On page 70-71 (chapter five) Haarry and Lupin have a argument on
whether or not Harry should have used the disarming spell against the
death eaters or a more violent spell.
"Lupin looked
aghast. 'Harry, the time for disarming is past! These people are trying
to capture and kill you! At least stun if you aren't prepared to kill!'
'We
were hundreds of feet up! Stan's not himself, and if I Stunned him and
he'd fallen, he'd have died the same as if I used Avada Kedavra!
Expelliarmus saved me from Voldemort a few years ago,' Added Harry
defiantly" and on page 71
"'So you think I should have killed Stan
Shunpike?' said Harry angrily.
'Of course not,' said Lupin, 'but
the Death Eaters- frankly, most people- would have expected you to
attack back!"
It seems clear that this is a debate deeper then spells. I think that J.K Rowling is showing both sides of the argument for and against using violence in self-defense, in short it seems she is referencing war. The argument ends with Harry saying "I won't blast people out of my way because they are they're there. That's Voldemort's job." To me this means that you shouldn't kill people (like in war) because they are fighting for the "bad guys" whether it be the death eaters or a army. If you kill people because they are killing people then that sort of defeats the purpose. But is it worth it to save more people?
I would say that because of how the conversation between Lupin and Harry ended that J.K Rowling agrees with Harry, that you can't fight fire with fire but in the end Harry kills Voldemort. Though sort of unintentionally but he still dies (I'll write about that later.) So she can't be totally anti-violence. It's like she is saying that you can't kill tons of people because like in a war many of these people are innocent but if you have to kill the source of the violence then it is okay. Like in World War 2, the Nazis were soldiers under the influence of Hitler. Hitler is like lord Voldemort and the Death Eaters are like Nazi. So was it right to go to war and kill these solders to stop Hitler from killing people?
I understand what she is saying and I think that the concept of war is wrong. I mean killing people for what? Money? Power? In those cases war is unnecessary. However in a situation like World War 2 or Voldemort, it is necessary. Until the day there is world peace and no one tries to kill anyone, it is better to kill death eaters/nazis who are going to kill huge populations of people then to let death eaters/nazis live and kill the entire muggle/Jewish population.
What I find really interesting is that when Voldemort dies the wizards celebrate. Much like how when Osama Bin Laden died many Americans and 9/11 victims celebrated. Is it just human nature that when someone who seemed so evil dies that we celebrate. Even Voldemort had some human in him. Was it wrong for them to celebrate? Should anyone be killed for killing?
This is a great point you've created! I think that whatever humanity Voldemort may have had, it was so miniscule that to destroy him shouldn't even count as murder because Voldemort can't really be counted as human, considering all the times he's split his soul (and had them destroyed). So really, I believe the wizards and witches had a right to celebrating his demise. After all, they weren't only celebrating because of his death but what it meant for the world.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I do think that there are people in the world who deserve to be killed for killing. Certainly Adolf Hitler deserved death, even if it would be a mercy compared to the horrors he put millions of people through.