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

[phoenixgod2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 160991

> Betsy Hp:
> Actually, I was thinking about Regulus and Karkaroff, neither of 
> whom were worried about fighting Voldemort (as far as we know 
> anyway) and neither of whom were bound to the UK for any reason.

Phoenixgod2000:

Karkaroff wasn't exactly laying low and Regulas was fighting against 
Voldemort (at least he was if he is RAB).  Even the Potters stuck 
around, warded though they were.  I'm not convinced that someone 
truly dedicated to hiding and willing to leave the country and 
possibly continent wouldn't be safe for a long while. 

> IIRC Lupin says something about the impossibility of fleeing 
> Voldemort once he's decided you're toast.  

Yeah, but Lupin's a fatalist :)   
 
> Betsy Hp:
> And um, what exactly is Molly doing?  You know, for the cause and 
> all?  It's Arthur and Bill and Charlie who've chosen to join the 
> Order and fight the fight.  Molly is there because her family is 
> there.  She has not had to proactively *do* anything.

An army marches on its stomach so the hearth and home that molly 
provides is without a doubt important to the order.  And we have 
heard of her on guard during OOTP and while we haven't seen any 
feats of daring do from her so far, we haven't exactly seen that 
much from Snape either but something tells me that you wouldn't 
argue that Snape's job for the order consists of mocking small 
children despite that what we seem him doing most of the time.

> Betsy Hp:
> No it's not.  It's like comparing an American soldier and his 
family 
> to a Nazi soldier and his family.  While I can agree that the Nazi 
> soldier is fighting for the wrong cause, I can also recognize the 
> humanity of the Nazi soldier and his family.

I grew up next door to a man who was a soldier in WWII on the side 
of the Nazis.  I would be more sympathetic if they were soldiers for 
an autocratic regime because I realize their choices might not be 
all that great but that isn't true in this case.   Lucius and Death 
Eaters are far more akin to SS Officers, the fanatical branch of 
almost cultish nazi soldiers.  The SS were fanatics and were 
definitely all volunteers.  The Death Eaters are volunteers and 
Narcissa is definitely a believer in the philosophy and a 
collaborator with the acts of her husband.  That removes any 
sympathy I might have for her plight.
 
> Betsy Hp:
> They are not evil.  Some of their beliefs are.  And IMO, there's a 
> huge difference.  After winning WWII, the Allies did not decide to 
> execute every German soldier and the families that loved them.  
> Because they recognized that the soldiers and their families were 
> not evil in and of themselves.  

Not every soldier was but to death, but just about every SS officer—
especially the ones involved with the Holocaust, were punished in 
some way.  And there is an enormous amount of difference—at least in 
my mind—between the soldier of a rival but legitimate country and a 
terrorist. This is what the death eaters are.  They aren't 
representatives of their government in any way.
 
> Betsy Hp:
> So she's not just passively suffering.  She's out there trying to 
do 
> something about it.  And I admire her for it.

But even what she is doing is evil.  Yay for her being proactive and 
manipulative.  She's still authorizing the murder of Dumbledore and 
a believer in repugnant philosophy.  That balanced against loving 
her son doesn't equal out the scales.  There isn't even a real sign 
of possible redemption because she never acknowledges that her side 
might be wrong, she just wants to make sure that her son stays 
alive.  That's an instinct, not a true moral decision.  That 
decision is barely more complex than what my sister's pregnant dog 
might do.  She would struggle to save a puppy of hers too.

> 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.

No it's not bad to want to save your son's life.  But all the other 
bad surrounding her and her son makes me unsympathetic.  That's it.  
You find that scene sympathetic and humanizing.  I do not.  Narcissa 
is a bad person.  Draco is a bad person.  If they are experiencing 
any worry, pain, or discomfort then I am totally okay with that.
 
>>Alla:
> <snip>
> And there is nothing else I see in Narcissa to admire. She loves
> her flesh and blood, big deal.

>Betsy Hp:
>I guess, yes for me, that is a big deal. Because Narcissa didn't
>just passively love Draco. She actively took a risk, went against
>Voldemort (her team in a sense) to protect him. That wasn't a
>neutral action.

She didn't go against her team. She is still firmly on the side of 
her team.  In fact with that third provision of hers you can make 
the argument that she is trying to have her cake and eat it too.  
Get her son out of trouble and get Dumbledore killed because that 
would benefit her team.

Her nobility is blinding.

Phoenixgod2000