Views of Hermione

[Charles Walker Jr]

No: HPFGUIDX 160558

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
> Carol:
> Justice is not socially sanctioned revenge. It is, at least ideally,
> the impartial assignment of merited rewards and punishments based on
> reason, not revenge. Here's the online definition from Merriam-
Webster:
> 
> 1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially 
by
> the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of
> merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of
> law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights
> according to the rules of law or equity
> 2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the
> principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity 
to
> this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of 
conforming
> to law
> 3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS
> 
> Now granted, criminals are punished, but not out of revenge. The 
idea
> is to protect society and to prevent or deter the criminal from
> committing future crimes.
> 
> Revenge, OTOH, merely satisfies a psychological need to hurt someone
> who has hurt you.<BIG snip of spiel about how revenge is bad>

Charles:

I'll start my rebuttal with definitions as well, mine from the OED 
online:
revenge, n., 1. a. The act of doing hurt or harm to another in return 
for wrong or injury suffered; satisfaction obtained by repayment of 
injuries. 

punishment, n, 1. a. The action of punishing or the fact of being 
punished; the infliction of a penalty in retribution for an offence; 
also, that which is inflicted as a penalty; a penalty imposed to 
ensure the application and enforcement of a law. 
 b. Psychol. Pain, deprivation, or other unpleasant consequence 
imposed on or experienced by an organism responding incorrectly under 
specific conditions so that, through avoidance, the desired learning 
or behaviour becomes established. Cf. REWARD n.1 4f. 


justice, n,   6. Infliction of punishment, legal vengeance on an 
offender; esp. capital punishment; execution

I'm going to head out of the potterverse here for a minute to make my 
point. In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert A. Heinlein has one of 
his characters ask, "Under what circumstances is it moral for a group 
to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?"

We seem to have the inverse problem here. You seem to be saying that 
only a group has a right to act, not an individual. I say you are 
dead wrong, so I think we may have to agree to disagree, but I'm 
still going to try and make my point here.

Was Hermione's defence tactic effective? No, of course not, we all 
know that. But efficiacy has nothing to do with the ethicality of the 
intention. Is it a revengeful intention? No, I don't think so, I 
think Hermione thought that if the treason were to take place, it 
would take place when the DA was not meeting, giving a warning that 
would allow the DA to escape. To stem the argument most likely to 
come at me from that, yes I am ascribing intentions to her here-but 
so is everyone who tries to turn this into a case of vindictive post-
facto revenge on Hermione's part.

If it had been revenge, I might have been a little troubled. But I 
would have also recognized that it was, in fact, just for Marietta to 
be branded as a traitor. She really and factually intended to cost 27 
people their livelihood-and being as how she knew Voldemort was about-
possibly their lives. Certainly Harry with a snapped wand is in 
danger of losing his life. She is a person who cannot be trusted. Cho 
may be mad at Hermione now, but when Marietta betrays her for the 
second or third time, she'll think again.

Back to justice vs. revenge: in modern day administration of justice 
of-well let's go to the extreme, a capital murder case. The victim is 
your average everyday schmuck. The murderer is apprehended by armed 
men and taken to a holding facility. A trial is set, and the murderer 
is convicted, sentenced to death, and (eventually) executed.

Meanwhile, another murder is committed. The victim is the (innocent) 
brother of the local crime boss type. The murderer is apprehended by 
armed men and taken to the head honcho's hideout. The head honcho 
shoots the murderer personally. 

One is called justice, the other revenge, but in each case the final 
consequence is the same, the murderer pays for his crime with his 
life. The only difference is the social sanction of the first case.

Is it right for Harry to want revenge on Voldemort? IMO, you bet. He 
can't bring back anybody that Tom has cost him, but he can keep him 
from taking more- and he damn well should.

Charles, who has just made his last post on this topic, 'cause he's 
said what he wanted to say.