Oof, this was a punch to the gut of a chapter. I’ve gone from “Harry, Wake Up!” to a sort of baffled expectation.
What on earth is up with you, Harry? You are usually so clearsighted! Are you still grieving for Hermione? What possible ethical system justifies the decisions of this chapter?
A speech about the power of truth, then a cover up.
Punishment for Filch and Hagrid, but mercy for the centaur and Quirrel.
Feh, this is just what the entry describes as refusing to process something I’ve already processed. There’s an easy description for what’s going on here, for treasuring some grievances and renouncing others. Harry is doing exactly what Snape told him Lilly did. He is being shallow, and I hope he’s able to change.
A speech about the power of truth, then a cover up. Punishment for Filch and Hagrid, but mercy for the centaur and Quirrel.
Consequentialism in action? Hogwarts would be better off with Filch and Hagrid removed, but no future purpose is served by exposing Quirrell or killing the Centaur.
I don’t think Hogwarts would be better without Hagrid—Hagrid as teacher is dangerous and terrific, but Hagrid as gamekeeper is quite good in his job. He just needs a bit more of supervision to ensure he doesn’t keep a dragon or an acromantula as a pet.
Harry recognizes the power of truth, and doesn’t want give that power out indiscriminately. That makes perfect sense.
Punishment for Filch and Hagrid, but mercy for the centaur and Quirrel.
Harry doesn’t care about sentient-but-not-sapient things (or thinks that animals including unicorns are mostly not even sentient), so under his ethical system, Quirrel hasn’t done anything wrong (which he knows about). Harry didn’t have the power to “punish” the centaur through anything short of death. He knows the centaur is only after him, and not children in general, and that it probably won’t get another chance to kill him. Filch and Hagrid have not only done things that are bad, but they are dangers to students.
I disagree. Harry watches Quirrel stun the professor and 3 Aurors, let them tumble off their brooms and false memory charm them, but Quirrel hasn’t done anything wrong? That’s, what, 8 felony equivalents at least? (Assault x4, and presuming False Memory Charm would be at least equivalent to assault, probably more like rape).
Filch’s crime, for which Harry wants him to serve jail time, is that he sent Draco & co to the Forbidden Forest, potentially exposing them to assault. Quirrel actually assaulted them.
To grossly simplify, there’s a consistent set of ethics that says that Filch and Quirrel both need to be punished. (action → consequences) There’s another, which says both ought to be forgiven. (no harm, no foul) Forgiving those who are cool and punishing those who are lame is unethical, particularly given the disparity between their offenses.
On another tack, how on earth can Harry know anything about the Centaur? It attacked a child after rambling on for a while. Jumping to the conclusion that its fixated on him and won’t just attack some other child is really arbitrary. I mean, plenty of serial bad guys fixated on their victims, it doesn’t make them safe for other folks. Today ‘the stars’ told Centaur to kill Harry. Tomorrow they tell him to kill Ron, or Hagrid, or set himself on fire. I wonder what they told him to do yesterday?
Filch’s crime, for which Harry wants him to serve jail time, is that he sent Draco & co to the Forbidden Forest, potentially exposing them to assault.
Filch testified that he intentionally wanted to expose them to assault and a chance of dying.
Quirrel didn’t do anything that gave Draco a chance of dying.
Quirrel on the other hand drinks the unicorn blood to safe it’s own life. As far as Harry thinks Qurirrel also only stunned the centaur and wanted to safe Harry’s life.
For Harry morality being alive and saving lifes is very important. Short term pain and being stunned doesn’t factor much into Harry’s utility calculations.
Jumping to the conclusion that its fixated on him and won’t just attack some other child is really arbitrary.
Maybe this is just my narrative epistemic advantage talking, but: the centaur mentioned stuff relevant to the prophecy, knew specifically who Harry was, and probably was trying to kill him for a very specific reason.
Even if Harry doesn’t realize what the centaur is talking about, it seems to me that of the people who try to attack and kill Harry Potter, probably most of them are actually trying to kill him specifically and are not just random psychopaths.
The net result of Quirrell’s actions were to prevent some people from knowing that he was feeding on unicorns. Consequentially, that’s keeping Quirrell’s secret, which McGonagall (and Dumbledore?) seems to want in the first place to keep him as Defense Professor.
Harry recognizes the power of truth, and doesn’t want give that power out indiscriminately.
If we interpret the power of truth as being “the power to know whether things are true”, or “the power conferred by believing true things rather than false things”, then giving that power out indiscriminately, to every sentient being in the world, is the exact thing that Harry wants to do.
That is the interpretation I’m thinking of, and no he doesn’t. When he describes science to Draco, he says that not keeping secrets is one of their mistakes. Spreading the power to everyone has bad consequences he wants to avoid (things like knowledge that could enable a small faction of people to destroy the world). In this case, it would have consequences he thinks are bad, which are people interfering with Quirrell’s plans to stay alive.
Surely that is “the power granted by possessing specific items of true information”? This is a very different thing from what I said. I think that to Harry the power of truth relates to rationality rather than knowledge.
Oh, I thought that’s what you meant by “the power conferred by believing true things rather than false things”, which is what Harry is withholding in the cover-up.
Why do you think he wants rationality for everyone?
He attempts to instruct people in it at every reasonable opportunity (at least in the earlier parts of the story), and strongly indicates that his ideal world is one where everyone is “sane”. In addition, we know that the fic’s explicit purpose is to promote rationality to those who might otherwise not encounter the concept (specifically HP fans and fanfic readers in general), and that Harry is the author’s primary mouthpiece to this end (though this is not to say that his own use of the methods of rationality is always successful).
Imagine that I’m a pal who explained the modern analogous position to you. I tell you that I think our prisons are inhumane, and the death penalty is problematic. I know a guy who beat up 3 cops, a teacher and some kids and drugged them so they forgot what happened when they interrupted him slaughtering some horses, but I don’t report him, and in fact helped him cover up his crimes because of my belief. We still buds?
Setting that aside I’m not clear at all on why Harry would still have a problem with the Azkaban/death penalty. Earlier, sure, it made sense, but now that he’s declared himself the Vanquisher of Death he just seems confused.
Suffering is certainly bad, but Harry’s cool with False Memory charms, and those can negate suffering. The time lost becomes the issue, and Harry intends that folks shall live forever.
I mean, he’s going to conquer death, right? Not only that, he’s going to resurrect Hermione, who is dead and whose body is gone presumably by now decayed. So he’s confident that he will be able to resurrect someone based on, effectively, name and description. Surely he doesn’t think his abilities as a researcher are terribly singular, never to be duplicated.
I mean, if he might in theory do it then its ultimately doable, then someday it’ll be done, and all will rise.
So.what matter then, when precisely any given individual dies, so long as it does not alter this future? Worst case scenario. Quirrel goes to Azkaban for a few months before his disease overcomes him, and dies a howling deranged lunatic. Later on he’s resurrected, false memory charms fix his trauma and bob’s your uncle.
Let’s try an analogy that’s a bit closer to the mark:
“I know a guy who needs to eat freshly killed bald eagle meat every now and again to stay alive, and while doing so he was discovered by some forest rangers and kids out hiking on public land. He quickly used a gas grenade to knock them out without harming them, then gave them a drug that caused them to lose their short term memory of the event. He then dialed 911 on one of their cell phones and watched from a distance to make sure they didn’t get eaten before help arrived.”
Note that there are several things here which don’t have good conversions into Real Life due to magic. In cases like that, you can’t just pick the ‘closest equivalent’ and expect it to make sense. Sometimes, you’ll have to drag something magical into the real world as well.
Analogies are hard, at least if you’re trying to be accurate. Doing a double analogy to see if you can get back the original helps. For example, let’s take your analogy, and try to convert it back into the original scenario:
“I know a guy who was killing some horses in the forest when he was discovered by a group of aurors, a school teacher, and some kids. This guy beat up everyone using curses that take weeks to heal and must heal painfully and naturally, then he stunned them and memory charmed them to get away with it”
This is a good way to tell where your analogy breaks down. In particular:
1) [minor] horses in the muggle world are typically owned by someone, with the very rare exception being free range horses on public land. Be default, the reader of your analogy will assume that the horses are unspecial and owned by someone. This is very different from killing something unowned but special, like a bald eagle.
2) [major] “killing a unicorn because my life depends on it” is turned into “killing some horses with no justification.”
3) [critical] beating up a person to the point that they can’t function is a much, much bigger deal in the real world than using stunning magic, where the stuns are reversible and extremely temporary, and healing magic makes major wounds no more threatening than a hangnail.
4) [minor] Quirrel did not leave until he knew that the aurors, teacher, and students would be safe (because of the presence of Harry’s future copy), but this is lost in your analogy.
5) [minor] Dumbledore himself uses memory charms to wipe Harry’s patronus 2.0 from the minds of three aurors, so memory charms are clearly less ‘against the rules’ in wizarding society than mind altering drugs are in muggle society.
Imagine that I’m a pal who explained the modern analogous position to you. I tell you that I think our prisons are inhumane, and the death penalty is problematic. I know a guy who beat up 3 cops, a teacher and some kids and drugged them so they forgot what happened when they interrupted him slaughtering some horses, but I don’t report him, and in fact helped him cover up his crimes because of my belief. We still buds?
You confuse agreement about moral principles with the judgement that a moral system is consistent. There are a lot of possible ethical systems that I don’t like. That doesn’t mean they aren’t consistent ethical systems.
Let’s say I know a homosexual from a country where it’s illegal with the death penalty. He was in a situation where 3 cops witnessed him engage in an homosexual act. He managed to make them temporarily unconscious and drug them up to forget that they found him.
Would I let that person get away with that? Probably yes. How I treat someone who opposes a cop depends a lot on whether I believe in the law of the land of that cop.
Suffering is certainly bad, but Harry’s cool with False Memory charms, and those can negate suffering.
I don’t think there’s evidence to the claim that false memory charms can negate all suffering.
Not only that, he’s going to resurrect Hermione, who is dead and whose body is gone presumably by now decayed.
I mean, he’s going to conquer death, right? [...] So what matter then, when precisely any individual dies [...] ?
I think it’s worth distinguishing between “Harry intends to conquer death by any means possible” and “Harry knows that he will succeed in conquering death”. If the first is true and the second false, he still has ample reason to try to stop people dying prematurely.
You’re allowed to have a utility function over things you can’t perceive. I’m allowed to say that I value a life where I got tortured and mind-wiped less than I value a life where neither happens.
I tend to disagree. In fact, if you really meant to write “decayed”, I think you’re transparently wrong, because Quirrellmort wouldn’t let it decay—he’d stick the body in box A (so to speak).
That seems like the main alternative to the obvious fulfillment of the ancient prophecy. I do worry about it, since why wouldn’t Q have done this? (If he’s figured out reflective decision theory, I’m officially confused about the direction of this story.) But if Harry transfigured the body quickly enough, he might have left Q without a good opportunity.
Oof, this was a punch to the gut of a chapter. I’ve gone from “Harry, Wake Up!” to a sort of baffled expectation.
What on earth is up with you, Harry? You are usually so clearsighted! Are you still grieving for Hermione? What possible ethical system justifies the decisions of this chapter?
A speech about the power of truth, then a cover up. Punishment for Filch and Hagrid, but mercy for the centaur and Quirrel.
Feh, this is just what the entry describes as refusing to process something I’ve already processed. There’s an easy description for what’s going on here, for treasuring some grievances and renouncing others. Harry is doing exactly what Snape told him Lilly did. He is being shallow, and I hope he’s able to change.
Consequentialism in action? Hogwarts would be better off with Filch and Hagrid removed, but no future purpose is served by exposing Quirrell or killing the Centaur.
I don’t think Hogwarts would be better without Hagrid—Hagrid as teacher is dangerous and terrific, but Hagrid as gamekeeper is quite good in his job. He just needs a bit more of supervision to ensure he doesn’t keep a dragon or an acromantula as a pet.
Then again, supervision of teachers is something that would never ordinarily happen in Hogwarts.
Harry recognizes the power of truth, and doesn’t want give that power out indiscriminately. That makes perfect sense.
Harry doesn’t care about sentient-but-not-sapient things (or thinks that animals including unicorns are mostly not even sentient), so under his ethical system, Quirrel hasn’t done anything wrong (which he knows about). Harry didn’t have the power to “punish” the centaur through anything short of death. He knows the centaur is only after him, and not children in general, and that it probably won’t get another chance to kill him. Filch and Hagrid have not only done things that are bad, but they are dangers to students.
I disagree. Harry watches Quirrel stun the professor and 3 Aurors, let them tumble off their brooms and false memory charm them, but Quirrel hasn’t done anything wrong? That’s, what, 8 felony equivalents at least? (Assault x4, and presuming False Memory Charm would be at least equivalent to assault, probably more like rape).
Filch’s crime, for which Harry wants him to serve jail time, is that he sent Draco & co to the Forbidden Forest, potentially exposing them to assault. Quirrel actually assaulted them.
To grossly simplify, there’s a consistent set of ethics that says that Filch and Quirrel both need to be punished. (action → consequences) There’s another, which says both ought to be forgiven. (no harm, no foul) Forgiving those who are cool and punishing those who are lame is unethical, particularly given the disparity between their offenses.
On another tack, how on earth can Harry know anything about the Centaur? It attacked a child after rambling on for a while. Jumping to the conclusion that its fixated on him and won’t just attack some other child is really arbitrary. I mean, plenty of serial bad guys fixated on their victims, it doesn’t make them safe for other folks. Today ‘the stars’ told Centaur to kill Harry. Tomorrow they tell him to kill Ron, or Hagrid, or set himself on fire. I wonder what they told him to do yesterday?
Filch testified that he intentionally wanted to expose them to assault and a chance of dying. Quirrel didn’t do anything that gave Draco a chance of dying.
Quirrel on the other hand drinks the unicorn blood to safe it’s own life. As far as Harry thinks Qurirrel also only stunned the centaur and wanted to safe Harry’s life.
For Harry morality being alive and saving lifes is very important. Short term pain and being stunned doesn’t factor much into Harry’s utility calculations.
Maybe this is just my narrative epistemic advantage talking, but: the centaur mentioned stuff relevant to the prophecy, knew specifically who Harry was, and probably was trying to kill him for a very specific reason.
Even if Harry doesn’t realize what the centaur is talking about, it seems to me that of the people who try to attack and kill Harry Potter, probably most of them are actually trying to kill him specifically and are not just random psychopaths.
The net result of Quirrell’s actions were to prevent some people from knowing that he was feeding on unicorns. Consequentially, that’s keeping Quirrell’s secret, which McGonagall (and Dumbledore?) seems to want in the first place to keep him as Defense Professor.
If we interpret the power of truth as being “the power to know whether things are true”, or “the power conferred by believing true things rather than false things”, then giving that power out indiscriminately, to every sentient being in the world, is the exact thing that Harry wants to do.
That is the interpretation I’m thinking of, and no he doesn’t. When he describes science to Draco, he says that not keeping secrets is one of their mistakes. Spreading the power to everyone has bad consequences he wants to avoid (things like knowledge that could enable a small faction of people to destroy the world). In this case, it would have consequences he thinks are bad, which are people interfering with Quirrell’s plans to stay alive.
Surely that is “the power granted by possessing specific items of true information”? This is a very different thing from what I said. I think that to Harry the power of truth relates to rationality rather than knowledge.
Oh, I thought that’s what you meant by “the power conferred by believing true things rather than false things”, which is what Harry is withholding in the cover-up.
Why do you think he wants rationality for everyone?
He attempts to instruct people in it at every reasonable opportunity (at least in the earlier parts of the story), and strongly indicates that his ideal world is one where everyone is “sane”. In addition, we know that the fic’s explicit purpose is to promote rationality to those who might otherwise not encounter the concept (specifically HP fans and fanfic readers in general), and that Harry is the author’s primary mouthpiece to this end (though this is not to say that his own use of the methods of rationality is always successful).
Harry doesn’t believe in death or Azkaban as valid punishments. Harry would oppose killing Filch or Hagrid.
If Harry would reveal what Quirrell did the punishment might be Azkaban.
Imagine that I’m a pal who explained the modern analogous position to you. I tell you that I think our prisons are inhumane, and the death penalty is problematic. I know a guy who beat up 3 cops, a teacher and some kids and drugged them so they forgot what happened when they interrupted him slaughtering some horses, but I don’t report him, and in fact helped him cover up his crimes because of my belief. We still buds?
Setting that aside I’m not clear at all on why Harry would still have a problem with the Azkaban/death penalty. Earlier, sure, it made sense, but now that he’s declared himself the Vanquisher of Death he just seems confused.
Suffering is certainly bad, but Harry’s cool with False Memory charms, and those can negate suffering. The time lost becomes the issue, and Harry intends that folks shall live forever.
I mean, he’s going to conquer death, right? Not only that, he’s going to resurrect Hermione, who is dead and whose body is gone presumably by now decayed. So he’s confident that he will be able to resurrect someone based on, effectively, name and description. Surely he doesn’t think his abilities as a researcher are terribly singular, never to be duplicated.
I mean, if he might in theory do it then its ultimately doable, then someday it’ll be done, and all will rise.
So.what matter then, when precisely any given individual dies, so long as it does not alter this future? Worst case scenario. Quirrel goes to Azkaban for a few months before his disease overcomes him, and dies a howling deranged lunatic. Later on he’s resurrected, false memory charms fix his trauma and bob’s your uncle.
Let’s try an analogy that’s a bit closer to the mark:
“I know a guy who needs to eat freshly killed bald eagle meat every now and again to stay alive, and while doing so he was discovered by some forest rangers and kids out hiking on public land. He quickly used a gas grenade to knock them out without harming them, then gave them a drug that caused them to lose their short term memory of the event. He then dialed 911 on one of their cell phones and watched from a distance to make sure they didn’t get eaten before help arrived.”
Note that there are several things here which don’t have good conversions into Real Life due to magic. In cases like that, you can’t just pick the ‘closest equivalent’ and expect it to make sense. Sometimes, you’ll have to drag something magical into the real world as well.
Analogies are hard, at least if you’re trying to be accurate. Doing a double analogy to see if you can get back the original helps. For example, let’s take your analogy, and try to convert it back into the original scenario:
“I know a guy who was killing some horses in the forest when he was discovered by a group of aurors, a school teacher, and some kids. This guy beat up everyone using curses that take weeks to heal and must heal painfully and naturally, then he stunned them and memory charmed them to get away with it”
This is a good way to tell where your analogy breaks down. In particular:
1) [minor] horses in the muggle world are typically owned by someone, with the very rare exception being free range horses on public land. Be default, the reader of your analogy will assume that the horses are unspecial and owned by someone. This is very different from killing something unowned but special, like a bald eagle.
2) [major] “killing a unicorn because my life depends on it” is turned into “killing some horses with no justification.”
3) [critical] beating up a person to the point that they can’t function is a much, much bigger deal in the real world than using stunning magic, where the stuns are reversible and extremely temporary, and healing magic makes major wounds no more threatening than a hangnail.
4) [minor] Quirrel did not leave until he knew that the aurors, teacher, and students would be safe (because of the presence of Harry’s future copy), but this is lost in your analogy.
5) [minor] Dumbledore himself uses memory charms to wipe Harry’s patronus 2.0 from the minds of three aurors, so memory charms are clearly less ‘against the rules’ in wizarding society than mind altering drugs are in muggle society.
You confuse agreement about moral principles with the judgement that a moral system is consistent. There are a lot of possible ethical systems that I don’t like. That doesn’t mean they aren’t consistent ethical systems.
Let’s say I know a homosexual from a country where it’s illegal with the death penalty. He was in a situation where 3 cops witnessed him engage in an homosexual act. He managed to make them temporarily unconscious and drug them up to forget that they found him.
Would I let that person get away with that? Probably yes. How I treat someone who opposes a cop depends a lot on whether I believe in the law of the land of that cop.
I don’t think there’s evidence to the claim that false memory charms can negate all suffering.
I don’t think it decayes in the transformed form.
I think it’s worth distinguishing between “Harry intends to conquer death by any means possible” and “Harry knows that he will succeed in conquering death”. If the first is true and the second false, he still has ample reason to try to stop people dying prematurely.
You’re allowed to have a utility function over things you can’t perceive. I’m allowed to say that I value a life where I got tortured and mind-wiped less than I value a life where neither happens.
I tend to disagree. In fact, if you really meant to write “decayed”, I think you’re transparently wrong, because Quirrellmort wouldn’t let it decay—he’d stick the body in box A (so to speak).
That seems like the main alternative to the obvious fulfillment of the ancient prophecy. I do worry about it, since why wouldn’t Q have done this? (If he’s figured out reflective decision theory, I’m officially confused about the direction of this story.) But if Harry transfigured the body quickly enough, he might have left Q without a good opportunity.