One student sitting at the Gryffindor table let out a single cheer, and was immediately slapped by the Gryffindor witch sitting nearby hard enough that a Muggle would have lost teeth.
“Thirty points from Gryffindor and detention for the first month of next year,” Professor McGonagall said, her voice hard enough to break stone.
F*** McGonagall for not letting the children of DE victims to have even a hint of justice. Neville’s parents were tortured to insanity and he was bullied and made fun of by DE children repeatedly, yet the b**** turned a blind eye. Same with many others. And now suddenly this “I will treat every one of you as I would my own children—and I will protect you as much as I would protect my own children, no more, no less” nonsense.
I hope Jugson’s children get their share of taunts later on, just to see how it feels to be on the receiving end.
I fail to see how your proposal constitutes justice. Neville gets bullied by Slytherins. Lesath gets bullied by Gryffindors. These two facts do not cancel each other out; they just make the world a worse place twice over.
To say that justice matters intrinsically is to say that sometimes, for justice’s sake, we should do things that would make people worse off than if justice were not an issue. Or more accurately, there will at least sometimes be policies trading some welfare (or for any other component of utility) for some justice, that are equally as good as policies which do not (according to the enlarged set of concerns containing justice).
Some Gryffindor kid cheers for the deaths of the Death Eaters, and he is assaulted and officially punished, while just prior, the younger Jurgson is cheering on the Dark Lord coming back and … he receives compassion.
I wasn’t offended with McGonagall offering support to the orphaned children. But an under age ID shouldn’t be a get out of moral responsibility card either. Hogwarts goes up to 16? 17? That’s old enough to be held responsible for your loyalties.
I sympathize, but…
1) McGonagall has grown since the Roles arc, and is more likely to think about the consequences of her actions, now.
2) She is more maternal than Dumbledore was, he wouldn’t have necessarily thought that way and he was in charge after the first dark war
3) Time—it is much more obvious to McGonagall how the newly-orphaned students will react and will be treated, then it would have been for her to realize how much of a target Neville was
4) Similarly, the likely treatment of death eater orphans is probably much more physically severe than what Neville goes/went through
5) Up until the Self Actualization arc, Hogwarts did not take bullying seriously. Many real-world schools still don’t
F*** McGonagall for not letting the children of DE victims to have even a hint of justice. Neville’s parents were tortured to insanity and he was bullied and made fun of by DE children repeatedly, yet the b**** turned a blind eye. Same with many others. And now suddenly this “I will treat every one of you as I would my own children—and I will protect you as much as I would protect my own children, no more, no less” nonsense.
I hope Jugson’s children get their share of taunts later on, just to see how it feels to be on the receiving end.
I fail to see how your proposal constitutes justice. Neville gets bullied by Slytherins. Lesath gets bullied by Gryffindors. These two facts do not cancel each other out; they just make the world a worse place twice over.
To say that justice matters intrinsically is to say that sometimes, for justice’s sake, we should do things that would make people worse off than if justice were not an issue. Or more accurately, there will at least sometimes be policies trading some welfare (or for any other component of utility) for some justice, that are equally as good as policies which do not (according to the enlarged set of concerns containing justice).
Justice is whatever is right, not a separate terminal value. (At least, that’s one way to use the word.)
It does seem rather asymmetric, doesn’t it?
Some Gryffindor kid cheers for the deaths of the Death Eaters, and he is assaulted and officially punished, while just prior, the younger Jurgson is cheering on the Dark Lord coming back and … he receives compassion.
I wasn’t offended with McGonagall offering support to the orphaned children. But an under age ID shouldn’t be a get out of moral responsibility card either. Hogwarts goes up to 16? 17? That’s old enough to be held responsible for your loyalties.
That Gryffindor kid isn’t distraught over his father’s death; that’s the difference.
I sympathize, but… 1) McGonagall has grown since the Roles arc, and is more likely to think about the consequences of her actions, now. 2) She is more maternal than Dumbledore was, he wouldn’t have necessarily thought that way and he was in charge after the first dark war 3) Time—it is much more obvious to McGonagall how the newly-orphaned students will react and will be treated, then it would have been for her to realize how much of a target Neville was 4) Similarly, the likely treatment of death eater orphans is probably much more physically severe than what Neville goes/went through 5) Up until the Self Actualization arc, Hogwarts did not take bullying seriously. Many real-world schools still don’t
Sure. Doesn’t help the victims in any way, Truth and reconciliation are nice, but that is not what is happening here.