Except, of course, that Voldemort is no longer right the moment he takes the steps he's been taking - torture, murder, extortion, yadda yadda. Sorry - you've organized some no-brainer but frequently unspoken aspects of Voldemort's methods and possible motivations in a very eloquent way, but eh. Personally, I'm puzzled (and sometimes a little disturbed) by Potterfandom's penchant for extreme moral ambiguity/Death Eater sympathizing that goes hand in hand with "good guy" bashing (not that you're doing the latter, I just notice it a lot in general). Yes, all is not well in the default wizarding world, but that doesn't mean we all need to go and root for the bad guys, either. *shakes head*
But by the same merit, we hear the 'good guys' doing the same thing -- legally. I think, for me, the leg that side had to stand on was knocked right out from under them when it was legalised for Aurors and the like to use Unforgiveable Curses on suspected Death Eaters during the first war.
There is no good side in this, when both sides are doing this sort of thing, only a side each reader agrees with more.
I come down halfway between you two. Neither side is entirely right, but I think Dumbledore and the Aurors and Harry are more right than Voldemort, if only because they're fighting a defensive war - no matter what Voldemort's reasons, it was he who chose to make his revolution a violent one.
I never actually said who I agree with more, as it happens, but for the reasons you and melannen listed, I definitely think Voldemort's position has merit
( ... )
So, essentially you're saying he's less right because he started a war -- after pointing out, in your original post, that it's a war that makes sense and might even be necessary. It is necessary considering that with the advantages of Muggle technology (especially things like satellites) it's only a matter of time before Muggles figure out that what they physically see at places like Hogwarts and St.Mungos isn't what's actually there.
There might've been nonviolent means to achieve his ends. He could've gathered evidence of the Muggle threat and tried to enact the same goals peacefully. That he didn't do this, but rather went straight to violent revolution, is a moral failing on his part. If everyone who was sure they were right lept immediately to the idea of using force, there would be even more death and destruction in this world than there already is.
However, I can't say that I agree with your view that Dumbledore, the Aurors, and Harry are more right because Voldemort started a violent revolution. With the exception of the
( ... )
Yes, but it's long and difficult and might not have large results for a generation.
There might've been nonviolent means to achieve his ends. He could've gathered evidence of the Muggle threat and tried to enact the same goals peacefully. That he didn't do this, but rather went straight to violent revolution, is a moral failing on his part. If everyone who was sure they were right lept immediately to the idea of using force, there would be even more death and destruction in this world than there already is.
Exactly. It's pretty obvious from the way Tom behaved in CoS (and fifty years before that) that Voldemort never tried nonviolence first. It's as simple as that, really.
Regarding the survey info (and one survey does not a truth make), what about Gandhi? I'm not saying he did everything himself, but his movement made a huge difference in the changes made in India.
The other thing to note, especially when comparing Voldemort to Hitler, is that Hitler came to power through democratic means. He tried to take power in a putsch once, was arrested, and, as a popular figure, was given a reduced sentence and spent it writing Mein Kampf. One wonders whether Voldemort could have been diverted from terrorist-style violence if he had been subjected to a decent legilimencer/truth potion and arrested after the Chamber of Secrets murder?
So, there's one, obvious non-violent manner in which to acheive a revolution of knowledge and purpose, seemingly. Tom Riddle would have had to have become Minister of Magic and then change the system. Except that, of course, changing the legal system does little good if the school system, if every magical child in the UK and Ireland, is in control of a person with completely different views of you. So, what Voldemort needs then, is to be able to change both systems when the Ministry doesn't have control over Hogwarts and vice versa.
Can you think of a non-violent way he could have managed that? He could've done something similar to what Dumbledore did with Fudge - either be Headmaster and arrange for an ardent follower of his to be Minister, or vice versa. Although it's likely that Dumbledore would've moved to check his power by becoming whatever Voldemort wasn't, and it's possible that after the defeat of Grindelwald, there was no way for Voldemort to beat out Dumbledore for the position of Headmaster when Dippet retired
( ... )
Except that those aren't the good guys, those are the nominally good guys who the real good guys - Harry, etc. - are trying to curb. And as a whole (though some corrupt individuals might get sick pleasure out of it) they're doing it in retaliation, not with fervor.
Bear in mind that OotP proved that the Unforgivables need real malice behind them in order to work. Even Harry with all the pent-up rage and fury at Sirius's death couldn't do much to Bellatrix. That suggests to me that the retaliation is done with as much fervour as the Death Eaters take. Retaliation with murder is still murder, and torture is torture.
Are we absolutely certain that that's the way it works, or was Bellatrix just taunting Harry?
In the HP books, just as in the real world, there aren't "sides" but rather huge coalitions of individuals, some of whom commit morally reprehensible crimes and some who don't. There are all kinds on both sides, and so I tend not to care about intent, and only about the action.
We can't be certain, but given the state of Bellatrix at the time, I don't think she has a reason to lie. After all, the idea of corrupting Harry Potter by telling him not only how to cast an Unforgivable, but that he has to wallow in pain and hatred first would be a very tempting one
( ... )
Oh, yes, I'd forgotten about that. Still, there is a fine distinction between choosing to be malicious and not wanting or not being allowed to be malicious and then being pushed into it in self-defense. I can't remember, though - does Imperius need malice?
Imperius wouldn't need malice- but instead it needs a desire for power, to override free will. In Christian tradition (which I believe JK and her internal metaphysics of the books to be working on), that's pretty much a major no-no. Effectively, the three Unforgivables demand that you approach the world in increasingly evil ways- and the more you use them, the easier it becomes to get your way, so you use them more, become hardened to the humanity of your victims...
Reply
There is no good side in this, when both sides are doing this sort of thing, only a side each reader agrees with more.
- Andrea.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
There might've been nonviolent means to achieve his ends. He could've gathered evidence of the Muggle threat and tried to enact the same goals peacefully. That he didn't do this, but rather went straight to violent revolution, is a moral failing on his part. If everyone who was sure they were right lept immediately to the idea of using force, there would be even more death and destruction in this world than there already is.
However, I can't say that I agree with your view that Dumbledore, the Aurors, and Harry are more right because Voldemort started a violent revolution. With the exception of the ( ... )
Reply
Reply
There might've been nonviolent means to achieve his ends. He could've gathered evidence of the Muggle threat and tried to enact the same goals peacefully. That he didn't do this, but rather went straight to violent revolution, is a moral failing on his part. If everyone who was sure they were right lept immediately to the idea of using force, there would be even more death and destruction in this world than there already is.
Exactly. It's pretty obvious from the way Tom behaved in CoS (and fifty years before that) that Voldemort never tried nonviolence first. It's as simple as that, really.
Regarding the survey info (and one survey does not a truth make), what about Gandhi? I'm not saying he did everything himself, but his movement made a huge difference in the changes made in India.
Reply
Reply
Can you think of a non-violent way he could have managed that? He could've done something similar to what Dumbledore did with Fudge - either be Headmaster and arrange for an ardent follower of his to be Minister, or vice versa. Although it's likely that Dumbledore would've moved to check his power by becoming whatever Voldemort wasn't, and it's possible that after the defeat of Grindelwald, there was no way for Voldemort to beat out Dumbledore for the position of Headmaster when Dippet retired ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
In the HP books, just as in the real world, there aren't "sides" but rather huge coalitions of individuals, some of whom commit morally reprehensible crimes and some who don't. There are all kinds on both sides, and so I tend not to care about intent, and only about the action.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment