I think we had frogs—once—and I opted out of that class. But I imagine those would be already-dead mice? You wouldn’t have to kill them yourself?
Also, maybe it’s just me, but I think that the more intelligent an animal is, the harder it is to objectify and kill. Stepping on insects is easier than killing mice because insects seem alien and thus easier to objectify. Killing mice is easier than killing cats or dogs because the behaviour of cats and dogs is closer to our own in complexity (or seems to be) and thus it is harder to dismiss them as “not really alive the way we are alive”.
To be sure, the taboo on killing kittens is very much culture-dependent—but Hermione, who apparently has no problems with it, comes from “our” Anglo-Saxon culture. in which kittens are beloved household pets as well as common symbols of innocence and various other positive features. Which edges me towards “Rowling doesn’t think” rather than “Rowling is very subtle in showing us the darkness of the Potterverse”.
Almost downvoted for bringing me to the verge of tears. But I can’t actually justify that downvote since you definitely added something to the conversation.
So the upside for Rowling is that Vanished animals presumably don’t suffer (at least for more than an instant). The downside is that the children are practising killing for no higher purpose than to practise killing (in that if they just wanted to learn how to Vanish inanimate objects, they’re much more easily available than animate ones).
Not that I think this was good class practice, but I rather doubt that frogs have the faculties to formalize such thoughts. The nearest equivalent in human terms would probably be something like
But I imagine those would be already-dead mice? You wouldn’t have to kill them yourself?
So a teacher killed them all the day before and put them in the freezer. How is that better? We’d have to hire biology teachers who score lower on empathy than the cultural norm.
Experienced, (hopefully) emotionally stable adult with a full understanding of the purpose and benefits of the process, versus emotionally developing child with a narrower perspective.
Our culture has a firmly grounded principle that some experiences are traumatic for children but not necessarily for adults, such as sex and violence. It seems odd that it should apply to, say, video games, but not to hands-on animal killing.
Our culture has a firmly grounded principle that some experiences are traumatic for children but not necessarily for adults, such as sex and violence. It seems odd that it should apply to, say, video games, but not to hands-on animal killing.
I feel this point is less correct than your original one.
Is there evidence that sex or violence depicted in video games are traumatic to children (and not to adults)?
In cultures where real-life sex between children is or was the norm, is there evidence that it was often traumatic to them? (What is the definition of ‘children’ in this context? Pre-pubescent? What age?)
Finally, as for real-life violence, it often leads to (physical) trauma so if’s obviously dangerously traumatic in at least that respect. But if we put that aside, what makes you suppose it’s any more traumatic to children than to (average, not specially trained) adults?
You misunderstand. I’m not proposing that said principle is correct. I’m far from convinced that it is.
However, it is a foundation for our culture’s treatment of children, and I find it dubious that it should be suspended for convenience’s sake in cases such as this one, yet fiercely maintained elsewhere.
It appears, however, that this principle is not aligned with the magical culture’s approved treatment with children.
If we allow examples from MoR, we have Draco not having any moral problems with raping another child, and most of the Hogwarts faculty and students see nothing wrong with physically violent bullying between students. In canon, I understand that Harry tested out unknown (potentially deadly) curses on random (stranger) Slytherin children (instead of, say, kittens), and wasn’t told off by anyone. Etc etc.
In our world, where it is against cultural norms, posters in this thread report that dissecting live (and recently killed) animals in class has indeed been diminishing. (Personal anecdata: I was in highschool in Israel 10-15 years ago and we witnessed a dissection of a single dead frog for the entire class, and only once.)
If we allow examples from MoR, we have Draco not having any moral problems with raping another child
As initially presented, Draco’s habits of moral thinking — I wouldn’t say “principles” — seem to have been trained to the expectation that might makes right; and that doing something that you want to do, and that can’t be held against you, can’t be sensibly objected to. Draco is probably not typical.
most of the Hogwarts faculty and students see nothing wrong with physically violent bullying between students
This was, until relatively recently, a pretty typical attitude in the real world.
He’s atypical mostly in having the ‘might’ to get away with things other can’t.
Can you give examples of non-Muggleborn wizarding children in MoR (I am less familiar with canon, but that would still be valid) who are opposed to violence on principle? Gryffindors who speak out against hurting Slytherins for fun, or vice versa, because of moral considerations, or a universal principle that everyone has the right not to be hurt? Someone who would have tried to stop Canon!Harry as he (apparently) tried out unfamiliar Dark curses on random Slytherins?
This was, until relatively recently, a pretty typical attitude in the real world.
And still is in many places. Which supports my point that it’s plausible to believe Potterverse magical society is not opposed to violence between children and certainly no more than between adults.
I think we had frogs—once—and I opted out of that class. But I imagine those would be already-dead mice? You wouldn’t have to kill them yourself?
Also, maybe it’s just me, but I think that the more intelligent an animal is, the harder it is to objectify and kill. Stepping on insects is easier than killing mice because insects seem alien and thus easier to objectify. Killing mice is easier than killing cats or dogs because the behaviour of cats and dogs is closer to our own in complexity (or seems to be) and thus it is harder to dismiss them as “not really alive the way we are alive”.
To be sure, the taboo on killing kittens is very much culture-dependent—but Hermione, who apparently has no problems with it, comes from “our” Anglo-Saxon culture. in which kittens are beloved household pets as well as common symbols of innocence and various other positive features. Which edges me towards “Rowling doesn’t think” rather than “Rowling is very subtle in showing us the darkness of the Potterverse”.
Until very recently, vivisection was also a staple of biology classes.
You could cut open a frog while it was still alive and watch its heart stop beating as it wished for the faculties necessary to cry for mercy.
Almost downvoted for bringing me to the verge of tears. But I can’t actually justify that downvote since you definitely added something to the conversation.
facepalm at reality
So the upside for Rowling is that Vanished animals presumably don’t suffer (at least for more than an instant). The downside is that the children are practising killing for no higher purpose than to practise killing (in that if they just wanted to learn how to Vanish inanimate objects, they’re much more easily available than animate ones).
Not that I think this was good class practice, but I rather doubt that frogs have the faculties to formalize such thoughts. The nearest equivalent in human terms would probably be something like
“AAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!”
So a teacher killed them all the day before and put them in the freezer. How is that better? We’d have to hire biology teachers who score lower on empathy than the cultural norm.
Experienced, (hopefully) emotionally stable adult with a full understanding of the purpose and benefits of the process, versus emotionally developing child with a narrower perspective.
Our culture has a firmly grounded principle that some experiences are traumatic for children but not necessarily for adults, such as sex and violence. It seems odd that it should apply to, say, video games, but not to hands-on animal killing.
I feel this point is less correct than your original one.
Is there evidence that sex or violence depicted in video games are traumatic to children (and not to adults)?
In cultures where real-life sex between children is or was the norm, is there evidence that it was often traumatic to them? (What is the definition of ‘children’ in this context? Pre-pubescent? What age?)
Finally, as for real-life violence, it often leads to (physical) trauma so if’s obviously dangerously traumatic in at least that respect. But if we put that aside, what makes you suppose it’s any more traumatic to children than to (average, not specially trained) adults?
You misunderstand. I’m not proposing that said principle is correct. I’m far from convinced that it is.
However, it is a foundation for our culture’s treatment of children, and I find it dubious that it should be suspended for convenience’s sake in cases such as this one, yet fiercely maintained elsewhere.
It appears, however, that this principle is not aligned with the magical culture’s approved treatment with children.
If we allow examples from MoR, we have Draco not having any moral problems with raping another child, and most of the Hogwarts faculty and students see nothing wrong with physically violent bullying between students. In canon, I understand that Harry tested out unknown (potentially deadly) curses on random (stranger) Slytherin children (instead of, say, kittens), and wasn’t told off by anyone. Etc etc.
In our world, where it is against cultural norms, posters in this thread report that dissecting live (and recently killed) animals in class has indeed been diminishing. (Personal anecdata: I was in highschool in Israel 10-15 years ago and we witnessed a dissection of a single dead frog for the entire class, and only once.)
As initially presented, Draco’s habits of moral thinking — I wouldn’t say “principles” — seem to have been trained to the expectation that might makes right; and that doing something that you want to do, and that can’t be held against you, can’t be sensibly objected to. Draco is probably not typical.
This was, until relatively recently, a pretty typical attitude in the real world.
He’s atypical mostly in having the ‘might’ to get away with things other can’t.
Can you give examples of non-Muggleborn wizarding children in MoR (I am less familiar with canon, but that would still be valid) who are opposed to violence on principle? Gryffindors who speak out against hurting Slytherins for fun, or vice versa, because of moral considerations, or a universal principle that everyone has the right not to be hurt? Someone who would have tried to stop Canon!Harry as he (apparently) tried out unfamiliar Dark curses on random Slytherins?
And still is in many places. Which supports my point that it’s plausible to believe Potterverse magical society is not opposed to violence between children and certainly no more than between adults.
Hermione also has a pet cat, Crookshanks.