The Message of DH - Moral Superiority

[nitalynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 174805

Charles wrote:

> If you think that Harry's self-sacrifice was atypical, then you
> haven't been paying attention. He's shown a willingness to sacrifice
> himself since book 1. 

Nita replies:

If he has, then it seems to me like there's been no real personal
growth for the hero of our growing up story. That's rather sad.
However, let's take a look at each of your examples...


> His concern for his near death experience was
> that the stone not fall into Voldemort's hands. 


Well, naturally. Keeping the stone away from Voldemort was the
objective of his self-imposed mission. If Voldie had got it due to
Harry's intervention, it would have been a failure of epic proportions.


> Book 2, he's dying
> from his wounds, but his concern is to tell Ginny how to get to
> safety. 


Er, he's dying. What else is there to do? And again, if both of them
got killed, it would have been a double failure for his rescue mission.


> Book 3, he charges into battle with dementors to save Sirius.


Right. Charges, not walks to them and waits for a Kiss. Fighting a
dangerous battle and willingly letting yourself be killed are two very
different things, IMO.


> Book 5, he's willing to give up the WW to keep everyone safe from him
> when he thinks he's being posessed by Voldemort. 


Now this is similar to what he did in DH, I agree. So we do have one
precedent. Just like the one precedent of trying to use Crucio that we
also got in book 5. Interesting :)


> Book 6, he wants to
> save DD from drinking the potion. 


He wants to, but he doesn't. Questioning authority isn't all that fun
when the authority is someone you like, I suppose. In book 6, DD tells
Harry not to endanger himself in the cave, so Harry doesn't. In the
next book DD tells him to go get himself killed, so Harry does.


> Then he breaks it off with Ginny
> because he doesn't want harm to come to her.


Eh, sorry, but giving up snogging for a while and giving up your life
don't quite match in scale, I think.

All in all, I think Harry was wrong when he compared his own sacrifice
to his mother's. He did it because it was the only way to win the
fight. It was a well-planned (by DD) tactical move. She did it
because... well, she couldn't bear to stand back and watch her child
get killed, I suppose. And now, when we know that James didn't even
have a wand (which I think was stupid, even if Voldie agrees), I don't
see how what he did was less of a sacrifice.


> Hmmm. Yeah, he questions authority, searches for the truth, and fights
> against evil. Not someone to emulate at all.


But without someone like Voldie, who practically has a huge neon
"EVIL" sign hovering over his head, these qualities just produce a
very curious anarchist, IMO. There's nothing wrong with them, but
nothing inherently moral either. Here's a question for you: does the
average kamikaze bomber think he's fighting for or against evil? :)


Nita