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

[Charles Walker Jr]

No: HPFGUIDX 160960

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> 
wrote:
> Jen: I'm not certain if you are talking evil or irredeemably evil, 
> Charles?<snip>

Charles: I snipped most of your post because It's not exactly 
pertinent to how I *must* answer this question. While I see good and 
evil as necessary complements of each other, I cannot say that I 
believe in irredemably evil. I certainly do not believe in 
incorruptible good.

Even Voldemort in my opinion is not necessarily irredemably evil. 
Highly unlikely to be redeemed, and I don't think it will happen, but 
I don't think it impossible. The Malfoys-well, Draco has been set up 
for redemption by the tower scene. Narcissa has shown herself 
unwilling by adding in the assasination clause to the UV.

Dumbledore himself has shown that the good are not incorruptible by 
saying that he fell into the trap he foresaw. Was it evil not to tell 
Harry what he should have known years before until it was 
unavoidable? Yep. Not on the same scale, and done with the best of 
intentions, but yes it fell into the nature of an evil act. By not 
doing what he knew to be right he caused pain that might have been 
avoided. Not as evil as intentional torture or murder, but still 
there. 

I see evil and good sharing a spectrum rather than being either 
distinct entities or even flip sides of the same coin.

I don't know if I've described it well enough, but apologetics has 
never been my forte.

Charles, who's up past his bedtime.