Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 182503

> > >>Pippin:
> > I think JKR's position is that basic morality is innate. Unless a
> > person is very damaged he will want to do things correctly (as 
he's
> > been taught to perceive correctness), he will feel responsible 
for 
> > the pain he perceives he has caused and he will want things to 
be   
> > fair. 
 
> Betsy Hp:
> Yeah, I agree that this is JKR's position.  It's why being a 
> Gryffindor is a free pass.  A Gryffindor is innately moral and need 
> not worry about any pesky "life lessons".  And if you're not good 
> enough for Gryffindor, feeling bad about various actions won't fix 
> the fact that you're missing the proper moral circuitry. 

zgirnius:
I believe what Pippin means is that morality is innate to *everyone*, 
except a damaged few, not merely to Gryffindors. (Only Voldemort for 
sure, among those we get to know reasonably well). And I agree this 
is Rowling's position. 

The key to understanding how I can say Slytherins in the series have 
innate morality, is that second part, about acting correctly as they 
have been taught to perceive correctness. Which is where a character 
like Regulus Black comes in. He has been taught to perceive what we 
would consider a rather warped idea of correctness, so be becomes a 
Death Eater and is not acting against his innate sense of morality 
(even while offending ours). He's a "right little hero" in his own 
eyes, actually. The callous treatment of Kreacher is what it takes 
for him to see/feel a conflict between correct action as he has 
understood it, and Voldemort's actions, that he ultimately resolves 
by choosing to die in an attempt to make Voldemort mortal.

On the other extreme, we have Peter, who seems to have some idea his 
actions are despicable (hence, for example, that little, fatal 
hesitation in DH). But despite his perception of what it moral, he 
lacks the courage to act on it.

This explains why Gryffindors are for the most part the heroes of 
this story, by the way. All the characters have innate morality, but 
this is a story of life-and-death struggle and danger...so the brave 
characters who can cope with life and death stuiff, come out looking 
best.

In a drama about poor witches and wizards struggling to bring up 
families under difficult economic and social circumstances, sans 
terror and violence, we might see Hufflepuffs emerge as good guys, 
for their ability to stick with their families through thick and 
thin, and contributing their fair share to community self-help 
efforts.

In a story about magical research, Ravenclaws might be the villains, 
their desire for new knowledge tempting them into Faustian bargains 
and away from their innate sense of which limits they should not 
cross in their research. And so on. But in a story about a war 
between a genocidal bloodist leader and his followers, and those who 
would oppose them, the featured good guys are going to be the brave 
folks, and the featured bad guys are going to be the pureblood 
believers.