*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

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

I don't know that you're being a hypocrite -- I actually don't know enough about your ethics to say anything about that. What I do know, from past experience, is that most people who believe that they're relativists really aren't. It's not that they're being dishonest; they truly do believe that they're relativists. They just don't see the incongruity between that claim and their frequent espousal of viewpoints that aren't relativist at all.

[conuly]

I've often noticed that people can hold two or three or ten completely contradictory beliefs without noticing that they're contradictory. Try to call them on it, though, and they get mad. At you. Never understood that.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

I've noticed that phenomenon myself. I can't figure it out either.

Conversely, I've also had people righteously claim that I'm holding two contradictory viewpoints, insisting that I'm being hypocritical, when that's actually not the case -- and they don't give me a chance to explain myself before they come down on me, either.

Best example: I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I'm in favor of the use of lethal force (when it's legally justifiable) for self-defense. Thus far, everyone who has discovered that I hold those two viewpoints promptly accuses me of hypocrisy instead of asking me how I can hold two apparently contradictory opinions. If anyone bothered to ask, they would discover that my reason (whether anyone agrees with it or not) is not contradictory at all.

[conuly]

Doesn't seem contradictory to me. If you invoke the death penalty on somebody, by the time they die they're not defending themselves.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

*grin* Close, but not quite... the way I see it, it has to do with what, if anything, you're accomplishing. If someone kills me, then gets the death penalty, his death doesn't accomplish anything. However, if someone tries to kill me and I kill him first, his death does accomplish something -- specifically, it saves my life.

Amazingly, you're the first person I've ever heard who even had the faintest idea of how that works. Everyone else has always said that it doesn't make any sense at all -- even people whom I've considered to be quite intelligent.

[conuly]

Still makes sense to me, though I doubt I'd ever reason it out like that myself. What if you invoke the death penalty and then all the organs get donated? Would that still could as not accomplishing something? *is curious*

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

Larry Niven envisions just that kind of society in his "Tales of Known Space" -- those given the death penalty have all their organs harvested and used for transplants. As the technology progresses and it becomes possible to keep any organ for any length of time, the people begin voting the death penalty for more and more crimes so that they can get on the government waiting list for replacements and thus extend their own lives. It's a fascinating concept.

But you were asking about my opinion. :-) In that case, yes, giving someone the death penalty would accomplish something, and if that were the practice, I would no longer oppose the death penalty for that reason. However, that is not my only objection to the death penalty, and I would continue to oppose it for other reasons as well.

[conuly]

1. Must read later.
2. Okay. I'd say more, but 35 is a nice, perfect number to stop at, and every reply I make to your nice, even numbers puts me at an odd again. Gah.