How so? (Hint: in Harry’s opinion, the moral response to burning several innocent women to death does not involve burning more innocent women to death.) In this case, the only difficulty on Harry’s part would be explaining to Susan why he annihilated her aunt.
Edit: Okay, I’ve read over the thread again and I honestly have no idea what the downvote is for. Please explain?
Edit: Clarified in whose opinion that was the case.
Really, that’s what people are objecting to? For goodness’ sake, I’m not a deontologist or anything, I’m just referring to what was described as “condition three”:
“Condition three is that Narcissa has to have been burned alive. If that part of the story turns out to be something exaggerated just to make it sound a little worse, then I get to decide for myself whether or not to still go through with the pledge. Good people sometimes have to kill. But they don’t ever torture people to death. It’s because Narcissa was burned alive that I know whoever did that was evil.”
It wouldn’t be a difficult moral situation on Harry’s part because he specifically thought of this exact circumstance in advance.
Until he finds a person who he would describe as good but had legitimate reasons to torture someone?
The situation would be contrived, but it’s still possible.
I can’t remember whether it was Dumbledore specifically who was named in that pledge, making it invalid if someone else did it (technically, at least, Draco would probably consider it a betrayal if Harry found out who did it but didn’t help him get revenge) but if Amelia did it, then Hermione could be dragged into the situation as well, as a friend of Susan’s, and we could have a fascinating obligation tug-of-war for Harry.
“Condition two is that I’m pledging to take as an enemy whoever actually did kill Narcissa, as determined to the honest best of my ability as a rationalist. Whether that’s Dumbledore, or someone else. …
… Condition five is that if whoever killed Narcissa was tricked somehow into doing it, then my enemy is whoever tricked them, not the person who was tricked.”
And yes, I think it would be somewhat difficult on Harry’s part to explain himself to the people who care about the person who did it; but in this case, Hermione of all people would probably understand why Harry took as his enemy someone who—again—burned an innocent woman to death. I don’t think that’s the kind of thing Hermione would be willing to let slide just because the person is a friend’s aunt.
It wouldn’t be a difficult moral situation on Harry’s part because he specifically thought of this exact circumstance in advance.
This may indicate that Harry has not through the relevant issues enough to appreciate this sort of moral dilemma. That said, this is a good demonstration of a possible failure mode of TDT/UDT-like approaches where they might end up leading to something that looks like cycles of revenge which they have precommitted themselves to.
Harry has not [thought] through the relevant issues enough
Of course he hasn’t, condition three up there is based firmly (or as firmly as anything can be based in such shifting sands) in some kind of fuzzy instinctual deontology. Harry isn’t perfect.
In formulating this, I realized what my mistake likely was, and edited the original comment.
How so? (Hint: in Harry’s opinion, the moral response to burning several innocent women to death does not involve burning more innocent women to death.) In this case, the only difficulty on Harry’s part would be explaining to Susan why he annihilated her aunt.
Edit: Okay, I’ve read over the thread again and I honestly have no idea what the downvote is for. Please explain?
Edit: Clarified in whose opinion that was the case.
Depends, it may very well make sense from a TDT/UDT point of view.
Really, that’s what people are objecting to? For goodness’ sake, I’m not a deontologist or anything, I’m just referring to what was described as “condition three”:
It wouldn’t be a difficult moral situation on Harry’s part because he specifically thought of this exact circumstance in advance.
Until he finds a person who he would describe as good but had legitimate reasons to torture someone? The situation would be contrived, but it’s still possible.
I can’t remember whether it was Dumbledore specifically who was named in that pledge, making it invalid if someone else did it (technically, at least, Draco would probably consider it a betrayal if Harry found out who did it but didn’t help him get revenge) but if Amelia did it, then Hermione could be dragged into the situation as well, as a friend of Susan’s, and we could have a fascinating obligation tug-of-war for Harry.
And yes, I think it would be somewhat difficult on Harry’s part to explain himself to the people who care about the person who did it; but in this case, Hermione of all people would probably understand why Harry took as his enemy someone who—again—burned an innocent woman to death. I don’t think that’s the kind of thing Hermione would be willing to let slide just because the person is a friend’s aunt.
Ah, very well then. Thank you for clearing that up.
This may indicate that Harry has not through the relevant issues enough to appreciate this sort of moral dilemma. That said, this is a good demonstration of a possible failure mode of TDT/UDT-like approaches where they might end up leading to something that looks like cycles of revenge which they have precommitted themselves to.
Of course he hasn’t, condition three up there is based firmly (or as firmly as anything can be based in such shifting sands) in some kind of fuzzy instinctual deontology. Harry isn’t perfect.
In formulating this, I realized what my mistake likely was, and edited the original comment.