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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 160952

EDITED for couple of typos that change the meaning a lot in some 
sentences.


> > >>Alla:
> > Golden words, Phoenixgod, golden words. I do not buy the moral
> > relativism argument, which IMO Betsy makes.
>
> Betsy Hp:
> See, I wouldn't call it moral relativism. Narcissa loves her son
> and doesn't want to him to worthlessly sacrifice his life. I
> imagine Molly would feel the same way about any of her children if
> someone sent them on a suicide mission as a punishment for
Arthur's
> mistakes. *That's* the morals I'm talking about. There's nothing
> relative about it. Because politics doesn't enter into it. It's
> not bad to love your child. It's not bad to try and save him from
> certain death.

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.

I just do not get how because Narcissa can be evaluated without
looking at her political views when they are so unequivocally
disgusting.

As Phoenixgod said, bad people ( racists, torturers, murderers) have
families who love them, so what?

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

I mean sure the fact that Malfoys love each other made them less
caricaturous, more human in HBP, but not as **human in a good way"
IMO.

It just showed to me that Malfoys are portrayed as someone who is
capable of expressing any other emotion besides hate, but they are
still hateful bunch of murderers, or wanna be murderers.

True, we do not see Narcissa killing herself, but this **brave**
lady as you said herself has no problem with Dumbledore being dead,
she also had no problem with her cousin being dead as well.

On the large scale of thing she still supports Voldemort mentality. 
I am scratching my head as to how her love for her child makes her 
admirable.

Oooooo, maybe to me love for one's children is such a basic part of 
human nature that I really do not have much of admiration for the 
person if the only thing to admire about that person is their love 
for their kids, if that makes sense?

Not because it is easy of course, but because to me that is what 
parents supposed to do - love their children.

Parents who do bad things to their children - I really, really do 
not consider that to be normal behaviour, if that makes sense.

So, if you are telling me that you admire Narcissa for loving her 
son, my response is **big deal**, that is what **any** mother 
supposed to do - love her children, show me something **else** to 
admire about Narcissa and here I see **nothing**, absolutely nothing 
to admire, because she and her family support murderer, torturer and 
racist.

Is it clearer?


> Betsy Hp:
<SNIP>
> I honestly don't think seeing the humanity in some members of the
> opposing side as moral relativism. Not the way I understand that
> term, anyway. I'd say saying that anything the bad side does is
bad
> (taking action to save their child's life) and anything the good
> side does is good (putting innocents in jail without trial) is
more
> moral relativism.

Alla:

This is Wikipedia definition, which is pretty much what I am
thinking of.

"In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or
ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral
truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural,
historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no
universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical
proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values
as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the
context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position
might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of
another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists
propound a more limited version of the theory."

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?


> Charles:
<SNIP of the whole post>
> Here is where it falls down. What makes a person evil if it is not
> their actions and ideas? <SNIP>
> If abusive racists are not evil in your opinion, then what the hell
> is?
>

Alla:

Just wanted to admire your post again

JMO,

Alla