Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 154541

> >>Magpie:
> > But what does that prove, exactly? Betsy thinks it's harsh, you 
> > think Marietta deserves what she gets.  The facts stay the 
> > same, so obviously one side isn't just the end of the story. 

> >>Alla:
> Yes, the facts stay the same, but Marietta does not stop being a 
> traitor, does not she? So, that comes to either agreeing with what 
> she did or disagreeing with what she did, no?
> Or I guess the third option is to disapprove of what she did, but 
> to think that her punishment was too harsh, right? (That is        
> Betsy's position, right?)

Betsy Hp:
That's exactly my position.  And my point.  Is branding someone a 
good thing?  I don't care who's doing the branding or who's 
receiving the branding.  Because once you get into that sort of 
excuse making you're opening yourself up to a slippery slope of 
allowable behavior.  And that's dangerous, IMO.

Look, two characters get branded in OotP: Marietta and Harry.  We 
like Harry so it's Bad that he was branded.  We don't like Marietta 
so it's Good that she was branded.  And that sort of moralizing is 
ripe for abuse.  Because you're not judging someone by their actions 
or a set of rules.  You're judging them by how much you like them, 
and with your own sense of righteousness.

Umbridge doesn't care much for Harry.  He's mouths off in her 
classroom and makes life difficult for the Ministry.  She sees 
herself as on the right side and as a good person.  So she's allowed 
to brand Harry.  Because she's good.  And if he forces her to Crucio 
him, well, she's a good person so her actions must be okay.

This is exactly how Hermione is behaving.  Hermione is on the right 
side and is a good person.  So she's allowed to brand people and 
she's allowed to cheat when she deems it necessary.  Because she's 
good.  And if she's forced to Crucio someone, well, she's a good 
person so her actions must be okay.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Exactly!  This is a *perfect* example of the "Because I am Good 
> > what I do is Good, but if you do the same thing it's Bad,       
> > because you are Bad" mindset.  That there are no rules governing 
> > behavior. Anything goes if you're the right sort of person.  The 
> > Death Eaters can torment a family of muggles and it's bad,      
> > because they're bad. But the twins can torment a family of      
> > muggles and it's funny, because they are good.

> >>Alla:
> But once again, how does Marietta comes into play? Is the argument 
> that good guys like traitors IF they are good guys?
> I did not see it anywhere.

Betsy Hp:
Marietta does not and should not come into play.  I'm talking 
actions not personalities.  The argument is that if someone claims 
they are good they should behave in a good manner.  No matter the 
provocation from the other side.  If Ron raped Marietta to "teach 
her a lesson" would that be okay?  You know, because Marietta is a 
traitor and Ron is a good guy?  Of course not.  Because rape is 
bad.  It's a bad action that a good person would not do.  Even if 
they hated the other person.  Like or dislike shouldn't have 
anything to do with it, IMO.  

> >>Alla: 
> And when Twins torment a family of muggles to me it is funny NOT 
> because they are good ( although I love them), BUT because those 
> muggles to me are so very horrible and yes, deserve everything    
> that they get IMO of course.

Betsy Hp:
And that's precisely what the Death Eaters (and all the wizards 
running to join them) would say about the family of muggles they 
were tormenting.  Those muggles were horrible and deserved 
everything they got.

And there's the slippery slope.  For all we know (and we know 
nothing because we know nothing of the muggle family and nothing of 
the participating wizards) the muggles may have been cruel to one of 
the wizards in the crowd.  Does that change anything?  Should it?
 
> >>Alla:
> But should Draco's POV matter in evaluating his parents?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!!  Should POV matter?  Hermione branded a girl permenantly 
on the face.  Does the "why" even matter?  Should it?  Shouldn't 
there be a governing set of rules that seperate the good from the 
bad?  Shouldn't we be able to point to the good guys and 
say, "they'd never..."?

And, unfortunately, in many things we can't.  The bad guys will 
brand someone. So will the good guys.  The bad guys will hate 
someone based solely on their family background, so will the good 
guys.  The bad guys will laugh when someone they don't like gets 
hurt, so will the good guys.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But the thing is, to Draco the *Order* is made up of 
> > disgusting little bigots that should get what they deserve.

> >>Alla:
> And as I said above, why should it matter in deciding who is a    
> good guy? I am absolutely serious here. 

Betsy Hp:
It matters because it makes it hard to evaluate who really *is* the 
good guys.  Your side hates people because of their blood.  The 
opposite side hates people because of their blood.  How do you 
decide which is on the side of the angels?

Remember, Draco isn't on the front lines.  He gets his father's spin 
on things, and he observes Harry's gang at Hogwarts.  There is never 
a time that Harry or his friends take an action that suggests they 
are better people than Draco.  In fact, there are times that their 
behavior is *worst* than Draco's and his friends.  (Draco has never 
branded someone who crossed him, for example.)

It's not until Draco actually enters the arena and sees Voldemort in 
his true light that he sees there *is* a difference.  He sees that 
Voldemort isn't good.  And he sees (finally) that Dumbledore isn't 
bad.  And it's based totally and completely on their *actions*.
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > It's not until HBP that Draco sees or experiences anything that 
> > would tell him differently.  So Draco is facing a moment where   
> > he can step out of his family's shadow and examine things for    
> > himself.  I feel like Harry will need to do something similar    
> > himself, especially since he's yet to question his own bigotry.

> >>Alla:
> Harry had plenty of those moments IMO, discovering that the fate   
> of wisarding world is on his shoulders was IMO only one of them.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No. That's not the same thing at all.  Harry isn't confronting his 
own prejudice, his own mistaken thinking.  That's what I'm talking 
about.  Not the pressure of responsibility (which is important, but 
not what I'm discussing) but the pressure of self-examination.

Draco feeling the responsibility of his mother's life is comparable 
(though not equal) to Harry feeling the responsibility of the fate 
of the WW.  What Draco went through on the Tower is more comparable 
(though not equal) to what Harry went through seeing his younger 
father in the pensieve.

The thing is, Harry's moment of crisis after the pensieve scene 
didn't stick.  He fell right back into his old, comfortable, 
unexamined thinking.  If Harry is to acheive true wisdom, he'll have 
to go through a moment of real self-examination where he questions 
what he believes and why.

> >>Alla:
> But the thing is what plays into consideration the most IMO is how 
> JKR evaluates the action, no? I mean for the purposes of writing 
> about it.
> I think she is pretty harsh on traitors. IMO of course.

Betsy Hp:
Is she?  Does JKR approve of Hermione's behavior?  Does she approve 
of the twins?  I don't think we can tell, yet, based on the text 
alone.  That Hermione mirrors Umbridge, that the twins mirror Death 
Eaters, is fairly telling to me.  Of course that's my opinion.  
It'll be interesting to see if the last book clarifies things or 
leaves them disturbingly muddy.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Houyhnhnm, I think I love you. <g> This really makes
> > so much sense to me.
> > <snip of rephrasing of houyhnhnm's grand point>

> >>houyhnhnm:
> Er, I'm a *female* houyhnhnm, so I'll take that
> in the magical sense.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  My love is strictly platonic and based solely on your mind. 
<VBG>

Betsy Hp