Determinism and wish-fulfillment
I and other souls much wiser than me have spoken at some length about the determinism prevalent in the Harry Potter books, and how whether you're good or evil in this series has little to nothing to do with your actions and everything to do with whether the narrative designates you "good" or "evil." One of the most popular explanations is that the series is a reflection of Calvinist theology, with Harry and his friends making up the "elect" in their world. However, I'd argue that this explanation, while not altogether wrong, is insufficient. I say this because moral determinism is actually pretty common in bad works--by now I've seen it employed at least two separate times in bad media, including by American authors with no obvious Calvinist ties. Maybe they're just copycats of Rowling or some other work; but I'm now wondering if determinism isn't a form of wish-fulfillment in and of itself, just like the magic and the quidditch and the triumph of "good" over "evil."
Think about it: in the real world, being a good person is really hard work. You have to actively guard against all manner of behaviors which, if indulged long or often enough, or at the wrong time or places, could make you a bad person. Virtues like "compassion" and "forgiveness," which carry so much currency, often take years, even an entire lifetime, to cultivate fully. By the same token, you also can't dismiss someone else as evil or not belonging just because they have different opinions or ways of doing things. And you have to keep all this up, even in hard times when morality may seem to be the least of your worries, because you can't take as much credit for good behavior when everything is going well as when things are going badly.
When you put it like that, it's easy to see the appeal of a determinist fantasy fable. If goodness and badness aren't the result of our actions, but are just immutable elemental properties, then you can be good without making any effort. How do you know that you're good? Well, you spend most of your time doing good things, like loving your family and respecting your friends, right? So, you must be good. On the other hand, the person you got into a heated argument with has different opinions and behavior than you, so if you are good then they must be, by definition, bad.
By the same token, if you are good, then no matter what you do, it will be good, even if from an objective standpoint it harms way more people than it helps. Sadism can be its own wish fulfillment, and the Potter books are no exception (see Terri_Testing's article "Vengeance is Thine" for one such example). But sadism is hard to reconcile with being a good person. However, from a deterministic standpoint, it doesn't matter. If you're innately "good" and your actions aren't what make you "good," then you can kill or brutalize as many people or sentient creatures as you want, without any effect on your innate "goodness." Furthermore, everyone who is "bad" deserves whatever punishment you and your "good" friends care to dish out--and since goodness and badness are innate and immutable, then a "bad" person can never be rehabilitated and therefore deserves whatever they have coming.
Determinism is seductive, in other words, because it's easy, and also because it puts no demands on the reader, as long as they can classify themselves as "good." It's easy to see how some people might be into that considering how morally complicated the world we actually live in is. Doesn't make it a good artistic choice, particularly in a series that bleats on and on about how it's "showing the world as it really is."
Think about it: in the real world, being a good person is really hard work. You have to actively guard against all manner of behaviors which, if indulged long or often enough, or at the wrong time or places, could make you a bad person. Virtues like "compassion" and "forgiveness," which carry so much currency, often take years, even an entire lifetime, to cultivate fully. By the same token, you also can't dismiss someone else as evil or not belonging just because they have different opinions or ways of doing things. And you have to keep all this up, even in hard times when morality may seem to be the least of your worries, because you can't take as much credit for good behavior when everything is going well as when things are going badly.
When you put it like that, it's easy to see the appeal of a determinist fantasy fable. If goodness and badness aren't the result of our actions, but are just immutable elemental properties, then you can be good without making any effort. How do you know that you're good? Well, you spend most of your time doing good things, like loving your family and respecting your friends, right? So, you must be good. On the other hand, the person you got into a heated argument with has different opinions and behavior than you, so if you are good then they must be, by definition, bad.
By the same token, if you are good, then no matter what you do, it will be good, even if from an objective standpoint it harms way more people than it helps. Sadism can be its own wish fulfillment, and the Potter books are no exception (see Terri_Testing's article "Vengeance is Thine" for one such example). But sadism is hard to reconcile with being a good person. However, from a deterministic standpoint, it doesn't matter. If you're innately "good" and your actions aren't what make you "good," then you can kill or brutalize as many people or sentient creatures as you want, without any effect on your innate "goodness." Furthermore, everyone who is "bad" deserves whatever punishment you and your "good" friends care to dish out--and since goodness and badness are innate and immutable, then a "bad" person can never be rehabilitated and therefore deserves whatever they have coming.
Determinism is seductive, in other words, because it's easy, and also because it puts no demands on the reader, as long as they can classify themselves as "good." It's easy to see how some people might be into that considering how morally complicated the world we actually live in is. Doesn't make it a good artistic choice, particularly in a series that bleats on and on about how it's "showing the world as it really is."