Trio's selfishness/ some Mary Renault WAS: Killing and Morality / Sarah Monette

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 179972

Betsy Hp:
I mean that Harry's choice was never made hard. He was never faced
with a situation where if he did not kill the war would be lost or a
loved one would be lost. It was pacifism on the cheap, IMO.

To pull in another example (and make this conversation even more
esoteric, sorry fellow list members) in 'The Charioteers', which took
place during the early stages of WWII when Britain was at her most
desperate, we had a pacifist character. His choice was *hard*. By
choosing not to kill, to be a conscientious objector, he was
literally faced with the possibility that Germany could well 
invade.<SNIP>
Harry's decision to not kill didn't ever threaten the effort against
Voldemort, so he never had to really wrestle with it.


Alla:

But is it how it works? I mean if you decide that in the fight you 
will not kill, then unless this decision of yours threatens your 
loved ones, this is cheapens it somehow?

Is it not enough that your and your loved ones **could** be killed?

I mean in that battle where Harry stuns, he could be killed and other 
people could be killed too and at the end, Voldemort could kill him 
as well.

You think the choice of that character ( Andrew? Again forgot the 
name) was somehow harder? How? I mean, it is not like the possibility 
of Germany invading increased oh so much after one soldier chose not 
to participate, no?

His loved ones are also not in the line of fire, how is it different 
from Harry's decision not to kill increasing the *possibility* that 
Voldemort could win, not certainty of course.


>>Alla:
> <snip>
> 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?

Betsy Hp:
But as a Muggleborn she could not have. As Dean's example made
clear. So it's not like she was making a choice between school and a
life on the run. She was making a choice between a life on the run
or a life on the run with purpose.

Alla:

But she did not know that she could not, when she was making the 
decision to join the hunt with Harry, so again what is selfish about 
it?

She made that choice during DD's funeral, didn't she? To give up 
education, all she holds dear to do it, etc. And even when they left, 
they still did not know that Voldemort would literally forbid 
muggleborns from attending.

To me she was definitely making choice between school and life on the 
run. IMO of course.

>>Sally:
> So because they would have suffered under a WW ruled by Voldemort,
> you consider their motives selfish?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, yes to a certain extent (and I do realize it's an extreme
extent). But really, what I was most looking to was that their
actions were not completely *selfless*. <SNIP>


Alla:

To reiterate, they were not selfless to the extent that any citizen 
of WW who would fight against Voldemort would have gotten a chance 
for better, peaceful life, to marry, to live their life as they would 
have want to. Is that fair summary?

Is that your definition of trio's selfishness? That they got a 
Voldemort-free world to live in?

If it is so, I absolutely agree with you. They were selfish all 
right, LOL.

It is just I cannot characterize that desire as selfishness.

And here I want to quote again the second part of Sally's quote:

"By your logic, it seems to me that
most people who go to war do it for selfish reasons. That does not
make their sacrifice worthless."

Alla:
 I can only say me too to that. I am thinking that soldiers who went 
to fight against Nazis also wanted Hitler-free world to live in for 
example.