Is it me, or does Harry’s solution to this dilemma seem rather… half-assed? Ignoring potential the loss of effectiveness from his resolving to suddenly switch directions the first time things get bad, is he really going to know the first time someone dies as a result of his war? How will he know the difference? He’s already gotten someone killed by his actions (Rita Skeeter, who he doesn’t even know about) and another person gravely injured (that auror hurt by the rocket, who he doesn’t know about but admittedly he thought the whole affair was a mistake afterward anyways). How about opportunity costs, the fact that if you handed me 100000 galleons demanding I save at least 10 lives with it I could hand you back 99000 in change. And that’s before the “war” even “started”; hostilities are going to get more open and more direct from here. It’s madness to think you can finish war, even a weird semi-geurella war like this, with zero casualties, or that you’ll know about every one.
With the condition he gave himself anyone should be able to see that “failure” is a foregone conclusion. And there’s very good odds he’s not going to learn that what he’s doing isn’t working until he’s racked up a far worse bodycount than one.
He’s already gotten someone killed by his actions (Rita Skeeter, who he doesn’t even know about)
Not for any realistic sense of the phrase ‘by his actions’. Quirrel squished Rita of his own accord for his own purposes and Harry’s presence there is damn near irrelevant.
Morally he didn’t do it, and maybe Quirrel even had a desire to kill her sitting on a back burner before Harry got involved, but her death was caused by her interaction with Harry. It is no stretch to say that there is at least one hypothetical sequence of actions Harry could have taken, even given knowledge at the time (not realizing she worked for Lucius or was an animagus) which would not have resulted in her death. Heck, doing nothing would have resulted in her not death.
That is the level of challenge Harry is taking upon himself. Not just to not kill anyone, not just to keep your hands clean, not just to save people when he can. He’s declaring that if any innocent person anywhere dies and there’s something he could have done differently to save them, that’s his failure condition. You can’t do that.
That said, I thought about it a few minutes more and it could be his resolution is really about knowing he doesn’t know how bad the situation is. It’s certainly possible to get through, say, a political power struggle with someone like Lord Malfoy without anyone getting killed. Harry considers it possible but doesn’t yet believe that his opponent is Voldemort. If his opponent is Voldemort avoiding casualties is impossible. If his opponent is someone less evil (though still pretty nasty), and the scope of the conflict is much smaller, he might be able to pull it off.
but a single nameless innocent bystander who catches a Cutting Curse
It seems that he promised himself to stop trying to save everyone even if a minor character dies accidentally. In that case it wouldn’t matter if he considered himself directly responsible for the death of Rita Skeeter.
You can’t do that.
Indeed. I don’t see how he could manage not to compromise his ‘every human life is precious’ principle in a war. He’s hesitating between two possible courses of action—doing the math or playing Ghandi—and neither seems like a satisfying choice. He really needs to become omnipotent or at least avoid the necessity of making such a choice.
but a single nameless innocent bystander who catches a Cutting Curse
It seems that he promised himself to stop trying to save everyone even if a minor character dies accidentally. In that case it wouldn’t matter if he considered himself directly responsible for the death of Rita Skeeter.
You can’t do that.
Indeed. I don’t see how he could manage not to compromise his ‘every human life is precious’ principle in a war. He’s hesitating between two possible courses of action—doing the math or playing Ghandi—and neither seems like a satisfying choice. He really needs to become omnipotent or at least avoid the necessity of making such a choice.
Edit: Oops, I messed up quotes and accidentally retracted the comment
Quirrel squished Rita of his own accord for his own purposes and Harry’s presence there is damn near irrelevant.
Kinda-sort of.
Harry inadvertently gave Fred&George the idea of making up rumours about Quirrel (by telling them he doesn’t like rumours, and asking them to leave Quirrel out of it). Which Rita Skeeter published.
And the prank he actually commissioned gave Quirrel a plausible explanation for Rita Skeeter’s disappearance.
Morally Harry is not really responsible IMO. But causally, eh… her death would have probably not have happened if he hadn’t talked to the Weasley twins about her.
Morally he still deliberately ruined her, regardless of whether he thought it would cause her death. Doing something to ruin the reputation of someone who lives by their reputation is morally bad even if you didn’t think through all the consequences.
Morally he still deliberately fucked her, regardless of whether he thought it would cause her death.
Different language would be more appropriate to the context. Not because I have qualms with foul language, but because I actually got the impression that we were considering rape-ethics or philosophy in magic-mediated edge cases till I followed the link.
Only if she doesn’t deserve to have her reputation wrecked. Skeeter did—I don’t think Quirrell’s murder is justified, but the phrases he had Harry repeat are all basically accurate.
Your opportunity cost point is more obvious to me than your Rita Skeeter point. Harry just sacrificed several lives, not just in people he could save today but almost certainly in people he could have saved once the war started. Potentially justified if Hermione is nigh-irreplaceable in the project of discovering the underlying structure of magic, which might give a hint as to where the plot’s going. But I’m not sure Harry could reasonably predict that.
Is it me, or does Harry’s solution to this dilemma seem rather… half-assed? Ignoring potential the loss of effectiveness from his resolving to suddenly switch directions the first time things get bad, is he really going to know the first time someone dies as a result of his war? How will he know the difference? He’s already gotten someone killed by his actions (Rita Skeeter, who he doesn’t even know about) and another person gravely injured (that auror hurt by the rocket, who he doesn’t know about but admittedly he thought the whole affair was a mistake afterward anyways). How about opportunity costs, the fact that if you handed me 100000 galleons demanding I save at least 10 lives with it I could hand you back 99000 in change. And that’s before the “war” even “started”; hostilities are going to get more open and more direct from here. It’s madness to think you can finish war, even a weird semi-geurella war like this, with zero casualties, or that you’ll know about every one.
With the condition he gave himself anyone should be able to see that “failure” is a foregone conclusion. And there’s very good odds he’s not going to learn that what he’s doing isn’t working until he’s racked up a far worse bodycount than one.
Not for any realistic sense of the phrase ‘by his actions’. Quirrel squished Rita of his own accord for his own purposes and Harry’s presence there is damn near irrelevant.
Morally he didn’t do it, and maybe Quirrel even had a desire to kill her sitting on a back burner before Harry got involved, but her death was caused by her interaction with Harry. It is no stretch to say that there is at least one hypothetical sequence of actions Harry could have taken, even given knowledge at the time (not realizing she worked for Lucius or was an animagus) which would not have resulted in her death. Heck, doing nothing would have resulted in her not death.
That is the level of challenge Harry is taking upon himself. Not just to not kill anyone, not just to keep your hands clean, not just to save people when he can. He’s declaring that if any innocent person anywhere dies and there’s something he could have done differently to save them, that’s his failure condition. You can’t do that.
That said, I thought about it a few minutes more and it could be his resolution is really about knowing he doesn’t know how bad the situation is. It’s certainly possible to get through, say, a political power struggle with someone like Lord Malfoy without anyone getting killed. Harry considers it possible but doesn’t yet believe that his opponent is Voldemort. If his opponent is Voldemort avoiding casualties is impossible. If his opponent is someone less evil (though still pretty nasty), and the scope of the conflict is much smaller, he might be able to pull it off.
It seems that he promised himself to stop trying to save everyone even if a minor character dies accidentally. In that case it wouldn’t matter if he considered himself directly responsible for the death of Rita Skeeter.
Indeed. I don’t see how he could manage not to compromise his ‘every human life is precious’ principle in a war. He’s hesitating between two possible courses of action—doing the math or playing Ghandi—and neither seems like a satisfying choice. He really needs to become omnipotent or at least avoid the necessity of making such a choice.
It seems that he promised himself to stop trying to save everyone even if a minor character dies accidentally. In that case it wouldn’t matter if he considered himself directly responsible for the death of Rita Skeeter.
Indeed. I don’t see how he could manage not to compromise his ‘every human life is precious’ principle in a war. He’s hesitating between two possible courses of action—doing the math or playing Ghandi—and neither seems like a satisfying choice. He really needs to become omnipotent or at least avoid the necessity of making such a choice.
Edit: Oops, I messed up quotes and accidentally retracted the comment
Kinda-sort of.
Harry inadvertently gave Fred&George the idea of making up rumours about Quirrel (by telling them he doesn’t like rumours, and asking them to leave Quirrel out of it). Which Rita Skeeter published.
And the prank he actually commissioned gave Quirrel a plausible explanation for Rita Skeeter’s disappearance.
Morally Harry is not really responsible IMO. But causally, eh… her death would have probably not have happened if he hadn’t talked to the Weasley twins about her.
Morally he still deliberately ruined her, regardless of whether he thought it would cause her death. Doing something to ruin the reputation of someone who lives by their reputation is morally bad even if you didn’t think through all the consequences.
--edited for language and clarity.
Different language would be more appropriate to the context. Not because I have qualms with foul language, but because I actually got the impression that we were considering rape-ethics or philosophy in magic-mediated edge cases till I followed the link.
thanks
Only if she doesn’t deserve to have her reputation wrecked. Skeeter did—I don’t think Quirrell’s murder is justified, but the phrases he had Harry repeat are all basically accurate.
The irony of this statement is overwhelming—I do hope it’s deliberate.
Your opportunity cost point is more obvious to me than your Rita Skeeter point. Harry just sacrificed several lives, not just in people he could save today but almost certainly in people he could have saved once the war started. Potentially justified if Hermione is nigh-irreplaceable in the project of discovering the underlying structure of magic, which might give a hint as to where the plot’s going. But I’m not sure Harry could reasonably predict that.