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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 155995

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" <mros at ...> wrote:
<HUGE SNIP>
> 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.


Alla:

I agree with you - killing is an **evil** thing to do, no matter what
circumstances, no matter what reasons are behind it, at the most
killing can be called a **necessary evil**.
(Personally, I consider killing in self-defense to be excusable, but
I am willing to put it aside for a second)

Does this definition of killing as evil or at its most favorable
definition as "necessary evil" applies to all characters or only to
Harry?

Thanks.

JMO of course,

Alla,

who for this very reason is willing to predict that Harry will not
kill Voldemort.