On the perfection of moral virtues

[wynnleaf]

No: HPFGUIDX 169485

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> wrote:

> To me, it seems like the books give lip-service to "tolerance"
> and "unity" while actually embodying the opposite. For instance, I'm
> still patiently waiting for a good Slytherin. In the first few
> books, it was easier to overlook Harry's Sytherin-hatred, because I
> assumed that the books would become more complex, and introduce
> some "sympathetic Sytherins" to lessen this bias. Now, 6 books
> later, Sytherin still equals evil. That's so incredibly simplistic.
> What's worse, because Slytherin = evil, behavior by Gryffindors
> towards Slytherins is automatically excused because they're "the bad
> guys." Draco's ferret bouncing, Montague's vanishing, etc. I find
> this actually disturbing. Gryffindor apparantly = good, no matter
> what one of them does. I feel disturbed when Ginny rams into
> Zacarias Smith, but I'm not sure that JKR thinks that we should. And
> that really bothers me. What's the lesson here - It's OK when "we do
> it"? That's total moral relativism. It teaches that you can
> instantly label someone based on their background or party, and feel
> justified by any immoral actions you take against that person.

One set of examples that gives me hope are the attacks on the train. 
At the end of GOF, Malfoy and friends say very insulting things to
Harry and friends on the train and are severely attacked and left
unconscious in the train corridor for the remainder of the trip, the
Trio and other stepping over the unconscious bodies as they leave the
train.  Then in a similar event at the end of OOTP, Draco and friends
attempt to ambush Harry (in partial retaliation perhaps?) and the DA
members help out, once again hexing Draco and friends into
unconsciousness for the remainder of the trip, this time binding them
into a luggage rack, and neglecting to tell anyone of the predicament
of the boys once the Trio and DA disembark.  The readers are
encouraged to cheer on Harry and friends as they score a "victory"
over Draco and his friends, and of course Harry and his friends are
completely unconcerned about the unconscious state of the other
students.  They are "evil" after all -- clear because apparently
having nasty thoughts and making nasty remarks, or having an evil
father, makes it completely okay for someone else to do the wizarding
equivalent of beating you into unconsciousness and leaving you for
many hours without help.

But then at the start of HBP, Harry is back on the train and attempts
to eavesdrop on Draco's conversations.  This time, Draco actually
catches Harry and this time hexes Harry, binds him, kicks him in the
face, and leaves him without help.  At least Harry wasn't left
unconscious, although silenced and invisible, perhaps Draco thought he
was.

In any case, one has to ask what JKR was up to here?  Was she really
trying to say that it was completely okay for Harry and his friends to
 attack Draco and friends and leave them unconscious, but horrible for
Draco to do the same to Harry?  A friend living in Scotland tells me
that for a number of years, attacks on Scottish trains have made
headlines and been the cause of public concern (I just googled this,
and this is true).  JKR lives in Scotland.  In the midst of public
concern about *real* attacks on trains, would she really include *two*
train attacks by her heroes on other students and *really* think it
was fine, because they are the "good guys?"  I don't think so.  I
think the third attack, this time by Draco on Harry in HBP,
illustrates that *all* of the attacks were wrong, not just Draco
attacking Harry.

I'm very hopeful that in DH, she'll make these sorts of things much
more clear.

wynnleaf