The Message of DH - Moral Superiority

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 174661

---  "julie" <juli17 at ...> wrote:
>
> ...heavy edit...
> 
> Julie:
> Again, I can only agree. Part of me wishes JKR had 
> gone in the direction *I* wanted, with true moral 
> superiority trumping evil (though it rarely does in 
> real life), but I can also accept that this wasn't 
> what JKR was writing, and enjoy the books for the 
> entertainment they are rather than as a statement on
> morality. (And if I recall correctly, even JKR said 
> she wasn't sending any moral messages, but was merely
> writing a story.)
> 
> Julie
>

bboyminn:

Well, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I
agree with Julie and Debbie. But let us side track
for a moment on one specific issue- 'Moral Superiority'.

Exactly what was the 'morally superior' action that
Harry should have taken? Should Harry have stopped
his action and given a long heart felt speech (aka:
surmon)? 

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,...etc..."
[Henry V, Act 3, Scene 1]

Should Harry have hung his head, humbly contrite, as 
some other character lecture (aka:surmonized) him about 
the bad things he has done? 

If this is a 'Morality Tale' then the /morality/ is
in the /tale/, not in the sermonizing. The morality
is in Harry's actions, as I will explain.

In the past in discussions of the various House traits,
relative to this statement and to courage in Gryffindor, 
I have frequently asked, where were the other 
Gryffindors when Harry/Ron/Hermione were off on their
adventures? The answer is, safe and toasty warm, tucked
into their beds.

The /other/ Gryffindors were being the nice obedient 
moral kids that mothers can be proud of. They weren't
breaking the rules, they weren't causing trouble, they
weren't putting themselves at risk. Oh yes indeed, 
very nice obedient boys and girls...indeed. I'm sure
Pastor Dave would be very proud. I'm sure their mothers
would be proud. But when the castle was overrun by
Death Eaters, do you think parents and Pastor Dave
were more proud of the ones who fled, or the ones
who stayed to fight? ...the ones toasty warm in their
beds or the ones bleeding on the battlefield? 

If any phrase every so very accurately paraphrased
Harry Potter, is could never be more than -

"All that is necessary for Evil to flourish, is for good
people to do nothing."

And all that is necessary to stop evil is for one brave
man to take action and become the rallying point against
the forces of evil. Harry is a man-of-action. He is not
content to allow 'the grownups' to deal with the 
injustice of the world.

When he faces injustice, he confronts it without regard
to the consequences to himself. He boldly confronts
Umbridge, and suffers what many have called 'torture'
as a result. He stands against Voldemort and the Death
Eaters while the rest of the wizard world cowers and
waits. 

Harry is the man who WILL NOT stand by and allow Evil
to flourish. Harry is the man who will not stand by
and allow evil to spit in the face of the good and
decent. So, Harry /briefly/ used the Crucio on a 
man of consummate and horrendous evil. I say, 'Hit
him again Harry, hit him a good one for me'. So,
Harry used the Imperius at Gringotts. I say, 'Good
for you Harry, you got the Horcrux'. You took
a grand and bold step the ultimately saved the 
wizard world from countless death and decades of 
brutal misery and oppression. 

There are many politician, regardless of the country
you are in, who will claim they must oppress and
restrict their own citizens 'for the greater good'.
But Harry understands the difference between the 
greater good and convenience of a privileged few,
and the true greater good of all. His actions 
toward the 'greater good' are not selfish or self-
serving, as are the action of so many politicians.
Harry's action really are selfless. He is the man
of action standing unrelentingly against evils 
great and small.

I see Harry's morality in his actions not in his words.
More so, I do not define Harry's morality by a 
single isolated act. I see him in the grander and
nobler scheme of things. And when I see those actions,
I say without hesitation or reservation, -

'Hit him again Harry, hit him a good one for me.' 

You can't take actions out of their context, both
great and small context, because it is the broader 
context that shows the true nature of the actions. 

"Give 'em hell Harry" 

Steve/bboyminn