage more than anything else.

And then yes, breaking the rules ( especially if they are done for
noble purposes, but even if it is not IMO), lying, cheating on
homework, etc, IMO is not considered a big deal.

I mean it is on the case by case basis, but yes I'd say that those
who are virtuous ( it is of course just my interpretation of JKR
intent, nothing more), especially courageous for "noble purposes" are
allowed to get away with
more in Potterverse than those who are not.

> houyhnhnm102 <celizwh at ...> wrote:
> 
> 
> "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" But among civilized
> people today this is not considered a very evolved concept
> of justice. Neither is "the ends justify the means."
> I don't think an author who worked for Amnesty International
> and links to it on her web site is going to go there.
> 
>   Joe:
> 
>   Sorry but that is a value judgement. There are plenty of 
civilized people who stil think that those statements still have 
great value. I think JKR is a good enough author to understand that, 
her own beliefs aside, there are those that feel otherwise and might 
write at least a portion of her books with that in mind.
>

Alla:

Actually the original post was **not** talking about eye for an eye, 
but about justice, which to me is  hugely different from eye for an 
eye. I agree with you Joe, I see absolutely no problem with fictional 
villains getting all they deserve and more, legally or not, **but** I 
am also wondering why exactly JKR as former employee of Amnesty will 
not necessarily go into punishing her villains?

If Snape **is** guilty in DD murder, I doubt she will portray his 
linching or something like that, but being in Azkaban forever, why 
not?

How is it eye for an eye? It is justice, because an eye for an eye 
will be putting Snape, helpless and begging in front of  Harry and 
making Harry kill him. Would she go there? I doubt it and I don't 
want her to either, but  Snape spending his days in Azkaban will be 
so nice.

Now, if she decides to deal with Snape's treatment of Harry and 
Neville, then in the plot it is not possible to punish legally and 
that is where carmic justice comes to play IMO.

JMO,

Alla