Is Voldemort really evil?

[jackofwind]

Doesn't answer my question, nor negates the situation you want to apply it to.

He doesn't care.

He's arguing for moral relativism as a way to understand a character whose creator has explicitly stated is unable to be saved, has fragmented his soul into numerous pieces leaving him just a husk of a human if he can even be called such, and is literally incapable of feeling empathy or love.

He turned himself into a monster in his search for power and he can't go back.

That being said, the OP has already established that he doesn't have a firm grasp on the Potterverse, let alone biology or historic fact. This is a person who argued that the Romans killed the leaders of Celtic society because they practised human sacrifice, a falsehood that quite aptly demonstrates a truly ignorant concept of ancient history.

[Halyon]

He doesn't care.

He's arguing for moral relativism as a way to understand a character whose creator has explicitly stated is unable to be saved, has fragmented his soul into numerous pieces leaving him just a husk of a human if he can even be called such, and is literally incapable of feeling empathy or love.

He turned himself into a monster in his search for power and he can't go back.

I know. Hence I brought up Snape earlier, who it would actually work for. He acted like an asshole to most people, especially Harry, but he still held on to the love for Lily to be a double agent, constantly risking his life, carrying out Dumbledore's instructions, and protected both Harry and the other students as much as he could to that end.

He could've been saved, if you will, more readily than Voldemort.

[jackofwind]

I know. Hence I brought up Snape earlier, who it would actually work for. He acted like an asshole to most people, especially Harry, but he still held on to the love for Lily to be a double agent, constantly risking his life, carrying out Dumbledore's instructions, and protected both Harry and the other students as much as he could to that end.

He could've been saved, if you will, more readily than Voldemort.

I would put forth the idea that Snape indeed was saved. He couldn't steer away from the path he was set on because he had a role to play in weakening Voldemort and protecting Harry, but he told his story before he died and was remembered as the hero he truly was and not the monster he was thought to be by those who didn't know the whole story.

I firmly believe that Snape got on the train as a fully human soul.

[Gothicshark]

Is Voldemort really evil?

Yes. The problem is there is two types of moral compasses. The first is defined by a religion, these are inaccurate and can be vastly different between the various religions. The second, is the "humanist" rout of morality, it is based on empathy, to be good is to work for the betterment of all and to harm none, to be evil is to work just for the self.


Now, when looking at a character either from history of fiction, you can test them on both ideals. The thing is depending on your religion will determine if the character was good or evil, however, when using the humanist empathy test, it become really clear.

Voldemort, was trying to build personal power, at the expense of people he deemed inferior.

Religion Test, most would say evil, a few would ask if he was a member of their faith, and then declare evil or good based on that, empathy pure evil.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Then there's also no point in even talking about it.

Everyone is right because everyone think they're right. There, we've had every conversation about moral relativism that can possibly even exist.

*Stabs a innocent civilian* But I believe I am right to do this.


*Blows up a building* But I believe I am right.


Moral relativism is stupid as shit.

[Deleted]

He doesn't care.

He's arguing for moral relativism as a way to understand a character whose creator has explicitly stated is unable to be saved, has fragmented his soul into numerous pieces leaving him just a husk of a human if he can even be called such, and is literally incapable of feeling empathy or love.

He turned himself into a monster in his search for power and he can't go back.

That being said, the OP has already established that he doesn't have a firm grasp on the Potterverse, let alone biology or historic fact. This is a person who argued that the Romans killed the leaders of Celtic society because they practised human sacrifice, a falsehood that quite aptly demonstrates a truly ignorant concept of ancient history.

Maybe he's just trying to argue the possibily of kinda of an engineered "redemption". That is, we could probably "save" ourselves through technology/reeducation etc., so, one day, we can all live happily ever after in an utopic world where no one will be allowed to be "evil". Well, I've heard that one before...

[Independent voter]

*Stabs a innocent civilian* But I believe I am right to do this.


*Blows up a building* But I believe I am right.


Moral relativism is stupid as shit.

I think so too, but-- What about a culture like the Druids who believed in human sacrifice? Say in their culture they had a million followers who believed the same. Moral relativism is correct in this case because the culture at large, where everyone grew up believes human sacrifice is not only okay, but a good thing.

Individuals breaking from a culture of a million individuals and coming up with their own rules, not so good.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I think so too, but-- What about a culture like the Druids who believed in human sacrifice? Say in their culture they had a million followers who believed the same. Moral relativism is correct in this case because the culture at large, where everyone grew up believes human sacrifice is not only okay, but a good thing.

Individuals breaking from a culture of a million individuals and coming up with their own rules, not so good.

Because they were made to believe such a thing and thus their culture was wrong. You're going into culture realtivism. It's still wrong.

[Vanyali]

Because they were made to believe such a thing and thus their culture was wrong. You're going into culture realtivism. It's still wrong.

Not to mention pretty much all cultures before and since have had some degree of human sacrifice.. it's a fairly modern thing to gasp and say no it can't happen, humans are too special to sacrifice to the gods.

[Halyon]

I would put forth the idea that Snape indeed was saved. He couldn't steer away from the path he was set on because he had a role to play in weakening Voldemort and protecting Harry, but he told his story before he died and was remembered as the hero he truly was and not the monster he was thought to be by those who didn't know the whole story.

I firmly believe that Snape got on the train as a fully human soul.

Maybe. I do wonder if he'd survived, how it'd have gone though. The length of time he'd spent being in danger of blowing his cover on either side etc, what he'd have been like.

Rowling stated herself she was surprised and saddened that people liked Snape so much. She herself stated that he was a bully and very jealous, a bad person based on all the bullying teachers she'd had while in school. Maybe so, but it takes some significant chops to do what he did for that length of time, successfully to boot.

[jackofwind]

Maybe. I do wonder if he'd survived, how it'd have gone though. The length of time he'd spent being in danger of blowing his cover on either side etc, what he'd have been like.

Rowling stated herself she was surprised and saddened that people liked Snape so much. She herself stated that he was a bully and very jealous, a bad person based on all the bullying teachers she'd had while in school. Maybe so, but it takes some significant chops to do what he did for that length of time, successfully to boot.

I think we liked him a lot because even though he was petty and a bully by the end of the story he did the right thing. That fact coupled with the glimpses of his childhood which paint James Potter in a very negative light, and the fact that his love for Lily Potter was so true and so undying, caused him to become a much more sympathetic character to people.

The when you understand that he was a double agent who was willing to sacrifice everything to protect a boy that embodied everything he had grown up loathing and thus overturn a tide of darkness he becomes even more sympathetic and also tragically heroic.

I really think that Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape helped immensely in him gaining popularity as well, because it was genius character acting.

- - - Updated - - -

I think so too, but-- What about a culture like the Druids who believed in human sacrifice? Say in their culture they had a million followers who believed the same. Moral relativism is correct in this case because the culture at large, where everyone grew up believes human sacrifice is not only okay, but a good thing.

Individuals breaking from a culture of a million individuals and coming up with their own rules, not so good.

The Druids weren't a culture, they were the priestly caste of Celtic society. Like nearly all ancient religious sects, Druidic tradition included human sacrifices as a means to appease fertility deities. Currently we abhor these practices, but in ancient times they were certainly not unheard of or even considered to be extravagant.

Culture at large didn't believe human sacrifice wasn't okay, most other cultures believed that it was completely acceptable given the circumstances it was conducted in. You seem to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of ancient history, ancient societal structure, and basic cultural anthropology premises.

Before you continue to argue your point of view, which appears to be based on your own version of historical fact and lack of knowledge of the stated canon of the Harry Potter IP, you may want to simply consider that in this particular instance you are incorrect.

[Independent voter]

Before you continue to argue your point of view, which appears to be based on your own version of historical fact and lack of knowledge of the stated canon of the Harry Potter IP, you may want to simply consider that in this particular instance you are incorrect.

Tacitus, the Roman Historian and the only written source for much of what we know about the druids writes:

"They deemed it indeed a duty to cover their altars with the blood of captives and to consult their deities through human entrails."

I'm not sure why you are arguing so fervently over a simple example of moral relativism. You're saying Tacitus got it wrong? I have no way to prove what happened in 4-600AD.

[Vanyali]

Tacitus, the Roman Historian and the only written source for much of what we know about the druids writes:

"They deemed it indeed a duty to cover their altars with the blood of captives and to consult their deities through human entrails."

I'm not sure why you are arguing so fervently over a simple example of moral relativism. You're saying Tacitus got it wrong? I have no way to prove what happened in 4-600AD.

Your idea that the Romans killed the druids because it was inherently wrong is flawed.

No one has said the druids didn't have human sacrifices, just that it was an acceptable practice throughout most of history (up until modern times, more or less), and wasn't the reason the romans went after the druids anyway.

[Aberrict]

Harry Potter is one of most Black and White morality stories of modern literature. Voldemort is given no redeeming characteristics nor valid justifications whatsoever within the story.

Also you should have posted this in the Cinema / TV Shows / Music / Books forum.

[Wells]

Harry Potter is one of most Black and White morality stories of modern literature.

Hardly. One of the strongest themes in the 7th book is the grayness of human nature. It takes Harry several books to come to grips with the idea that his dad could be kind of an asshole at various points and still a good person. Sirius gets killed in large part due to his aggressive mistreatment of Kreacher, but he's also a kind and dedicated step father. Dumbledore plots to overthrow the government at one point in his life. Snape is a terrible asshole who spends a significant part of his life putting himself in mortal danger to protect the last vestiges of the woman he loved. Even Harry suffers from temper and anger issues throughout the books. Voldemort is only one character.

[vaeevictiss]

Voldemort was as evil as can be, i dont even know how you question that? He wasnt even a good evil.

Good evil? Since we are talking fiction here anyway, a good evil is what i call characters like Anakin Skywalker, Illidan, and Arthas. Anakin and Illidan you can say were a bit selfish, but when you really look at it, the story of Arthas was tragic and heartbreaking. The guy just saw his people were in danger, and wanted so bad to do anything he could to protect them. Nobody either wanted to help him, or were afraid to do so. As all good guys gone bad in WoW, he got his calling in a bad way. He went after frostmourne. So jaded at the time by the passion for his people, he paid no attention to what was behind it. Ner'zhul basically played him like violin. Once he took ownership of Frostmourne it was all over. He then made his way to Icecrown (where Illidan actually tried to stop him), and then the transformation became complete. He and Ner'Zhul were one. Not until Tirion shattered Frostmourne, and his crown came off, did he really realize what he had done. The last thing he saw was the spirit of his father that died as his hands (Frostmournes first kill if im not mistaken). I mean that is just awful.

Nothing voldemort has ever done was anything like that. He was completely selfish, and his motives were for his own benefit. He never had good intentions for anyone but himself and cared for no one. His wanton murder of innocent people was testament to that fact. I dont even know how someone could think otherwise.

[Independent voter]

Harry Potter is one of most Black and White morality stories of modern literature. Voldemort is given no redeeming characteristics nor valid justifications whatsoever within the story.

Also you should have posted this in the Cinema / TV Shows / Music / Books forum.

Read the OP, I thought "moral relativism" was a pretty decent topic for general. Sorry so many got upset. A lot of you who are posting I've never seen post in General Off Topic. I think most of the regulars see it as par for the course around here.

- - - Updated - - -

Voldemort was as evil as can be, i dont even know how you question that? He wasnt even a good evil.

Read the OP.

[Deleted]

Have been thinking about moral relativism lately and I recently re-watched the Harry Potter series.

Say there is this tribe in Borneo who believes that you should only wipe your butt on a tree trunk, to use your hand is evil. You're thinking that using your hand works perfectly fine for wiping your butt and it's not evil at all. Evil in this case is relative to the beholder. The tribe thinks we're evil and we think they are silly.

Voldemort cavorts with snakes. Not his fault as he was born with an affinity to snakes and can speak their language. Sure the snake is a symbol of evil in Christianity, but the animal could've been a crow just as easily.

Voldemort researched forbidden knowledge in the library's restricted section. Forbidding technology is silly. Would you restrict the knowledge of gun powder? Did Noble restrict the knowledge of TNT? No, he made millions of dollars off of it. Who get's to call knowledge "restricted"? Didn't Voldemort do a service by exposing forbidden knowledge?

Voldemort killed Harry Potter's parents. Well, they were trying to kill him.

Voldemort plotted the death of Dumbledore. True but Dumbledore was plotting the death of Voldemort.

Voldemort was different. If we kill everyone who is different, we're in for a long day.

Voldemort caused a war and people died. People die in war all the time. Voldemort might've had reasons to declare a war.

I think using a fictional well know character like Voldemort is better than using someone like Hitler cause Hitler carries a lot of emotional baggage.

He was treated like shit and was an orphan, but he did seem to have some sociopathic tendencies.

There are lots and lots of holes in the Harry Potter story. The complacency, hypocricy and inconsistency of the staff and the wizarding community in general are two of them.

[Wells]

He was treated like shit and was an orphan, but he did seem to have some sociopathic tendencies.

There are lots and lots of holes in the Harry Potter story. The complacency, hypocricy and inconsistency of the staff and the wizarding community in general are two of them.

How is an apathetic populace a hole?

[Halyon]

I think we liked him a lot because even though he was petty and a bully by the end of the story he did the right thing. That fact coupled with the glimpses of his childhood which paint James Potter in a very negative light, and the fact that his love for Lily Potter was so true and so undying, caused him to become a much more sympathetic character to people.

The when you understand that he was a double agent who was willing to sacrifice everything to protect a boy that embodied everything he had grown up loathing and thus overturn a tide of darkness he becomes even more sympathetic and also tragically heroic.

I really think that Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape helped immensely in him gaining popularity as well, because it was genius character acting.

I agree. Even if I wasn't head over heels for him, and I wouldn't really call him a hero as such, but he was a key factor. If not the key factor in why they were even able to beat Voldemort in the first place, and keep Harry (and a lot of other people) safe. Weather he cared about that or not is another matter though, his starting point and motivation was based on something positive.

I wouldn't call him a bad person. Troubled and flawed, but not bad. He, like you said, still did what was right in the end.

Voldemort is not even close to that. At all. Snape is a saint in comparison, regardless of what Rowling herself has said.