Right? Wrong? Unethical? Justified?, Ethics in Goblet of Fire |
 Feb 1 2009, 06:54 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Smart Cookie  Posts: 3,083 Joined: 1:26am September 30, 2006 Location: Somewhere in time and space    |
Right? Wrong? Unethical? Justified? Ethics in Goblet of Fire      Questions of right and wrong (and somewhere in-between) are important from the very beginning of the series, and they seem very prominent in Goblet of Fire. In the end, it goes as far as Dumbledore saying to the Great Hall full of students that, in the coming war, everyone will have to make choices between what is right and what is easy. All throughout the book we find instances of questionable behaviour - just a few examples: In the very beginning of the book, Fred and George try out their (quite dangerous) Ton-Tongue Toffee on Dudley. Just before the first task Moody tells Harry that cheating has always been a part of the Triwizard Tournament. All throughout the year Rita Skeeter is turning into Animagus to get the best scoop on what is happening at Hogwarts. The ethical questions come up when we try to take a closer look at the situation and see characters' actions from different points of view. What we see as ethical behaviour often depends on our point of view and whether we're fans of particular characters or not. For example, Fred and George know that Dudley is on a diet, and they deliberately tempt him with Ton-Tongue Toffees. Many fans (like me) cheer because the Twins manage to give Dudley a bit of payback. Others look at the situation from Dudley's point of view (I reluctantly do that too...) - he experiences quite some pain and horror - and think that Fred and George have stepped over the line from harmless joke to unethical behaviour. So, let's look into some of the ethically questionable situations that arise in this book and see whether the characters can be justified, what makes the behaviour ethical or unethical, what lessons (if any) can be learnt from the situations and so on. Why do you think ethical and moral questions are so important in Goblet of Fire (and other HP books)? Or is it the contrary? Why? What ethical dilemmas catch your attention? What messages do we get from them? What do you think one can learn from those situations? You're welcome to bring up ethical issues that catch your attention or any thoughts that occur to you about this topic in Goblet of Fire, and stay tuned - I'm going to be bringing up some situations and questions all throughout this reading group. Fred and George get up to some mischief What are your thoughts about the incident with the Ton-Tongue Toffees? Why do you think Fred and George can or cannot be justified? What do you think about the Twins trying so hard to get some money - betting on the outcome of the Quidditch Cup Final and using the bet to promote their fake wands, then pretty much blackmailing Bagman to get their winnings and trying to cheat to get into the Triwizard Tournament? You don't have to know business ethics, but do you think Twins' attempts can qualify as fair and ethical? Why? Gambler Bagman Do you think Bagman being the Head of the Department of Magical Games and Sports can (should?) be allowed to bet and gamble at all? Why / why not? Do you think Bagman can be justified in any way in using the disappearing leprechaun gold to pay the betters their winnings? Why? What makes a good lesson - teacher's ethics What do you think about some of the teachers' behaviour in this book? Are they always equally fair to all the students? Do you think they have to be fair to all students? Why? What is your opinion about Moody turning Malfoy into a ferret, Hagrid breeding and having lessons with Blast-Ended Skrewts, Snape's behaviour in the incident when Malfoy's spell makes Hermione's teeth grow uncontrollably? Do you think all these teachers' behaviour is equally (un)ethical? Why? What do you think makes the difference, if there is any? Rita's journalism ethics Can you think of any way to justify Rita for all those "tricks" to make good stories - using her Animagus form to spy on people, creating rumours, changing the facts to suit her better, etc.? Do you think any of those "tricks" could comply in any way with the rules of ethical journalism? Why? Do you think Rita's reaching for the right goal? Why? Do you think we can judge all journalists of the wizarding world based on Rita's example? Why? What do you think about wizard journalists' ethical code in general - for example, the fact that the Ministry of Magic apparently is keeping quite a tight grip on The Daily Prophet? Unwritten rules of the Triwizard Tournament What is your opinion about Moody declaring that cheating is a traditional part of the Tournament? What does this says about the unwritten rules wizarding world in general? Do you think that justifies Karkaroff and Madame Maxime cheating to help their champions and Moody giving Harry helpful hints about how to approach the first task (maybe disregard his secret agenda to deliver Harry to Voldemort)? Why? What could we learn from Dumbledore who seems to be the only one not cheating? What do you think about the fairness of the judges? Do you think Harry is cheating when he tells Cedric about the first task? Why? What about Cedric helping Harry with the second task; Ron, Hermione and Dobby all helping Harry with the tasks? Death Eaters' code of conduct How do you think the Death Eaters view ethics? What makes them think that they are doing the right thing? Do you think Karkaroff disobeys "Death Eaters' laws" when gives away the names of some Death Eaters to the Council of Magical Law and when he runs away? Why? How about that if we try to look from the "good side" point of view? What do you think of the reasons Voldemort punishes his Death Eaters for? Are those ethical / justifiable? Why? This post has been edited by Wandguardnoodle: May 14 2009, 08:37 AM -------------------- I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine. (P&P)
Images from adair7, iconsbycurtana, pirogoeths-icon @LJ.   |
 |
 
 
|
|
Feb 8 2009, 11:00 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Getting Fitted for New Dress Robes  Posts: 57 Joined: 12:46pm January 4, 2006 Location: Ireland |
Really interesting question and one I hadn't considered before - I may come back with better answers after I've thought about it a bit
 .Why do you think ethical and moral questions are so important in Goblet of Fire (and other HP books)? Or is it the contrary? Why? From a literary POV, I would assume that the ordinary/lesser ethical dilemmas in GoF are a build up to that remark from Dumbledore which, after all, does basically sum up the series. As for whether it's ever the contrary, I'd suggest the fact that Unforgiveables become routine in DH. Ethical concerns about that, IIRC, are never really raised in the later books yet in GoF Sirius definitely criticises Barty Crouch Sr. for, among other things, allowing the use of Unforgiveables on DEs, saying that he became nearly as dark as the DEs themselves (paraphrase, haven't got the books on hand). What ethical dilemmas catch your attention? What messages do we get from them? What do you think one can learn from those situations? The Crouch dilemma. I think that because Crouch Sr. never really attracts our sympathy (and because Jr. turns out to be so dramatically and thoroughly guilty) it's easy to overlook that situation, but it's a genuinely tough one for Crouch Sr. It's an intriguing semi-reverse of Sirius' situation - DE child and "good" parent instead of vice versa - and neither Sirius nor Crouch Sr. deal with their dodgy relatives particularly well. Admittedly Sirius manages better than Crouch but it obviously seriously embitters him. Out of interest, what do you think would have been the best way for Crouch Sr. to deal with his son? For one thing, it's hard to know whether he actually knew he was guilty or whether (as Sirius mentioned) he just wanted to get him out of the way. Obviously if he knew his son was guilty it was his job (easier said than done) to convict him but should he have tried to visit him? Actually showed that he cared? Ethically, what do you think about the Polyjuice switch? -------------------- And now Harry, let us step into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure - Albus Dumbledore RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 8 2009, 12:37 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 7 Joined: 10:22pm July 23, 2007 |
QUOTE(Wandguardnoodle @ Feb 1 2009, 06:54 AM)  Why do you think ethical and moral questions are so important in Goblet of Fire (and other HP books)? Or is it the contrary? Why? What ethical dilemmas catch your attention? What messages do we get from them? What do you think one can learn from those situations? What I love about Goblet of Fire is that this is where it becomes clear that these are not "just" children's books. Children love them, yes, but the deeper moral aspects of the Wizarding World give adult readers plenty of meat to ponder and discuss. The series boils down less to "good and evil" than to "right and wrong." Voldemort's biggest blunder is his failure to love--how's that for a moral issue? It's not because he kills tons of Muggles for fun, or because he Imperiuses people to make them do what he wants--it's that he fails to understand the power of love. Love and Magic are the same thing in this world, if you look at the deepest meaning of Magic--Love is the most powerful magic, that protects first Harry and then everyone he cares about from harm. I'm going to have to go back to actually reread GOF to really answer this question, but I have to say that LyraSilvertongue brings up the big one for me: Crouch and his treatment of his son. I keep reformulating my thoughts. GoF is also the first book where we start really seeing wizard mistreatment of other races. Hermione brings it to our attention with S.P.E.W.--and Hermione is absolutely right, even though Hagrid tells her that freeing House-Elves would be cruel because they LIKE being enslaved. Just because a group of people is used to being subjugated, it doesn't mean they should be. But a moral dilemma here might be the issue of really "freeing" House Elves. The House Elves themselves are party to their enslavement, and convincing them otherwise would be a very tough sell. In PoA we saw how Lupin is treated because he's a werewolf--and you can kind of understand that, because werewolves are pretty scary--but Lupin isn't. Would more werewolves be like Remus if they were treated fairly? How about Giants? Rita reveals that Hagrid is a half-Giant, and he almost loses his job because of it--but he's clearly not scary (though Grawp is at first!). How much of the trouble Wizards have with other races has to do with Wizards mistreating the other races? By Deathly Hallows it's absolutely crystal clear that wizards are at least half responsible for the difficulties they've had with other races--but in GoF it emerges as a real theme. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 9 2009, 03:12 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Muffin Mistress  Posts: 2,178 Joined: 10:42pm March 8, 2008 Location: RG Cookie Factory - reciting: "Oven at 350 F is too warm to touch with bare hands" |
QUOTE(LyraSilvertongue @ Feb 8 2009, 06:00 PM) Out of interest, what do you think would have been the best way for Crouch Sr. to deal with his son? For one thing, it's hard to know whether he actually knew he was guilty or whether (as Sirius mentioned) he just wanted to get him out of the way. Obviously if he knew his son was guilty it was his job (easier said than done) to convict him but should he have tried to visit him? Actually showed that he cared? Ethically, what do you think about the Polyjuice switch? The first thing that spring to me is how oldfashioned Crouch Sr. treats his son: Why not just TALK with the boy? Only way to teach anyone anything is to communicate and that doesn't do it with actions alone after a certain age (different from child to child) but when they get nearer their adult age it's especially important to be specific and talk like never before!!! That's my oppinion for a first step at least! Being a decent human being as parent is still over all other measures though. I just realised I've taken up some ethical dilemmas over in Straw Poll. This was about Rita Skeeter: QUOTE We at least "know" where she's placed in the universe!!!! There's really no surprices with that woman and only thing that worries me is, that appearently there's not many ways to contradict her - even with evidence, because we only hear about the Quibbler and the wireless as other means of newscasting in WW. It's odd, isn't it? That gives ms. Skeeter such a huge amount of power, doesn't it? How's that feasible? How's that allowed? Another is about Ludo Bagman: QUOTE Ludo really can't help it. He's a sportsman and nothing else. Having been pampered and believing in his own mighty-ness himself. Forgetting to ponder whether he really was qualified to have such a job, he's just so immature and with no voice of reason to guide him thoroughly, he fell into the "I'm a STAR, I'm huge"-trap! Why does so many people think they have a value in simply being famous??? What do they think they are adding to their surroundings? I fail to see how a goal or a nice photo should make me care more for their oppinion than the doctor that helps my child or the public servant that comes and help me! I just wonder about that fame thing. Is the "Fame-thing" and ethical dilemma? -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Feb 9 2009, 04:30 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 17 Joined: 2:23pm February 2, 2009 Location: Vermont |
Hi,
I really want to thank you for this interesting question; I'll think about it as I read. Some very thoughtful posts already, though. I'm thrilled at the level of discourse. I think the ethical and moral ambiguities are what make the books readable and re-readable for adults like me (us). My experience is that true classics are shaded gray rather than black and white. As for Mr. Crouch and his son:. What if BCJr had a history of sociopathic or cruel behavior in his past? That seems entirely possible given what he does as a DE and later when he impersonates Mad Eye. His ability to be kind to Harry, and things like turning Malfoy into a ferret makes me think he has a deep psychological disorders. Those things don't usually just pop up--they are visible in children. Also, in the book I don't think there's anyplace BCSr could have/would have mentioned his sons history. (Winky certainly wouldn't/couldn't.) Mrs. C is dead and can't talk--but she stayed with Mr. C. after the sentencing. In the end BCSr took his wife to Azkaban to see their son before s(he) died, let him move in, and go to the QWC! There are other socio/psychopaths in the books too, like Bellatrix. (Azkaban didn't make her crazy she started that way.) But they are integrated into society--just as they are in our world. (Bernie Madoff anyone??) Drunks don't single out or really notice other drunks, sadists are sympathetic to other sadists. Etc. Barty Sr. fights lots of demons. He abhors disorder and hypocrisy. He applies the same rules to everyone (almost) which tears him apart and makes him so miserable and rigid. I sense he is heartbroken as well as scandalized and embarrassed. He may also be obsessive compulsive. A pathetic character to my mind. (If every reader, of any age, took 1/2 the moral and ethical lessons JKR put into the series away with them--and applied them in their daily lives--the world would indeed be a better place.) -------------------- "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are..."
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2009, 12:43 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 17 Joined: 2:23pm February 2, 2009 Location: Vermont |
This topic continues to intrique--and it's applicable to so many situations in the books.
One seemingly benign lapse seems to me to be the decision to NOT play Quidditch at Hoqwarts because of the Triwizard Tournament. Doing what is best for the many is one of the great lessons of the series, but here the decision prevents all the Quidditch players from playing their beloved sport (and getting exercise), all the Houses from having the opportunity to get the Q Cup, and stops the students from getting to watch the matches--which they obviously love attending. The Triwizard Tournament was supposed to involve only 3 students (HP, our hero wound up in it, of course) and there would be, as far as I could tell, only minimal involvment from the staff. Perhaps I missed something, but with the exception of the first task--the dragons--the other two took place in a way than none of the spectators could really, well, spectate. They couldn't see into the lake or into the maze, could they? So they sat. And waited. It seems antithetical to the overarching themes of the books (selflessness and sacrifice for the good of the many). That said, I certainly understand why JKR made that choice. As a reader I find the tasks very exciting, and GoF is probably my favorite book in the series. I also understand the Ministry's desire to foster unity between the schools; however I'm not sure a rivalry like the Tournament brings people together (but that's another issue entirely). But each time I reread the book, and the scene where DD makes the announcement, I can't help but think that the vast majority of students is losing out. -------------------- "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are..."
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2009, 09:38 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Muffin Mistress Posts: 2,178 Joined: 10:42pm March 8, 2008 Location: RG Cookie Factory - reciting: "Oven at 350 F is too warm to touch with bare hands" |
QUOTE(Leora @ Feb 9 2009, 11:30 PM) I think the ethical and moral ambiguities are what make the books readable and re-readable for adults like me (us). My experience is that true classics are shaded gray rather than black and white. As for Mr. Crouch and his son:. What if BCJr had a history of sociopathic or cruel behavior in his past? That seems entirely possible given what he does as a DE and later when he impersonates Mad Eye. His ability to be kind to Harry, and things like turning Malfoy into a ferret makes me think he has a deep psychological disorders. Those things don't usually just pop up--they are visible in children. Also, in the book I don't think there's anyplace BCSr could have/would have mentioned his sons history. (Winky certainly wouldn't/couldn't.) Mrs. C is dead and can't talk--but she stayed with Mr. C. after the sentencing. In the end BCSr took his wife to Azkaban to see their son before s(he) died, let him move in, and go to the QWC! WOW, you really make some good posts! And I completely agree with your view about the grey-scale in re-readable books. Now for Mr. Crouch jnr. - I thought the things he did with being kind to Harry and the ferret scene (One of my all time favourites  ) was due to his keeping the real Moody alive and interogating him whenever a situation arised where he needed to know what the real Moody would have done, because it was important he kept up appearance in the vicinity of Dumbledore! Both he and Voldemort knew, that Dumbledore would look right through the disguise if he didn't pull it off completely! And Dumbledore gave Moody the task to have an eye out for Harry, so he had to do exactly that.As for Crouch senior (I've seen what "crouch" means and it made me baffled how it suits both) - I'm quite sure he neglected the boy while growing up and left it to the mother to take care of things. Not the best choise in this case. -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Feb 12 2009, 07:43 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Smart Cookie Posts: 3,083 Joined: 1:26am September 30, 2006 Location: Somewhere in time and space |
Oh, wow, guys, - you've raised some interesting ethical dilemmas here.
I think that ethical and moral questions are very important throughout the series. However, maybe they are more pronounced and easily noticeable in this book. I think, Lyra spots it really well - that all the dilemmas in GoF sort of lead to Dumbledore's final words about choosing what is right vs. what is easy. I think, in the first books, the issues are there, but they are not lingered on for long - Hagrid being sent to Azkaban in CoS, Lupin being a Hogwarts teacher (one could look at so many different angles at this one, I think), for a couple examples. Then we have GoF, which seems kind of the "peak" at least as far as openly addressing ethical and moral issues goes. And then from here it becomes more complicated, I think - for example, in OotP Sirius explains how the world isn't split into good people and DEs and, as it's been pointed out, in DH, Unforgivables become quite a usual practice for the "good" side, as well.  how I could I forget Mr Crouch and his son - good spot, Lyra. It certainly must have been a difficult situation for Mr Crouch... Since it turns out that Crouch Junior was actually guilty, I think, Crouch acted right that he sent him to prison - but then, I'm completely disgusted at how Mr Crouch did it - saying that he has no son anymore I mean, criminal or not, he was still his son. I think that Mr Crouch probably had neglected his son and I agree with T-Dane that just talking more with the boy would have done some good.Interesting question, Leora - about whether Crouch Junior might have had some... erm... issues prior becoming a Death Eater. I would think that it might indeed be possible, but this just leaves even more, well, blame to his parents - I mean, they surely must have seen something? And even if it wasn't noticeable, it should have become clear quite quickly if someone talked to the kid, right? So, in my opinion, it was amoral of Mr Crouch to treat his son like that - assuming he did indeed neglect him and then said he wasn't even a son to him anymore. And it became, I think, a real work-ethical issue when Mr Crouch was actually the judge of his son trial (for the lack of a better word). What do you, guys, think of that? Do you think it was appropriate for Mr Crouch to effectively be the judge of his son trial? Why? -------------------- I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine. (P&P)
Images from adair7, iconsbycurtana, pirogoeths-icon @LJ. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 12 2009, 03:32 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Muffin Mistress Posts: 2,178 Joined: 10:42pm March 8, 2008 Location: RG Cookie Factory - reciting: "Oven at 350 F is too warm to touch with bare hands" |
I for one cannot see that it in any way can be either ethical nor morally ok to be a judge at your own sons trial.
The mere risk of being accused of being prejudiced and have the verdict tainted by the doubt from others is what makes it impossible. However as a father he had a responsibility to act as a parent and stand up to that responsibility, but that is before and after the trial, he has that role and that commitment. It's a good tradition basically to distinct between the roles - like many countries do when the ruling, judging and executing parts are divided! As a parent you do have all three roles for some years, but when Barty jnr. came before a judge, he was no longer a child? Or was he? We do know the WW sets the line at 17 years old, so there is no doubt that he was personally responsible for his actions and as such his father should no longer be a factor in the sentensing? -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Feb 12 2009, 10:27 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 17 Joined: 2:23pm February 2, 2009 Location: Vermont |
I must say I think you're all right about a variety of things (including the ferret scene being perfect!). Crouch Sr. was a totally awful parent in every way. And he should definitely have recused himself from the trial; it's an obvious conflict of interest.
Which brings us to the areas where our worlds (Muggle and Wizard) collide. I view Mr. Crouch and his son as nuts--but I'm using a Muggle template for nuts--and for trials too. Good therapy and better drugs would have changed everything for the Crouch family, but wizards rarely adopt muggle practices. (Mr. Weasley's stiches in OP are proof.) I know they do feel superior (and are?!) which explains a lot. I just think it's interesting that there are absolutely no references to muggle culture other than to things like telephones and cars. The fact that there is no Beatles or Sinatra, no movies, and most importantly, no God is intense. The books aren't even placed in time, except Dudley has a Playstation. I know this isn't about ethics per se, and I suspect since you've all been posting for years that you've already tackled these issues in past threads. (I'm pretty new to all this, as you can tell by my number of posts.) Still I find the overlaps and the divergences really fascinating. And I find it interetsting that I'm allowed to take some of my muggle attitudes into the text with me but then I'm supposed to leave others outside. As I reread I'm really going to look at BCJr/Mad Eye this time. I agree that there's a method to his madness, and his impression is--and must be--spot on. He would have been nailed by DD had he not been perfect. But then again, how much does DD know--how much does he see? If and when he does see all clearly is it ethical for him to watch Harry suffer and hold back help? That leads back to the big picture and the bigger moral questions and dilemmas, of course. I wonder, do any of you see DD as a God figure and Harry as the Christ figure? Was I an English major for too long?  Just slap me. Or lightly stun....
-------------------- "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are..."
|
|
|
|
