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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 180001

> >>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. 

> >>Pippin:
> But he did face such a situation. He spared Pettigrew's life, and
> Pettigrew killed Diggory and brought Voldemort back.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, this doesn't work for me.  It wasn't Harry choosing not to 
kill, it was Harry choosing not to murder a captured prisoner he was 
about to take to jail.  I mean, it was the obviously right thing to 
do.  It'd be like crediting someone for not kicking an old man down 
the stairs.  Sure the old man said some nasty things, but it's just 
something a decent person doesn't do.

> >>Pippin:
> But he still decided that he would spare Stan Shunpike and that he 
> would not start treating the Order as potential traitors. 
> Harry has no way of knowing that his decision to spare
> Stan or encourage the Order to go on trusting one another is
> not going to lead to another disaster, so I don't see how you
> can say these aren't valid tests. 

Betsy Hp:
The not worring about potential traitors (or sloppy drunks) has 
nothing to do with choosing not to kill.  And the Stan situation is 
exactly what I'm talking about.  It was an easy choice, and 
apparently a correct one *because* there were no consequences.  Which 
came from having JKR on his side.  (Oh, if only Hagrid had died 
there.  *Then* we could have seen Harry wrestling with his decision.  
Plus, Hagrid would be dead.  Win, win, I say. <rbeg> <also, 
chortling>)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > But really, what I was most looking to was that their actions    
> > were not completely *selfless*.  
> > <snip>

> >>Pippin:
> Er, how is that different from the Trio deciding to save Draco and 
> Goyle?

Betsy Hp:
Well, it certainly wasn't as dangerous or requiring the same level of 
intelligence <g>, but yes, this is the closest to a truly selfless 
act that the Trio have done.  (I'd forgotten that scene.) So every 
once in while they do behave decently. <bg>

> >>Pippin:
> I don't like what Hermione did  to Marietta. But it shows what can
> happen when society becomes corrupt. Much as Hermione despises
> the way the WW is run, she still takes her moral cues from society
> to a much greater extent than Harry (who is inner directed) or Ron
> (who goes by his peers.) When the Ministry resorts to summary
> justice and mutilation as punishment, so does she. 

Betsy Hp:
I agree. The Ministry is very much Hermione's cup of tea.  As long as 
it's her in the driver's seat. (Which is how these sort of societies 
tend to work, I think.)

> >>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?

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, pretty much. <g>  I mean, if you're expecting me to ooh and ah 
over it.  Because it's too easy a decision to make in Harry's world.  
There's no risk involved, it's not hard, because he's got so much 
power at hand without killing.

Plus, you've got the huge issue of Harry using two other 
Unforgivables to make his life and his war easier.  My goodness, he 
chooses to *torture* someone where a stun would have worked just as 
well.  Which goes further, to my mind, to make his non-killing 
morality seem a little pasted on.  Harry chooses not to kill because 
not killing doesn't threaten the outcome of his war.

> >>bboyminn:
> A couple of small items; in Harry's world they do not use guns,
> they use the equivalent of Star Trek Phasers. When you fire
> a Phaser or wand, it's not 'shot or not shot', 'killed or not
> killed', it is not black and white, it is shades of gray.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right, exactly!  Harry can defeat his enemy, I mean, put his enemy 
down quickly and efficiently with*out* killing.  So his choice to not 
kill is that much easier.

> >>bboyminn:
> 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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But as you point out, it's also an easy choice.  The outcome Harry is 
going for isn't hurt by his not killing.  Actually, Harry had to do 
very little warrior stuff to win this particular war.  Which is why I 
don't put too much weight on his not killing.  JKR made it an easy 
decision for him. 

> >>Alla:
> > I do not see any personal benefits for Trio in anything they did 
> > in book 7.

> >>Lynda:
> And I do. They would not have been able to accomplish what they did 
> if they had stayed at Hogwarts, especially considering what        
> Hogwarts became during the tenure of the Carrows.

Betsy Hp:
Plus, their side won the war.  I mean, that's a pretty big benefit 
right there. <g>

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > <snip>
> > 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.

> >>Jim Ferer:
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
I'm not questioning Harry's courage at all.  (My goodness, who would 
of a Gryffindor?)  But what I am questioning is the idea that Harry's 
choice to not kill was a difficult and hard moral decision on his 
part.  As bboyminn pointed out, killing wasn't necessary in Harry's 
war.  He could win without it.  So it's not like Harry sacrificed 
anything in the decision.  Harry was able to be both conscientious 
objector and warrior without facing the ethical dilemmas of either.

Good Lord!  Once again JKR is determined for her boy hero to have his 
cake and eat it too.  (I'm starting to think this may be the 
overarching theme of the series.)

> >>Jim Ferer:
> It's clear proof of his essential goodness.

Betsy Hp:
And when he decided to torture rather than stun, what was that proof 
of?

Betsy Hp