On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 169525

Lupinlore wrote: 
<snip> 
> The problem with charges of moral relativism is that the definition
is, frankly, relative.  I guess that proves the point in a way.  Is 
it moral relativism for the trio to hex the Slytherins and it be good
whereas for the Slytherins to hex the trio is bad?  Depends on what
your morals are relative to.
> <snip> 
> 
> "Nice is not the same as good?"  Oh, yes, I think, it is.  Now,
there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils (or three or six or
five hundred).  But the lesser of two evils is still evil, and can't
be called good.  It it is, or it is dismissed as morally unimportant,
once again, I'd say that's contemptible. <snip>

Carol responds:

I'm not going to toss around terms like "contemptible" for ideas I
disagree with, nor am I going to dispute your assertion that nice is
the same as good except to say that that's a matter of opinion and not
one I share.

But I'd like to ask what you think of Ginny Weasley, who is certainly
on the right side but does not strike me as nice (with one or two
exceptions), especially in OoP and HBP--lying to her mother about the
dungbombs, hexing Zacharias Smith at every opportunity--and note that
Zach is a Hufflepuff and fellow DE member, whose only "crime" is not
taking Harry's (and Dumbledore's) word that Voldemort is back. For
that matter, the Twins aren't nice either--great bullying gits who
inflict a ton-tongue toffee on a helpless Muggle they don't even know
because that they've heard he's a bully. A bit hypocritical, I'd say,
and not at all nice. But they're Harry's friends and opposed to
Voldemort. Sod does that make them good, in your view?

Carol, who doesn't like Ginny or the Twins but is trying to avoid
simplistic moral judgments and is curious as to LL's view of them
>