Pondering Things » 2007» July

July 31, 2007

Posted in The Harry Potter File — by pheugo on July 31st, 2007

This is part 10 in a series. The entire series is linked on the Harry Potter File Index page.

There are many themes in Harry Potter, but there is one theme that stands out directly, with no equivocation at all and runs as a constant from beginning to end of the story. The world of Harry Potter is filled with prejudice on all sides. Out of prejudice a variety of evils emerge.

We encounter prejudice from the very first chapter of the first book. Petunia Dursley, Harry Potter’s aunt, has not spoken to the Potter’s in years “because her sister and her good-for-nothing husband were as unDursleyish as it was possible to be.” It wasn’t just James and Lily Potter either: “they didn’t want Dudley mixing with a child like that.” We quickly find out that the Dursleys don’t mix with the Potters because the Potters are Wizards and the Dursleys are not. When the baby Harry is left with the Dursleys, that prejudice spills over onto Harry and leads to a miserable childhood for a boy who has done nothing to deserve such treatment.

We usually think of prejudice of that type to be an irrational attitude based on nothing more than superficial and insignificant differences. But, the source of Petunia’s prejudice, like most prejudice, runs deeper than that. We discover that source after Harry receives his letter from Hogwarts and is told his mother was a witch. When Harry asks about his mother, Petunia declares:

“Oh, I was the only one who saw her for what she was - a freak! But for my mother and father, oh no, it was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud of having a witch in the family!”

In The Deathly Hallows, we find out that Petunia’s anger is not simply that Lily was a witch and therefore adored by her parents, a simple case of sibling rivalry. When Lily was invited to Hogwarts, Petunia applied for admission there as well, but was told that she would not be allowed to attend since she was not born with magical ability. Her sister, because of an innate magical ability, is treated as something special, praised by their parents, and then ultimately separated from Petunia. Petunia’s response is to turn her hurt into contempt for all Wizards. This is typical of prejudice. We see someone who has an ability we covet, but when we cannot obtain the same ability, we mentally turn things around in our mind and treat the other as a “freak.” It preserves the self-centered ego, in other words, to treat the special abilities of others with disdain. In addition, Petunia’s loss of companionship with her sister intensifies her disdain for those who are different, blaming them for the loss of that companionship. It’s a typical selfish attitude where the actions of others are evaluated only in terms of how they affect oneself, without regard for what is best for another. Petunia’s attitudes express a simple but powerful theme. Put simply, self-centered ego leads to prejudice and prejudice leads to misery for oneself and others.

The prejudice of some Muggles, exemplified by the Dursleys, is mirrored by the attitudes of some Wizards. We encounter this first in the character of Draco Malfoy. As we later learn, Draco is the son of a powerful, wealthy, aristocratic wizard family and has been indoctrinated his whole life to believe in the innate superiority of pure-blood Wizards. In their first encounter, Draco remarks to Harry, “They’re just not the same, they’ve never been brought up to know our ways.” Draco’s prejudice extends not to just Muggles but to other Wizards as well. In their next encounter on the train to Hogwarts, Draco tells Harry, “You’ll soon find out some wizarding families are much better than others, Potter. You don’t want to go making friends with the wrong sort.”

Unlike Petunia Dursley, Draco’s prejudice is not a result of jealousy for the ability of others, but results from indoctrinated disdain for those he considers of lesser heritage. The Malfoy’s are typical of the followers of Voldemort; they want to rid the world of those they regard as “mudbloods.” This represents the all too common attitude of racial prejudice. It is a prejudice born out of false pride. The truth is that in Harry Potter, the muggle-born wizards and half-blood wizards are every bit as capable as the pure-blood Wizards. But, the pure-blood Wizards’ prejudice blinds them to this fact. In order to maintain their sense of superiority, they must resort to invention and lies. In The Deathly Hallows, after the followers of Voldemort have seized control of the Ministry of Magic, they begin making the claim that muggle-born and half-blood wizards must steal knowledge of magic from the pure-bloods. That claim blatantly ignores the truth in order to preserve the self-serving claims of the pure-bloods. As Ron Weasly says, “It’s mental.” In other words, racial prejudice is insane, but those who believe that way must preserve their false pride by inventing even more incredible lies and seeking to destroy those who would show the lie for what it is.

We find another example of prejudice in the character of Severus Snape, although it is not immediately apparent that it is prejudice. From their first encounter, Snape treats Harry with disdain. He demands that Harry be far better than the other students, and when Harry cannot live up to those expectations, Snape berates and dismisses Harry, often giving him much lower marks that Harry deserves. Yet, from time to time we see Snape working diligently in the background to help and guard Harry. Snape turns out to be the most complex and ambiguous character in the entire story. His behavior towards Harry is sometimes kind, sometimes inordinately harsh, and seems to have no rhyme or reason to it.

As the story unfolds over the course of the seven books, the motivation for Snape’s behavior towards Harry is slowly revealed. First we find that Snape was at school with Harry’s parents, James and Lily. But, where Snape and James were continuously at odds with each other, Snape and Lily have been close friends and companions since childhood. What is first only hinted at becomes explicit in the seventh book. Snape has always been in love with Lily. Her choice to marry Snape’s enemy James Potter is what will drive Snape to a horrible act of betrayal. Thinking that he can get rid of James and have Lily to himself, Snape reveals the prophecy about Harry to Voldemort. But, Snape’s plan backfires and Lily, not Harry is the one who is killed. Snape’s subsequent remorse is what leads to his activities as a double agent for Dumbledore, but also leaves him a tortured soul.

In light of that we can understand Snape’s attitudes toward Harry. He sees in Harry an image of both James and Lily. The image of James is despicable to Snape, but his love for Lily drives him to always seek to protect her child. It is the only way Snape can hope to redeem himself. Snape’s actions toward Harry have very little to do with Harry, but are motivated by his own projection of attitudes about Harry’s parents onto Harry combined with his own vow to help Dumbledore. It is another example of prejudice somewhat similar to that of Petunia Dursley. In the case of Snape, prejudice is born from jealousy and loss of love. It tortures his soul and manifests itself in the form of prejudice towards another, sometimes harmful and sometimes beneficial. But, overall, Snape’s prejudice blinds him to the true character of Harry such that he helps out of obligation, but never comes to know Harry.

Harry responds to Snape’s disdain with his own prejudicial attitudes towards Snape. Because he does not understand why Snape treats him so harshly, Harry merely assumes that Snape is working for Voldemort and against Harry. Hagrid and Dumbledore’s reassurances notwithstanding, Harry does not trust Snape, and that mistrust seems to be justified. However, Harry’s prejudice towards Snape causes him and his friends to miss important clues and make nearly fatal mistakes beginning with The Sorcerer’s Stone and continuing through to The Deathly Hallows. Harry also misses the opportunity to protect his mind from intrusion when he stops taking Occulmancy lessons from Snape. Harry’s disdain for Snape, and Snape’s disdain for Harry make it impossible for them to work together, even though both would potentially benefit from that cooperation. Prejudice, by blinding us to the truth, causes us to miss beneficial opportunities.

This same type of cyclic prejudice shows up in the character of Riddle/Voldemort. As Riddle explains to Harry in The Chamber of Secrets:

“You think I was going to use my filthy Muggle father’s name forever? I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slythein himself, through my mother’s side? I, keep the name of a foul, common Muggle, who abandoned me even before I was born, just because he found out his wife was a witch? No, Harry - I fashioned myself a new name, a name I knew wizards everywhere would one day fear to speak, when I had become the greatest sorcerer in the world!”

Voldemort combines the dual aspects of prejudice we see in others. He has the racial prejudice of the pure-blood Wizard combined with the hurt of having been abandoned. His father’s rejection leads to his complementary disdain for Muggles. His pride of his mother’s heritage combines with that disdain and turns inward to produce a blind arrogance where his only desire is to be considered the most powerful and feared wizard in the world.

Voldemort is the epitome of pride and prejudice and its danger. His political program, gathering him followers and increasing his power, is based on feeding prejudicial attitudes. He promises his followers that they will eliminate the “mudbloods” from the wizarding society and then rule over the non-magical Muggles as all-powerful tyrants. But, throughout the story, Voldemort is just as likely to turn on his followers and destroy them when they disappoint or fail in their missions. Voldemort’s prejudice is not just against those who are different, but against anyone who stands in his way. His pride has consumed him to the point where it is only Voldemort that counts for anything, and others are only valuable to the extent they serve his needs.

There are many more examples of prejudicial attitudes and behavior in Harry Potter, but these few examples are enough to get the point across. What we see in all of these situations is the vicious cycle of destruction that arises from prejudice of all kinds. One person’s prejudice leads to harm of another, and that harm leads to prejudicial blindness in regards to others as well. Ultimately, prejudice is an outgrowth of false pride, jealousy of those who are stronger and disdain for those who are weaker. Arrogant false pride strives to find something of lesser value to compare itself to and will imagine another to be lower in value if need be. Its central characteristic is that it is always self-serving at the expense of others.

Voldemort, as the personification of evil, expresses very well the dangers of pride and prejudice. Prejudice, born out of pride, is an evil parasite that feeds on irrational hatred towards others in order to accomplish its own self-centered desires. It blinds one to the truth, and ultimately leads to destruction. Pride goeth before a fall.

Comments (0)

July 30, 2007

Harry Potter - Sneaking Around, Looking for Answers

Posted in The Harry Potter File — by pheugo on July 30th, 2007

This is part 9 in a series. The entire series is linked on the Harry Potter File Index page.

Another set of complaints about Harry Potter focus on the times that Harry and his friends sneak out of their rooms in violation of the regulations of Hogwarts. This, they claim, shows a disdain and disregard for rules and authority. As before, we need to look at all aspects of these scenes, including the literary purpose involved and the moral theme that emerges as the story develops.

All of this sneaking around serves an important plot purpose. Because Harry is the detective who must solve the riddle, he is the one who needs to discover the important clues. By hiding under his invisibility cloak, Harry can listen in on conversations and observe actions that help to fill in details of the story. Sometimes the information obtained this way turns out to be incorrect and helps setup plot twists, but for the most part these scenes provide important clues to Harry and the reader. By comparison, this is much like a stakeout by a detective in a traditional mystery novel. It says nothing about whether or not you should spy on someone to get information; it is simply used as an effective way to get the information in front of the reader. In short, Harry and friends have to sneak around in order for the story to be told. Although there are other literary devices that could have been used, all that sneaking around is much more exciting to read. The threat of getting caught adds suspense to the story.

When Harry and his friends sneak around and violate the rules of Hogwarts, they are almost always doing so with the intent of gaining knowledge needed to defeat evil. The rules that disallow the students from leaving their rooms, or going into restricted sections of the library and the Forbidden Forest, are all intended to protect the students from harm. However, Harry’s situation is unique. He is the focus of Voldemort’s attack and his life is at risk. Simply staying in his room will not prevent harm to himself or the other students. In order to combat the evil that he faces, Harry must obtain information about the danger that he faces. Because that information is not available to him by other means, he ignores the rules to get the needed information. Furthermore, because Harry is at Hogwarts, the danger to Harry puts the other students at risk as well. His violations of the rules are motivated by, and ultimately lead to, protection of himself and the other students, not to their harm.

All this sneaking around, as with many of Harry’s activities, is necessitated by a lack of knowledge. In some cases the information he needs is known by the adults, but is held back from Harry in some manner. Because of his need to obtain that knowledge, Harry is acting in a way that is dangerous to himself. This is a true moral dilemma where either course of action creates risk. In the end, the greater risk of ignorance outweighs the risk of wandering around out in the open.

This is another interesting, and important aspect of moral choice. We often act on the basis of limited knowledge and because of our ignorance may make the wrong choice. To avoid making the wrong choice based on ignorance, we may have to bend the rules to obtain the knowledge we need. That doesn’t always excuse our actions, but it is precisely the type of moral issue that we face in life. Young people need to be prepared for this situation as well and the Harry Potter story contains many good examples of what can go wrong when we don’t have all the information we need and also what can go wrong if we are not careful in how we obtain that knowledge.

Along the same lines, Harry’s lack of knowledge is due to the intentional withholding of that knowledge by Dumbledore and other adults. Dumbledore is motivated by a desire to protect Harry from things that Harry is not mature enough to face. Yet, as Dumbledore eventually admits, that decision on his part created a problem. As Dumbledore explains at the end of The Order of the Phoenix:

“I cared about you too much,” said Dumbledore simply. “I cared more for your happiness that your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voledmort expects we fools who love to act.

“Is there a defense? I defy anyone who has watched you as I have - and I have watched you more closely than you can have imagined - not to want to save you more pain that you had already suffered…”

“…And now, tonight, I know you have long been ready for the knowledge I have kept from you for so long, because you have proved that I should have placed the burden upon you before this. My only defense is this: I have watched you struggling under more burdens than any student who has ever passed through this school, and I could not bring myself to add another - the greatest one of all.”

Had Dumbledore given Harry all of the information that was available, Harry might have avoided some of the bad choices he made. In addition, Harry might have been more likely to follow Dumbledore’s advice. The Occulmancy lessons from Snape that Harry is given are a prime example. Harry’s misplaced disdain for Snape and his lack of understanding of the connection with Voldemort, prevent Harry from taking the lessons to completion. Had Dumbledore explained the reasons, Harry would have been more likely to gain the experience that he needed. Likewise, had Harry been told what was going on, he could possibly have avoided the trap set by Voldemort that led to the death of Sirius Black.

But, out of love and concern for Harry, Dumbledore had decided to try and spare Harry the unpleasantness and burden of the truths that must at some time be known by him. This is always a difficult decision to make. When and how do we reveal truths to someone that they need to know but may not yet be prepared to accept? This is a good point that both children and adults need to understand. Children will need to trust the knowledge of adults even if they do not fully understand it. Likewise, adults need to be wary of being so overprotective of children that they do not prepare the children with the knowledge they need to accurately choose the proper action when faced with a moral choice. This difficult decision applies to all personal relationships as well, not just those between parents and children.

There is another subtle, but vitally important aspect of the search for knowledge that we must come to understand. As Dumbledore knows and explains to Harry, before we can reveal truths to people that are difficult to bear, that person must reach a point of maturity capable of accepting that truth. This is not simply because the person may not be able to emotionally bear up. Some information, if not wisely used, can be dangerous to the person who knows it. In other cases, the information may be something of value that we cannot risk revealing except to those we trust. Until a person has shown maturity, wisdom, and fidelity to the truth, we are not doing that person or ourselves any favor by revealing the truth to them. That is the type of conflict that Dumbledore has to deal with in regard to Harry. It is also the conflict that Harry and his companions face. They often do not reveal the truth of their actions when to do so would be misunderstood or misused by the recipient. It would be preferable, of course, if we could always speak the unvarnished truth, but the limits of human nature often prevent us from doing so.

The only way we can be sure the person can receive the knowledge we want to give them is to first allow them to act on their own, preferably in a limited and controlled situation. That way, we can see if they will develop the mature moral character worthy of our trust. As Dumbledore explains to Snape, “We have protected him because it has been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength.” Although Dumbledore has explained this to Harry in a round-about-way, it is only near the end of Deathly Hallows that Harry finally comes to understand. Harry had to go through a trial first to see if he was one worthy to bear the burden. Dumbledore may have been manipulating Harry, but it had to be done the way it was done. As Harry realizes, “Dumbledore had known that Harry would not duck out…because he had taken trouble to get to know him.”

It is necessary to seek the truth in order to receive it. If we are not seeking the truth, anyone trying to give it to us will be ignored anyway. A thirst for knowledge and a love of the truth must come first before we can receive the truth. Furthermore, it is in seeking the truth out of a love of the truth that we develop the moral character necessary for those who hold great truths. Harry is an archetypical seeker of the truth. His position on the Quidditch team portrays this symbolically, and we see it in his actions from the beginning to the end of the story.

This, ultimately, is Voldemort’s great failing and leads to his downfall. He seeks knowledge only for the purpose of power over others and to avoid death for himself. He will not investigate or attempt to understand things that do not give him power over others and in so doing he regularly discounts or ignores significant facts. In other words, unlike Harry, Voldemort does not seek truth for its own sake or for the sake of others. As Dumbledore explained to Harry, “That which Voldemort does not value, he takes no trouble to comprehend.”

Voldemort’s attack on Harry as a baby is but one example. Voldemort could have waited to see how the boy would develop and then plan accordingly. He also could have waited to try and verify the prophecy, in which case he might have understood that only the boy that Voldemort marks is the one that will be a danger to him. But, in his arrogance he decides to act immediately. Ironically, it was Voldemort’s own choice, and his own arrogant and impatient action, that created the means of his downfall.

Even at the very end, when Harry tries to warn Voldemort and give him the knowledge he needs, Voldemort will not hear it:

“I know things you don’t know, Tom Riddle. I know lots of important things that you don’t. Want to hear some, before you make another big mistake?”

But, Voldemort has traveled too far and too long down a path of self-deception to hear the truth from anyone. He disdainfully assumes that the actions of others, like his own, could have had no other purpose than power and self aggrandizement. He has never sought the truth and cannot comprehend that others have. In so doing, he rejects the truth that Harry has learned. As Harry tells him, “You still don’t get it, Riddle, do you? Possessing the wand isn’t enough.”

No, as Harry has come to learn, just as Dumbledore had to learn, possessing a thing, or knowing a thing, is not enough. Voldemort’s power as a Wizard may far exceed that of Harry, but Voldemort has never sought knowledge for the right reason and is left vulnerable because of that. He does not truly understand the nature of either the power he holds or the power used against him. He cannot understand how there could be a power greater than magic, and that those he despises have that power when he does not.

How and why we go about gaining knowledge is part of the quest for knowledge. First we must reach the point of maturity where we can accept difficult truths, and we must be tested to see if we are worthy. Furthermore, our intent in gaining knowledge and the purpose we seek to fulfill ultimately determines what truths we will discover. Those who seek knowledge for the proper purpose may have to be a little sneaky in getting it, but will ultimately gain what they desire and will have developed the moral character to know what to do with it as well.

Comments (0)

July 29, 2007

Harry Potter - Law, Morality and Necessity

Posted in The Harry Potter File — by pheugo on July 29th, 2007

This is part 8 in a series. The entire series is linked on the Harry Potter File Index page.

Moral issues are rarely simple, despite our desire for them to be so. In most instances we are faced with a complex moral situation where there may not be a clear-cut choice between good and evil or right and wrong. This may appear to some to be moral ambiguity and relativism, but is more accurately described as moral complexity. In an essay titled Magic, Muggles, and Moral Imagination, philosophy professor David Bagget explains:

Moral complexities don’t entail that everything ethical is colored gray and up for grabs. That a character like Harry may have flaws doesn’t mean he’s not a hero or virtuous. That a rule (such as a prohibition against lying) may admit of exceptions doesn’t mean it ought not be followed. That moral dilemmas may require us to choose the lesser of two evils doesn’t mean that there’s no moral difference between them.[1]

An example of this type of moral complexity shows up in the first Harry Potter book. In this scene Harry deliberately ignores the teacher’s instruction for the children to not get on their flying brooms while she is away. In Harry Potter and the Bible, Richard Abanes uses this scene as an example of poor moral instruction.[2] He states that Harry, responding to the taunting of another student, violates the teacher’s orders and is then rewarded for his actions. If you only read Abanes’ description and conclusion you could very well decide that Harry Potter is not a very good book for children to read. He draws a direct connection between Harry’s disregard of the teacher’s instruction and a reward, implying that the book teaches that breaking the rules gets you some advantage. Abane’s interpretation is identical to that of Hemione Granger. As she stomps up the stairs behind Harry, she says, “So I suppose you think that’s a reward for breaking rules?” But, as Hermione later comes to understand, that is a misrepresentation.

In this scene, Madame Hooch must take a student to the infirmary and tells the other students to stay on the ground and off their flying brooms while she is away or else risk expulsion. That’s a typical and very reasonable type of behavior for a good teacher. She is trying to protect the students from harm by restricting their actions and ignoring that restriction should be punished, one would think. Draco Malfoy ignores the teacher’s restrictions and takes advantage of her absence to cause grief for another student, Neville Longbottom. Neville is a shy, often weak, forgetful boy who has been sent a Remembrall by his Grandmother. In an earlier scene Draco tries to get the Remembrall from Neville. Now, with Neville off to the infirmary, Draco grabs the device and flies off with it. Harry’s eventual response is to jump on his broom and go after Draco. In the end, Harry retrieves the Remembrall by diving towards the ground, catching the ball just before it hits the ground. Harry’s rescue of the Remembrall is seen by Professor McGonagall and it is at that point that she takes Harry to the captain of the Quidditch team and has him put on the team.

Before trying to find some moral lesson in this scene, we should start by looking at it from a literary perspective. Many important scenes that follow take place on the Quidditch pitch and the author has to somehow get Harry onto the Quidditch team. However, Harry has never even seen a Quidditch match, much less played the game. First year students at Hogwarts are not allowed to even try out for the team. The flying lesson scene serves the important function of solving this sticky plot problem. First, it takes place before the Quidditch team tryouts, and provides a plausible explanation why Harry does not replace an existing player. Furthermore, if the teachers were around, Harry would not be able to zoom around on his broom discovering and demonstrating his instinctive, natural ability. Thus, one important purpose of this scene is to move the plot forward. As Harry remarks to Ron, “If [Draco] hadn’t stolen Neville’s Remembrall I wouldn’t be on the team….” In addition, the actions of Harry when the teacher is away are typical of how he will act throughout the story. In addition to placing Harry on the Quidditch team, the flying lesson scene establishes important character traits for both Harry and Draco. Harry’s blood boils at the idea of the injustice done by Draco and he instinctively reacts as a hero. This is one of the first scenes where we see Harry courageously responding to injustice and evil. We also see that Draco is effectively a coward. This contrast between courage and cowardice plays out over the course of the books.

Looking at all the elements of the scene we see that Harry was not rewarded because he broke the rules, as Abanes implies. Harry was put on the team because he demonstrated a natural ability that would make him a good Quidditch player. That ability would have been discovered in any case and is in no way a reward for misbehaving. We also find out that McGonagall is tired of Gryffindor always losing to Slytherin and her action of ignoring the infraction is better understood as motivated by that alone. In any case, the reward is coincidental, not an intended or planned consequence of misbehaving.

But, some will object, Harry was not punished for violating the teacher’s orders, so it is still a bad example for children. First, however, we should consider that many of the situations in the books like the one just described involve rules and regulations established for a specific situation, not universal or natural laws. These types of temporary rules cannot be put on the same level of importance as absolute moral principles. In other words, they are “traditions of men” not “carved in stone by the hand of God.” Often the critics will try to make more of the rules that Harry violates than should be made. The critics, in fact, seem more concerned with disrespect towards authority than the specifics of the rules that are violated or the situation that gave rise to the infraction. They often express the idea that any infraction of rules is wrong simply because it goes against authority. The fallacy in that type of thinking should be obvious.

The real reason Harry often goes unpunished is simply because those responsible for upholding the rules are the same ones who made the rules in the first place. As such, they have the authority to suspend or change the rules when they realize that enforcement would lead to additional harm and not justice. As Dumbledore remarks at the end of Chamber of Secrets:

“I seem to remember telling you both that I would have to expel you if you broke any more school rules,” said Dumbledore.

Ron opened his mouth in horror.

“Which goes to show that the best of us must sometimes eat our words,” Dumbledore went on, smiling.

As Dumbledore realizes, the rules had to be broken in order to achieve a just resolution. That does leave us with the question of when it is valid to change or suspend the rules. If disregard for law is arbitrarily ignored, then law loses its effectiveness.

We need to look more closely at the situation that motivated Harry’s choice. The scene could have been written such that Harry took advantage of the teacher’s absence to do what he wanted. That would express a self-serving disregard and disdain for authority. But it is not Harry who demonstrates that disdain; Draco is the one who has no respect for the teacher’s authority. Draco’s action changed the situation from what it was when Madame Hooch walked away. No longer is it simply a group of students standing around waiting for the teacher to return. Harry’s behavior is not motivated by a disdain for rules or any other self-serving desire, but by a desire to defend someone who is under attack. An injustice has been done, there is no one else there to stop it, and in that situation Harry’s instinct takes over. Harry is responding as a hero, a defender of another who cannot defend himself. That’s a choice of action that most of us would consider morally correct and is entirely within character for Harry. His action may have been impertinent and imprudent, typical of adolescents, but it is not immoral behavior. If we want to consider Harry’s receipt of his own flying broom and placement on the Quidditch team as a reward for his actions, we should see it symbolically as a reward that results from fighting against injustice. Whenever we pursue justice for others, in other words, we gain an unexpected reward for ourselves.

This flying lesson scene is typical of the type of complex moral questions that young people will need to learn to deal with in life, and yet is presented in a scenario that young people can easily identify with. How do you respond to a schoolyard bully when the teacher is not available? In this type of situation we must evaluate two actions, each of which might cause harm, and choose the better of the two. We have to ask, as Hamlet did, “Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer/The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune/Or to take arms against a sea of troubles/And by opposing end them.”

An analogy to a simpler, yet common situation might help to make this principle clear. Is it allowable for an ambulance to ignore the traffic regulations? If you answered yes, then you need to stop and think more deeply about the question. The correct answer is, “It depends on the situation.” Unless an ambulance is going to or from the scene of an emergency, the ambulance driver has no more right to violate the traffic regulations than any other driver on the road. It is only when the ambulance is responding to an emergency that it may turn on a flashing light and loud siren, exceed the speed limit and ignore traffic control signals. It is the emergency situation that creates the need to suspend the normal traffic regulations.

It is naïve to think of this in purely utilitarian terms. While it is true that the normal regulations are ignored by the ambulance, the reason for setting aside the regulations is not simply for the sake of convenience. To understand this concept you have to think of the purpose and intent of the traffic regulations. We regulate traffic in order to preserve the peace and public safety. For that reason, a violation of the traffic regulations is a potential threat to other members of the community. However, in the case of an emergency, the life of someone is at stake. If the purpose of the law is to preserve life, then the law must allow a special case for emergency situations. Although the speeding ambulance may appear to be discarding the law, it is in fact upholding the intent and purpose of the law, namely, to preserve the well being of members of the community.

Of course, there is a significant difference between an ambulance speeding to the scene of an accident and handling a schoolyard bully. But, in both cases we have to look at all aspects of a situation in order to evaluate the morality of an action. This is a subtle, but important, distinction between utilitarian morals, moral relativism, and moral complexity. Moral behavior cannot be reduced down to simply following the rules, but must take into account all aspects of the situation and weigh each action in light of some overriding moral principle.

Valid law always seeks to achieve the higher purpose of justice. As it is sometimes said, the intent of the law is the force of the law. If following the letter of the law is in conflict with the intent of the law, then actions must be chosen to reach that intent, even if the actions go against the letter of the law. To some this may appear to be saying that the end justifies the means. However, the correct understanding is that the means and the end must be unified in intent. A lawful means that produces an unjust end is no more valid than an unlawful means that reaches a just end. For this reason, well written laws allow for exigent circumstances, emergency, and necessity. If the law does not allow for these situations, then the law must be reevaluated when these conditions are present.

As discussed previously, a literary work can be used to reflect conditions in our real world society. Most of us live within societies run by both public and private bureaucracies where we are wrapped up in miles of red tape and reams of regulations. At times the bureaucratic rule-making becomes so intrusive that the only way to get anything done is to simply ignore the rules, or at least find some way to get around them. The characters in Harry Potter have to deal with the same problem in the person of Delores Umbridge.

Umbridge is one of those types of bureaucrats that never met a situation that she couldn’t further mess up by writing a new regulation. Her intervention at Hogwarts as the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher turns into a disaster for the students. At the time they most need instruction, she turns the class into a farce. Any complaints or hint of rebellion is dealt with harshly. After all, rules are rules and those who break the rules must be punished. As Umbridge gains more and more influence, usurping power by arbitrary regulation, the students are forced to find a solution outside the normal procedures, eventually establishing Dumbledore’s Army.

We could look at the actions of the students in a superficial manner and accuse them of having a disdain for authority and a rebellious attitude toward rules, but the events of the story make that conclusion absurd. The problem the students, and eventually the whole of Wizard society had to deal with was the abuse of authority by bureaucrats. Under those conditions, the only appropriate and heroic thing to do is to blatantly ignore the rules. Rowling’s sarcastic depiction of the heavy hand of bureaucracy and the student’s response is an excellent depiction of the conditions we face in our world and what we often have to do in response. Under normal conditions we follow the rules so that we may live within a peaceful society. But there are times when that attitude simply won’t work.

There is an even more direct expression of this concept in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. At the beginning of this episode, Harry and his cousin are attacked by Dementors. Harry responds by producing his Patronus charm, succeeds in driving the Dementors away, and thus rescues himself and his cousin. This action violates two of the laws for the Wizard community. Harry is an underage Wizard and restricted in the use of magic outside of school. In addition, Wizards are prohibited from performing magic in the presence of Muggles. Harry has violated both of these laws in one act.

Harry is subsequently summoned to appear before the judges of the Wizengamot. The sudden change of time for appearance gives us a clue that maybe this tribunal is not wholly on the up and up, but more likely a setup by Harry’s opponents. We find out later in the story that this is exactly the case. Fortunately for Harry, Dumbledore arrives in time to act as counsel. Before being rudely cut off by Fudge, Dumbledore reminds the Wizengamot that, “Clause seven of the Decree sates that magic may be used before Muggles in exceptional circumstances, and as those exceptional circumstances include situations that threaten the life of the Wizard or witch himself…” Dumbledore correctly points out that the law includes provisions for use of magic by underage Wizards when there is some type of emergency or necessity. A majority of the judges admit the truth of this provision of the law and Harry is not punished for his infraction.

The same analysis applies to moral behavior. Both the action and the consequence must be judged on the basis of a moral principle. When faced with moral dilemma, we choose the course of action that appears to best serve the greater moral principle, even if in doing so we introduce the possibility of some lesser harm. This is distinct from moral relativism. Moral relativism denies moral absolutes, replacing them with subjective values. Thus, the moral principle changes when the person’s desires change or the situation changes. In contrast, absolute moral principles remain in effect in all situations, but the action taken in each situation is the action appropriate to the moral principle. It’s a subtle, but important difference and one that many critics of Harry Potter have missed.

Suspending the rules to allow for emergencies is an important and valid principle of law, but is also potentially dangerous. A misuse of the appeal to necessity is the typical response of an immoral person. Having done something wrong, and not wanting to suffer the consequences, an immoral person will usually create some kind of an excuse in the form of, “it was necessary.” Distinguishing between a valid appeal to necessity and an invalid one can be difficult at times. Yet, it is something we must learn to do.

One sure way to test if an action was truly necessary is to see if the action is purely self-serving. There is a very clear example of this misapplication in The Deathly Hallows. (Warning: major plot spoiler follows.) Near the end of the book, Voldemort kills Snape solely for the purpose of gaining additional power for himself. Snape was not at that time threatening Voldemort, and was in fact considered Voldemort’s chief ally. Yet, it served Voldemort’s lust for power and that became the excuse that Voldemort gave to Snape as he killed him.

“The Elder Wand belongs to the wizard who killed its last owner. You killed Albus Dumbledore. While you live, Severus, the Elder Wand cannot be truly mine.”

“My Lord!” Snape protested, raising his wand.

“It cannot be any other way,” said Voldemort.

Voldemort’s actions from beginning to end are purely self-serving. He will readily violate any agreement or confidence if it serves his desire for more power. He accurately represents the nihilist who lives by the motto that the end justifies the means. For Voldemort, there is no law or rule other than to serve self-interest. By comparison, a valid use of the principle of necessity will seek the end of justice. This is a vitally important distinction and in Harry Potter the distinction is set out clearly throughout the books. Harry and his friends go unpunished for their infractions when to do so would clearly lead to injustice. Although there are times when the immature Harry steps over the line and does not get punished, he is usually left with a sense of remorse. Voldemort knows no remorse, and it is clearly the evil Voldemort whose actions exemplify immorality, not Harry. And that is exactly the way a good story should express moral principles.

These scenes, like many similar scenes in the books, present an excellent starting point for discussing the relationship of authority, law, morality, and necessity. The situations we encounter in life are often complex and a simplistic, legalistic understanding of morality will not prepare young people to deal with these types of moral dilemma. If we try to teach moral behavior as a list of rules to follow, we hide this complexity and fail to present a true understanding of morality. It is encouraging to see this level of understanding in a book promoted as a book for children. Some adults can learn a great deal from this as well.

[1] David Bagget, Magic, Muggles, and Moral Imagination, published in Harry Potter and Philosophy (Open Court publishing, 2004), p. 165.

[2] Richard Abanes, Harry Potter and the Bible, The Menace behind the Magic (Horizon Books, 2001), p. 33.

Comments (0)

Friends and Stuff