ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: Shift8 on October 05, 2020, 08:40:20 PM
-
I was perusing the WOJ database looking for things that might be relevant to some BG theories. I came across one where Jim is responding to a person who is disappointed about changes. This persons complaint was that they had been wondering what would make Harry act in immoral fashion. Essentially, what kind of pressure would it take to make Harry go over the edge? This person was disappointed because as they saw it, the fact that Jim made it so that Harry was trying to save Maggie turned the moral dilemma into a cop out.
Jim then responds by explaining that Maggie being in danger doesn't excuse Dresden because that's not a good enough excuse.
My confusion is that I don't get what exactly Harry was supposed to have done wrong in Changes. What was the big moral dilemma?
-
In Changes, Harry was willing to get almost all of his friends killed in what was, as far as he knew, a vain attempt to rescue his daughter. He says several times that he was willing to let the world burn if it would get him Maggie back. He also believed he was selling his soul to Mab. Fortunately, the author hadn't entirely abandoned him so his bad intentions mostly came out okay. With two exceptions.
He asks a reforming warlock to help him commit suicide, which would lead the council to kill her as well, by coming up to the very edge of what is permitted under the Laws. Then he allows her, a sensitive magic user rather than a brawler, to come to a nexus of black magic and be in the middle of a nasty stand up fight with a gang of demigods plus their army. Molly was traumatized and, even if Harry had survived, might have lost her chance at not becoming a full-time warlock.
He also murdered Martin and Susan, which while justifiable by certain standards of morality is still something a stand-up hero should do.
-
-I don't recall Harry actually doing anything that got his friends killed or put them in danger. He asked people to help him, and they obliged. Also saving Maggie was a perfectly good reason to go to extremes. Not to mention that all of these actions were really part of the war with the Vampires, so nothing can really be said about the motives of Harry since he had knowledge that he was acting within said war. Saving his daughter was also tantamount to winning the war and saving himself and the Eb. Whatever Harry did, he acted knowing that he was acting within the context of the greater war.
-I dont see a problem with having Molly help him kill himself, especially since it was a fail safe against Mab manipulating him. I also don't see how allowing her to fight is a problem either. Molly is a big girl and makes her own choices. And asking a weaker person to fight is hardly a moral crime.
-That is and extremely....interesting...definition of murder. Martin was an asshole working for the Red Court and had betrayed them all. Susan literally told Dresden to kill her in order to take out the Red Court. Why should a stand-up hero not do that? Its not heroic to have absurd and unprincipled standards that are devoid of context. Even if Susan had not given her assent to Harry, he would have been justified in killing her to activate the spell because she was dead or worse if he didn't. The situation is so black and white its not even funny imo.
-
My problem with the position he put Molly in was, wouldn't him dying while she was under the doom inact her death sentence? The wizard who put himself out there to rehabilitate her dies, unless someone else stepped forward wouldn't she then be put to death? I always felt that was a bit crappy of him.
-
My problem with the position he put Molly in was, wouldn't him dying while she was under the doom inact her death sentence? The wizard who put himself out there to rehabilitate her dies, unless someone else stepped forward wouldn't she then be put to death? I always felt that was a bit crappy of him.
Molly is and was a big girl who can make her own choices. Dresden didn't mind control her. And he didn't ask favors lightly, he asked her to do it because of extreme need. That's not being jerk. And Molly took a risk, it was not a death sentence. As evinced by her still being alive.
-
-I don't recall Harry actually doing anything that got his friends killed or put them in danger. He asked people to help him, and they obliged. Also saving Maggie was a perfectly good reason to go to extremes. Not to mention that all of these actions were really part of the war with the Vampires, so nothing can really be said about the motives of Harry since he had knowledge that he was acting within said war. Saving his daughter was also tantamount to winning the war and saving himself and the Eb. Whatever Harry did, he acted knowing that he was acting within the context of the greater war.
-I dont see a problem with having Molly help him kill himself, especially since it was a fail safe against Mab manipulating him. I also don't see how allowing her to fight is a problem either. Molly is a big girl and makes her own choices. And asking a weaker person to fight is hardly a moral crime.
-That is and extremely....interesting...definition of murder. Martin was an asshole working for the Red Court and had betrayed them all. Susan literally told Dresden to kill her in order to take out the Red Court. Why should a stand-up hero not do that? Its not heroic to have absurd and unprincipled standards that are devoid of context. Even if Susan had not given her assent to Harry, he would have been justified in killing her to activate the spell because she was dead or worse if he didn't. The situation is so black and white its not even funny imo.
-He didn't give a rats ass about the greater war, the plan was to just grab Maggie and run.
-He pressured someone he knows is in love with him into helping kill him and then brought her to a place with a very real chance of shattering her mind (she's probably lucky in a sense that she was out from blood loss before the climax). And this plan then guaranteed her death because of the doom with a high chance of going mad before she dies. As her mentor this was some horrible decision-making on Dresden's part.
-He manipulated Susan into being a viable blood sacrifice before the end (and then years later conveniently left that part of the story out).
-
I'm mostly pointing out what people have raised as issues in the past. If you think everything Harry did was justified, that's a legitimate way to read the book. I'll still argue about it some but I'm not interested in pursuing every question.
Regarding Molly, her ability to make choices regarding Harry was compromised. He was her teacher, she had romantic feelings for him, she was her big damn hero, and she was already compromised by black magic. When you know how someone is going to answer, sometimes you have a responsibility not to ask. Even if she was an adult, Harry has a duty of care towards her as her teacher. He should not have led her into danger.
Interestingly, asking Molly to help kill him wasn't his fault, which further complicates the issue. Since that's how Molly was most grievously hurt.
-
-He didn't give a rats ass about the greater war, the plan was to just grab Maggie and run.
-He pressured someone he knows is in love with him into helping kill him and then brought her to a place with a very real chance of shattering her mind (she's probably lucky in a sense that she was out from blood loss before the climax). And this plan then guaranteed her death because of the doom with a high chance of going mad before she dies. As her mentor this was some horrible decision-making on Dresden's part.
-He manipulated Susan into being a viable blood sacrifice before the end (and then years later conveniently left that part of the story out).
-Doesn't matter what he gave a rats ass about. Motivations are irrelevant if the actions are justified. Saving his daughter was a perfectly good justification on its own for everything he did in the books, but even if it hadn't been it would not have mattered. Motivations make you guilty of nothing. Motivations only affect guilt if the actions committed could not have been justified given the circumstances. Ex: Hitler kills a rapist and saves a person from being raped. It doesn't matter if Hitler acting just because he knew the rapist was Jewish. That's not how moral responsibility works.
-None of that is morally bad. Asking things of people who love you is normal. She made her own choices and no one forced her. I don't consider the events regarding Molly to even be slightly objectionable. And it self-evidently did not guarantee her death because she is you know, alive. Harry asked his close friend to take some big risks for him. Big whoop.
-Manipulated? As I recall it was a spur of the moment thing when it became clear there were no other options. Susan was dead or worse regardless of what Harry did. If Harry had not gotten her to kill Martin, she would have died or suffered some other wrath of the Red Court. If not that, then she would have be forced into becoming a full vampire by the Red Court since she was in their custody. Moreover, Susan knew what she was doing when she did it. She made he own choices, the fact that Harry gave her that information for his own benefit is irrelevant.
-
I'm mostly pointing out what people have raised as issues in the past. If you think everything Harry did was justified, that's a legitimate way to read the book. I'll still argue about it some but I'm not interested in pursuing every question.
Fair enough, the point of this was for me to find out what the objections were anyhow.
Regarding Molly, her ability to make choices regarding Harry was compromised. He was her teacher, she had romantic feelings for him, she was her big damn hero, and she was already compromised by black magic. When you know how someone is going to answer, sometimes you have a responsibility not to ask. Even if she was an adult, Harry has a duty of care towards her as her teacher. He should not have led her into danger.
An adult never has their decision making compromised, at least not from the things you listed. She was an adult, it doesn't matter it he was her mentor. Would it be wrong for Eb to ask Harry for help? Of course not. It also doesn't matter that she was in love with him. Is it wrong to ask a spouse for help? I mean come on. And I reject entirely that black magic is real or works the way the WC thinks it does. The entire justification given by the WC is logically incoherent with regards to the laws of magic.
-
Molly is and was a big girl who can make her own choices. Dresden didn't mind control her. And he didn't ask favors lightly, he asked her to do it because of extreme need. That's not being jerk. And Molly took a risk, it was not a death sentence. As evinced by her still being alive.
Exactly, she'd also be dead if Harry hadn't stood up for her, so she owed him one. Also those that went to C.I. were grown ups, they knew what the Red Court was, they weren't forced, it was their choice to go.
Interestingly, asking Molly to help kill him wasn't his fault, which further complicates the issue. Since that's how Molly was most grievously hurt.
There is a moment I believe in Peace Talks where Harry express regret for what asking her to do it, did to her. I believe her answer was she'd do it again. No, it wasn't Harry's fault in the sense that it was the Red King that first murdered her foster family and then kidnapped little Maggie. Harry wouldn't even have known that she existed except Susan asked him to help save her. It wasn't his fault that the boarding house was fire bombed and that gas tank exploded just when he was on that ladder trying to save that old lady. It wasn't his fault that his back was broken and his spine severed, and his little girl was about to be killed along with himself and his grandfather and there wasn't anything he could do about it. He did feel that Mab was a monster, he didn't want to become her monster, yet to save his child this was what he had to do. He was hurt, worried, not himself at all, he cannot really be held responsible for coming up with the one solution he thought could prevent him from being used by Mab. Molly was of age, she was no innocent, look what she did to her friends, and she proved later in Turn Coat that she would do it again, putting Harry's head at risk as well as her own. As they say, it was a shit show all around, it is a miracle it came out as well as it did.
-
An adult never has their decision making compromised, at least not from the things you listed. She was an adult, it doesn't matter it he was her mentor. Would it be wrong for Eb to ask Harry for help? Of course not. It also doesn't matter that she was in love with him. Is it wrong to ask a spouse for help? I mean come on. And I reject entirely that black magic is real or works the way the WC thinks it does. The entire justification given by the WC is logically incoherent with regards to the laws of magic.
Two things: one, the entire body of criminal and civil law regarding sexual harassment disagrees with you. Two, Harry had agreed to be Molly's master. That means he had absolute duty to keep her alive and to keep her from turning into a warlock. He threw both aside in letting her come. It doesn't matter if she wanted to or not. What she wanted to was repeatedly break the laws of magic, it was his moral duty to override that desire. Same thing with going to C. I.
Mira, we have the (almost) literal word of god that Harry's suicide was compelled by one of the Fallen. Ergo, asking Molly to help kill him can't be Harry's fault.
-
Fair enough, the point of this was for me to find out what the objections were anyhow.
An adult never has their decision making compromised, at least not from the things you listed. She was an adult, it doesn't matter it he was her mentor. Would it be wrong for Eb to ask Harry for help? Of course not. It also doesn't matter that she was in love with him. Is it wrong to ask a spouse for help? I mean come on. And I reject entirely that black magic is real or works the way the WC thinks it does. The entire justification given by the WC is logically incoherent with regards to the laws of magic.
Notice your use of "I." Your conceptual gap is your fanon. You don't trust the White Council, or its understanding of how black magic works, despite Harry agreeing with them on how it works and "taints" the magic of a wizard or sorcerer.
Harry chose to make a Faustian bargain for selfish reasons- paternal love for a child. While sympathetic, it was in some respects the moral equivalent of having a child needing an organ donor and murdering people until a matching donor was found- that's what the "whatever" in "whatever it takes" means. Harry is going to kill whatever he needs to kill, and allow whatever friends and allies need to die to die, to save Maggie. He might feel bad about it later, but he's quite clear that feeling bad later isn't going to stop him now. That's . .not a good choice, from a strictly moral perspective.
It worked out for him. Intentions do in fact matter, not just actions. If my wife is having a heart attack and I run a red light because she's dying on the way to the hospital, but then run over a pedestrian, it is neither legally nor morally the same as slamming on my gas when I see a pedestrian walking to run them over laughing. One is Murder 1: Deliberate and malicious homicide, one is negligent homicide or reckless endangerment- I knowingly took actions I knew *might* result in the death of someone but neither intended them to result nor planned for them to result. It's why such distinctions exist. In fact, that's the essence of the self-defense defense Harry has vs Justin- Harry did not want to kill Justin, he wanted to not-be-dead from Justin, which required killing same. No malice or enjoyment, the intention was self-preservation.
Harry annihilated the Red Court- and the heroic Fellowship of St. Giles. Good with the bad. He didn't do it for the war, or even to save his own life- in that respect, *not* selfish. He did it for his personal child- not all the children the Red Court regularly killed. It was personal.
"Buts" are justifications, not validations.
-
Two things: one, the entire body of criminal and civil law regarding sexual harassment disagrees with you.
One, I don't care. Stupid laws are all over the place. You might even say that most of human history is a history of stupid laws, and lack of good ones. And two, something like and employer making unwanted sexual advances towards someone who knows they will be fired otherwise is not the same thing. Notice that I said, "for the reasons you gave here," and not "never compromised." I would also love to know how what Harry did qualifies as "sexual" harassment. If you think asking a person you know likes you to do you a non-sexual favor for legitimate reasons is sexual harassment, you have some funny ideas.
Two, Harry had agreed to be Molly's master. That means he had absolute duty to keep her alive and to keep her from turning into a warlock. He threw both aside in letting her come. It doesn't matter if she wanted to or not. What she wanted to was repeatedly break the laws of magic, it was his moral duty to override that desire. Same thing with going to C. I.
If you view Molly as an actual criminal (which I dont), then she is entirely responsible for her position and Dresden is not a fault here. Molly was going to be screwed anyhow since Dresden was going to be out of the picture regardless of whether she helped him or not. And Dresden agreeing to be Molly's mentor hardly deprives Dresden of his autonomy to save people he loves or quit frankly, do anything else he wants.
If you view Molly as not a criminal, but rather a victim of the pile of asshats that call themselves the WC, then Dresden is still not culpable. The White Council is responsible for both of them being in this position, so Dresden cannot be blamed for asking favors of her while she is under his Aegis. Dresden took responsibility for her when he did not have to. So she hardly has the right to claim he is abusing her if he asks her to do something for non-trivial reasons. Its not like Dresden is threatening Molly with with reporting her to the WC if she won't have sex with him or something. Dresden is acting to save his daughter and others. If Dresden were to die doing this, then Molly would be screwed under the doom. So by your logic, Dresden should never take any risks at all. Moreover, asking anything of Molly ever would be "harassment." In other words, you are basically arguing that Dresden is Molly's slave and is abusing her if he ever asks her for anything under any circumstances since it can be argued that she isn't there by choice.
-
Two things: one, the entire body of criminal and civil law regarding sexual harassment disagrees with you. Two, Harry had agreed to be Molly's master. That means he had absolute duty to keep her alive and to keep her from turning into a warlock. He threw both aside in letting her come. It doesn't matter if she wanted to or not. What she wanted to was repeatedly break the laws of magic, it was his moral duty to override that desire. Same thing with going to C. I.
He didn't harass her though, he did his best to keep her from going warlock. He didn't threaten or
coerce her into helping him. She was raised in a Catholic home, by devote parents, she received a Catholic education and no doubt is confirmed in the Church. She'd know exactly what Harry was asking, why, and that it was a sin to help him. She did it anyway, she is responsible for her part, she may not have thought it through, but she was not some silly dumb little girl not able to make a choice. You say it was his moral duty to override that desire, but how do you suggest he do that? She wasn't going to listen to an order not to go. He tried teach her what was right, she had her own ideas. If he locked her up or magically entered her mind to change it, he'd be guilty of other things.
He didn't suggest that she turn warlock by coming with him. Nor did he suggest she break the Laws of Magic by coming with him.
Mira, we have the (almost) literal word of god that Harry's suicide was compelled by one of the Fallen. Ergo, asking Molly to help kill him can't be Harry's fault.
And it wasn't, nor was Molly's decision to help him anyone's fault but her own. She knew the pros and the cons of helping him, she may not have known the actual emotional price she'd pay for it. But that can be said for any critical decision we make in our lives.
-
The point of bringing up sexual harassment is that adult's decision making is compromised when their teacher is asking them something. That's why professors aren't allowed to sleep with their students.
Your teacher shouldn't be asking you for sex and he shouldn't be asking you to risk your life and potentially go dark side. And an apprentice's master has even more authority over her than a professor or teacher.
-
Notice your use of "I." Your conceptual gap is your fanon. You don't trust the White Council, or its understanding of how black magic works, despite Harry agreeing with them on how it works and "taints" the magic of a wizard or sorcerer.
Harry chose to make a Faustian bargain for selfish reasons- paternal love for a child. While sympathetic, it was in some respects the moral equivalent of having a child needing an organ donor and murdering people until a matching donor was found- that's what the "whatever" in "whatever it takes" means. Harry is going to kill whatever he needs to kill, and allow whatever friends and allies need to die to die, to save Maggie. He might feel bad about it later, but he's quite clear that feeling bad later isn't going to stop him now. That's . .not a good choice, from a strictly moral perspective.
It worked out for him. Intentions do in fact matter, not just actions. If my wife is having a heart attack and I run a red light because she's dying on the way to the hospital, but then run over a pedestrian, it is neither legally nor morally the same as slamming on my gas when I see a pedestrian walking to run them over laughing. One is Murder 1: Deliberate and malicious homicide, one is negligent homicide or reckless endangerment- I knowingly took actions I knew *might* result in the death of someone but neither intended them to result nor planned for them to result. It's why such distinctions exist. In fact, that's the essence of the self-defense defense Harry has vs Justin- Harry did not want to kill Justin, he wanted to not-be-dead from Justin, which required killing same. No malice or enjoyment, the intention was self-preservation.
Harry annihilated the Red Court- and the heroic Fellowship of St. Giles. Good with the bad. He didn't do it for the war, or even to save his own life- in that respect, *not* selfish. He did it for his personal child- not all the children the Red Court regularly killed. It was personal.
"Buts" are justifications, not validations.
Notice your use of "I." Your conceptual gap is your fanon. You don't trust the White Council, or its understanding of how black magic works, despite Harry agreeing with them on how it works and "taints" the magic of a wizard or sorcerer.
Nope. This has been alluded to in WOJ, and in the books directly. The laws do not make moral sense. Luccio even says that they are about power, not morality. And you realize that both the WC and Harry can be wrong right? And even if this was not the case, I am well within my rights to have a "fanon" and argue the point if the "canon" doesn't make any sense.
Harry chose to make a Faustian bargain for selfish reasons- paternal love for a child. While sympathetic, it was in some respects the moral equivalent of having a child needing an organ donor and murdering people until a matching donor was found- that's what the "whatever" in "whatever it takes" means. Harry is going to kill whatever he needs to kill, and allow whatever friends and allies need to die to die, to save Maggie. He might feel bad about it later, but he's quite clear that feeling bad later isn't going to stop him now. That's . .not a good choice, from a strictly moral perspective.
It worked out for him. Intentions do in fact matter, not just actions. If my wife is having a heart attack and I run a red light because she's dying on the way to the hospital, but then run over a pedestrian, it is neither legally nor morally the same as slamming on my gas when I see a pedestrian walking to run them over laughing. One is Murder 1: Deliberate and malicious homicide, one is negligent homicide or reckless endangerment- I knowingly took actions I knew *might* result in the death of someone but neither intended them to result nor planned for them to result. It's why such distinctions exist. In fact, that's the essence of the self-defense defense Harry has vs Justin- Harry did not want to kill Justin, he wanted to not-be-dead from Justin, which required killing same. No malice or enjoyment, the intention was self-preservation.
Harry annihilated the Red Court- and the heroic Fellowship of St. Giles. Good with the bad. He didn't do it for the war, or even to save his own life- in that respect, *not* selfish. He did it for his personal child- not all the children the Red Court regularly killed. It was personal.
"Buts" are justifications, not validations.
- sorry but who did Harry Murder exactly?
-I said motivations, not intentions. There is a difference. Intentions are what you are striving to accomplish. Motivations are why you want to accomplish it. And I did not say motivations are totally irrelevant, I said they only apply in certain cases and in certain ways.
"If my wife is having a heart attack and I run a red light because she's dying on the way to the hospital, but then run over a pedestrian, it is neither legally nor morally the same as slamming on my gas when I see a pedestrian walking to run them over laughing."
Your right, these are entirely different. But its the action that is different. In case one the choice you made was to violate a utilitarian law (traffic laws) in order to save you wife. Given the circumstances, the violation is justified. In the second case you chose to violate the law without a good reason, and in fact you had a abhorrent reason which only increases the terribleness of the crime.
What you accused Harry of is entirely different. It would be like if Harry got in his car and decided to speed because he had to get his wife to the hospital. Then he ran a red light due to the first reason, but when he did so he thought it was funny when there happened to be a person there and he ran them over. The fact that he enjoyed killing the person makes him guilty of nothing, since the justification for running the red light was already present even if that person had not been there or they had never been run over.
" In fact, that's the essence of the self-defense defense Harry has vs Justin- Harry did not want to kill Justin, he wanted to not-be-dead from Justin, which required killing same. No malice or enjoyment, the intention was self-preservation."
If I enjoy killing someone in self defense it makes me guilty of nothing. What matters is why would not kill someone. In other words, if I enjoyed killing people, would I restrain myself from doing so if I knew there was no justification to do so.
-
The point of bringing up sexual harassment is that adult's decision making is compromised when their teacher is asking them something. That's why professors aren't allowed to sleep with their students.
Your teacher shouldn't be asking you for sex and he shouldn't be asking you to risk your life and potentially go dark side. And an apprentice's master has even more authority over her than a professor or teacher.
The difference here, as I went to great lengths to explain, is that the reason why you ask for something in a situation like this matters. If a professor asked his or her students for help in clearing their neighborhood of street thugs (ignore the vigilantism for the sake of argument) is not the same as asking the students for sexual favors. And like I said, this entire situation is the fault of either Molly of the WC, not Harry.
And second, the rules regarding adult professors and adult students are utilitarian and not moral. And professor and a student having sexual relations would be fine so long as the professor is not granting grading favors or threatening the student with reprisal if the student does not want to be in a relationship. The reason we ban this outright is because purely utilitarian, like a lot of laws. It is hard to know what the relationship between the student and professor was. It also causes problems with conflicts of interests. Even if the professor never gave the student better grades, it is an unacceptable situation for everyone else in the class or school to accept that situation.
-
I was perusing the WOJ database looking for things that might be relevant to some BG theories. I came across one where Jim is responding to a person who is disappointed about changes. This persons complaint was that they had been wondering what would make Harry act in immoral fashion. Essentially, what kind of pressure would it take to make Harry go over the edge? This person was disappointed because as they saw it, the fact that Jim made it so that Harry was trying to save Maggie turned the moral dilemma into a cop out.
Jim then responds by explaining that Maggie being in danger doesn't excuse Dresden because that's not a good enough excuse.
My confusion is that I don't get what exactly Harry was supposed to have done wrong in Changes. What was the big moral dilemma?
Read Ghost Story. The whole book is about what he did. It isn't about anyone other than Molly. He threw her under the bus out of selfishness. It wasn't the assault on the Reds, it was asking Molly to do Black magic because he didn't want to face the consequences of his choices. And then leaving her alone. The Fallen Angel made him feel despair, but his pain was no excuse to hurt Molly.I’d saved Maggie—but had I destroyed my apprentice in doing so? The fact that I’d gotten myself killed had no relative bearing on the morality of my actions, if I had. You can’t just walk around picking and choosing which lives to save and which to destroy. The inherent arrogance and the underlying evil of such a thing runs too deep to be avoided—no matter how good your intentions might be.
Butcher, Jim. Ghost Story (The Dresden Files, Book 13) (p. 542). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
-
Quote
I’d saved Maggie—but had I destroyed my apprentice in doing so? The fact that I’d gotten myself killed had no relative bearing on the morality of my actions, if I had. You can’t just walk around picking and choosing which lives to save and which to destroy. The inherent arrogance and the underlying evil of such a thing runs too deep to be avoided—no matter how good your intentions might be.
Butcher, Jim. Ghost Story (The Dresden Files, Book 13) (p. 542). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
Or one has an over active guilt complex, and gives his apprentice absolutely no credit for making her own choices whether they were right or wrong. Perhaps his choices were wrong, but he didn't force her to make the wrong choices, she did that on her own.
-
Or one has an over active guilt complex, and gives his apprentice absolutely no credit for making her own choices whether they were right or wrong. Perhaps his choices were wrong, but he didn't force her to make the wrong choices, she did that on her own.
This is a great point. Harry throughout the series has this complex. In fact this complex is sometimes a trope that gets explicitly exposed during a story, namely that when a character frequently ascribes too much blame to themselves it is a sign of a certain degree of narcissism.
-
Or one has an over active guilt complex,
Sometimes and not always about the right things. His guilt about killing Susan was unnecessary but the guilt about Molly came far too late.
and gives his apprentice absolutely no credit for making her own choices
Molly had her own responsibilities but that does not change Harry’s responsibilities. You are responsible for what you ask of people especially when you have a better idea of the consequences than the one you ask.
whether they were right or wrong. Perhaps his choices were wrong, but he didn't force her to make the wrong choices, she did that on her own.
Nothing she did with magic was on her own. She was under the doom. Following the councils rules Harry was responsible, with his head, for everything she did.
Basically he asked her to commit near suicide for his benefit while he was responsible for her well being. Just saying that she was an adult is not enough.
That is the logic of a con man. You sell someone a bridge and you say things like she is an adult, she is responsible for her choices, she should have known, ...
There is a limit to that. You are always responsible for what you ask from someone. That does not cancel the other persons responsibility but Harry has responsibility too.
-
“And much more,” Uriel said. “She still has her life. Her future. Her freedom. You did save her, you know. The idea to have her call to Mortimer in the closing moments of the psychic battle was inspired.” “I’ve cost her too much,” I said quietly. “I believe that when you went after your daughter, you said something about letting the world burn. That you and your daughter would roast marshmallows.” I nodded bleakly. “It is one thing for you to say, ‘Let the world burn.’ It is another to say, ‘Let Molly burn.’ The difference is all in the name.” “Yeah,” I croaked. “I’m starting to realize that. Too late to do any good. But I get it.” Uriel gave me a steady look and said nothing. I shook my head. “Get some rest, kid,” I called, though I knew she wouldn’t hear me. “You’ve earned it.”
Butcher, Jim. Ghost Story (The Dresden Files, Book 13) (p. 555). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Maybe you'll believe Uriel. This isn't about what Molly did or didn't do. The moral choice is Harry's. No moral person would ever ask this much of another. That she chose to do it doesn't change that. His sin was in ever asking.
-
You are always responsible for what you ask from someone.
Uh no, that's why its called asking. Its a question you know.
Basically he asked her to commit near suicide for his benefit while he was responsible for her well being. Just saying that she was an adult is not enough.
Um...so where is the crime here exactly? Whats wrong with asking her to kill him? And yes being adult is enough. An adult is an entirely independent entity. And we have been over this, the mentor/apprentice situation is either Molly's or the WC's fault. Arguing Dresden is a slave to this situation is a total non-starter.
That is the logic of a con man. You sell someone a bridge and you say things like she is an adult, she is responsible for her choices, she should have known, ...
.
A con man? What? Molly understood the risks well enough. And to boot, a person does not have a moral responsibility to give out information to their own detriment. It is one thing to tell you it is safe to walk through a curtain behind which is a cliff, and another to sell you an overpriced TV without explaining to you that you could get a better deal. The former is wrong, the latter entirely justified.
-
Maybe you'll believe Uriel. This isn't about what Molly did or didn't do. The moral choice is Harry's. No moral person would ever ask this much of another. That she chose to do it doesn't change that. His sin was in ever asking.
Please. We ask this much of people all the time. Or have you never heard of a military draft? Hell, forget a draft, by your logic we couldn't even ask for volunteers. Also I could really care less about what Uriel says or doesn't say. Uriel is right about some things and wrong about others, just like anyone else.
-
Nothing she did with magic was on her own. She was under the doom. Following the councils rules Harry was responsible, with his head, for everything she did.
Wrong, what she did in Turn Coat was done on her own. Under the Doom, Harry may have been held responsible for what she did, but what she did, she did on her own.
That is the logic of a con man. You sell someone a bridge and you say things like she is an adult, she is responsible for her choices, she should have known, ...
To a degree that is true, that is why the con works. An adult should know that that famous bridge in Brooklyn would never be for sale.. However adults are not paragons of virtue either, they can be greedy and ignore the old adage, " if it seems too good to be true, then is more than likely is." Or as W.C. Fields would say, or maybe it was P.T. Barnum, "There is a sucker born every minute..." Adults will buy that bridge every time with their eyes wide open because they think there is something in it for them.
-
Uh no, that's why its called asking. Its a question you know.
If I ask you to murder someone and you do it they will lock me up too. And rightly so.
Um...so where is the crime here exactly? Whats wrong with asking her to kill him? And yes being adult is enough. An adult is an entirely independent entity. And we have been over this, the mentor/apprentice situation is either Molly's or the WC's fault. Arguing Dresden is a slave to this situation is a total non-starter.
It made Molly a fugitive hunted by the council. He was basically asking her to kill herself in the process but he did not explain that to her. He speculated that eb or listens would help.
A con man? What? Molly understood the risks well enough. And to boot, a person does not have a moral responsibility to give out information to their own detriment. It is one thing to tell you it is safe to walk through a curtain behind which is a cliff, and another to sell you an overpriced TV without explaining to you that you could get a better deal. The former is wrong, the latter entirely justified.
It was the cliff situation. He did not tell the council would hunt her.
And I would not say the second thing is morally right. Especially when you have a master pupil relationship with all kinds of moral responsibilities.
And the next step from selling someone an overpriced tv is selling him a mortgage he can not handle. These acts may be legal but the damage done is bigger than if you just broke into his house and took that overpriced tv.
Morally you are more evil than that burglar. You can get into hell without breaking any laws.
-
If I ask you to murder someone and you do it they will lock me up too. And rightly so. It made Molly a fugitive hunted by the council. He was basically asking her to kill herself in the process but he did not explain that to her. He speculated that eb or listens would help.It was the cliff situation. He did not tell the council would hunt her.
And I would not say the second thing is morally right. Especially when you have a master pupil relationship with all kinds of moral responsibilities.
And the next step from selling someone an overpriced tv is selling him a mortgage he can not handle. These acts may be legal but the damage done is bigger than if you just broke into his house and took that overpriced tv.
Morally you are more evil than that burglar. You can get into hell without breaking any laws.
-Oh come on. The difference there is obvious. If you ask someone to murder someone it is equivalent to doing the murder yourself because you are asking for something that is not justified for the person (or for you) to do. Asking Molly to take risks and kill Harry is perfectly justifiable. It is Harry's life, so he can ask someone to end it if he pleases, especially since he was doing it to prevent his being used by Mab.
-So what. Molly knew back when she was tried the first time that there would be severe consequences if she was found out again. Second, its not clear that she was necessarily going to be caught. Third, its not the cliff situation because her death was not certain. Clearly, as she is still alive. Dresden didn't deprive her of her ability to defend herself or hide from the WC. Fourth, Molly's situation was beyond Dresden's control and he is not responsible for what the WC does to her. Fifth, she was going to be up a creek without a paddle anyhow since Dresden was going to be the winter knight if she didnt kill him or wipe his memories.
Maybe I am forgetting something, but I would love to know how the WC was supposed to know that Molly was responsible for wipe his memories. Could have been anyone, including Harry. Hell, how did they know Dresden had his memories wiped after making the deal with Mab?
-I am perfectly within my rights to sell you a mortgage you cannot handle so long as you know the details of the mortgage. Its hardly my responsibility to stop someone from being an idiot. I, not anyone else, was born into this world with a responsibility to stop idiots from being idiots.
-There is no such thing as hell. And if there were, it would be more morally reprehensible than anything discussed here.
-
Also Molly did know, as of way back in proven guilty:
“Yeah,” I said. “You have a couple of choices to make, Molly. Starting with whether or not you want to turn yourself in to the Council.”
She rocked back and forth, a nervous motion. “Why would I?”
“Because they’re going to find you, sooner or later. If that happens, if they think you’re trying to avoid them, they’ll probably kill you out of hand. But if you’re willing to cooperate and face up to what you’ve done, and if someone intercedes on your behalf, the Council might withhold a death sentence.”
“The first time you screw up and slip deeper into bad habits, it kills both of us. I’m going to be tough on you sometimes, Molly. I have to be. It’s as much for my survival as yours. Got it?”
“Yes,” she said.”
-
“Because in some ways you are every bit as arrogant as the Council, though you do not realize it. You blame yourself for what happened to Susan. You want to blame yourself for more.”
-
Michael slapping Harry across the face with this very subject in Skin Game is one of my favorite scenes.
-
Please. We ask this much of people all the time. Or have you never heard of a military draft? Hell, forget a draft, by your logic we couldn't even ask for volunteers. Also I could really care less about what Uriel says or doesn't say. Uriel is right about some things and wrong about others, just like anyone else.
You asked a question and I gave you a direct answer. The denouement is how Jim makes sure you understand the narrative as he's written it. I just quoted it to you. This is what the WOJ was talking about. That you don't accept it is on you. Ask Jim.
-
You asked a question and I gave you a direct answer. The denouement is how Jim makes sure you understand the narrative as he's written it. I just quoted it to you. This is what the WOJ was talking about. That you don't accept it is on you. Ask Jim.
-Just because a character says something in the denouement doesn't meant its the intention of the author as a moral lesson. Frequently it is, but not always.
-Just because the author thinks a thing does not make that thing true. I can reject the opinion of Jim Butcher, assuming that is his opinion. While I frequently agree with Jim, he can be wrong. If he thinks Harry did anything particularly bad in changes, he is wrong in my opinion.
-You appear to have missed the bit where Uriel says he literally saved Molly.
-I also posted the explicit proof that Molly knew about the stakes before she made her decision. She was fully cognizant of the ramifications. And Molly has said she would do it again, and clearly harbors no ill will towards Harry. Additionally, in the denouement you posted we see Harry bashing himself again. Something he scolding for by Shiro in death masks and by Micheal in Skin Game. IIRC, the scolding Micheal gives Harry is in the denouement.
-
-
Two things: one, the entire body of criminal and civil law regarding sexual harassment disagrees with you.
Harry never sexually harassed her (he never made unwanted and/or consistent sexual comments or advances towards her).
In addition, there are federal statutes and regulations (and case law from multiple appellate Courts interpreting the federal statutes and regulations) addressing sexual harassment plus fifty states with fifty sets of criminal laws, civil statutes, and case law interpreting those laws. A blanket statement that the entire body of law both criminal and civil disagrees with the op is simply untrue.
Even if she was an adult, Harry has a duty of care towards her as her teacher. He should not have led her into danger.
He was her teacher; but, more importantly he was her master. The master-servant relationship comes with a whole host of duties towards the apprentice including teaching the apprentice the master's craft. Wizarding is an inherently dangerous profession (witness the number of wardens that died in the vampire wars); and, especially under Harry fighting supernatural powers in defense of humanity is an important part of the profession.
The series suggests that up until Changes, Harry spent too much time trying to protect Molly during her apprenticeship. For instance, he taught her shielding with snowballs instead of baseballs. ( Harry was trained with baseballs thrown at him, Harry's warden boss ex-girlfriend was trained with rocks thrown at her; and, Harry's fairy godmother [if I remember correctly] explicitly told Harry that he had been too soft in training Molly).
Two things:...Two, Harry had agreed to be Molly's master. That means he had absolute duty to keep her alive and to keep her from turning into a warlock. He threw both aside in letting her come. It doesn't matter if she wanted to or not. What she wanted to was repeatedly break the laws of magic, it was his moral duty to override that desire. Same thing with going to C. I.
He did not owe her an absolute duty to keep her alive and to keep her from turning into a warlock. For instance, if she practiced black magic then it would have been his duty to turn himself and Molly into the White Council for execution. He accepted the responsibility (risking execution) to supervise, control, and train Molly; but, by the nature of the punishment (his and Molly's execution) it's fairly explicit that he didn't owe her an absolute duty to keep her alive.
-
Harry never sexually harassed her (he never made unwanted and/or consistent sexual comments or advances towards her).
In fact, and it was a huge topic of discussion here was after he soul gazed her, he dumped a bucket of ice water over her, and told her that wasn't the kind of relationship they were going to have. Though from the soul gaze he knew she very much wanted that kind of relationship.
The series suggests that up until Changes, Harry spent too much time trying to protect Molly during her apprenticeship. For instance, he taught her shielding with snowballs instead of baseballs. ( Harry was trained with baseballs thrown at him, Harry's warden boss ex-girlfriend was trained with rocks thrown at her; and, Harry's fairy godmother [if I remember correctly] explicitly told Harry that he had been too soft in training Molly).
He may have been somewhat soft on her, but one has to understand Lea's point of view also. She was hardening Molly so she could successfully handle a Winter or Summer Lady Mantle.
He did not owe her an absolute duty to keep her alive and to keep her from turning into a warlock. For instance, if she practiced black magic then it would have been his duty to turn himself and Molly into the White Council for execution. He accepted the responsibility (risking execution) to supervise, control, and train Molly, but by the nature of the punishment (his and Molly's execution) it's fairly explicit that he didn't owe her an absolute duty to keep her alive.
Molly also stubbornly kept her own council on that as well. In Turn Coat when she looked into both Morgan and Luccio's minds without permission, that could have been a death sentence for both herself and Harry, but she did it anyway. Why? Because she felt it was the right thing to do and worth the risk. Her sense of right and wrong trumped everything.
Why does someone assist someone else to take their own life? Usually it is because that person is in severe pain and is going to face even more pain and eventual death. It usually is an act done out of love, because you agree that death is the better option. Molly knew how Harry felt about being Mab's Winter Knight, about being used by Mab. At that point she had the same view point as Harry, that Mab was pure evil and she'd use Harry to do evil. Death was his only way out of it, but if Mab was tipped off, she'd stop it. So she assisted him, she was the only one who could. She was as ignorant as Harry was about the Fallen Angel who magnified his hopelessness to the point where he wished to die. Yes, he left her to suffer, suicide is selfish in that respect, the one who does it is beyond pain, but the survivors suffer. It was, however a freely given act of love to someone in great pain.
-
It was, however a freely given act of love to someone in great pain.
Molly may be better then Harry deserves.
-
-Oh come on. The difference there is obvious. If you ask someone to murder someone it is equivalent to doing the murder yourself because you are asking for something that is not justified for the person (or for you) to do. Asking Molly to take risks and kill Harry is perfectly justifiable. It is Harry's life, so he can ask someone to end it if he pleases, especially since he was doing it to prevent his being used by Mab.
-So what. Molly knew back when she was tried the first time that there would be severe consequences if she was found out again.
And it was Harry’s responsibility to protect her from that and teach her to make better decisions. She was his pupil, this was not the right way to teach her.
Second, its not clear that she was necessarily going to be caught.
Is something morally just because you might not get caught?
Third, its not the cliff situation because her death was not certain.
Comparisons stop somewhere. Ramirez did not do his job. But ir was certain enough for the comparison to be valid.
Clearly, as she is still alive. Dresden didn't deprive her of her ability to defend herself or hide from the WC.
So giving someone a mortal enemy is ok because you can defend yourself? Lea made sure she could handle herself against the enemy she summoned in ghost story for molly but she arranged it as a learning experience for Harry and Molly and accepted the risk.
Fourth, Molly's situation was beyond Dresden's control and he is not responsible for what the WC does to her.
He created that situation by his suicide. You might say that was Lasciel’s fault but she only provided the tipping point, it was totally in character.
And he asked her to assist in that. That was his choice.
And as her master she was not beyond his control or responsibility. It was a responsibility he took upon himself
Fifth, she was going to be up a creek without a paddle anyhow since Dresden was going to be the winter knight if she didnt kill him or wipe his memories.
Which was totally self centered. He deserted his friends. But that is what a lot of suicides have in common.
Maybe I am forgetting something, but I would love to know how the WC was supposed to know that Molly was responsible for wipe his memories. Could have been anyone, including Harry. Hell, how did they know Dresden had his memories wiped after making the deal with Mab?
That was not a violation of the seven laws in that act anyway because Harry invited Molly in his mind. The problem was his suicide. Without Harry the white council would hunt Molly whatever one of them did.
-I am perfectly within my rights to sell you a mortgage you cannot handle so long as you know the details of the mortgage. Its hardly my responsibility to stop someone from being an idiot. I, not anyone else, was born into this world with a responsibility to stop idiots from being idiots.
In some countries you are not. And this is not about what is legally right, you knowingly create problems for people they can not solve and have dire consequences for them. That is morally wrong. It is predatory behavior whatever you tell yourself.
People who think they have the right to do everything that the law allows them to do and so everything they do is morally right have no conscience.
-There is no such thing as hell. And if there were, it would be more morally reprehensible than anything discussed here.
It is a metaphor to underline how wrong that behavior is. See it as the einsteinian hell.
-
In fact, and it was a huge topic of discussion here was after he soul gazed her, he dumped a bucket of ice water over her, and told her that wasn't the kind of relationship they were going to have. Though from the soul gaze he knew she very much wanted that kind of relationship.
He may have been somewhat soft on her, but one has to understand Lea's point of view also. She was hardening Molly so she could successfully handle a Winter or Summer Lady Mantle.
Molly also stubbornly kept her own council on that as well. In Turn Coat when she looked into both Morgan and Luccio's minds without permission, that could have been a death sentence for both herself and Harry, but she did it anyway. Why? Because she felt it was the right thing to do and worth the risk. Her sense of right and wrong trumped everything.
And whose responsibility was it to do something about that?
Why does someone assist someone else to take their own life? Usually it is because that person is in severe pain and is going to face even more pain and eventual death. It usually is an act done out of love, because you agree that death is the better option. Molly knew how Harry felt about being Mab's Winter Knight, about being used by Mab. At that point she had the same view point as Harry, that Mab was pure evil and she'd use Harry to do evil. Death was his only way out of it, but if Mab was tipped off, she'd stop it. So she assisted him, she was the only one who could. She was as ignorant as Harry was about the Fallen Angel who magnified his hopelessness to the point where he wished to die. Yes, he left her to suffer, suicide is selfish in that respect, the one who does it is beyond pain, but the survivors suffer. It was, however a freely given act of love to someone in great pain.
-
And whose responsibility was it to do something about that?
And he tried, that is all he could do, you talk like Harry ignored Molly and let her run wild. Far from
it. Yeah, maybe he threw snowballs at her instead of rocks, but his borderline illegal mental sparing with her saved her from the Corpstaker. Luccio could repel rocks, but she lost her original body because she couldn't repel a mental attack.
As to assisting Harry's suicide. Harry cannot be held responsible because a Fallen Angel had messed with his mind, he was in severe mental pain in that moment. He reached out to the only person who could help him. Molly loved him and what is more felt his pain and agreed with him. She wasn't some silly child easily led astray, she knew exactly what she was doing. Yes, the guilt from that brought her pain, but you know what? She accepts the responsibility for what she did, if she didn't, she'd resent and hold it against Harry, she doesn't. And no, Molly isn't some kind of forgiving saint.
-
The whisper of the fallen gave Uriel enough room to interfere but whether it absolves him from all responsibility is debatable. It is completely in line with his nature and he could have done it without the whisper as well, it just removed the free choice to do so. Which is a big thing but Harry filled most of the bucket, the fallen just added a few drops.
-
The whisper of the fallen gave Uriel enough room to interfere but whether it absolves him from all responsibility is debatable. It is completely in line with his nature and he could have done it without the whisper as well, it just removed the free choice to do so. Which is a big thing but Harry filled most of the bucket, the fallen just added a few drops.
Free choice says it all.. Doesn't matter how full the bucket was if it didn't overflow, it was the Fallen that caused the floor to get wet. Harry was on the ledge, guilt complex in hyper-drive, a Fallen angel came along who knew him well and pushed him off. Thinking about jumping off isn't the same as being pushed off. Being pushed isn't free will.
-
Free choice says it all.. Doesn't matter how full the bucket was if it didn't overflow, it was the Fallen that caused the floor to get wet. Harry was on the ledge, guilt complex in hyper-drive, a Fallen angel came along who knew him well and pushed him off. Thinking about jumping off isn't the same as being pushed off. Being pushed isn't free will.
And besides that it is difficult to see where the fallen influences stops and his free will began. Harry decided how to commit suicide and who to involve. And he decided to bring Molly to CI.
-
-Just because a character says something in the denouement doesn't meant its the intention of the author as a moral lesson. Frequently it is, but not always.
-Just because the author thinks a thing does not make that thing true. I can reject the opinion of Jim Butcher, assuming that is his opinion. While I frequently agree with Jim, he can be wrong. If he thinks Harry did anything particularly bad in changes, he is wrong in my opinion.
-You appear to have missed the bit where Uriel says he literally saved Molly.
-I also posted the explicit proof that Molly knew about the stakes before she made her decision. She was fully cognizant of the ramifications. And Molly has said she would do it again, and clearly harbors no ill will towards Harry. Additionally, in the denouement you posted we see Harry bashing himself again. Something he scolding for by Shiro in death masks and by Micheal in Skin Game. IIRC, the scolding Micheal gives Harry is in the denouement.
-
Here is your logical position. The author tells you something about a character he wrote. And because you don't like what he said, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Would that sum up your position?
Now since you say Harry did nothing wrong since Molly consented, then it would seem that both you and Mira take the position, that when Nicodemus killed his daughter, that he did nothing morally wrong? Since she assented to his proposition.
And you should do a reality check on your knowledge of law and morality. If you aid someone who is committing a crime then you yourself become part of that crime. Contrarily, if you suborn a crime then you are part of that crime. That you do, or do not, get caught changes nothing, and the legality of either has nothing to do with their morality. It is perfectly possible for an act to be legal yet immoral and conversely moral yet illegal.
On the basis of personal morality the only questions needed to be asked have nothing to do with what Molly did or did not do. The only question of interest is, did Harry follow his own moral code?I stared at her for a minute. Then I said, in a very quiet voice, “I always know when I’m being tempted to do something very, very wrong. I start sentences with phrases like, ‘I would never, ever do this—but.’ Or ‘I know this is wrong but.’ It’s the but that tips you off.”
“Harry,” Molly began.
“You broke one of the Laws of Magic, Molly. Willfully. Even though you knew it could cost you your life. Even though you knew that it could also cost mine.” I shook my head and looked away from her. “Hell’s bells, kid. I choose to trust Anastasia Luccio because that’s what people do. You don’t ever get to know for sure what someone thinks of you. What they really feel inside.”
You’d never know.” “You could do that,” I said, quietly. “And I feel like an utter bastard for asking this of you, grasshopper. But I don’t have anyone else to ask.”
Butcher, Jim. Ghost Story (The Dresden Files, Book 13) (p. 537). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
-
And besides that it is difficult to see where the fallen influences stops and his free will began. Harry decided how to commit suicide and who to involve. And he decided to bring Molly to CI.
I think it's pretty clear, free will, contemplating suicide, even thinking how best to do it and elude Mab.
But carrying it out? That's the part where the Fallen Angel comes in, then it becomes committing suicide,that is what she pushed him to.