*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

[innerbrat]

You are not the only one. morality is totally subjective.

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.

HOWEVER,
If I, a muggle, had a wizarding child, I would want to keep my wizarding child. If I were a witch with a squib child, I would want to keep my squib. 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.
Also, you can't necessarily tell if a child is magical until they're 11. Neville, for instance.

[ahsirakh.livejournal.com]

The danger, I think, is in that Squibs are not distinguishable until later in their childhoods, and even then, they might still be magical, as can be discerned from the advertisement for "curing" Squibs in Book Two.

Furthermore, it might be that the Mudblood stigma is just as prevalent as the Squib one, especially since wizarding parents may believe that they have a better chance of the Squib revealing magical powers later in their lives than for a Mudblood not to be of mixed blood.

And then, of course, there is the maternal reluctance to give up a child. We hear in the HP books of wizards being unhappy or uncomfortable about mentioning Squib relatives, but it never states that the parents themselves are deeply unhappy about their Squib children.

[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.

[conuly]

1. The "curing" ad always seemed mihi to be similar to ads for weight loss. It's not real.

2. Possibly, possibly.

3. We never hear about squib kids at all - that really says volumes.

[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.

[deceptica]

I agree with you that morality is relative. I'm generally amazed at the way you managed to bring that subject up in that particular debate, though.

As for the whole changeling thing... morality aside, one reason I could see why some wizards and witches probably wouldn't like the idea (and others would), is that it would serve to increase the rift between the magical world and the Muggle world. After all, Muggle-borns and Squibs can serve as links between the two worlds at this point.

[furiosity.livejournal.com]

Heh. I have stayed out of that discussion because it requires me to adopt a set of values I don't possess, but it's a fun read.

I think you're 100% spot-on, however. It always puzzles me when people try to apply their own morals to the fictional world that JKR created, and when it comes up short, decry its wrongness. It especially irks me when they use the results of such pointless exercises to say that JKR is a bad person.

Also, no such thing as good or evil, not objectively.

The strawmen were hilarious, btw. Some HP fandomers would do well to take a stroll through the convoluted passages of the Matrix (or Pi, in a pinch) fandom, where faulty logic is anathema. Could be very educational. That, or just simply take a crash course in logical reasoning. *snerk*

[conuly]

I'm not sure where I stand, ethically, on the whole child-stealing thing. On the one hand, I can understand why losing a child is every parent's fear, but on the other I don't see why "a child for a child", before you know who your child is (I'm talking newborns here) isn't a fair exchange. I know this is some sort of flaw of mine, that I miss something so important, but... I don't get it.

And I'm perfectly willing to take any stand, just so long as the conversation is interesting, as it was until it turned into the "let's not use logic" fest.

[conuly]

Hm. That makes sense, the last line. *ponders*

[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.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

Well, for starters, I agree that it's pretty silly to apply the debate about ethical relativism to Harry Potter (it is a work of fiction). That being said, however, I disagree about ethics being relative. Ethics are absolute; just because a particular society says that such-and-such is ethical or not ethical doesn't mean that it's so, any more than it was so when everyone said that the earth was flat. Those who said that the earth was flat were just plain wrong, just as (for example) the Saudis are wrong with almost everything they do to women. They think everything about the way they treat women is perfectly ethical -- indeed, mandated by Allah -- and not just the men, either; the women also agree that it's proper. It isn't.

This old debate reminds me of when I majored in philosophy in college... I'm not sure whether the timing was deliberate or not, but knowing my academic advisor, it may have been. Over the course of about three or four semesters, as we moved thru our studies of various ethical systems (including apologists for relativism, which most of the students in my college adhered to), people debated the merits and demerits of each. When we arrived at Kant, suddenly, all of the relativists converted to deontological ethics, which is about as anti-relativist as you can get. It was really quite amusing.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

OK, first off, there are two "morals" that are universal. They're actually taboos. Cannibalism is taboo and so is incest.

But, wait, you say! There are cultures that practiced cannibalism! And what about the Egyptians, whose pharoahs married only their siblings?

Nearly every case of cultural cannibalism (i.e., that which was not aberrant behavior, like Jeffrey Dahmer) was a culture that practiced ritualized cannibalism. Essentially, taking the cannibalism event and making it divine, therefore escaping the taboo.

Same with pharoahs and the incest taboo-- pharoahs were considered living gods.

Taboos can only be broken by gods or by those divinely infused.

In Western society, child-taking is something of a taboo (think Herod and how repugnant that was). However, god can demand a child sacrifice, and there was an institutionalized practice of giving your spare children to the monastery (a divine place) when they were very young.

Now, you can argue that the wizarding world is a separate culture and that taking children might not be evil there, but it's not separate, and taking children *is* considered evil in the culture in which it is embedded. It looks like your main problem (the point you jumped all over the poor girl for) is the use of the word "evil." 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.

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. These are, after all, children's fantasy books. A strongly defined sense of good and evil, right and wrong is very comforting and needed in a setting where the consequences of straying too far over the boundaries can be much more severe than a spanking.

Also, it's clear from Muggle stories (i.e., real fairy tales) that changelings used to be more frequent. So, obviously, the wizarding world used to do it, but has since escaped its barbaric past.

[usnbfs.livejournal.com]

mind if I add you? (from the hp/morals thing (http://www.livejournal.com/users/sistermagpie/76910.html))

[conuly]

Sure thing.

[conuly]

But, wait, you say! There are cultures that practiced cannibalism! And what about the Egyptians, whose pharoahs married only their siblings?

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?

[marveen.livejournal.com]

if you discard the idea that children belong with their parents, no matter the cost.

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.

[conuly]

*hugs*

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".

[conuly]

25's not too bad.

1. If you think it's silly to discuss this because HP is fiction, you're definitely no fun. Hmph. Honestly, what's the point of reading a very hyped book if you're not going to take it too seriously?
2. Okay, silliness aside, I don't think we're going to agree on the issue of relativism/ethics. I'm happy to debate it, but only if it's "for fun" instead of "to convince each other".