Who Did This?

[PhuturePriest]

Only the best in Ravenclaw.

 

Gryffindor is good enough for Dumbledore, so it's good enough for me.

 

Though Ravenclaw would be my second choice of House, and some quizzes put me as a Ravenclaw rather than Gryffindor.

[Not The Philosopher]

Meh. I will pay you in jujubes instead.

 

 

This is acceptable.
 

[Nihil Obstat]

Gryffindor is good enough for Dumbledore, so it's good enough for me.

Though Ravenclaw would be my second choice of House, and some quizzes put me as a Ravenclaw rather than Gryffindor.

Dumbledore is a very flawed person. A hero yes, but no saint.

[PhuturePriest]

Dumbledore is a very flawed person. A hero yes, but no saint.

 

99% of his flawed personality happened when he was a young adult, and it was motivated by his liking for Grindelwald. He became a very good and outstanding person for the rest of his life, though obviously even the most saintly among us make mistakes.

[Nihil Obstat]

99% of his flawed personality happened when he was a young adult, and it was motivated by his liking for Grindelwald. He became a very good and outstanding person for the rest of his life, though obviously even the most saintly among us make mistakes.

I disagree. I think his role in the books leaves something to be desired from a moral perspective. He was highly manipulative at times, and while the case can be made that it was necessary, I think that his character does lapse into consequentialism. For that matter I think the books in general were rather consequentialist, especially towards the end, but there you go.

[PhuturePriest]

I disagree. I think his role in the books leaves something to be desired from a moral perspective. He was highly manipulative at times, and while the case can be made that it was necessary, I think that his character does lapse into consequentialism. For that matter I think the books in general were rather consequentialist, especially towards the end, but there you go.

 

I do disagree with some of his decisions, namely, asking Snape to kill him, which we of course view as immoral, but these aren't Catholic books, so you can't expect Catholic morality and thought to be throughout the book like it is in The Lord of the Rings.

[Nihil Obstat]

I do disagree with some of his decisions, namely, asking Snape to kill him, which we of course view as immoral, but these aren't Catholic books, so you can't expect Catholic morality and thought to be throughout the book like it is in The Lord of the Rings.

One does not have to be Catholic to see how a reasonable application of consequentialism as presented in the books could very quickly lead to bad places.

I do not think this was intentional on Rowling's part. Simply put, I do not think she has a highly developed sense of ethical theory. And that is fine - she is an author, not an ethicist. It is typical of the times we live in. But I do think that her lack of competence when it comes to ethics shows through frequently. In Dumbledore for sure, even more so in Harry.

[PhuturePriest]

One does not have to be Catholic to see how a reasonable application of consequentialism as presented in the books could very quickly lead to bad places.

I do not think this was intentional on Rowling's part. Simply put, I do not think she has a highly developed sense of ethical theory. And that is fine - she is an author, not an ethicist. It is typical of the times we live in. But I do think that her lack of competence when it comes to ethics shows through frequently. In Dumbledore for sure, even more so in Harry.

 

Care to expound?

[Nihil Obstat]

Care to expound?

My go to example is always the so-called Unforgivable Curses. When they introduce those in Goblet of Fire, my first thought was that finally we have some true objective moral limits. It was an excellent opportunity. These Curses are grossly immoral, unjustifiable. Using one on another person makes you a criminal, period. These Curses represented a strict moral standard that allows no exceptions. Not explicitly Catholic, but in line with Catholic moral thought.

And for a while it did work this way. Only dark wizards used Unforgivable Curses. In a sense we might have identified dark wizards entirely by their willingness to use those Curses.

 

But then the Good Guys started using them.

 

I forget when that started. Maybe somewhere in Order of the Phoenix, maybe in Half Blood Prince. Cannot quite recall. I think it started with some of the members of the Order, in their underground work against Voldemort's return. I think it was the Imperius Curse that they were using.

The point is not that they were doing grossly wrong things at the time. Not necessarily. But this thing that had been set up as an objective moral standard had suddenly been violated. And - while I cannot recall in perfect detail I am convinced of this point - the Good Guys suddenly using these Curses goes completely unremarked.

At the very least have someone question "is it ok to use these Curses? Are we just as bad as them if we cross this line?" etc., but nobody ever did. There was no questioning of the morality of those Curses.

Even Harry started using them. I recall at least once or twice that he even tried to use the Cruciatus Curse. Essentially torture. I think Mrs. Weasley used it as well, and probably a couple others. Now, I can see making a valid point with this, that sometimes good people do bad things, that evil naturally drags down good people and drives them towards committing evil themselves. But no such point was made. In fact rather the opposite, I think. The odd silence from the heroes with regards to those Curses does imply that to them there is simply nothing out of the ordinary. The Curses, to them, seem to be a morally neutral tool.

 

So either the Curses did represent a true moral line, in which case our heroes acted immorally despite their great need (and this ethos is never condemned by Rowling's narrative voice), or perhaps even worse, we have an explicit example of some immoral acts being justified in difficult circumstances.

As I said, in my opinion it is clear to me that Rowling, like the average western person, is not particularly competent when it comes to ethical theory. So I do not think the books represent an actual attack against objective morality. I simply think that they represent the confused moral sense of our generation, where consequentialism is implicitly accepted.

[LittleWaySoul]

Ooooh do I like where this conversation is going! Please, continue!

[ChristianGirlForever]

My go to example is always the so-called Unforgivable Curses. When they introduce those in Goblet of Fire, my first thought was that finally we have some true objective moral limits. It was an excellent opportunity. These Curses are grossly immoral, unjustifiable. Using one on another person makes you a criminal, period. These Curses represented a strict moral standard that allows no exceptions. Not explicitly Catholic, but in line with Catholic moral thought.
And for a while it did work this way. Only dark wizards used Unforgivable Curses. In a sense we might have identified dark wizards entirely by their willingness to use those Curses.

But then the Good Guys started using them.

I forget when that started. Maybe somewhere in Order of the Phoenix, maybe in Half Blood Prince. Cannot quite recall. I think it started with some of the members of the Order, in their underground work against Voldemort's return. I think it was the Imperius Curse that they were using.
The point is not that they were doing grossly wrong things at the time. Not necessarily. But this thing that had been set up as an objective moral standard had suddenly been violated. And - while I cannot recall in perfect detail I am convinced of this point - the Good Guys suddenly using these Curses goes completely unremarked.
At the very least have someone question "is it ok to use these Curses? Are we just as bad as them if we cross this line?" etc., but nobody ever did. There was no questioning of the morality of those Curses.
Even Harry started using them. I recall at least once or twice that he even tried to use the Cruciatus Curse. Essentially torture. I think Mrs. Weasley used it as well, and probably a couple others. Now, I can see making a valid point with this, that sometimes good people do bad things, that evil naturally drags down good people and drives them towards committing evil themselves. But no such point was made. In fact rather the opposite, I think. The odd silence from the heroes with regards to those Curses does imply that to them there is simply nothing out of the ordinary. The Curses, to them, seem to be a morally neutral tool.

So either the Curses did represent a true moral line, in which case our heroes acted immorally despite their great need (and this ethos is never condemned by Rowling's narrative voice), or perhaps even worse, we have an explicit example of some immoral acts being justified in difficult circumstances.
As I said, in my opinion it is clear to me that Rowling, like the average western person, is not particularly competent when it comes to ethical theory. So I do not think the books represent an actual attack against objective morality. I simply think that they represent the confused moral sense of our generation, where consequentialism is implicitly accepted.

I love what you wrote, Nihil. I'd like to add that the bit in one of the last books where it talks about fragmenting a soul I found particularly disturbing. I can't remember the name. I think it began with an "h," but people should know what I'm referring to.

[Nihil Obstat]

I love what you wrote, Nihil. I'd like to add that the bit in one of the last books where it talks about fragmenting a soul I found particularly disturbing. I can't remember the name. I think it began with an "h," but people should know what I'm referring to.

I actually have little issue with the horcrux thing simply because they are explicit that splitting one's soul is abominable and really an offense against nature. I think it speaks to the concept of the sanctity of life.
Now, if the heros all decided to make a horcrux as extra defence, that would be truly icky.

[ChristianGirlForever]

I actually have little issue with the horcrux thing simply because they are explicit that splitting one's soul is abominable and really an offense against nature. I think it speaks to the concept of the sanctity of life.
Now, if the heros all decided to make a horcrux as extra defence, that would be truly icky.

Right, that's what it was called. That's true. I forgot about that point. Yes, at least they weren't advocating fragmenting your soul. I think I read something somewhere awhile ago where Pope Benedict, when asked, said it wasn't suitable for children to read the series. I can't remember why, though. Memory like a steel sieve. :-/

[Nihil Obstat]

When it comes time for me to approach that as a parent, I will want my (age-appropriate) kids to read them with occasional discussion of its literary and moral themes.
Thank God, at least it is no His Dark Materials. What trash.

[PhuturePriest]

Harry Potter isn't something I would have my 8 year old children read, but it's definitely a series I would want my teenaged children to be familiar with, provided they have a solid understanding of the faith and have proper morals rooted in Church teaching.