Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 160951

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Molly is there because her family is there.  She has not had to 
> > proactively *do* anything. Yes it's hard to realize that her    
> > family is out there and in danger.  But it's something that's    
> > happened to Molly.  It's not a choice she's made.

> >>Charles:
> By your argument here, we are to assume that Aberforth Dumbledore,
> Hestia Jones, Emmeline Vance (before she got killed), and many     
> other members of the order are doing nothing simply because we are 
> not explicitly told their missions in canon? Unlikely. Simply     
> because we are not told Molly's activities it is *not* safe to    
> assume that they do not exist.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But I don't see those activities.  Which is my point.  This 
discussion started when I said I saw (personally) more to admire in 
Narcissa than in Molly.  And I explained that the reason I saw more 
to admire is because I got to witness Narcissa doing something 
proactive to protect her child.  I even went so far as to state that 
the comparison was inherently flawed *because* we've not seen Molly 
take some sort of proactive action.  There's no fair way to figure 
out what Molly would do in Narcissa's place.

So I don't care if Molly is doing all sorts of things behind the 
scenes.  I'm going by what I've seen.  (Which is why Hestia Jones 
and Emmeline Vance didn't make my list of female characters in 
Potterverse I liked.) 

> >>Charles:
> In OotP she is not idle, she is one of two adults in charge of what
> we might term "stationkeeping" for the order. She, along with the
> kids is attempting to make headquarters fit to occupy.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
She was also chief complainer and most likely to hit shrill at any 
given moment. <g>  Anyway, cooking, cleaning, nagging and 
undermining aren't too likely to switch Molly off my "disliked 
character's" list.

> >>Charles:
> To draw a parallell, your argument is like calling the support    
> sections of a military cowards because they aren't the ones       
> wielding the weapons-which is ridiculous.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
When did I call Molly a coward?

> >>Charles:
> And as far as it not being a choice she's made-how many people in 
> the wizarding world are members of the order?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, but how many of Molly's family are members?

> >>Phoenixgod2000
> > And for the record she is going against the tide of one of
> > her most beloved son's and her goverment--the goverment that    
> > feeds and clothes her family.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > No she isn't.
> > <snip>

> >>Charles:
> Yes, actually she is, at least in OotP. Percy and the ministry may
> not be pro-Voldie, but they *are* anti-Dumbledore-again, at least 
> in OotP.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right, the way I see Molly (and erm, this won't be popular) she's 
basically weak and stupid.  So Arthur put his foot down and threw 
one of his son's out.  Molly's just going along.  She won't stand up 
to Arthur when he takes a firm stand, but I seriously doubt Molly is 
fully against the Ministry.  As Phoenixgod pointed out, Arthur is 
still working there.  She's probably against Fudge (as she's been 
for a while since she's been living under the pleasant lie that 
Arthur was shunted into Muggle relations against his will) but I 
doubt she's against the Ministry full stop.

It's the same reason I think Molly's favorite sons have always been 
the twins.  I think she sees them as proper boys -- all piss and 
vinegar.  Poor Percy tried for years to become Molly's beloved by 
doing everything she *said* she wanted a perfect son.  But the twins 
followed her actions, and they took top spot.  (I wouldn't be 
surprised if they're a lot like her brothers were.) 

> > >>Phoenixgod2000:
> > <snip>
> > Narcissa and her family is *evil*.  
> > <snip>

> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > They are not evil.  Some of their beliefs are.  
> > <snip>

> >>Charles:
> Here is where it falls down. What makes a person evil if it is not
> their actions and ideas?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  I don't like Narcissa's beliefs.  But I do admire her 
actions.  A mother's love for her child is not an example of evil.  
At least, not IMO.

> >>Alla:
> I see I have to clarify. I considered that you were making the
> argument about moral relativism not because it is bad to love your
> child. Of course it is not, but what stroke as "moral are relative"
> part ( and I can be wrong) is the idea that **because** Narcissa
> loves her child she somehow becomes more sympathetic character.

Betsy Hp:
For me Narcissa becomes more sympathetic because we get a glimpse of 
good in her.  Yes, Narcissa's political beliefs are bad.  But she 
puts them aside, undermines her leader, to protect her son.  And I 
admire that.  I'm not trying to say Narcissa is the moral center of 
the book.  But I can see past the political beliefs to see the 
glimmer of something good there.  

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> As Phoenixgod said, bad people ( racists, torturers, murderers)    
> have families who love them, so what?

Betsy Hp:
I'm not looking at who loves Narcissa.  I'm looking at who and how 
she loves.  I don't think Bellatrix expressed a good form of love 
(pleased that Draco would die for her cause), I do think Narcissa 
expressed a good form of love (risking herself to save him).

> >>Alla:
> I mean, really does torturer and murderer ( Lucius Malfoy for
> example) becomes less sympathetic character because he loves his
> child? Why?

Betsy Hp:
First, have we seen Lucius kill or torture anyone?  (I'm just 
curious about that, because I'm really not sure where JKR is going 
to take him.) But yeah, if we get a scene with Lucius that's similar 
to the scene we got with Narcissa, he'd garner a bit more sympathy 
on my part.  Because again, it'd be Lucius showing a glimmer of 
goodness, the ability to love someone else more then himself.

Like when Darth Vader sacrificed himself to save his son.  It showed 
the goodness still in him and so Luke felt he'd won his father back 
from the Dark Side.  Despite all the people Vader had tortured and 
killed.

> >>Alla:
> This is Wikipedia definition, which is pretty much what I am
> thinking of.
> <snip of quote>

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  I totally went to Wikipedia to check that moral relativism was 
what I thought it was. <g>  So we're on the same page.

> >>Alla:
> Basically what I heard you saying is that Narcissa's political    
> views do not matter, that she can be admired without looking at her
> politics, that we can forget about her political views and admire
> her as person and to me that means diminishing Narcissa morals,
> disregarding of who she is as a person – first and foremost a
> Voldemort's supporter IMO.
> Does that make sense?

Betsy Hp:
It does, but that's not what I was saying.  I specifically said (a 
bit upthread) that I do recognize that Narcissa stuck in the third 
part of the vow.  She was fine with a dead Dumbledore and it'd be a 
mistake to overlook that.

However, I think we also saw that Narcissa is first and foremost 
Draco's mother, *not* Voldemort's supporter.  She willingly 
undermined Voldemort's plan to protect her son.  (An example of 
someone putting Voldemort first is Bellatrix who was quite willing 
to sacrifice her nephew in the name of Voldemort's cause.)  I do see 
a glimmer of goodness in Narcissa's decision to go to Snape.  And I 
admire her willingness to defy Voldemort to protect her son.  
Doesn't mean I don't recognize that she's a danger to Harry and has 
a bit further to go if she wants to become one of the white hats 
(which I'm not even sure she actually wants to do).

Betsy Hp