We don't know that it was Dumbledore who cast the Fidelius, I think. And if he did, then that means the charm is even more fucked up than it already is. I mean, even the name indicates that it's all about fidelity (of the secret keeper).

So someone wishing you harm gives you a carte blanche to do whatever you want to them?

Right. Self defence is all well and good, but there's such a thing as a proportional response. Harry isn't anywhere near proportional.

He. Enjoys. Killing.

And he does go killing people left and right. Usually people who have either slighted him or in self defence, but he does kill people an awful lot.

That speaks for itself I think.

 

He is an unique case. For him, most of people wishing him harm will use any means necessary to get him dead. Killing instead of getting killed, pretty proportional for me.

1) You can't control your feelings. It's his actions that are important.
2) Killing in self-defence can't be really called evil. (and yes, I guess killing a horde of Merpeople - or even an angry mob - in self-defence is ok when they do the same thing to you)
3) Snape's alive. So is S. Black. And so is Malfoy Jr. And so are authors of Prophet articles about him.

 

Okay Taure the next time someone seriously decides you need to die. You can go knock him on the head with something and knock him out. They really think you need to die so a couple days later he comes back with 4 or 5 of his buddys as back up and torture you and then kill you. They wont flinch for a moment at the prospect of killing you. Thats how 99% of Harrys enemies are.


If you attempt to shoot me with a 22 rifle Im more than likely gonna get my 44 mag. and blow your damn brains out. You burn my house down and destroy my silk sheets Ill probably kill you.

IM EVIL!!!!!

 

So the children that he killed were a serious threat to Harry?

Wow, he's in trouble.

I'm not disputing his killing of Vesper. I'm disputing his killing the people who wished him harm but are no more than ants to him in terms of power. They were never a serious threat to him. Yet he kills them anyway, and enjoys doing so.

What Harry does most of the time is not the equivalent of shooting back at someone with a 44 mag. who was shooting at him with a 22 rifle. What Harry does is shooting someone with a rocket laucher who was attacking him with a fly swatter. Sometimes, like with most of the Denarians who attack him, Voldemort and a few others his force was proportional. Most of the time it isn't.

I was hoping you'd say something like this.

It's one theory. There are other theories too, you know. All of them fail to adequately account for morality.

You cannot say that morality is to be found in merely someone's actions, or their intent, or their feelings, because it's really a combination of all of these things. So saying "Harry enjoys killing but he never really kills someone just because he would enjoy it" is ignoring a big component of what makes up morality - intent.

A nice example to show that actions aren't everything when it comes to morality: a man intends to kill another man. He goes up to this man, and shoots him. However, he misses and instead accidentally shoots the prevously unknown second assassin, also trying to kill this man. He just saved a man's life. Would any of us call his action a morally good one though? He intended to murder someone. So the act alone doesn't give an adequate account of morality.

Similarly, with your "Harry can't control his feelings" thing, this argument really doesn't hold. He may not be able to control his feelings (debatable) but even so they are his. An angry husband kills his wife because she didn't make his dinner right. I don't see anyone saying "Oh, he was angry, he couldn't control his feelings". We hold people responsible for their feelings as well as their actions.

You might say to this that Harry doesn't act on his feelings like the angry husband did, but I disagree. He does kill people, and he does take joy in it. The fact that there were also other motivations to kill the person doesn't change the fact that Harry just enjoyed ending someone's life. This is the most damning part of his character.

If he used excessive force in self-defence out of fear for his safety, or just covering all eventualities, then this may be, if not excusable, at least able to be rationalised away. But the joy that Harry takes in killing is a clear indication of his state of mind - as evil as any sociopath or serial killer. Any court would find him guilty in a heatbeat.

I don't know what you guys are trying to say really. Harry enjoys killing people, he kills people, but because he doesn't kill people for the sole reason of enjoying it then suddenly he's not evil?

You seem to have a pretty high standard of what counts as evil.

Firstly, there are also a list of other people who aren't alive. Secondly, that Harry has to restrain himself from killing people is just further damning evidence against him.

No, you're just filled with internet-macho.

 

I poured over what you've written so far, Shezza, and I didn't find any grammatical errors, just stylistics ones. Feel free to disregard what I've written here, I'm just pecking at what you've wrote.

Two uses of 'people' in the same sentence, you could do with another noun, like 'cretins', 'morons', 'fine blokes' or something that Harry would use.

Huh... "stoic calm" not that it doesn't work, just a little wordy. You could say, facade, instead of "mask" (and we'd immediately know she's been acting stoic/calm the whole time). You could say "tolerance dying" instead of "mask ... disappearing". It's just that mask of stoic calm disappearing seems really wordy for things the reader has already noticed (she's tolerating Harry for some deceptive reason, but she has a temper that's hard to control).

Was the screech magical? Devastating works, but I'd suggest a different adjective here.

 

No. He doesn't kill because he has no reason to. (if you ignore his big mouth, he really wouldn't kill without pretext/reason)

Both intent and act have nothing to do with feelings. At least not where morality is concerned. Example: Harry generally hates for Knights of the Cross, yet, when indebted, follows the rules and doesn't harm his family.

BTW: now that I wrote this, isn't your man's situation similiar to Michael's? At first he intended to kill both denarians, but ended with saving one's life.

Feelings are just that, feelings. If the husband was an emo he would just cut himself. He could do lots of things, it was his decision kill his wife, not his feelings' decision.

The difference is huge. Cause and effect are changed. Your husband's feelings (cause) made him kill (effect). Harry killed (and he probably had reason to; CAUSE) and enjoyed the fight (feelings,effect). Besides, even with

Indeed. What changes the fact is that he doesn't kill anymore without these other motivations. By the way, do you watch "Dexter" show? He also likes killing and does kill pretty regularly and yet, I wouldn't call him evil. Same with Harry.

For me, this is most redeeming one. Like Amanda said to H.G.

Spoiler

“You have no idea what he is, Hermione, of what he could become and what he could do, to see him doing this is, well, it just proves how decent he really is.”

In comparison to others denarians his morals are the best. Well, I guess he is only one with morals at all.

Who are you talking about? If he didn't kill other denarians - they'd come after him. Merpeople? There was over a hundred of them, with their superior abilities in water there was a huge chance of some sneaking a hit on him. Can't exactly think of any other situation where his actions could be considered evil.

Exactly!

Maybe. "Evil" is really grand word and shouldn't be used too often. I guess Harry's "evilness" depends on how you define evil. Is stealing a car evil? Is killing in self defence? Is killing by mistake (i.e. drunk driving)? Is purposeful killing of innocent? My answers are no,no,no,yes and don't mistake not being evil for being good. You don't become evil because you drove drunk. But it was wrong thing to do.

 

So as long as you have a reason to kill someone then it's okay? A rational killer who kills based on their own judgement of who deserves to live and who deserves to die (Harry) is okay, but an irrational killer who just goes around killing for the lulz is evil?

I would say both are evil.

Disagree. As you yourself are about to note, feelings can be both a cause and effect of an intent or act. Emotions can create an intent where there was none before. Moreover, nothing sheds light upon a person's character more than their feelings. And when we say a person is evil, it is to their character we are referring.

His feelings and him are not two different entities, separate from each other. They're the same thing.

This goes back to the rational vs. irrational thing. You seem to have it in your mind that a person is only evil so long as their only motivation is sadism. That Harry has other reasons does not change the fact that his is a sadist. He tortures as well as kills, and enjoys the torture too. And the torture is a bit harder to rationalise away with the "self defence" argument.

 

bonus points to whoever recognizes the quote
I have never seen harry kill someone who didnt deserve it or that he was acting in self defence. Also you have to realize that it is the stronger man who can neutralize a threat while keeping him alive. It would be ignorant of us to criticize harry as we have NEVER been in his situation. Also remember people a work of FICTION.

Anyway: what was up with the sudden rocks fall everyone dies ending? Also have you given any thought to my PM shezza? Your work is pretty good and Im pretty sure you could cut a deal, not a profitable one but a deal nonetheless.

 

Well then. Who is fit to judge whether person deserves to live or not? If noone, what about countries using death penalty? Are these countries evil?

Not exactly. To be evil you have to have evil character and act like one. And character is best portrayed by actions.

Human is quite more complex than that.

How do you define torture? Would closing around twenty people in small room for years be torturing? That's how lots of prisons look like. Are all countries sentencing people for such thing evil?
What about Dumbledore's greater good? Is he evil, too? After all he knew exactly what will Harry do to get information from this man in chapter four of TDL.

 

Remember dumbledore also stuck him with an abusive family. Dont give me the I thought they could change crap. Dumbledore is a MASTER Occlumens and Legilemins(sp?)

 

If you had read my posts in the Death Penalty thread, you'd know that I consider execution the worst thing humanity is capable of.

Whoever it is - if there is even such a person or, more likely, group of people - it certainly isn't Harry.

This is avoiding the question somewhat. Whatever definition of torture you use, the cruciatus is going to come under it.

If you will recall DH, Dumbledore did consider the idea of the greater good to be an evil one. Or at the least one which can be used to justify evil easily. This is something that annoys me a lot in fanfiction. Dumbledore does not believe in the "greater good" doctrine.

Again, I disagree with your fixation on actions only. Actions are important, yes, but so is a person's heart. Which one is more important is debatable. Actions have greater consequences, but it seems to me what a person feels and thinks has more baring on their character - and thus person, and thus morality - than their actions. What a person feels and thinks shows who a person truly is - who they would be if they weren't restrained by society.

You can't ignore either one. I also disagree that character is best portrayed by actions. Many people - most people, in fact - don't show the world their true character. I think DLP shows how true this is. Many people on DLP express views on here that they probably wouldn't in real life.

 

See that's the real difference between an evil person (Harry) and someone who does bad things with good intentions (Dumbledore, before he and Grindelwald had their disagreement). The two could do exactly the same thing and yet Harry would be considered evil and Dumbledore good, because Harry enjoys the bad things that he does while Dumbledore does not. There is a difference between necessary action, like putting criminals away, and doing things for your own amusement.

Still, I concede that Harry does have some sort of moral code buried in there. He abducted pedophiles and murderers when he used sacrifices for demon summonings, and he doesn't generally kill people on a whim (though when he first attended Hogwarts I got the impression that the only reason he didn't kill anyone who annoyed him was because he was afraid of Dumbledore). On the other hand, the fact that he needs threats from someone more powerful than he is to not kill people does not cast him in a good light.

I would say that Harry is evil, but affably evil in such a way that he is cast in a favourable light. After all, the story is told from his perspective. If it was told from the position of someone else, like Dumbledore or a member of the Order, he would not be considered good by any definition of the word. He is basically how Tom Riddle was while in school. Charming, charismatic, powerful. The only reason you're defending his actions at this point is because he is likeable. But being likeable does not make you a good person, hell, I bet even Osama Bin Laden is a nice person when it comes to his friends/family, and we've got an even better look into Harry's motives than they have of Osama's.

Edit: The perfect phrase just came to mind: "Just because he is the lesser of two evils doesn't mean he still ain't evil".

 

I won't discuss that. (not that I agree)

Imho it's either everybody concerned (i.e. Harry debating whether to kill a dangerous enemy) or noone.

That's quite right. And tortures are way worse than death (penalty).

Yet, he acts like it was what he belived in.
Anyway, I agree, "greater good" is just "lesser evil", which, while still evil, is better than "greater evil".

It's more important who they are than who they would be. For me, at least.

Anyway, we tracked off topic a bit. In Denarian quadrilogy Harry is selfish, rude, arrogant lazy bastard. In most cases he wants just to be left alone. With experience of lots of people (and things) trying to kill him it is natural that he responds to threat with as much force as possible (to minimalise possible damage done to him). I don't think him evil. Evil person kills for fun. Harry has fun while killing, but doesn't kill solely for fun.

Harry is by no means good person. I disagree that he is evil, though. He does not pursue fight with everybody possible. He just responds on attacks. Yes, sometimes with more force than necessary, but with his life it's understandable. Anyway, to be evil you have to do something more than sit around and punch back when punched.

Ah, and Harry is no way charming or likeable. He is rude and arrogant, even when it costs him a lot. Very unlike T.R.

 

1. You do know that Harry tortures people, right?
2. I would consider the death penalty a form of torture.

Anyway, I agree with everything Aekiel said. An atlantic divide, perhaps?

This seems to be a far overly restrictive definition of evil to me.

Yes, and a person's inner private character tells you who they really are.

 

This quote says it best, in my opinion.

Regardless or whether you think he's evil or not, you can't deny he's a monster. He sacrificed a human soul to a demon for information. Harry's evil, it just so happens his enemies are the same as Dumbledore's.

 

Having a modicum of self-restraint does not a Saint make. Also, wasn't he hired by Dresden (or an affiliate of him) to help wipe out a bunch of Red Court vampires in book 1? (or early book 2?) So you can't really say that he only responds to threats, especially considering how he rented out his talents as a mercenary.

I disagree on the last point too. He may not be cookie-cutter in the charisma department but he does have a way of gaining the respect of people despite being so caustic. He's drawn several people to himself already, Amanda being the prime example, with Tonks being a lesser one. He may have turned Amaris from becoming a Fae and the only person who actively speaks out against him at Hogwarts is Hermione.

 

You can tell Dumbledore has the hots for him too.

 

Im done arguing about it. Someones right and someones wrong and we aint ever gonna agree.


BUT!!
If Taure is right. We can expect to see Potter vs. Dumbledore more than likely in addition to Potter vs. Voldemort and Potter vs. Tessa.

 

I dont think he is either a good or bad guy at all. He has power, and that corrupts. He has enemies constantly trying to kill him, which has the annoying habit of making you lose some "goodness". Would you truly stand still and let someone kill you? regardless if you're right or wrong? You can bet your instincts would kick you over your ass to get you out of whatever the hell you got yourself into.

The way I see denarian-lord Harry, he has grow up in a abusive enviroment, only to be "adopted" by a Fallen Angel filled with hate. Now, I'm not usually one to listen to all that freudian crap but there would be a high chance that he would be willing to go to hell and back for his Fallen-which, to my endless shame, I cant recall the name right now.

Anyway, he just go around getting the best he can from all the crap he find himself into. Brutal means or just a "bad-ass" attitude, well, no one cares. Especially not himself.

 

The Fallen. Her name is Meciel.

How dare you forget.

Anyways, in my honest opinion, there is a difference between self-dense and thinking 'Oh, hey, this guy, somewhere down the line, is probably going to try to kill me. So, hey, let's kill him first. Sound good to you?'. You could say it's a preemptive action, but it's basically premeditated murder.