![[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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-09 01:05 pm (UTC)I believe I've said it before, but I'll reiterate it here--there is no magical bond arising from shared genes. Children belong where they're better off.
(Local courts, druggie parents, CPS practically on the neighbors' speed-dial, yet the kids are returned to the parents....over and over and over again. In the worst incident, they locked the kids in their room and cooked up some methamphetamines, setting the house on fire. Two of their six kids DIED locked in that bedroom. They still have custody of the other four.)
I'm adopted. I refuse to believe that my parents are naturally inferior because they share none of my genes, or (the other side of the coin) that I am naturally inferior as their daughter because I don't carry their blood. And you would be AMAZED how many fuckwits still believe that crap, here and now in the 21st century.
....sorry about the language, but this sort of thing makes me VERY angry.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-09 01:20 pm (UTC)I've been sensitive about this issue for a week or so now, ever since I saw somebody reply to a post about a woman who had left her kid to be raised with his grandmother (and now wants another one) with "the thought of my children being raised by somebody else makes me sick".