Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario

[Lyn J. Mangiameli]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:

<snip>
>and most of all, it is not the place of any human to send another into death.

Lyn now:
Perhaps in your belief system, but I am happy it is not the belief of those soldiers fighting 
to protect us, or the police sniper that takes out the bad guy about to kill a hostage. "I've 
been trained to do the latter, and while I'd just as soon the situation never came up, I 
would very much see it as my place and indeed my obligation "to send another into death" 
under those circumstances.  It is clear, at least to me,  that Harry does as well, as 
evidenced by his actions and reactions in COS among others.
> 
> If I were less lazy, I'd dig up the interview quotes wherein JKR 
> discusses how what makes Voldemort evil is how he kills, and how evil 
> it is to take a human life.  But having nearly been flooded at 4:30 
> this morning, I'm not feeling in the research sort of mood.

Lyn again;
I would suggest that reading the entire body of JKRs work and statements indicates that 
she has a more complex view of causing death.  One example is her generally sympathetic 
portayal of Moody and her open discussion that he had killed in the performance of his 
duties.  
> 
> > Debbie:
> > But I have another question. Assuming the AK was real, did that 
> > action split Snape's soul, if he killed DD to further DD's agenda, 
> > and with his full understanding and permission? Slughorn tells us 
> > that soul-splitting only occurs in the commission of "the supreme 
> > act of evil. By committing murder." Murder. Not killing. Not AK, 
> > either. He then states that "[k]illing rips the soul apart," but 
> > the statement is made in the context of the previous sentence. 
> 
> Heh, I don't read the passage that way--I read it as a return to a 
> categorical statement.  Murder is a supreme act of evil, but all 
> killing tears at the soul.

Lyn again:
At this point, Rowling just hasn't developed enough what she means by having one's sole 
ripped, and the possible ramifications. The only clear consequence of a soul being ripped 
that she has presented thus far is actually one of utility, the ability to make a Hx. She 
implies that a ripped soul is bad, but she has yet to demonstrate in what way it is bad for 
one. She has definitely left open that one can do good whether or not one's soul has been 
ripped. 
> 
> I don't think you can use AK without explicit intent to kill, and I 
> think that is an action of categorical evil.  However, I think that 
> there are times that evil can be mitigated--but it doesn't negate the 
> horror of the act.  Particularly one that is carried out through the 
> perfect transformation of intention into magic.

Lyn now: 
This my be your personal horror, and one you share with some others, but it is not a 
universal horror. I've known lots of folks who have killed while carrying out their 
responsibilities. A few were troubled by it, but the vast majority were not. Not because 
they took the act lightly, but because they felt their action resulting in a much greater 
good, particularly when they spared the life of an innocent or a comrade.

With respect to HP, his knowledge of the damage LV has caused others, motivates him to 
assume the responsibility for putting an end to his harm. As I've said before, Harry has 
always been willing to do what was necessary to deter TR/LV from harming others, 
regardless of the cost to himself. What is only slightly new in HBP is how he individually 
assumes the responsibility for putting an end to LV's ability to harm.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> You wouldn't put that past Crouch Sr.?  I would.  His actions are 
> definitely portrayed as excessive, bringing evil into the ranks of 
> those who are supposed to be fighting it.  He stepped across a line 
> that should have been held.
> 
Lyn now:
But the context was not just the methods, but the reasons behind the methods. Crouch 
was employing and commanding those methods prinicipally for his own present and 
future political advantage, under the subtrefuge that they were for the benefit of others. In 
general, JKR tends to portray government officials this way.  Harry is usually portrayed 
quite differently. Harry's actions are displayed as arising from a concern for others, and 
only rarely is he shown to act from direct self interest (the potions book being perhaps the 
greatest exception).


> I can easily envision a grand law of Potterverse ethics being that 
> killing is categorically wrong.  Then the interest comes in dealing 
> with it, the whole issue of lesser of two evils, bad necessities, 
> mending torn souls, etc.  To take away the essence of AK as willing 
> death upon another being as a fundamental act...eh, I don't see it.

Lyn now: 
Possible, and you demonstrate how it could be handled with some interest, but I will be 
disappointed if JKR emphasizes such a view. Of course most of us would like to see our 
personal ethics be confirmed in the series.