Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts

by David Baggett

  Harry’s fears are understandable since he is assaulted constantly by the notion that there is no freedom for the individual. Muggles like Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia insinuate that Harry is bad simply because of his magical powers. Aunt Marge, ignorant of Harry’s powers, has a more general theory: “If there’s something rotten on the inside, there’s nothing anyone can do about it” (PA, p. 25). All three seem to believe that people are born “bad” or “good” and that life is simply a working out of this fundamental nature or fate.

  Many wizards hold a similar fatalism, ranging from those who follow astrology to those who believe that it is the non-magical people who are inferior or simply bad. Sibyll Trelawney, the flaky Divination teacher, is only known to have made one or two accurate predictions in her life, but she influences students nonetheless with her own view that people have no choice about their lives, but are instead acting out a fate decreed by the stars. Other wizards think that the stars have little to do with it, but that the purity of wizard blood does. The Malfoy family is obsessed with this theory that an individual’s worth has to do with being “pure-blooded”; Draco often refers to Hermione as “mudblood,” an insulting term for one who has both Muggles and wizards in her family tree. Sirius Black’s family (whose motto is toujours pur—“always pure”) shares the belief. Finally, Cornelius Fudge, the archetypal ineffectual administrator who heads the Ministry of Magic, also seems to believe this theory. When, in Goblet of Fire, large numbers of wizards realize Voldemort has returned and is making alliances, Fudge hesitates to contact the giants because they are hated by much of the wizarding community. His assumption that wizards are superior in kind to other rational magical creatures as well as to non-magical people is reflected in the statues displayed at the Ministry of Magic: stone renderings of assorted magical creatures gaze up adoringly at a wizard and witch.

  Dumbledore, the constant voice of wisdom, spends much of his time refuting these fatalistic views of the person. Of prediction of the future, he tells Harry that because “the consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is very difficult business indeed…” (PA, p. 426). Dumbledore’s logic depends upon the freedom of the individual and the fact that our choices will have unforeseen consequences, in part because our actions affect the options and motivations of others as they make their own choices. For example, the cruelty of the Malfoy, Crouch, and Black families toward their house-elves has unexpected consequences, just as Harry’s kindness to Dobby (the Malfoys’ house-elf) earns him a humble ally who helps him in surprisingly important ways. Further, as Dumbledore suggests, Harry’s mercy toward Pettigrew (now a Death Eater) may prove pivotal in a future encounter with Voldemort. People are not puppets, acting out a script written in the stars by an impersonal fate. We cannot simply consult the stars and find out what kind of people they are or determine how they will react to a given action or event.

  Nor can we simply find out about the person’s abilities, whether they are magical or non-magical, and then determine their character. To discern the kind of person we are dealing with we must look elsewhere. In Chamber of Secrets, Dumbledore reminds a worried Harry that though he shares many characteristics and even talents with Voldemort, he is not like him:

  “It [the Sorting Hat] only put me in Gryffindor,” said Harry in a defeated voice, “because I asked not to go in Slytherin… .”

  “Exactly,” said Dumbledore, beaming once more. “Which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are far more than our abilities.” (CS, p. 333)

  Harry had considered his place in Gryffindor to be a dodge of the Sorting Hat’s proper decision, a decision it would presumably have made without Harry’s input. He thought his request “interfered” with the hat’s judgment. In direct contrast, Dumbledore asserts that this view treats Harry’s choice as external to the course of Harry’s life rather than the central determining factor it truly is. Despite their similarities, Harry and Voldemort’s choices set them decisively apart.

  Our choices, not astrologers’ charts and certainly not our bloodlines, show what we are in the here and now. But the choices we make also change us and make us what we are and will be. Dumbledore tells the “race-conscious” Cornelius Fudge, “You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow up to be! See what that man [the son of a prominent wizarding family] chose to make of his life!” (GF, p. 708). We are what we choose to make our lives. We are evil only if we choose evil. Here, the Potter books again follow Augustine and Thomas Aquinas: moral evil results from free choice of the will. Our choices involve privation when we choose lesser goods over greater goods.88

  Of course, since choosing evil is to choose something less, it’s much easier to choose it. That’s why human beings, says Dumbledore, “have a knack for choosing the worst” (SS, p. 297). It’s easier to go along with an angry crowd, a corrupt institution, or even your own emotions, than to stop, determine what the truth is, and then make the decision it entails. Peter Pettigrew illustrates that this decision for good is especially difficult when it could require great personal sacrifice. Harry learns that he and his parents were protected from Voldemort by the Fidelius Charm, which “involv[es] the magical concealment of a secret inside a single, living soul” (PA, p. 205). As the name of the charm implies, the Potters’ protection depended on the fidelity, the faithfulness of this friend:

  The information is hidden inside the chosen person, or Secret-Keeper, and is henceforth impossible to find—unless, of course, the Secret-Keeper chooses to divulge it. As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and never find them. (PA, p. 205)

  Peter Pettigrew was the Potters’ Secret-Keeper. Voldemort is powerful, but he could never have found the Potters unless Pettigrew chose to betray them. In the end, Pettigrew’s fear of Voldemort and desire to save his own life outweighed his devotion to the Potters. Pettigrew desperately claims that he had no choice—Voldemort was too powerful, he himself would have been killed. In response to Pettigrew’s protests, however, Sirius Black reminds Pettigrew he did have a choice. Even in the worst-case scenario, Pettigrew had the choice of saving his own life or the lives of the Potters. He chose the easier and lesser path; he chose to betray his friends to their murderer and to save his own life. Pettigrew feared Voldemort for good reason. The choice to resist Voldemort often demanded great sacrifice as the consequence: many wizards died for their defiance of Voldemort, and Neville Longbottom’s parents were tortured to the point of insanity. Pettigrew’s choice also has far-reaching consequences but of a different sort. In saving his own life, he has radically changed it. His choice loses him his other friends, forces him into years of hiding, and eventually binds him to Voldemort as a slave. An individual’s choice for good or a choice for evil shapes this person and brings lasting consequences for oneself and for others.

  Seeing Clearly, Acting Bravely

  Throughout the series, Harry is learning how to recognize good and evil and how best to act on this knowledge episode by episode, in bits and spurts, as Voldemort’s power increases and the stakes grow. What makes the plot so dynamic is that it follows the complicated pattern of real life. Neither Harry nor any of the other characters, including Dumbledore and Voldemort, is either all good or all evil. As Sirius tells Harry, “[T]he world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters” (OP, p. 302). For example, Professor Snape, a former Death Eater who can barely hide his dislike for Harry’s father and, largely by association, for Harry, has chosen to renounce past ties and fight with Dumbledore against Voldemort’s return. On the other side, as Harry is dismayed to learn, his father and Sirius Black could be cruel and arrogant when they were teenage students at Hogwarts, and the adult Sirius remains impulsive to a fault. But both grew into men of great courage, a
nd both chose to risk their lives to battle Voldemort and to protect those whom they loved. Even a Death Eater can choose to act for the good, and good people are not entirely perfect people.

  These characters and others who populate the Potter books help to clarify the task set before Harry and his friends. Part of growing up is taking seriously the importance of seeing clearly, of recognizing good and evil for what they are, and trying to act for the good and against the evil. Just like humans in real life, Harry and his friends do not always judge properly or act properly in every situation despite what are generally earnest efforts to do so. They sometimes jump to conclusions or act impulsively or emotionally before they have made a proper judgment. Again, just like real humans, these mistakes can harm others; for example, Harry’s admirable desire to help Sirius in Order of the Phoenix inadvertently puts Sirius and others in danger. This was because Harry didn’t learn to guard his mind from the influence of Voldemort. The stakes are real for them and for us. But the key is to keep trying to clear one’s vision and set one’s heart in the right direction.

  There are some who will simply try not to judge at all. They bury their heads in the sand and try not to make a decision. Cornelius Fudge refused to take action simply because he refused “point-blank, to accept the prospect of disruption in his comfortable and ordered world—to believe that Voldemort could have risen” (GF, p. 707). This is the easy way. Try not to make a decision. But the decision will need to be faced eventually. And it will be a harder, sadder decision. Perhaps we should heed Dumbledore’s word. His speech to the school in Goblet of Fire serves as a clarion call:

  Remember Cedric. Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory. (GF, p. 724)

  When the mask of evil is ripped off, it is death that we find, not life. When the choice of evil seems “easy,” remember Cedric Diggory.

  11

  Voldemort, Boethius, and the Destructive Effects of Evil

  JENNIFER HART WEED

  The Dark Lord Voldemort viciously murders Harry Potter’s parents before turning his wand on Harry himself. Miraculously surviving the attempt on his life, baby Harry is placed in the custody of his Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon, who subject him to an indifferent and abusive childhood. In one instant, Voldemort changes the course of Harry’s life forever. Harry suffers the loss of his parents, while Voldemort seemingly is benefited by the absence of the Potters. Even worse, Voldemort continues living a life filled with malicious activities.

  If one takes a closer look at Voldemort’s life after he murders the Potters, however, it becomes clear that he receives something other than the benefit of having two less wizards to oppose him. A physical transformation occurs in Voldemort that is both deforming and frightening, which seems to be the result of his evil actions. While Voldemort’s deformities cannot ease Harry’s suffering, they can provide some assurance that Voldemort is negatively affected by his misdeeds.

  The view that evil actions have a destructive effect on an evildoer has a rich history. Indeed, such a view is found in the writings of the fifth-century philosopher Boethius.89 According to Boethius, an individual determines his character by virtue of the actions that he performs, and so it is up to him either to better or worsen his character depending on the decisions that he makes and the actions that he performs. Evil will always be self-destructive to the evildoer despite appearances to the contrary, although such self-destruction does not alleviate the suffering of an evildoer’s victims.

  Boethius and the Destructive Effects of Evil

  The portrait of evil that is manifested in the character of Voldemort exemplifies the account of evil given by the philosopher Boethius. Anicius Boethius (around A.D. 480-524) wrote his most famous work, The Consolation of Philosophy, while he was awaiting execution by the Ostrogothic king, Theodoric. Boethius had held the privileged position of consul to Theodoric, but had been denounced as a traitor and placed under house arrest. Although the circumstances surrounding his arrest and execution are unclear, Boethius claims to have been accused of treason unjustly amidst a life of loyal service.90 Like Harry, Boethius mourned his separation from his family, and so to comfort himself, Boethius wrote a story about the nature of evil and the effects of evil on evildoers.

  Boethius says evil is “parasitic” on goodness, a characterization that he borrows from St. Augustine. According to Augustine, goodness is prior to evil. Evil is not a thing that exists on its own; evil exists as a parasite on goodness. For example, the love that Petunia Dursley has for her son, Dudley, is good. But her habit of indulging Dudley’s every wish and whim to the point of spoiling him is bad. In this sense, spoiling Dudley is an example of a mother’s love gone wrong. She cannot spoil Dudley without first loving him. Her love for Dudley, however, has become misplaced and misdirected to the extent that she no longer provides limitations to his childish desires, such as his unhealthy preoccupation with the number of his birthday presents. The act of spoiling Dudley is parasitic on her love for him.

  Other evil actions can be similarly explained. Augustine suggests that one way of thinking about evil as a parasite on goodness is to view some evil actions as the result of turning away from higher goods in favor of lower goods. He offers the following example:

  [The will] turns to its own private good when it desires to be its own master; it turns to external goods when it busies itself with the private affairs of others or with whatever is none of its concern; it turns to goods lower than itself when it loves the pleasures of the body. Thus a man becomes proud, meddlesome and lustful; he is caught up in another life which, when compared to the higher one, is death.91

  An example of turning away from a higher good in favor of a lower good can be found in the character of Voldemort. He prizes above all else political power and influence, which are not in themselves bad things. Because he so values power, he attempts to annihilate all those who oppose him. Rather than pursuing higher goods, such as love and friendship, Voldemort turns to murder and deceit to ensure his rise to power.

  Boethius takes the Augustinian definition of evil as parasitic on goodness and applies it to his own view of human nature.92 According to Boethius, human beings differ from animals inasmuch as human beings possess the capacity for rational thought.93 Moreover, human beings have the ability rationally to control their physical desires and to direct all of their behavior towards the highest good. According to Boethius, the highest good for human beings is happiness. Human beings can, however, pursue happiness in a variety of different ways. Boethius argues that the good person pursues happiness through virtue while the evil person pursues happiness through other desires:

  Now the highest good is the aim of good and evil men alike, but good men seek it by natural exercise of the virtues, whereas evil men try to acquire it through desires of one kind or another, and not through the natural faculty of attaining the good.94

  Boethius argues that happiness, since it is a good, cannot be achieved through evil acts. Happiness can only be achieved through virtuous activity.95 At least one effect of evil on the evildoer is that it prevents him from achieving his ultimate goal in life: true happiness. Draco Malfoy, for example, consistently taunts and bullies Harry, Hermione, and Ron. Boethius would argue that these actions prevent Draco from achieving happiness. In this way, Draco not only injures his classmates, he also injures himself by acting in such a way as to impede his own happiness. It seems clear from Rowling’s books that Draco is an unhappy character.

  The loss of happiness, nevertheless, is not the same thing as self-destruction. One might wonder how evil actions are self-destructive to an evildoer. Boethius answers this question in the following passage:

  Observe now the nature of this punishment which attends the wicked, by contrasting it with the situation of the good … . Whatever departs from the good
ceases to exist, so evil men cease to be what they had been before. Of course, the very appearance of the human frame which they still possess shows that they were men; thus by resorting to wickedness they have lost their human nature as well. Since goodness alone can raise a person above the rank of human, it must follow that wickedness deservedly imposes subhuman status on those whom it has dislodged from the human condition … . In this sense he who abandons goodness and ceases to be a man cannot rise to the status of a god, and so is transformed into an animal.96

  Boethius concludes that just as evil diminishes a human being by causing him to lose his natural goal, happiness, so evil dehumanizes the evildoer. In other words, evil actions transform an evildoer from a human being into an animal, not literally of course, but figuratively. Remember, in Boethius’s view it is the ability to reason that differentiates human beings from animals. Human beings have the capacity to rationally control their desires and their actions so that they can achieve happiness. When a human being commits evil acts he is abandoning happiness, which is the natural goal of his rational capacity. So the evildoer is a defective human being. He does not rationally control his desires and he abandons his pursuit of true happiness. As a defective human being the evildoer resembles an animal, who lacks this capacity altogether.