*sighs*

[conuly]

Admittedly, a lot of this is just me pot-stirring, but...

Tell me I'm not the only one who thinks that ethics and morals aren't set in stone! Honestly, you'd think everybody had exactly the same ideas about right and wrong.

People have decided any number of contradictory things about morality. This culture practices cannibalism, that culture is vegetarian. This person says abortion is wrong, that person says it's okay. Here we say murder is wrong, there we say that the death penalty is right. It's wrong not to be this religion, unless it is your own religion that is wrong.

Wizards do a lot of things which conflict with my ideas about right and wrong. Most notably, they modify people's memories without their consent, and use mind-tricks to keep people away from where they're not wanted. Clearly, wizards do not share my ethical system. With that said, why should they share anybody else's? What purpose does it serve to hold to "children belong with their parents, always"? I can think of a number of reasons why, in the context of the books, that would be a false idea. Squibs are unfortunate individuals, torn between the magical and non-magical worlds. If they were raised as muggles, they'd be happier (at least, I can see this idea in the magical mind). Wizards raised by muggle parents are slightly behind when they start school, and are, again, torn between worlds. There are many wizardly orphans who could use wizardly homes instead of being consigned, as Tom Riddle was, to a muggle orphanage. There are many muggles who are orphaned at infants, they too would likely appreciate a good muggle home in exchange for the wizardly world getting a wizard child. Everybody profits - if you discard the idea that children belong with their parents, no matter the cost.

I'm not even getting into the strawmen here. Maybe if you think that's right, you think murder is right, huh, huh??? Um, no? But in what I was discussing, nobody dies. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we? And let's not begin with "sane cultures do this". We're not judgmental, are we? Well, yeah, we kinda are. Clearly, the word "sane" is predefined to mean "agreeing with what I believe". Three comments to get from interesting discussion to illogical chaos. That's gotta be some kind of record.

Comments

[conuly]

Also, you can't necessarily tell if a child is magical until they're 11. Neville, for instance.

That's still a flint. JKR's also said that children are listed as magical or not from birth. Besides, even if you can't tell, why not collect the ones you can tell, save the family some worries?

You're right in saying the Wizarding morality differs from a lot of people (Kingsley Shacklebolt was one of my favourite characters until he performed that charm on Marietta), but that doesn't mean that they don't believe that parental choice in child raising is important. I don't think we understand wizard morality well enough to talk about it like in general terms

Well, the discussion started because somebody asked why wizards had never considered the ol' changeling routine, and another person replied that it was "evil". WTF? Evil? No. Evil is something that transcends human arguments over morality. Precious little, if anything, fits that category.

This isn't about what's best for the child, it's about what I would want as a mother, who in many societies holds more sway.

I know it does, and I suspect that's where people got the rhetoric they're using. Of course, if you'd been raised completely differently - say, if wizards all expected not to be raised by their families after a certain age anyway, your attitude might be different.

[innerbrat]

That's still a flint. JKR's also said that children are listed as magical or not from birth. Besides, even if you can't tell, why not collect the ones you can tell, save the family some worries?
OK, maybe you can tell. My mistake.

Well, the discussion started because somebody asked why wizards had never considered the ol' changeling routine, and another person replied that it was "evil". WTF? Evil? No. Evil is something that transcends human arguments over morality. Precious little, if anything, fits that category.
It's not evil. Evil is a concept I don't agree with.
BUT, it contradicts many people's morality, and in cases where it has not been shown that the morality of the wizarding world contradicts that of ours (as it has with memory charms) I think it's best to assume it doesn't contradict it. Therefore, we can judge the wizarding world on our own morality until it's shown they look at things differently from us.
That assumption taken, it becomes a case of "is taking children away from their parents wrong?" and I think it is, in most cases (disclaimer added to cover individuals that clearly make bad parents).

Of course, if you'd been raised completely differently - say, if wizards all expected not to be raised by their families after a certain age anyway, your attitude might be different.
Abslutely it would be, but they are not, so this is merely hypothetical.

[conuly]

I think it's best to assume it doesn't contradict it. Therefore, we can judge the wizarding world on our own morality until it's shown they look at things differently from us.

Well, by now we're talking about a completely hypothetical situation: what if wizards were more pragmatic and had a different set of ethics? At least, I am - certain parties are trying to get me to talk about the real world and name actual societies that work this way.

When it comes to that, I can. There were generations of children taken from their native american or australian aboriginal parents to be raised in foster homes, that's western civilization. There are numerous cases of native americans taking settler children and raising them as their own. Huh. I think I should bring that up later.

[innerbrat]

Sorry, that's fine then.
Yes, the situation is hypothetically possible, but the reason the British Wizarding World doesn't practise it is because they think it's wrong, as well.

I'm going to shut up, now. :)

[conuly]

Yup, that makes sense. Of course, just because they consider it to be wrong doesn't mean that it's objectively wrong.

Honestly, I don't get the fuss. A child for a child. It's not preventing parents from raising children, and if it's done properly the parents will never know.

But I always was a cynical little snot.

[innerbrat]

Of course, just because they consider it to be wrong doesn't mean that it's objectively wrong.
True, dat.

Honestly, I don't get the fuss. A child for a child. It's not preventing parents from raising children, and if it's done properly the parents will never know.
Ah, but then you throw in our natural drives and maternal imprinting into that. you can love a child that's not biologically yours as if it was, but you have to imprint on it. Many people also think genetics is important. Ask all those women risking their lives and fertility on IVF whether they'd rather have a child that's biologically theirs and their partners than adopt one of the many children currently in care.
And secondly, lying is bad :P

[conuly]

Ask all those women risking their lives and fertility on IVF whether they'd rather have a child that's biologically theirs and their partners than adopt one of the many children currently in care.

Yeah, that? That's just wrong. Or so says my moral compass, anyway.

[innerbrat]

Mine too. But people are wierd like that. I bet you couldn't persuade a woman not to go through with it.

*hates IVF with a passion*

[conuly]

If they wanna spend their money, that's their own business. I don't have to like it, though.

[innerbrat]

True.
I just, y'know, wish that people didn't think genetics mattered that much.