What Is Morality?

[ihaveanappforthat]

Morality. Must the ends of something justify the means? Is it morally acceptable to kill one to save many? Is killing wrong regardless of the outcome?

The line between right and wrong can be muddied rather easily.

All this talk about book privileges is boring, let's talk about something interesting.

Comments

[Filtered]

[thegluethatbinds]

Of course killing is always bad. As I've said, human life isn't cheap. The Killing Curse is supposed to damage your soul when you cast it, so it's not a spell that you're supposed to use on a casual basis. That's why it should be avoided at all costs. However the reality of the situation is that, like in my example of Aurors during the Wizarding War, we have to make difficult calls and that might sometimes involve doing the wrong thing for the right reason so others won't have to, or that innocents won't get hurt. It's a slippery slope of grey.

It would depend on why. Did you kill to protect someone, because it was convenient, or because you wanted to hurt a person? It's always important to remember that you made this decision for good, and not for your own personal gain or for harm.

[Filtered]

[ihaveanappforthat]

Perhaps they think that it's simply what people to, everyone dies after-all. Me? I don't think I could ever kill anyone. I'd feel too horrible about it, lock me right up in a mental hospital. I would never be able to be an Auror for that reason, I think.

But there's also their side, what the other people were doing, the Death Eaters, they were doing what they thought was right, just as you Aurors were. So, does that really make your killing morally acceptable?

[Filtered]

[thegluethatbinds]

There's a lot to being an Auror than grades and good spell-work. Aurors do need to be strong, mentally and emotionally. And while everyone does die in the end, we all still have a life to live before that.

The Death Eaters are actually a good example of "the ends justify the means" as well. As you're well aware, they did a lot of horrible things in the name of wizard supremacy. The difference between what I was describing before and what most of them did was that their goal involved harming others whose only crime, according to them, was that they were born Muggle or had positive relationships with them. Their ends, means and reasoning all involved harming part of society simply for being born. It was less of a disagreement over beliefs and more of persecution simply for being who you are.

Aurors have the responsibility of protecting those who can't protect themselves, as well as preventing any further horrors from happening. Killing is not moral; it is accepted as a mean that's a last resort, but it should never be the common choice. An Auror who killed Death Eaters simply because he or she felt that Death Eaters had less a right to live should take a look back at their lives and their actions, because you're right; it wouldn't make an Auror any more moral than a Death Eater. An Auror who kills a Death Eater for the sake of protecting others would be moral, but killing someone should always be avoided if possible.

I'm curious now, so I hope you don't mind me asking what are your thoughts, Mr...?

[Filtered]

[ihaveanappforthat]

Mine? Oh, I doubt they're as interesting as yours. I'm Jim by the way, Jim Moriarty. :)

I think morality is an unfair construct. Everyone has different views and experiences. What about the people that don't have any way to register if something is moral or not? The mentally ill? Everyone has different views of what is right or wrong and it's typically a rather touchy subject.

Deontology? Utilitarianism? Harm Principle? There are quite a few views on killing and morality. Although, I think they're all interesting. I could really talk all day arguing from every angle, but I don't think you really want me to bore you.

Though most would think the Death Eaters were morally wrong (Which, I must agree, taking a killing is bad stand-point). Even with that, I think someone could argue that they were doing what they thought correct, and killing because of that is wrong...

Aurors were also doing what they thought correct and that could be argued by a lot of people. It's really just a tug-a-war sort of thing.

And in some situations, perhaps killing to save a larger population is the morally right thing to do.

For example, if you had gone on a trip to some tropical island with no magic and gone cave exploring with a group of people, but quickly found out that the tide was rising and filling this cave up, none of you could get out until you all noticed a rather tight looking hole to escape through. Women first, because it's natural instinct to want to protect those that can produce offspring. But, oh no, half-way through she gets STUCK. What then? All of you are stuck behind this woman and the water is filling up. Do you kill her to get her unstuck and save the others? Do you all die knowing she'll survive? What if she were pregnant?

Someone could argue every option you pick is wrong.