My model of Voldemort is highly risk averse when it comes to existential risk. His response to this is to laugh at having been told he has no ambition, then to kill Harry.
Voldemort trusts himself not to destroy the world, just the same way as Harry trusts himself. Maybe we shouldn’t be so trusting of either.
Could he really laugh off such an accusation made in Parseltongue? If Voldemort thinks Harry is sincere but mistaken, Harry should follow up by noting that his hidden ambition was key to Patronus 2.0, the fundamental law of potions (probably known to V but discovering at age 11 is impressive even for a RIddle), and partial transfiguration, revealing as little as possible but as much as necessary.
Accusations in Parseltongue are not true, the speaker merely believes them. (Actually, this raises the possibility of lying using a confundus charm. I’ll assume that’s banned by some Rule). If you were trying to mitigate the chance of someone destroying the world, you place a very high probability on them trying to trick you. The response is to use Hermione’s algorithm that defeated LV earlier and place an ethical injunction on not killing Harry.
Now, that’s probably a little harsh for the exam question, and LV won’t necessarily adopt his enemy’s tactic (even though it defeated him once and that’s one of his rules), but I should think he requires substantial evidence to not kill Harry. More than an accusation of not being ambitious, which is explained by Harry’s naivety.
My model of Voldemort is highly risk averse when it comes to existential risk. His response to this is to laugh at having been told he has no ambition, then to kill Harry.
Voldemort trusts himself not to destroy the world, just the same way as Harry trusts himself. Maybe we shouldn’t be so trusting of either.
Could he really laugh off such an accusation made in Parseltongue? If Voldemort thinks Harry is sincere but mistaken, Harry should follow up by noting that his hidden ambition was key to Patronus 2.0, the fundamental law of potions (probably known to V but discovering at age 11 is impressive even for a RIddle), and partial transfiguration, revealing as little as possible but as much as necessary.
Accusations in Parseltongue are not true, the speaker merely believes them. (Actually, this raises the possibility of lying using a confundus charm. I’ll assume that’s banned by some Rule). If you were trying to mitigate the chance of someone destroying the world, you place a very high probability on them trying to trick you. The response is to use Hermione’s algorithm that defeated LV earlier and place an ethical injunction on not killing Harry.
Now, that’s probably a little harsh for the exam question, and LV won’t necessarily adopt his enemy’s tactic (even though it defeated him once and that’s one of his rules), but I should think he requires substantial evidence to not kill Harry. More than an accusation of not being ambitious, which is explained by Harry’s naivety.