Because for the most part, choice isn't "a wide open parking lot" that you can make your own chosen way through. There's a reason that philosophers still hotly debate free will and determinism, and it's because it's hard to know how much influence a child born of a loveless union and thrust into the brutality and oppression of the orphanage and then into the limitless power and capacity for individual agency of the wizarding world has over its own demise. How much of his fundamental character, formed over the course of eleven years of injustice and solitude, could he reform at sixteen or seventeen, when he was creating his Horcrux?

Yes, Harry was raised similarly and chose differently, but we cannot pretend that has nothing to do with the fact that Dumbledore made a damn good attempt at planning out nearly every phase of Harry's life. How much choice did Harry himself really have by the time he was seventeen? He is so bound to his destiny, that the metaphor he himself uses is of a man who, whether he is dragged in or walks in with his head held high, is still going to be entering the arena. Even Dumbledore's transformation at 17 was contingent upon the death of his sister. Grindelwald had no such responsibilities, devastating losses, or relatives to confound his ideology.

Harry is going to die, whether he chooses to or not, his choice is in whether the nature of that death will be shameful or praiseworthy. That's not much of a choice, so how much control did Tom Riddle have over the course of his life, up to the third attempt at taking Harry's life, in the Great Hall? Harry tells him that he can choose not to continue the way he's going, but this is rather ironic considering the revelation I just mentioned, wherein Harry realizes he will die, one way or another. Voldemort can as much choose not to kill Harry as Harry can choose to run away and leave his friends. It would be so antithetical to their characters, circumstances, and future prospects, that it would hardly be a choice at all.

 

If you believe free will and choice exists, then yes, it is. I could choose to strip off my clothes and run down the street screaming after I post this. I won't, but I could.

Every moment that you're awake, you are making choices, consciously and subconsciously. To claim that people are actually on autopilot their entire lives except for a few key points during their lifetime is to attempt to take a middle ground in the argument of free will vs predetermination that does not and can not logically exist.

 

I'm reminded of that latest chapter in Harry Potter Avatar all of a sudden.
Go re-read it now.

 

I'm always annoyed when people say Harry always does the right thing. It wasn't the right thing when Harry went down to the chamber to save Ginny. The right thing was to go tell all the teachers the location and have them fix it. It's great and all that he was brave and lucky. But it's perfectly reasonable to assume that as a 12 year old, he should find himself in the chamber where he promptly dies. Thus dooming himself, an 11 year old girl, his best friend, a cowardly teacher, and allowing the Dark Lord to rise again unnoticed. He would of taken all of his accumulated knowledge with him to the grave. He was a moron, not right or just.

If you find someone bleeding out in the street of a gun shot wound, the right thing to do is call a medical professional while you stem the bleeding. Not try to remove the bullet and perform surgery in the street.

There are numerous times year after year where Harry does unreasonable things that aren't at all right. Why? Cuz its a young adult novel where the kid hero saves the day. Trying to deconstruct this story into some great piece of symbolism is both stupid and bullshit. Because it doesn't make any sense. It's a flawed story, and no wand waving will fix it.

 

Morally right vs. procedurally correct. There's a difference.

 

This. Procedurally correct is to tell the teachers and then go hide like you were told to. Morally correct is to go and save her, because you know the teachers aren't going to be able to, and you might actually be able to.

If Harry had told the teachers everything he knew and then gone to his dorm, they would have probably found the sink, but wouldn't have been able to get past it, because none of them are a Parselmouth. Ginny would have died, and Riddle would have been free in a new body.

Harry made the morally correct decision, and as a result of that, he saved Ginny and the school at the end of the second book.

 

Or they would of just blasted it open knowing where the entrance was. Or they bring Harry to show them and send him back.

He went to tell Lockheart where it was, isntead of the entire group of teachers. Theres a precedent in story for him trying to get a teacher to solve it. He just went for the one who he had suspicions of being incompetant already. Because if he did the reasonable thing and told all of them the story wouldn't be very good.

The morale thing is to save Ginny. With his limited information sharing the knowledge as he tried to do with Lockheart is the right thing to do.

It happens several times in the series, most notably in the early books where her plot is less thought out. Going for the stone? Not right. He had no reasonable expectation that he could add to the situation.

3rd year Dumbledore could of gone back in time. There was nothing dictating he coulnd't go. There are quite a few times where things happen because of plot devices and because Dumbledore and the Chamber of Secrets is a bad book. Harry Potter has its flaws, but its still very compelling. But don't try and make it into some great deep piece of philisophical thinking, filled with anything but flawed symbolism and meaning.

I mean one of the main themes is choice, while the whole story is literally driven by prophecy.

 

Holy shit, you're saying that JKR used Deus Ex Machina as a solution for lazy writing?

Someone stop the presses, this is breaking news.

 

I noes, revolutionary idea right?

But thats just getting sidetracked. I just hate the idea that going in solo against a basilisk is somehow morally superior or something

 

Assuming that would have even worked, seeing how the entrance was concealed with magic.

How do they know that it opens with Parseltongue? Harry didn't know, he just guessed. If you could figure out or notice that sort of thing just by looking at it, the Chamber would have been found long ago.

"B-but Harry could have still turned back after opening the entrance! He could have run to a teacher then!"

Yes. And then the teachers would have been coldcocked by the sealed stone door inside the Chamber proper, because none of them speaks Parseltongue. So while they're running back and forth dragging Harry around between his dormitory and whatever current Parselroadblock that's in their way, Riddle is draining Ginny dry.

Riddle pretty clearly stated that he was only a little bit away from taking Ginny completely. If the teachers had kept starting and stopping and going to get Harry to open doors for them, she would have been dead and Riddle whole by the time they got there.

Even if they took Riddle, and they probably could, Ginny still dies, and there's no guarantee that the teachers could take a thousand year old Basilisk. At least one person dies, probably several more, Hogwarts closes because Ginny and probably a third of the faculty died, everyone goes home, Harry Potter is probably dead, and the Basilisk might still be in there. The end, game over.

Harry did the right thing.

I get what you're trying to do, but you're failing. And that's sad, because what you're trying to do isn't even hard. You don't sound like someone pitching a rational argument against an illogical inconsistency. You sound like one of those guys who goes off and writes crap divergence stories based around ideas like "what if Harry just shot Voldemort in the face," or "what if Harry brought a tank with him and carried it around in his magical trunk."

 

You're talking Calvinism and predestination, and meanwhile Harry is off in the corner pulling swords out of a talking hat to save his best mate's sister from a giant snake.

The snake talks too, by the way.

 

In hindsight we know the various ways to get into the chamber. Harry knew none of them at the time, right thing to do is go get teachers.

oh and how come nobody ever has a problem with him kidnapping Lockheart at wand point and forcing him down into a situation likely to get him killed? Just cuz Lockhearts unlikable? Nobody ever has a problem with Harry's morality choices then.

 

Not necessarily. It's still possible to believe in choice and free will while acknowledging that circumstances influence them.

Of course you won't, because there's a risk of being arrested, embarrassed, or worse. And that's the whole point. Not every choice is purely a matter of individual desire.

 

He was the defense teacher. If anyone, out of all the adults in the castle, had "this is my job" written on their forehead, in regards to the Chamber, it was Lockhart. Forget Dumbledore for a moment; yes, we know he's what passes for a badass in HP, but he's an old man and an administrator. If anyone at Hogwarts should have been going down that pipe, it was the Defense teacher, and that was Lockhart.

He tried to bugger off, they tried to get him to do his job. He confessed to memory-theft and general douche-baggery, they forced him to go with them. He tried to mind-wipe them and leave them for dead, and he reaped what he had sown...

I honestly can't cry any tears for Lockhart.

If anything, I applaud Harry and Ron for actually trying to get ONE single adult in the entire series to take some fucking responsibility.

 

Yes he was a twat. They forced him to go before the mind wipe so thats irrelevant. It was still certainly something I'd consider criminal behavior. Murder of a sleezy douche is still murder.


Also, he's a teacher. Not a basilisk slayer. If he was his position would be the Defender from the Dark Arts.

 

How the fuck was it murder? Lockheart blew his own brains out because he was dumb enough to use a broken wand to try and wipe someone's mind. Did you even read the book?

You're reaching for straws harder than Rumpelstiltskin with alimony.

Lockheart is the Defense Professor. Discarding Dumbledore, he's supposed to be the most competent adult in the castle when it comes to defending against the Dark Arts. And he built his entire reputation on slaying and defeating monsters, some of which were exceedingly dangerous.

That Lockheart never actually did any of those things is irrelevant. He claimed he did. He touted the reputation. In short, he lied.

That Lockheart blew his own brains out with a memory charm while being unwillingly dragged along on an expedition to fight an actual monster is the height of poetic justice and precision-guided karma. Any possibility that I could have had about feeling sorry for him vanished when he cheerfully admitted that he was perfectly willing to let Ron, Harry, and Ginny all die in the Chamber so his cover story cannot be contradicted.

Lockheart got exactly what he had coming to him full in the fucking face. If he didn't want to get roped into hunting down murderous serial-killer monsters, maybe he shouldn't have padded his resume with fifty odd instances of doing it solo.

 

I was just referring to the risk of what could of happen.

Let's rewind to the point where he forces Lockheart into the Chamber. Now lets say for the point of argument that he doesn't try to memory charm and run and goes along at wand point. The three of them go into the chamber, Snake comes out and he dies.

How much is Harry at fault? Quite a bit. He forced someone into a situation that recklessly endangered their lives. At the time of the "kidnapping" he was guilty of what? Lying on his resume, and stealing credit + memory charms? That's not really worthy a death sentence. I'd even argue that memory charming and running would be reasonable self defense.


It just happens that Lockheart is a twat nobody likes, so we write it off. But it doesn't give Harry morale ground to stand on.


and I just used murder as an example. My point was comitting a crime against someone whose a douche isn't actually excused just because he's a douche.

 

So, basically you're convinced that you are right and won't be swayed from that point.

Amazing. Surely you are the first person that this has ever happened to. That being the case, I concede to your impenetrable logic.

What Harry and Ron did to Lockhart was an ironclad case of vigilante justice, and the only two witnesses were complicit in the crime, so even if Lockhart weren't a drooling fucking turnip after his attempt at mind-murder failed and backfired, he'd have absolutely no one to cry to about how he was wronged, because it's his shitty word against theirs, and they just saved the fucking day.

Again.

So, you know... tough titties for Lockhart. I'm sure if he still knew who he was, he'd be gratified that at least one person is shedding a tear for him. :awesome


Yes, it was sarcasm, and I can promise you it was written while wearing a shit-eating grin.

 

"Lockhart got what he deserved" is different from "Harry did the morally right thing".

Even after Harry and Ron realised that Lockhart was incompetent, had lied and was not going to be helpful (and in fact would attempt to resist) they still forced him to come with them. This is very stupid, but putting that aside it was not morally right for Harry to forcefully bring Lockhart with them.

He forced him into danger knowing that he wasn't going to capable of defending himself, them, or save Ginny (he didn't even have his wand!). As Russano said, had things played out differently Harry would have been responsible for his death in addition to kidnapping him.

This isn't about feeling sorry for Lockhart, it is simply about whether Harry made the right decision.

I argue that this particular decision wasn't procedurally* nor morally right.

*He should have, knowing Lockhart was useless, gone to the remaining teachers.

Things might have played out that way in the "procedurally correct" route. However you don't think about what might have happened in the "morally correct" route at that point when the decision is being made. I think it was extremely likely that Harry would simply die to the basilisk. The end.

It is far more likely that the teachers (would immediately bring in the Ministry and they) would be able to save Ginny (even given the time constraints) than it would be for Harry to be able to go up against a basilisk.

So no, it wasn't the morally correct choice for him at the time given what he knew because it was more likely that there would be a bad ending (and, unknown to him, it would have been a very bad ending).

Also Harry chose the "procedurally correct" route by telling the teacher(s) - at this point would he have gone and hid if Lockhart had told him to? Lockhart would have told the other teachers. So saying that he would have hid when he told the other teachers is not being consistent.

Edit: The above (after the quote) changes slightly depending on exactly when this (tell the teachers or go solo) decision is being made.