[HPforGrownups] Re: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v

[Marion Ros]

No: HPFGUIDX 155990

> >>Katie:
> Look, my point is this, I guess. Whose side are we all on? I mean, 
> we've been debating the twins' behavior, Hermione's behavior(in 
> other threads), and even Dumbledore's behavior!

Betsy Hp:
For me the question is: *Why* are we on this side? Especially when 
it comes to Harry and company's *private* grudges. Did Zacherias 
really *deserve* Ginny's attacks? Did the first year Slytherins 
deserve to be hissed by the twins? Did Dudley deserve to be hexed 
by Hagrid and fed magic potions by the twins? Did Marietta deserve 
to be disfigured for so long? Are those good actions? Would I 
stand with someone who did those sort of things?

Since, in most cases, my answer is "no", my next question is: Well 
is this accepted as good behavior? Are the good guys praised for it 
or is this something they need to learn not to do? I await book 7.

****Katie replies:****
Ok...trying to remain coherent...Why are we picking apart things like practical jokes and such when LV has killed god knows how many people, his DE's torment and endanger people every day...I mean, the bad guys' actions are so obviously much worse than anything anyone on *our* side has done...why is it even debatable? Fred and George's antics hardly compare to Barty Crouch Jr.'s! Hermione may have gone a little far with the *disfigurement* of Marietta(though I certainly enjoyed a snicker at Marietta's expense), but she certainly would never murder someone! Even when Harry TRIED to do Unforgivable Curses, he COULDN'T! Why?? Because he's a good guy. Anything that *our* side has done that is questionable morality-wise, doesn't even compare for one eensy second to what LV and his DEs have done. Not for one second. 



Marion:
Why are we picking apart lil' bad things the Good Guys do while the Bad Guys do such big bad things?
Why should we care about disfigurement whilst They Over There are killing people?
Why should we care that one of Our Heroes tries to kill too, if it turns out he's just not bloody good at it after all and nobody actually dies (though not through fault of trying)?

Why *should* we care?

Well, um, because it's *wrong* to hurt anybody for vengeance or fun, no matter that the Bad Guys hurting for vengeance or fun is bigger?
Because the difference between Right and Wrong and Good and Evil should be about do's and don'ts and not about 'how much'?
Because it's *hypocritical* to declare an other party to be Evil and yourself good whilst you yourself commit gleefully similar acts - and still call yourself Good - if only in a lesser degree?

And yes, dear moderator, this is my opinion. 

The definition of 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary:"Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action while carrying out the same action oneself."

It is my opinion that any Good Guy who pretends to have morals or virtues that he does not truly possess or practice, as proven by his actions (be it that those actions are less heinous than murder but still consists of attempted murder, disfigurement and harassment), then that Good Guy is a hypocrite.

I leave you to ponder:
If Lockhart was a fraud and an imposter for taking credit of other wizard's deeds, what does that make Harry for taking credit of the HBP's innovations and winning Slughorns praise and even a potionmaking contest with it?
Umbridge was convinced she was doing the WW a service by trying to shut up that mouthy Potter who blabbed to the press about Voldemort when it was clearly (in her opinion) for the good of the WW that things were kept quite. She had no problems in using a scarring bloodquill to achieve this. Hermione was convinced she was doing the WW a service by trying to shut up Marietta who blabbed to the government representative about the DA when it was clearly (in her opinion) for the good of the WW that the government representative didn't know about it's existence. She had no problems in using a scarring hex to achieve this. 
We don't know if Lockhart had any morals or values. Clearly he thought it quite okay to cheat and steal other people's achievement and present them as his own. 
We do know that Harry was quite disgusted with Lockhard's fraudulent behaviour. He seems to profess with his disgust that he *has* morals. Yet, a few years later he does exactly which he professes to be morally wrong in Lockhart and yet nowhere during that whole book does Harry admit to himself that what he himself is doing to be wrong.
This is hypocrisy at it's best.
Likewise Hermione (and Harry) condemn Umbridge's use of a bloodquill, but see no reason why using the hex on Marietta should be wrong.

Of course I could be wrong. Maybe Harry and Hermione have no morals at all. Perhaps their anger at Umbridge was not a "how dare you use a bloodquill on a living being, that's barbaric!", but a "how dare you use a bloodquill on Harry Potter! Go use it on Draco Malfoy and I will applaud you for it! Draco deserved to be carved up. Use it on Marietta, give us all a good laugh, but don't use it on Harry Potter!"
If this was the case they would not be hypocrites. They would also not be heroes because the least one might expect from heroes is morals and virtues, but at least they would not be hypocrites.

There are people who are of the opinion that Umbridge's use of the bloodquill is Bad because Harry did not deserve to be scarred and that Hermione's use of the hex was good (or at least excusable) because Marietta deserved to be scarred. Those who are of this opinion merely look at the 'side' which the perpetrator is on and not at their morals and virtues. Those on the 'wrong' side are condemned for scarring the 'good guy' and those on the 'right side' are applauded for scarring the 'bad girl'. In that case it no longer matters wether the next time Harry tries a Avada Kadavra it works, because the person who will die will probably deserve it too. Since Harry is the Hero of the story, whatever he does is automatically good. How easy! How convenient! No longer do we have to think about stodgy old morals, no longer do we have to ponder between good and bad behaviour: whatever Harry does is Good because Harry is Good, even if what he does is considered Bad when DE's do it. 
Why bother with all this talk about 'morals' and 'virtues' in this day and age. Just boo and hiss whenever the Black Hat scars a child and laugh and be smug whenever a White Hat scars a child. Why should it matter that the only way to distinguish a villain from a hero is the colour of his hat?

Um...

Yes, it matters to me if the Good Guys fail their 'morality test'. It matters to me if the Good Guys are hypocritical enough to condemn others for actions they commit themselves. And no, it doesn't matter to me if the Bad Guys' Bad Deeds are bigger than the Good Guys' Bad Deeds.
I'm not saying that you can win a war by putting flowers in your hair and sing songs about the age of Aquarius. I'm not against Harry having to AK Voldemort or DE's when it comes to a confrontation. What I'm saying is that, if it ever gets to a point where Harry has to kill, that Harry will understand that killing is an evil thing to do. A necessary evil perhaps, in a war, but an evil thing. And that he will accept that responsiblity. What I'm against is the notion that Harry and friends can condemn people whilst pulling the same sh*t, but still believe that their *own* excrement smells of roses.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]