[HPforGrownups] Re: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series

[Sharon Hayes]

No: HPFGUIDX 176151

magpie:
<snip>   In short, I don't think people want their heroes to
>   be "perfect" in
>   the sense of doing nothing wrong ever. They just
>   want their heroes
>   to be people that don't bug them, and that's going
>   to vary from
>   person to person. 

Sharon:
I disagree with you here, m, becuase I think it's possible to objectively identify 
what a hero is. I don't believe it is a matter of a hero being simply someone I 
like. That would be like saying there are no objective moral principles, when in 
fact, there are. For example, 'killing is wrong' is an objective moral principle. 
You can't disagree with that principle simply because you don't like it.  What we 
do disagree upon are the caveats that go with a particular principle.  For 
example, 'killing is wrong UNLESS it is the only way to defend oneself from 
certain death' or 'lying is always wrong UNLESS it is to save a life' or something 
like that.

So, a hero is a person who sacrifices themselves in some major way to save 
others. What they do is more than their duty, their actions are 'supererogatory' 
in the sense of being over and above whatever duties they may have to others.  
Now the problem is not whether Harry or Frodo are heroes or not, but rather 
whether certain of their individual character traits or actions are likeable/good.  
We can still have an opinion about Harry's Crucio while continuing to beleive 
him to be a hero.  Personally I forgive Harry the Crucio becuase he was using it 
on a torturer, although I would have preferred that he simply stun the guy.  I 
probably would have done the same thing in the same situation - -really it's just 
like hitting someone over the head with a frypan who is trying to attack you.  
The Imperius curse was also excusable since it didn't really harm anyone and 
helped them towards their goal. IMHO.