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

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 179999



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
esotaric, 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. And the
character wrestled with his decision. So while I didn't fully agree
with the character's choice in that I'd have probably chosen
differently, I admired the hell out of his convictions because they
were real convictions put under a massive test."

I will argue that Harry's courage was at least as great. Rather than
opt out resisting the greatest evil the world had ever seen, he fought
it, and managed to do it without killing when he could have. It's
clear proof of his essential goodness. 

The highest moral imperative for Harry is to eliminate Voldemort;
second, to preserve his friends and finally himself.

To opt out of resisting evil is not a good thing. To serve without
killing is possible and admirable (there are several C.O. Medal of
Honor winners, generally medics). But someone has to fight.

Jim Ferer