![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-09 12:38 pm (UTC)Actually, during the late period, even common people married their siblings. This wasn't a ritual thing, done because the pharoahs were special, this was a common thing. And there are certainly cultures that have killed humans for meat without it being a ritual thing, consider Darwin's observation here, when he noted that the Fuegans would kill their old women for food before killing dogs for food. It's more than possible that he was mistaken, or incorrect, of course, but I'm not sure that is the case.
In Western society, child-taking is something of a taboo (think Herod and how repugnant that was).
Herod killed children. That's really not the same as just taking them.
OK, first off, the wizarding world of Hogwart's and England is entrenched in the Western world-- it cannot escape the cultural basics found here, where we *do* consider stealing a child to be morally objectionable.
But why is it entrenched in the Western world? There's no reason for that.
Second, as much fun as it might be to pot-stir and argue that good and evil are not absolute, that viewpoint has little place in the Harry Potter universe, where good and evil *are* absolute, and fairly clearly defined.
Yes, but how they define good and evil doesn't always match with how I define it. Why should they agree with this matter if they don't on others?