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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 169536

> >>houyhnhnm:
> > What happens after Voldemort is defeated?  This is 
> > the problem I have with a standard of morality that 
> > defines goodness and badness according to whether or 
> > not one is on the "right" side... <snip>
> >
> > I will accept anyone who is one my side?  That is 
> > not tolerance.  Tolerance is a commitment to the 
> > the belief that *everyone* has a right to be.

> >>Alla:
> Well, sure, everyone has a right to be on the *right* side, I agree 
> and should be accepted if they want to.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but houyhnhnm is saying everyone has a right *to be*.  Your 
political choices shouldn't determine whether or not you have the 
right to exist as a human being.  Whether you share basic human 
rights like a right to a fair trial, etc.  And that is something the 
Trio has shown they don't have a grasp of yet.  Marietta, for 
example, has been punished without benefit of a trial.  Hermione 
removed Marietta's right.  IOWs, as per Hermione, Hermione is more 
equal than Marietta, because Marietta is "other" and not quite as 
human as Hermione is.

Harry and Co. think they can dictate what all is involved in being on 
the "right side".  And apparently it's not merely being against 
Voldemort.  One must also be against the Ministry, for Dumbledore, 
for the Gryffindor quidditch team, personally positive towards Harry 
and his friends, and I *think* that's everything.  Oh, and of course, 
you need to be willing to turn on your family the *moment* they 
question any of the above.  Then you come close to rating as being on 
the "right" side.

> >>Magpie:
> > I don't think tolerance ever has to do with thinking someone is a
> > wonderful person or with applauding all their choices. 
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> I am talking only about unrepentant Voldemort supporters. Those who
> kill and torture for whatever reasons they have.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Which is easy.  Of course Bellatrix and Fenrir and Voldemort are bad 
and deserving of punishment.  One doesn't tolerate the killing of 
children, torture, murder, etc.  (Though that doesn't or shouldn't 
allow one to torture and murder in turn.)

But Marietta is not a Voldemort supporter.  Zach Smith is not a 
Voldemort supporter.  Rita Skeeter is not a Voldemort supporter.  And 
yet, Harry and co. all enjoy (and sometimes seem to rather relish) 
the physical and emotional pains they put those characters through.  
Why is that okay?  Because they're different enough, in their 
beliefs, in their methodologies, that they register as "other".

Imagine if someone blackmailed Hagrid into quitting his job.  Imagine 
if Hermione had a word written across her face in purple pustules.  
Imagine if Ron was hexed and then assulted by a member of an opposing 
quidditch team.  Would that be okay?  What if the perpetraters 
thought their actions valid?

What if Hagrid was forced to quit by someone genuinely bothered by 
Hagrid's willingness to deal in illegal dragon raising (Charlie 
Weasley)?  What if Hermione triggered a house-elf hex after hiding 
clothes under random bits of trash (Hogwarts elf)?  Um, Ron, being a 
Gryffindor is harder to do.  None of the other teams are seen 
as "real" by Harry and co.  So just imagine it's someone who really, 
really supports their own team, and overheard Ron badmouthing them. 
<g>

Would Harry be okay with his friends being treated that way?  Even if 
they kind of asked for it (per the perpertraters anyway)?  Or would 
he see the punishment as intolerant and over the top, an example of 
someone taking the law into their own hands? 

I doubt Harry would be pleased or even resigned.  As far as Harry is 
concerned his friends are human, so they should be treated as such.  
The problem is, Harry and his friends have a hard time seeing that 
other people are just as human as they are.

> >>Lupinlore:
> <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>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  Not so easy, is it?  And if Hermione (for example) is not 
operating from a *moral* highground, which she can't be sure she's 
doing (all things being relative), than she's merely operating from a 
*stronger* ground.  Her kung fu trumps Marietta's.  For now.  That 
could change tomorrow.

For Harry it *did* change.  On the train ride into Hogwarts in HBP, 
Draco's kung fu trumped Harry's, and it was Harry lying alone and 
forgotten in a dark train compartment.  

Which is why, IMO, anarchy (or the lack of basic, agreed upon laws) 
devolves into might makes right, and morals get determined by who 
holds the biggest, well, wand.  That's Voldemort's way.  And 
unfortunately, it's been the Trio's way, too.  And I think it's 
hinted that Crouch, Sr. felt that way too.

The other way, is a rule of law where *everyone* is understood to 
have the same basic rights, no matter their political beliefs or 
quidditch team.  And no one, *no one*, is free to take the law into 
their own hands.  I *think* that's the way Dumbledore is supposed to 
be going.  (I'll admit that sometimes it's hard to tell. <g>)  But it 
is the way the books will hopefully support in the end.

Otherwise, the woodchipper! <bg>

Betsy Hp