Killing and Morality/Sarah Monette(SPOILERS) and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 179949

Betsy Hp:
Specially stupid. <rbg> I don't admire Harry for his decision to not
kill. I felt it was pasted on morality that only worked because the
author was on his side. There was no honest examination of Harry's
decision, IMO, because Harry was never put into a position where his
deciding not to kill would lead to another's death. So you have this
kid (this incredibly not bright kid, at that) deciding to take on an
evil wizard and he's tied both hands behind his back. (And also his
legs, but we're not talking about Harry's inability to play well with
others. <g>)


Alla:

Well, that's major difference between your position and mine. Because 
I do admire Harry for his decision not to kill.

What does it mean his deciding not to kill would lead to another's 
death? I am talking about Harry deciding to spare people, whom he 
could not spare if he chose so. To me it is admirable.

You mean that nobody was dead because Harry spared somebody or do you 
mean something different?

Only in that situation you would respect Harry for not killing???

Betsy Hp:
And I did. <g> School wasn't a refuge for Harry or the muggle-born
Hermione. Ron's family wasn't going to be safe in a Voldemort run
world either. Harry's hunt for the hallows was a purely selfish
desire to better understand a dead guy who'd meant a lot to him. And
his hunt for the horcruxes, while a benefit to his world, also helped
him seek vengeance on the guy who killed his parents. (Hmm, I will
say Dumbledore did a bit of a mind-whammy on Harry and confused him
about the hallows. Harry may have thought his hunt for them would
also bring about Voldemort's downfall. But still, that's to Harry's
benefit.)

I'm not saying that what benefited the Trio didn't also benefit their
world. But I am saying I didn't seem them do things for others that
they did not see a gain in it for them as well.

Alla:

Yes, I got that from your earlier argument – you are saying that Trio 
did selfish things that also benefited WW. And I am asking what 
exactly Trio got for themselves during horcruxes hunt and hallow hunt 
that benefited them first and foremost? Hermione would have much 
preferred to stay in Hogwarts and study, no? Ron would have at least 
preferred to be with his family, not in the forest. They did it to 
support Harry, so what is selfish about it?

I find the idea that Harry's horcrux hunt is selfish mind boggling 
and do not even know how to reply to it. I mean, he puts himself in 
the face of death and this is selfish?

I guess I want to know what did Trio get for themselves during book 7 
What personal benefits?

Betsy Hp:
I honestly do think that as characters, Felix and Mildmay are more
real than the Trio. But I also think they're just plain old better
people. They live in a harsher world, but despite that, they've
shown more kindness, selflessness and compassion than I've seen out
of Harry, certainly Hermione, and even Ron.

Alla:

They would not stop before taking a life, if they need it to help 
themselves. Sorry, not my idea of the better people. And if Mildmay 
really did not want to be a killer, I think he should have tried 
harder not to kill.

He is oh so very upset, but he kills on the ship anyways, no? He was 
not even in the mortal danger, or am I mixing things up now? But he 
is well, upset. Harry on the other hand, does not want to 
do "Voldemort's job"

I am just again cannot put in my mind the idea that killer and 
emotional abuser of somebody who seemed to love them so much (IMO) 
are better people than Trio. They are great characters, sure, but 
better "people"? Not to me.

But I think I am starting to parrot myself.  I will try to restrain 
my fingers from next reply, since I think we are entering tennis 
match zone.