Hermione says that she has an answer to Quirrel’s question: if he was horrible for walking away from his fight, are the people who never even lift a finger still worse. That got my interest, because I think that’s a good question.
But insofar as I can understand, her answer is not on topic. What she says may be a useful thought in its own right, but not an answer to Quirrel’s question. Or am I missing something? Does she have a worthwhile point that I am failing to see, and what is it?
It does address it. What we call heroic action is high combat ability and resources deployed for good. Hermione’s point is that privileging that particular class of good works is an error—The proper measure of virtue is if you do the things which fall within your reach. Thinking in terms of heroes is a distraction,
Note that wizarding britain still largely fails hard on this count.
There are just people who do what they can, whatever they can. And there are also people who don’t even try to do what they can, and yes, those people are doing something wrong.
Sounds like an answer to me.
Most people simply didn’t have the power to combat Voldemort. Doing what you can isn’t getting yourself killed trying to do what you can’t.
Meanwhile, QuirrellHero did have the power (under the fraudulent scenario where he was supposedly opposing Voldemort).
There are some problems with the moral theory “with power comes responsibility”, but the application to Quirell’s scenario is clear enough.
Most people simply didn’t have the power to combat Voldemort. Doing what you can isn’t getting yourself killed trying to do what you can’t.
There are plenty of things they could have done to support the war effort without fighting directly. Economic support, for example, which it seems from Dumbledore’s Pensieve memory was limited to a few wealthy families.
And I think Hermione would say that they should have supported the war with the money they could give. It was wrong for them not to do so, but not as wrong as QuirrellHero refusing to what he could do, since he could do so much more.
I’m not entirely confident on my projection of Hermione’s argument, but I still think her response is “an answer to Quirrell’s question” regardless of how I interpret it, which was the original point.
There are people who do what they can. And there are also people who don’t even try to do what they can, and yes, those people are doing something wrong.
So according to her, someone who’s walking away from a fight he could fight is wrong, as is someone who never lift a finger when he could have.
Hermione says that she has an answer to Quirrel’s question: if he was horrible for walking away from his fight, are the people who never even lift a finger still worse. That got my interest, because I think that’s a good question.
But insofar as I can understand, her answer is not on topic. What she says may be a useful thought in its own right, but not an answer to Quirrel’s question. Or am I missing something? Does she have a worthwhile point that I am failing to see, and what is it?
It does address it. What we call heroic action is high combat ability and resources deployed for good. Hermione’s point is that privileging that particular class of good works is an error—The proper measure of virtue is if you do the things which fall within your reach. Thinking in terms of heroes is a distraction,
Note that wizarding britain still largely fails hard on this count.
Sounds like an answer to me.
Most people simply didn’t have the power to combat Voldemort. Doing what you can isn’t getting yourself killed trying to do what you can’t.
Meanwhile, QuirrellHero did have the power (under the fraudulent scenario where he was supposedly opposing Voldemort).
There are some problems with the moral theory “with power comes responsibility”, but the application to Quirell’s scenario is clear enough.
There are plenty of things they could have done to support the war effort without fighting directly. Economic support, for example, which it seems from Dumbledore’s Pensieve memory was limited to a few wealthy families.
And I think Hermione would say that they should have supported the war with the money they could give. It was wrong for them not to do so, but not as wrong as QuirrellHero refusing to what he could do, since he could do so much more.
I’m not entirely confident on my projection of Hermione’s argument, but I still think her response is “an answer to Quirrell’s question” regardless of how I interpret it, which was the original point.
So according to her, someone who’s walking away from a fight he could fight is wrong, as is someone who never lift a finger when he could have.