Ethics of betrayal was Re: chapter discussion CoS 4 and 5

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 188860


> 
> Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/188783>:
> 
> << But the books show that cruelty does have negative consequences, though they may not become apparent for a long time. And because they may not be apparent, it becomes a matter of faith. One must choose to believe that, in the long run, the personal satisfaction of getting nasty wouldn't be worth it. >>
> 
> I continue to believe that you read the Potter ouevre more subtly than Rowling does. If she intended such subtlety, she concealed her intention by statements made in character as her own self such as that Marietta's spots are not cured because 'I hate a traitor!'.

Pippin:
If people didn't hate traitors, it wouldn't take a hero to show restraint or compassion for them. Hermione's choices show what she is: capable of   restraint and compassion when she deals with Kreacher and Mr. Lovegood, but not such a pureheart that she's incapable of doing anything else.  

The tortured reading, IMO, is the one that interprets all Hermione's actions as evidence of JKR's ideas of moral purity and refuses to admit the possibility of moral growth. 

Catlady:
> 
> It seems to me that Rowling made it utterly clear that she hates only traitors against the good guys, not traitors against the bad guys. In which case, the whole discussion of betrayal versus loyalty is a red herring; the real question is whether you serve the good guys or the bad guys.

Pippin:
It's not a question of good guys or bad guys, it's a question of resisting tyranny and murder. Firenze explained it in PS/SS.
Bane calls him out for violating his oath not to set himself against the heavens, and for serving a human, and says that Centaurs have nothing to do with acting for the best. To which Firenze says, "I set myself against what is lurking  in this Forest, Bane, yes, with humans alongside me if I must."

IMO what Rowling is showing us is that the obligation, or rather the calling, to resist tyranny is beyond every other, and nullifies any obligation in conflict with it, even those to family and friends. Firenze is considered to be a traitor by his people, but he was doing the right thing. Peter, who knew he wasn't acting for the best but only to save his own life, was not. 

Snape isn't morally a traitor to Voldemort, though he certainly would have been treated as one if he'd been caught, because there's no moral obligation to serve a tyrant even if you have sworn eternal loyalty.

 Neville is rewarded for acting against the good guys believing it was for the best. He attempted brute force, but  if he'd used deception instead, he'd have been equally justified and a whole lot smarter. 
 

Pippin