muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[Jennifer Choi]

No: HPFGUIDX 155227

Magpie:

> > I don't see much point in arguing that the Twins are Death Eaters
> > because they obviously aren't. My post was saying that I recognize
> > that the Dursleys mistreat Harry and that the Twins don't ever 
> > seem
> > to dislike Muggles the way a DE does. My reaction to this scene
> > doesn't depend on that. As a Muggle I don't think it's okay that
> > they would only torment me with Magic if they disapproved of
> > something I did.

Random832:

> Do you think that it's somehow uniquely "not ok" to use magic even
> where it would be "ok" to, say, punch him in the face? I don't 
> really follow your logic here.
>
> You also seem to be introducing a certain moral relativism by saying
> "if they disapproved of something I did" rather than "if I did
> something wrong" - is that your intention? By reducing it to that,
> you're basically saying that their reasons wouldn't matter, no 
> matter what your actual offense was.

jennathasania83:

I think that Magpie's discomfort partly stems from the fact that 
Dudley is obviously incapable of doing magic, and thus has no way to 
defend himself against the Twins' torment, or at least that is the 
root of my discomfort with the situation. At least if it came down to 
a fist fight I imagine that Dudley could give as good as he got, which 
would not make the fighting "right" but would level the playing field. 
So yes, I personally would say that it is uniquely "not okay" to use 
magic, since it brings them right to the point where they are the big 
playground bully beating on the kid who is physically unable to fight 
back.

Being in the wrong and having someone disapprove of what you have 
done/are doing are two COMPLETELY different things. True, most people 
disapprove of things that are socially and legally wrong, but people 
also disapprove of things that are perfectly normal or legal. It's not 
that the action itself doesn't matter, but the 'wrongness" can't be 
reduced down to an individual value judgement. For example, I could 
think that abortion is completely and utterly wrong, and those who 
practice it are evil people. (I don't, and I'm not out trying to 
offend anyone in anyway, this is just an easy example because it is a 
polarized topic) However, person A who is pro-choice is not "wrong" in 
anyway beyond my personal judgement, and just because "I" think that 
they deserve to be punished doesn't mean that their punishment is 
right, or that I should be able to punish them. So I don't think that  
Magpie is trying to imply moral relativism, rather she is arguing 
against.

Lastly, "because they deserved it" is the worst defense ever for an 
action. Not too long ago there was a big scandal about prison abuse 
occuring in a US military prison which really illustrates this point. 
The people detained were believed to be terrorists - and I'm sure that 
everyone will agree that being a terrorist is bad - but that didn't 
make it either morally or legally acceptable for them to be humiliated 
or mistreated, and even though the Americans were the "good" guys, 
didn't mean that they got a pass (technically). Also, although Dudley 
didn't die from the toffee it was pretty clear that he could have 
asphixiated (=death); poisoning candies and leaving them out for 
unsuspecting people will get you major jail time, and it's pretty 
strange to say that "they deserved to die" because they chose to eat 
the candies. Being poisoned (having your tongue swell) isn't a 
forseeable consequence of eating a candy.

Anyways, my 3 cents.

jennathasania83