In HP, the fact muggles are worth something is justified as they seem, technologically (and perhaps legally) ahead of wizards. This is because they've had to overcome not having magic.

Where a wizard could light the end of their pipe with a wand flick, muggles invented lighters. And so forth.


But if wizards can do anything that non-wizards can do, and magic on top of that, then wizards are better. The only people who would choose to not be wizards in that context would be people against magic for religious/ethical reasons.

Unless the wizards have a bad thing linked with their magic, then they would be better than non-wizards. This is sort of seen in TDF, with the power/choice scale. As you gain more power, you gain less options to use that power.




It's why, often in developed world MLP fiction, earth ponies actually have magical hooves. Because otherwise their only use is as an underclass.

 

However, simply being of greater moral worth doesn't necessarily mean that they are worth significantly more. A healthy person is superior to an unhealthy person, yet people don't generally look down upon the disabled. At least as long as their disability isn't self-inflicted, anyway.

Paytah could argue that the ability to use magic making them superior is almost completely irrelevant since it pales in comparison against all the similarities between magical and nonmagical people. Intelligence/sapience presumably being the most important one.

Connor does have a point regardless, though, since magical people could do more to improve people's quality of life and probably lifespan as well. So while they don't have more inherent value, they have more instrumental value. (Not sure if those terms are widely used in English, but the concept is hopefully clear enough.) This does have pretty disturbing philosophical implications that you could explore in your story, or you could take the route Thaumologist mentioned and have there be drawbacks to having magic. That seems less interesting to me, but I guess the first option could detract from other elements in your story.

 

A person's moral worth is not related to their abilities. That's quite fundamental.

Smart people are not more worthy of life than stupid people.

Healthy people are not more deserving than sick people.

 

I'm not saying that wizards should look down on muggles. But I can see why they do.

If wizards don't need to spend huge amounts of time learning how to cast magic, and don't need to consume thousands of calories to do anything more than a basic light spell, and can do everything muggles can do...

Putting it differently.

In an imaginary world, some people have the ability to count. It may take time to learn, and some people may never progress past counting to five, but every one can count, if they put in the effort.
Then there are other people, who can't understand the concept of counting. If asked how many fingers they had, they couldn't comprehend. They have a mental block on counting. They can use a machine designed to count for them, but they are reliant on someone else to make it.
That is the only difference between the two groups. Counting doesn't require an extra meal a day to do.

From an evolutionary view, there is no reason to favour the non-counting people.




Which is the other thing you need to look at, Cheddar. If magic has existed for a long time, and has no drawbacks to fertility, and makes life easier for very little investment, why are there still non-magical people?
Very little investment meaning any resources - food, time, parts of my soul, and so forth.

 

Perhaps magic as we know it hasn't existed that long. Wand magic seems very convenient, how long did it take them to get to it, then to the level it is by the time Harry is born?

 

Well, to use the example your characters raised, it depends - are regular humans still able to understand magical theory to an equal extent as the magical ones, even if hampered by their ability to directly interact with the subject? If so, then they can still contribute equally as well on an intellectual level, even though they can't on a physical/magical level. It's like asking about the worth of a scientist who doesn't have any directly applicable field of research, such as astronomy.

If not, then the only other argument is that humans should not be valued on their contributions to society, and all are inherently equal.

 

To a degree, you can make this argument apply to any number of real-world differences in people - varying levels of athleticism, intellect, agility, intuitiveness, reflexes, height, metabolism, facial shape, hair colour, and yes, even skin colour.

Do any of these differences make one group inherently superior to any other?

Keeping this strictly limited to capability, as magic tends to be thought of, is the fact that I can run faster than you a good reason to think I'm a better person, or fundamentally more valuable? Are your superior reflexes a reason to think you're more important than me?

It all comes down to what individuals value. Some people wish they were taller, or thinner, or faster, because that is what they have been indoctrinated to find valuable, and more importantly, its what they think everyone else values, too. (The argument could be made that individuals find traits less valuable in direct corellation to how groups find traits valuable, again in proportion to how the individuals value membership in and approval of said group - or, rather, the percieved approval - but let's keep this simple).

People with inherently superior capabilities are generally taught to value those abilities because everyone else values them or is envious of them. If people in general placed no weight of value on magical ability (in short, if we were all magic-hipsters) then the users of magic would likewise be unimpressed with themselves. However, if, as I gather, the people of your world find magic to be of great value, then it will be coveted and envied, and even counterfeited - the equivelent of steroids or facelifts - and it is up to you, as the 'God' of your world, to explain why muggles continue to find value in their own lives.

The closest equivalent I can think of is celebrity culture - we all know who Kim Kardashian is, but how many of us actually give a rat's ass? Yet, the show gets the ratings and she gets the magazine covers. We say we don't care, yet we continue to support a culture that palces celebrities - many of whom whose only cause celebre is (debatably) good looks.

In this way, there are bound to be muggles in your world who find no value at all in magic - people who think doing things manually is more honest, or the like. People who are unimpressed with magic as many of us are unimpressed with most celebrities.

Maybe they think of magic users the way most of us think of reality TV 'stars'; yes, they got their moment, their gift, and people know them, follow them, are even fascinated by them, but wouldn't want to be their friends.

Naturally, the celebrities of this world, in many cases, think of themselves as superior - when you're surrounded by yes-men and can metaphorically do anything you want, it's hard not to. By the same token, magic users would get in the same head-space, only by literally being able to do anything.

But, every once in a while, you find a famous person who not only wants to 'give back' to the little people - they actually end up jealous of the 'normalcy.' They don't like being famous. They place a greater value on being normal - being anonymous, being private. Likewise, i'd assume some of your magic people hate their gift - maybe they consider it a curse. Some professionals - singers, chefs, artists, politicians - hate doing what they do all day at work, at home, too.

I don't know. I guess my point is that the value placed on talents - magical or mundane - come down to the individuals. A magic-user who values a quiet life, thinks there's a nobility in hard work and hates attention might think more highly of muggles than a magic-user who loves blowing shit up with a glance. In short, it's not the groups that have values, even if we, as social animals, naturally believe that, but the individuals. The arguments made by each individual are going to be unique to them.

It might be as simple as a philisophical longing to be normal, a jealousy of simplicity, or a need to feel accepted, but no matter what talents some people have - no matter what 'group' they belong to - they are going to want to be part of another group, regardless of the 'fundamental' weaknesses or strengths of the groups.

Jesus, you could make this even simpler and compare it to Apple vs PC users. Opinion of which side is superior is a useless, unanswerable argument - but the debate rages nonetheless. There are defectors to and from each side, followers and leaders in each group, and a lot of emotional energy expended trying to prove which side is fundamentally better. But in the end, it comes down to the opinions of the individuals.

 

Playing devils advocate, why isn't a smart person worth more than a stupid one. Studies have shown two educated people (I believe they took children from two parents with phds) have smarter children than the less educated. They are producing a better child for the human race. It is like evolution. Nature is making a better human. How is producing a better human not worth more than a lesser one. If it is for the betterment of humanity, I would say a smart person is worth more. Granted, you could say it leads more to a nature versus nurture question.

So, then lets go to a different argument. When our technology allows to manipulate human genetics and take out the defects to create the best child possible with the genetics given. How could you say someone with the best genetics is worth the same as those of a lesser quality. Would it not be in the best interest for the progression of the human race to produce the best children possible. They do so with animals, however, we think we are better than them.

It is all based on our morals. Fundamentally they are better, morally they aren't.

 

This point was addressed in the movie Gattaca. A world where people whose genes are tailored to make them better than the normal is discussed. These individuals are termed - Valid, where as those who were born without any enhancements are called Invalid. The Valids are treated as the superior class, given all the good jobs, whereas the Invalids are treated as menial laborers at best. This was not based on merit, but on the assumption that Valids would always do better than Invalids.

The best thing about humanity is that people who have no advantages, except a will to achieve and the ability to work hard can rise from nothing to achieve greatness. While some, who have all the resources to be great end up living ordinary lives.

As said in the about quote, while a non magical person would not be able to do magic, there is nothing stopping a hard working person from reading about magic, understanding what it means and working on the theory. A non magical person can have a different perspective and has nothing stopping him/her from becoming a great magical theoretician, improving the understanding of magic by leaps and bounds.

I have not yet seen any reason why a non magical person could not create potions given the right ingredients, nor any reason why they would not be able to conduct business with wizards. That does not require an ounce of magic.

In a purely meritocratic environment, magical and non magical people will be given equal opportunity and judged equally. In reality, I expect that there would always be discrimination from some corner.

 

They're the glue that holds their society together.

 

He didn't achieve it though, he lied to get there. He never had the body to get the standard results as everyone else. He had the guy exercise to get his heart rate and use that to fool the test. Then he would pass out afterward because his body couldn't handle it. He even cheated to beat his brother.

You can't make someone do something. All those people in gattaca where hard workers or they would have been weeded out. While you will have people leave ordinary lives with the best of genes, what about their children. Should their children be given less of an opportunity because the parent decided to be lazy.

 

The whole question is social darwinistic - just reproject it on RL and you can come up with rubbish like this:

"Shouldn't people with an IQ of 150 or more be seen as another set/form/race of human beings, with a higher worth due to their intelligence?"

"Shouldn't people with healthy genes have a special right to beget as much children as possible, while those with genetic defects would be sterilized?"

"Rich and powerful people have proven their worth through their money and success. Shouldn't they decide the best course of society, regardless of this nonsense about "equality"?"

The best answer to this way of thinking is a very simple one: Would you wish to live in a society where all this were true - and be one of the people who are considered inferior due to the circumstances of their birth and/or upbringing? A striking illustration of this principle is Rawls thought experiment about the "Original Position".

 

Except in none of those cases does the 'superior' gain the ability to change reality by saying a word and waving a stick.

 

because "worth" is not proportional to ability

 

No, they do it by spending money.