Harry as Murderer

[larryngocnguyen83]

No: HPFGUIDX 158084

Thanks Steve for the thorough and quick reply,

No, I think I agree with you on many points that I had overlooked--It
is a much more complicated manner. I think that at the hour I had
written the comment, it was right after my second reading of the book
and my anguish for Harry heightened when he finalizes his resolve to
find Voldemort and "be the one who's going to kill him" (HBP 651). A
boy of that age, having to destroy another (albeit mass murdering)
human being...

I half-knew it was the only choice in the situation to deal with
Voldemort (which, you were right in saying that it logically makes
sense that it is self-defense, considering he is hunting Harry and
will without hesitation try to kill him). Dumbledore does speak
plainly about revenge and evil:

(HBP - US- 510-511)

"If Voldemort had never murdered your father, would he have imparted a
furious desire for revenge?"

"Of course i haven't [shown desire to become one of Voldemort's
followers]!. . . "He killed my mum and dad!"


DD, talks about Harry's "furious desire" for revenge as not
justification of killing Voldemort, but simply pointing out the fact
that Harry is his "equal" and the ONLY (chosen) one who has the
ability to kill him.

You could equate Voldemort to some of the many genocidal tyrants of
our world, and my first comment does not even enter the realm of
sympathy in any way, shape or form. Voldemort must die, and I've
now come to grips that it can only be done by this poor, teenage
orphan we've all come to love dearly as a friend.

Thanks again for your enlightening comments.

Larry

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> --- , "larryngocnguyen83" <lnnguyen@> 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
>