Evil acts have a dehumanizing effect on a human being; they cause the human being to resemble an animal. For example, it is revealed in Prisoner of Azkaban that Peter Pettigrew told Voldemort the location of James and Lily Potter, enabling their murder. Peter subsequently disguises himself as a rat in order to hide from the Potters’ friends. We can interpret the physical transformation of Peter into a rat as indicating the moral state of his character. Peter “rats out” the Potters to Voldemort, and then Peter physically becomes a rat. Rowling seems to treat Peter’s act of betrayal symbolically, diminishing him from a human being to an animal.
Augustine argues that evildoers eventually lose their ability to distinguish between right and wrong: “The man who does not act rightly although he knows what he ought to do, loses the power to know what is right.”97 If Augustine is correct, then another way in which an evildoer is dehumanized is through losing the ability to make moral judgments. Without the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, the evildoer begins to resemble an animal, since animals lack this ability also. There are significant differences between an evil human being and an animal, however. For example, Peter Pettigrew is morally worse than a rat because a human being is supposed to be able to tell good from evil and choose the good, while a rat never has this ability. Human beings only lose their ability to differentiate between good and evil when they voluntarily commit evil actions. So their loss of this ability is their own fault.
According to Boethius, an evildoer abandons his own proper nature in committing evil actions. In the very act of abandoning his nature as a rational animal, the evildoer abandons the best part of himself. The very act of rejecting part of himself leads only to an internal division in the evildoer, which in turn leads to misery and greater self-destruction; it can never lead to happiness. The evildoer destroys himself by rejecting part of himself and by failing to live up to his potential. So, truly, the evildoer undergoes a “dehumanizing” and self-destructive transformation when he commits evil acts. With every evil act the self-destruction becomes greater as the evildoer consistently rejects his own nature. Voldemort experiences this kind of spiraling self-destruction after he attempts to murder the whole Potter family.
Voldemort and the Destructive Effects of Evil
Lord Voldemort is both a terrible and powerful wizard, sowing “discord and unrest” among the other characters (GF, p. 725). Many of the Potter plots center on Voldemort’s schemes to achieve world domination and the efforts of the virtuous wizards, including Harry, Hermione, and Dumbledore, to stop him.
In the first book, Sorcerer’s Stone, we are introduced to Voldemort as a murderer. Hagrid, Harry’s friend, explains that it is Voldemort who murdered Harry’s parents and who tried to murder Harry, too (SS, p. 54). Voldemort is an attempted child-killer, a “wizard who went bad” (SS, p. 54). The indifference with which he treats human life is evidence of his corruption. He does not recognize the humanity and the worth of those around him; all he sees are obstacles on his own path to power. His willingness to murder Harry displays his callous refusal to distinguish between innocent “non-combatants” and his enemies (SS, p. 291). All who stand in Voldemort’s way will be destroyed, regardless of their age or innocence.
Voldemort denies the very existence of good and evil (SS, p. 291). In this respect, Voldemort mirrors the Augustinian-Boethian account of evildoers who begin to resemble animals in their decision making. Voldemort either refuses to distinguish between good and evil or he lacks the ability to make such a distinction, just like an animal. Indeed, Voldemort deems all things permissible in his quest for power, including killing children. Harry’s schoolmates are understandably terrified of Voldemort and they refuse to pronounce his name, choosing rather to call him “You-Know-Who” (PA, p. 106).
As the only human being to escape from Voldemort, Harry is marked by Voldemort’s hatred. Harry has a lightning bolt scarred on his forehead, which is the sign of Voldemort’s attempt to murder him (SS, p. 55). But Harry’s scar is not the only effect of Voldemort’s attack. Voldemort himself explains the strange turn of events that occurred the evening that he murdered Harry’s parents:
My curse was deflected by the woman’s foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded upon myself. Aaah … pain beyond pain, my friends; nothing could have prepared me for it. I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost … . but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know … . I had no body. (GF, p. 653)
Through Lily’s love for her baby, the curse that Voldemort had used with the intention of murdering Harry was turned back on Voldemort himself. He was reduced to “something barely alive,” a creature not quite human and yet not quite a ghost, either (GF, p. 20). In this transformation we see a dramatic, literal portrayal of the self-destructive effects of evil. Through his attack on Harry, Voldemort is physically reduced to something less than human, something that requires care and support from his followers to survive.
One would think that the loss of Voldemort’s body and the resultant suffering would be enough to cause him to re-think his activities and his choices. Given the fact that it was his own quest for power that motivated him to attack the Potters in the first place, Voldemort might blame himself for his sorry state. There is no evidence, however, that he considers this possibility or that he learns any kind of moral lesson from his ordeal. Voldemort’s lack of introspection on this matter, as on others, is another self-destructive effect of evil. His self-deception about his own moral failings is interesting given his attempts at deceiving those around him (SS, p. 294).98 He is blind to the true cause of his own dehumanization; he blames the Potters for the loss of his body (GF, p. 653). Far from accepting the blame for his own suffering and mending his ways, Voldemort becomes obsessed with getting his body back in order to continue his quest for world domination.
In his attempts to regain his human shape, Voldemort somehow attaches himself as a parasite on Professor Quirrell’s body (SS, p. 293). He also manipulates Quirrell into killing a beautiful unicorn for its life-giving blood, only compounding his self-destruction. As the centaur Firenze explains:
It is a monstrous thing, to slay a unicorn … Only one who has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, would commit such a crime. The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price. You have slain something pure and defenseless to save yourself, and you will have but a half-life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood touches your lips. (SS, p. 258)
Once again, Voldemort does not distinguish between his enemies and innocent “non-combatants” such as the unicorn. The unicorn’s life is expendable, as are the lives of all those who oppose Voldemort’s rise to power. Voldemort does not return to life unscathed, however. His cursed life is manifested both in his actions, which grow progressively more barbaric, and in his physical appearance. During a confrontation with Quirrell, Harry catches his first glimpse of Voldemort: “Where there should have been a back to Quirrell’s head, there was a face, the most terrible face Harry had ever seen. It was chalk white with glaring red eyes and slits for nostrils, like a snake” (SS, p. 293).
Voldemort typifies the parasitic nature of evil that Augustine identified. Bereft of his body and the ability to survive on his own, Voldemort’s only option for survival is to draw life from the body of another human being. Far from appearing attractive or beautiful, Voldemort is hideous and snake-like. He acts without any regard for the safety of Professor Quirrell or Harry (SS, pp. 291-95). In fact, Voldemort leaves Quirrell to die when it is clear that Quirrell has outlived his usefulness, further illustrating Voldemort’s view that the lives of other human beings are both worthless and disposable.
As if signifying his internal decay, Voldemort’s appearance worsens and becomes more grotesque throughout the stories. In a disturbing scene near the beginning of Goblet of Fire, Voldemort murders an innocent Muggle named Frank who just happens to enter the house in which he is hiding (GF,
p. 15). Just prior to his murder, Frank catches a glimpse of Voldemort. This glimpse is so frightening, Frank screams uncontrollably until Voldemort kills him. Voldemort’s appearance also frightens Wormtail, his disgusting little minion, as Voldemort says, “I revolt you. I see you flinch when you look at me, feel you shudder when you touch me” (GF, p. 9). If even his evil followers are revolted by the sight of him, Voldemort’s appearance must be frightening indeed.
The destruction that Voldemort experiences at each stage of his life is linked with his own choice of actions. First, he attacks the Potters and consequently loses his body. Next, he becomes a parasite and manipulates his host into killing a beautiful unicorn for its blood. Consequently his life is forever cursed. After leaving Quirrell to die, Voldemort disappears in search of another source of life (SS, p. 298). His condition and his disposition are so frightening at this point, however, that most of his followers abandon him, as Professor Trelawney intuits:
The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has been chained these twelve years. Tonight, before midnight … the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant’s aid, greater and more terrible than he ever was. Tonight … before midnight … the servant … will set out … to rejoin … his master… . (PA, p. 324)
Voldemort’s dependence on his followers indicates the extent of his own self-destruction. Once again, his helplessness could have been an opportunity for reflection or for redemption. Voldemort, however, seems oblivious to the fact that he is the cause of his own destruction and, further, that he is capable of correcting it. He ignores any possibility of reforming himself, becoming more and more violent and more and more intent on revenge. We can only predict that Voldemort will decay still further in the books to come. Barring any attempts to change his ways, Voldemort’s evil activities will probably result in his total destruction.
Voldemort and Moral Education
The effects of evil extend far beyond one’s victims or one’s community; the effects of evil are also received in the person of the evildoer. Voldemort’s progressive worsening throughout the stories should serve to teach readers about the self-destructive effects of evil and the ugliness of a wicked character. This self-destruction can be explicitly connected with Voldemort’s choice of actions, for example his murderous attempts, his manipulation of the weak, or his killing of animals. This self-destruction stands in contrast to the virtues manifested by Harry, Dumbledore, Ron, Hagrid, and Hermione, virtues such as courage, friendship, and love.
It is clear from the stories that both Voldemort and Harry are responsible for their own moral characters. Their actions and their choices determine the kinds of people that they become. Voldemort’s choices lead to his own ruin and suffering as well as the suffering of others, while Harry’s choices lead to his development into a courageous young man who is fiercely loyal to his friends. Although Voldemort’s self-destruction is not enough to alleviate Harry’s grief over the loss of his parents, it provides some measure of justice. The murder of the Potters serves to affect Voldemort negatively and to cause him to suffer.
As Boethius and Augustine point out, evil affects both the evildoer and the victim of evil. Through his own actions, the evildoer causes his own suffering. Although Rowling is probably not deriving this idea from Boethius and Augustine, she seems to agree with them. Voldemort’s progressive worsening seems to be a kind of suffering. Based upon the dehumanization and the self-destruction that attends the evildoer, the choice between the subhuman murderer and the courageous young wizard is an easy one, or ought to be. It is better to be the virtuous schoolboy than the more menacing, dehumanized Dark Lord.
12
Magic, Muggles, and Moral Imagination
DAVID BAGGETT
The vastly different attitudes toward a particular young wizard are truly remarkable. While shattering one publication record after another, the Potter series also elicits angry protests, hitting number one in the American Library Association’s list of the books most commonly challenged in school districts and public libraries in the United States. Some literary critics are among the series’ detractors, panning it as insignificant fluff, while others hail it as a minor classic. More than one critic has written that the books leave no room for the transcendent and numinous, while countless others level the charge that the books desensitize children to occult influences. Some view the books as contrary to Christian thought, while others see a deep congruence. Still others think of the Potter series as deeply moral, while certain vocal critics accuse it of advancing a highly subjectivist moral relativism. Just as Harry is amazed to discover his fame in the wizard world, he would be amazed to discover himself in a swirl of controversy among Muggles.
The Devil Made Harry Do It
The astounding success of the Potter series, particularly among children, has without question had the salutary effect of drawing huge numbers of young people into reading. This widespread influence, however, is part of the reason why many adults have such grave qualms about it. The stories are about wizards and witches, spanning several aspects of real-life occultism, from charms to numerology to ancient runes. It’s no small concern that impressionable children may be unduly drawn to occultism, whether it’s Wicca, Satanism, or variants of New Age theology.
Undoubtedly, many people immediately dismiss such allegations as worthy of serious consideration only by the likes of Ned Flanders, conspiracy-minded fundamentalists, and moralists. Some of the criticisms of the Potter series have indeed been humorless and contentious, as well as inadequately gracious and informed, none of which conduces to cordial debate. But neither does the condescension and dismissiveness expressed by some of the Potter supporters in the face of such criticisms. What’s needed is not name-calling and inflammatory rhetoric, but the kind of cool-headed and respectful analysis of the allegations in a spirit of friendly discourse that Dumbledore is famous for.
Most of those issuing the accusations not only believe in the reality of the spirit world, but also believe that not all spiritual forces are benign. Those who are skeptical about the supernatural understandably find it difficult to sympathize. If someone is doubtful of God’s existence, he is certainly less prone to take seriously Satan or demonic spirits, stuff thought best relegated to a pre-modern, superstitious past and a naïve, unscientific view of the world.
Detractors of the series are most concerned that the stories, wildly popular with children, tend to glamorize the occult, piquing kids’ curiosity about it and desensitizing them to its dangers by making it appear as harmless fun. Stirring children’s curiosity in this way, it is argued, makes them vulnerable to dark spiritual forces. Again, a charitable rendering of this view requires that we remember that such critics are neither agnostic nor skeptical about the existence of sinister supernatural influences.
It is not unduly difficult, with a little imagination, to feel the force of this objection. Children, our most valuable resource and investment, are impressionable and are susceptible to being misguided. A healthy process of socialization is vital to their emotional well-being and social adjustment. Such a process should carefully steer clear of those influences that carry inordinate risks of doing more harm than good. The possibility of the Potter series effecting such damage, many would argue, is ample cause for serious concern. Even a minor likelihood of such damage is enough to raise suspicion, given the potential seriousness of the consequences that early interest in the occult may incur.99
Defenders of Potter are likely at this point to remind us that the books are, after all, fiction, not to be confused with real life. But features of the books, it has been contended, blur the line between fantasy and reality. One of those features is among the books’ real virtues: their ability to engage the reader in identifying with the characters. Children’s imaginations are caught up in Harry’s world, identifying with his struggles, envisioning Hogwarts as real, and wishing to be part of such a pla
ce. The suggestion is that it is only a short step to believing that magic, too, is real and its resources available to the reader. Trips to most major bookstores may bolster critics’ suspicions, as they peruse shelf after shelf of books on occult themes. Such sections on witchcraft and magic often now overshadow those on philosophy.
Rowling admits that about a third of the magic-based material appearing in her books are or were actual historical beliefs. Children, the argument goes, can’t be expected to make the subtle distinctions between fiction and reality that more discerning adult readers can. So the perhaps unwitting effect of this confusion between fantasy and reality, especially among the youngest readers ill-equipped to tell the difference between what is real and what is not, could be a whetting of the appetite for the occult.
What’s Wrong with Harry?
Before assessing the quality of that case, let’s lay out another case that’s been made against Potter, this one on moral grounds. Although some have applauded the series for the way it extols the virtues, others have lambasted it for promoting the worst sorts of moral relativism and egoism. Richard Abanes, for example, accuses Rowling of projecting a morally ambiguous vision, in which infractions of rules often go unpunished, lying is an acceptable way to avoid trouble, and the distinction between good and evil is blurred.100 He thinks that morality is often complex and multi-faceted, but that the Potter books do nothing to contribute to such a nuanced understanding. In articulating such concerns, Abanes represents a significant number of Potter critics who sense danger lurking.
Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts Page 18
