Killing and Morality ...

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 179996

Steve: "You may not admire Harry for his decision not to kill, but I
certainly do, because Harry always has that option and circumstances
occur in which, in the muggle world, his act of killing would be
justified. He /could have/ killed, but he didn't. He made the 'good'
choice.

"I'm more annoyed that they weren't smart enough to take the DE's
wands away from them; disarm the enemy. But to kill or not to kill,
for a good person, is an easy and admirable decision, you don't kill
unless it is absolutely necessary which is the choice Harry made."

===================

Harry is no killer, and he's more admirable for it, but you are right
that he had the option. Take away his wand and give him an M16 and he
would have had no choice. You could argue that he didn't always make
the best choice for his and his friends' safety - he violated the
cardinal rule, "never leave living (effective) enemies behind you."
His highest moral imperative is not to avoid killing, but his own and
his friends' self-preservation.

The fact he didn't think of taking or breaking enemies' wands just
demonstrates he isn't a trained fighter. After he became the head
Auror, as we were led to believe he became, I'd love to sit in on the
training he conducted going over those battles. I'm sure he pointed
out all his own errors.

Jim Ferer