Harry as Murderer

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 158068

--- , "larryngocnguyen83" <lnnguyen at ...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone else find it disturbing that JKR justifies
> revenge killing?
> 
> Yes, Voldemort is horrible, but DD (the seminal figure of 
> moral good in the Books) and Harry in Book 7 continually 
> talk about murdering him as a means of revenge, or 
> eradicating evil. Wouldn't this seemingly be a glorified
> justification of the death penalty?
> 
> Just a thought....
> 
> Larry
>

bboyminn:

While you may have a valid point, I think you are 
overstating your case a bit. That's not so bad, we all
do that when we are trying to emphasize a point, but I
think you've gone beyond that.

I don't recall Dumbledore and Harry in 'continual' 
discussions of murder for revenge. I do however recall
the implication that the purpose was to eradicate evil,
but that is a completely different thing. 

I'm reminded of a passage from 'Speaker for the Dead'
which is the continuing story of Ender Wiggen from 'Enders
Game'. In it, the Nordic language recognises four level of 
/foreigness/.

Utlanning - Outlander or Otherlander- strangers we 
recognise as being human and of our world but from another
city or country.

Framling - this is the stranger we recognise as human but
of another world.

Ramen - the stranger we recognise as human, but of another
species. (Human in this case means sentient humanoid)

Varelse - which includes all the animals, for with them no
true conversation is possible. They might be intelligent,
they might be self-aware, but we can not know it.

These are the basic concepts, but they have been expanded
as a framework for all social interaction amoung the 
worlds and this includes war. To some extent, the human
race can not justify going to war with any of the first 
three. Because it is possible to know and understand them,
and thereby reason with them. But the forth, Varelse, can
not be reasoned with, they can not understand and they can
not be understood.

Now this only metaphorically applies to Voldemort, he is
Varelse, he is irrational and unreasonable, and there is
no way to sway him. Because Voldemort is acting in an 
irrational and destructive way, and will not be swayed 
from that path, it is not /murder/ to stop him. It is 
justifiable homicide. Even if Voldemort's death, 
especially by Harry, is brought about by a preemptive 
strike, it still qualifies as self-defense. Voldemort
clearly wants to and has tried to kill Harry, that makes
Harry justified in defending himself. 

The concept applies especially to acts of killing in war.

Also, I reject the 'revenge' aspect. Yes, Harry does want
to avenge his parents death, but if Voldemort wasn't 
actively trying to kill Harry, Harry would not likely go 
looking for Voldemort. So, it is not revenge in the truest
sense.

As to eradicating evil, I think it is every citizens duty
to do just that, whether the evil is a foreign threat, or
is in our own government, or is prowling our streets, we
have a moral obligation to act in order to keep evil at
bay. I don't see this as a moral crime or offense.

So, Harry will not act for selfish revenge. He will act in
self-defense and the defense of those around him and in the
defense of wizard world in general. He will not under any
circumstance murder anyone, but if pushed to it, it could 
come to pass that he is forced to kill someone. Terrible 
as it may be, that is something that society typically 
forgives and in many case even honors. 

So regardless of whether Harry kills Voldemort and 
regardless of how he kills Voldemort, I don't and can't
see his actions as /murder/.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn