@ Lalitha and @Shelly: I loved reading your response, and I will definitely reply to them, but that is when I get time. It had taken me more than a complete hour to write Anu's post.
'Kay, before posting lemme tell you something: The post is not meant to offend you or anything. I might come out as rude (due to my straight-forwardness), but seriously that isn't what my intention was. But even if I have done so, l am publicly apologizing toward you for it.
Well done. I'm not terribly fond of reading repetitions in a serious discussion, though unfortunately that is the thing I keep on doing, despite my detestation toward the process (as if reiterating the very same point over and over again is gonna make the individual's speech look longer or impressive). I tried my best to avoid any form of repetition, but somehow that didn't happen. Now that I've read my previous post again, I can see I've re-written the very same argument numerous times, though that wasn't what my intention/purpose was; so I hope you will pardon me for that. I'm happy that at least you have removed the monotonous parts.
As I was reading your post, I had the feeling that you were being repetitious too (let's say the self-defense argument), so I have done the same thing with your post: "taken the liberty to remove the repetitive parts".
Now onto a more serious discussion?
Well ? I was actually asking for your own definition of morality, that is, your own perceptions, thoughts, views, opinions, beliefs, etc regarding it (like you have stated below), not necessarily the typical 'oxford dictionary definition'. LOL, Jokes aside, I won't deny I did enjoy reading it up. I'm not gonna comment here, but will rather use this part of your speech as a reference to my answers.
I must respectfully disagree with you; not forcing my opinion onto you or anyone here, but being in a debate, I seriously can't help but raise my voice to defend my position (which indirectly means to attack the other's point). As a debater I try my best to not become a push-over or aggressive, though, sadly that's the case which always occurs. So, sorry 'bout that.
Once again, morality is not a pure science (like Physics, Chemistry, or Mathematics) that can be tested down in labs with experiments, or at least in papers with logics. Morality is a social science, meaning it cannot have an incontrovertible answer. Even hard/pure sciences are having problems with this very same issue, so it follows logically that a social science that deals with the each individual's personal view on right and wrong cannot be universal. Universal, but only to the individual or rather the group of individuals who adhere to that branch of morality. For others it might not be so. It varies from man to man (though most of them having a certain amount of similarity b/w it). While few actions (for instance raping a helpless woman, or murdering an innocent child) can be considered as universally amoral, other actions (examples yet to be given in later paragraphs) can have different definitions, explanations, and characteristics from man to man.
Like you have rightly stated it yourself, morality is having a set code of ethics, which [ethics] is influenced by "society, philosophy and individual conscience". Both philosophy and social science are questionable branch of study, as neither of them can give a solid/satisfactory answer to the questions asked, nor can they provide a decent evidence to back the answer (if any) it provided.
Finally, your usage of the term 'individual conscience' totally backs up my point?morality not being universal but varying from man to man, as each man has his own conscience that defines his own sense of 'good' and 'bad' or 'right' and 'wrong'.
Let's talk about Euthanasia; what's your view on it? Do you feel that an individual have the right to take the life of another individual [even if that individual can be considered as almost dead, or paraphrasing it, clinically dead]? Is it morally and ethically correct for a person to do so? If so, then who gives him that right? Can euthanasia be done under some circumstances and not under other? Again, if so, how do we know that?
Let's talk about abortion. Does an individual have the right to kill another individual [even if it turns out to be his own child]? Most country has now legalized abortion. Now, should you adhere to the rather 'universal' law the country had made, or have your own sets of laws [morality] regarding it?
Abortion can still be considered as morally wrong [amoral] by the majority, due to its act of killing an innocent life [though many doesn't consider it this way?after all, otherwise why would so many countries legalize it, then?), but euthanasia cannot be. Euthanasia is still debated extensively worldwide due to its very controversial nature, and each individual on the face of this earth has his own view of right and wrong, on this act. While for some euthanasia is a 'yes', for others it's a big 'no', while for many it is still the 'I don't know'.
Second you on that?"While the way someone perceives morality can vary, the presence of it is predominantly black and white". I strongly believe that there is one universal truth, (that we human race have not yet been able to reach, but there definitely is one), but problem being that since we still don't know what that is (let's say, we don't yet understand Nature's/God's design and intention properly to base a claim about it) I believe everyone is bound to have different way of perceiving/interpreting others moral standards/grounds, though in reality there is one single truth [just what you've stated above]. As long as we don't understand and unveil the mysteries surrounding us, or the intention and purpose behind every existence of this world, I would like to believe each individual having his own morals and ethics with him (though, for the world to run, rthere needs to be some universal [religious or country laws, for instance]).
Oh, okay, now that you are more than clear, I guess I need to start sketching out another lengthy response for it, LOL.
Why not? Let's say you have gotten a complete malingering criminal at hand, who in fact works for his boss, who is the main reason for all the troubles, pains and sufferings going on in this world. Your job, as a human being, is not only to punish (or at the least, keep him away from threatening the society again) but also to find out the real culprit behind all these hideous actions [the boss]. In order to do that, you might very well need to torture that person until and unless you can pull out the truth from his mouth. Just like every single thing on this earth (including the two other curses you stated: Imperius or Killing Curse) Cruciatus curse also has its white sides, along with the dark ones.
Have you not seen the way polices in real life tortures criminals to find out the truth from their mouth? Seriously, how is that any different from using Cruciatus curse?
*Mind it though: The things I've just explained are not parallel to the particular situation (with Amycus and McGonagall)*
Before we get onto that path, lemme take a brief look into the meaning of the term 'sadism':
i. A psychosexual disorder, where the individual gets sexual pleasure or gratification by hurting/harming another individual physically, emotionally, or psychologically.
ii. A psychological disorder, where the individual gets pleasure gratification by hurting/harming another individual physically, emotionally, or psychologically.
None of the above definition fits Harry's action, in any way. Without a single hesitation, I can exclude the first one, because we know it more than well that Harry wasn't going through any sexual tension the time he caused pain to Amycus; also no matter how short-tempered, or at times, cruel Harry might be, I am sure you won't vacillate to agree with the fact that Harry definitely wasn't that type of lad to get a sexual arousal from causing pain to someone. So, logically, the first definition of sadism is totally unfit for Harry.
The second definition doesn't fit Harry's character either, reason being, that (and a few more instances) was the only time when Harry acted like that. Otherwise, he normally doesn't get mental satisfaction or anything as such from causing pain to anyone, not even his most rival enemies.
Now, in modern society we use the term 'sadism' in different context (though that is not the actual definition of the term); when a person causes pain to another, in limited amount, just for the sake of enjoying it for a particular period of time. I believe such sadistic behavior exists in each and every living soul in this world. Why, when we get angry on our best friend, do we not punch or kick him hard so that he may writhe in pain for a few seconds? Even the most generous, benevolent, kind, caring, compassionate and learned person has committed a single [at the least] sadistic act in his lifetime. Now tell me, why do we hurt others, be it physically, emotionally or psychologically? To make the person?to whom we are angry at?struggle in pain and to enjoy that particular scene. I believe every best friends, lovers, siblings, and married couples, have fought at least once (in reality, it will be more than hundredth of times actually?) in their lifetime. Now, does that mean that every single human on the face of this world is a sadist [taking the literal definitions of the term], or suffering from the psychological/sexual disease known as 'sadism'? I don't think so. It is in every human being's nature to love watching your enemy (or at the least enemy for the time-being) suffering from pain. Every human beings fall into that category. I haven't seen even a single individual who had remained a complete saint/angel through their entire lifetime, not fighting or physically harming, or at the very least, emotionally hurting another person. Even mothers beat up their children or scold them. That doesn't make the mothers a 'sadist' or their actions as 'sadistic' [according to the actual definition of sadism].
Calling a character like Harry 'sadist' (again, taking the actual definition of the term) is going against humanity, IMO (in my opinion). People of all kinds do sadistic activities on their life. However, doing 'sadistic' acts is not the same (it doesn't even come closer to) being a 'sadist' or suffering from the psychological/sexual disease known as 'sadism'.
No, I am not. I merely stated the imperius curse to be far worse than the cruciatus, owing to the fact that while the cruciatus curse causes the victim to be tortured, it is for a limited amount of time, whereas the imperius curse not only causes torture, but also makes the victim a complete slave [physically and psychologically] of the castor, and as long as the castor doesn't wills, the victim is likely to remain the slave for the rest of his life. That is, IMO, far worse than being tortured physically for a few moments. Nothing could be worse than not having the freedom to exercise your own free will, and slavery (again IMO) is the worst kind of torture.
Of course torture isn't something that shouldn't be taken lightly, and I don't think anyone here is doing so, reason being, the sole reason why we are having this rather 'unusual' debate is because all of us?no matter the limit/extent?are hurt by Harry's action. If I'd taken what Harry had done as a joke or as an ideal act, then I wouldn't be here debating with you on the first place; I would have told you straight away that I consider what Harry had done to be a 'model' act, and leave the debate immediately. I personally don't find any point of an 'opinion' based debate, if the opposite sides have a complete different stance on the topic from the very beginning. In factual debate, I don't mind, because we can rationally argue as much as we want, unless we reach a particular conclusion based on solid facts and evidences provided. That, however, isn't the case with an opinion based debate, because no matter what, our opinions are only our own self-imposed opinions, meaning we can only defend our position, but cannot provide solid evidence to back that up. The only reason why I'm having this opinion based debate with you is because there are many instances where I agree with you. For instance I am totally with you on the fact that Harry's action of torturing Amycus, no matter what the reason is, was indeed horrible. Though, I find it totally pointless to think that for a single action, the person is being generalized as 'lacking a sense of moral' when in reality that isn't the case (will discuss about this issue later in details so let's not get into that now, huh?). In short, if you thought I was supporting 'torture' then you were wrong on that count; I wasn't supporting torture (with all due course I'm against torturing someone, except for some extreme circumstances), I was rather supporting the individual.
"Lack of remorse"??! Seriously, there are more than enough instances in the novel that explicitly shows us how Harry feels bad and guilt for the people he killed, or for the people who had died or been killed for him. The whole of DH goes on describing Harry's guilt for the people who died. It's through out the entire novel, but to give a few examples?:
i) The Seven Potters: Harry didn't want to give his hair in the potion so that the other members of the Order won't have to die for him. It wasn't until he was forced by everyone there, he agreed. That instance is more than clear to show us whether Harry feels for others life, or not.
ii) He feels remorse and guilt after Moody's death; think that to be his fault.
iii) Harry wants to leave the Burrow after he hears about Moody's death thinking that living with the Orders at the Burrow is going to increase their risks.
iv) After the Death Eater finds out Harry/Hr/R in the Tottenham Court road, and the trio assumes that Harry still has got the Trace with him, he at first wanted to spilt up so that the other two wouldn't be suffering for him [though Ron and Hermione protests him].
v) Despite Harry's rivalry/enmity with Draco and his gang, he [Harry] saves them from the cursed fire, risking his own life, because according to Harry, "that's a horrible way to die". He didn't care whether Draco, Crabbe and Goyle were his foe or friend; all he cared for was to save them, no matter what.
vi) Despite Harry's hatred towards the Malfoys, he didn't hesitate opening his mouth and answering Narcissa (about Draco being alive) even though he was taking a great risk with his own life.
These are the few ones I can think of right now (with my DH book closed, and about twenty feets away from my sight, and also my brain not working properly). I'm sure there are more than enough instances where Harry had shown compassion towards his friends and also towards his enemy (unless they turn out to be extremely vile, e.g. Voldemort).
The reason why he couldn't feel remorse after cursing Amycus, I believe, is because he didn't have the time to feel anything. Just after that he had to prepare for a battle that is about to happen, which can, at any time, take the life of his near and dear one (at least Amycus wasn't dead; isn't it natural that he would worry about the person who are going to die in the next few moments [including him] than about the person who had just gotten tortured?), and there were literally more than hundreds of works Harry still needed to do (like destroying the hufflepuffs's cup, or finding out the lost diadem. On that very night Harry had to witness his best friend's brother (who had become like his own brother with time) getting killed rather horribly, and his father's only friend who was alive, whom he could call as his only family dieing along with his wife, leaving an orphan completely to Harry's responsibility? That very night he had to witness his professor (whom he had hated to pieces till then) getting half eaten up by a snake horribly, and the awful memory (yep, for us the memory might sound cool, but for the person to whom this memory is directed, I don't know how it must feel?) about his professor's true face and story, and finally about his own life. That very night he decided to let himself be killed by Voldemort, so that Voldemort could have died as well along with him.
I find this pointless beyond belief to think that at such a situation, a seventeen years old lad can "feel" for anyone. He isn't supposed to be feeling for his near ones as well. In such a circumstance he is supposed to become completely senseless from the pain and shock.
Not to forget there was this "Nineteen years later" gap b/w the epilogue and the last part of the book, hence we do not know it for sure whether Harry felt any remorse or not. Given his character and nature, I would like to believe he did. If he did not, then it would mean that J. K. Rowling had deliberately and intentionally twisted his character from one color to another on a single instant, because, it is literally impossible for one to have a change of heart overnight [You might say he was behaving rather heartlessly from the opening of DH, but that's not explicitly true?refer to my comment bade in dark red above]. And I don't see why J. K. Rowling would do that either.
No, he couldn't, firstly because he was younger and less experienced, and secondly because his grief of loss of Sirius drove away all the will power and everything he had. That surely wasn't the case with Amycus.
Marathi TV
