Harry's murders of Non-humans! (Cold Days spoilers)

[Ziggelly]

When he's laying down the law to the winter court:
My voice echoed throughout the whole chamber as clearly as if I’d been using a PA system. “All right, you primitive screwheads. Listen up. I’m Harry Dresden. I’m the new Winter Knight. I’m instituting a rule: When you’re within sight of me, mortals are off-limits.” I paused for a moment to let that sink in. Then I continued. “I can’t give you orders. I can’t control what you do in your own domains. I’m not going to be able to change you. I’m not even going to try. But if I see you abusing a mortal, you’ll join Chunky here. Zero warnings. Zero excuses. Subzero tolerance.”
I paused again and then asked, “Any questions?” One of the Sidhe smirked and stepped forward, his leather pants creaking. He opened his mouth, his expression condescending. “Mortal, do you actually think that you can—” “Infriga!” I snarled, unleashing Winter again, and without waiting for the cloud to clear, hurled the second strike, shouting, “Forzare!” This time I aimed much of the force up. Grisly bits of frozen Sidhe noble came pattering and clattering down to the ice of the dance floor.

When I first read this I did a mental double-take. Harry committed murder there. Seriously, he straight up murdered a sapient being for the crime of disagreeing with him, and somehow it's okay because it was a Sidhe, not a human. And nobody calls him out on it. There have been other instances of speciesism in the series, but this takes the cake.

A) It wasn't that the sidhe was disagreeing with Harry, it was what he was disagreeing with. Harry told them that they cannot kill or torture mortals -- who are also sentient beings -- while in his presence. The sidhe in question piped up with the equivalent of "you can't tell us what to do!" It wasn't that he wasn't human, it was the fact that he seemed to be active condoning the kidnapping/murder/torture/rape of innocents. Harry would've reacted similarly to mortals who did the same. It would be speciesism if Harry treated the sidhe differently because "ah, he's a faery, that's who they are."

B) The winter sidhe don't seem to respect much aside from violence and power. Harry knew that there was no other way of enforcing his rules in about the two seconds that he had to make a decision.

C) Harry's never claimed to be completely morally correct guy, or a non-hypocrite.

[raidem]

Does this mean Harry is getting colder and more ruthless? Yep, Mab in general is happy with Harry’s development, even if she might have preferred not losing the Sidhe Lord.

This is the aspect that I am arguing.  And I would agree with this too:

C) Harry's never claimed to be completely morally correct guy, or a non-hypocrite.

Harry purposely intended Susan to transform into a RC vampire so that he could "sacrifice" her and kill off the Red Court Vampires.  This was a very cold act and he suffers from it.

[Rasins]

The fact that something may or may not be sanctioned by Mab doesn't absolve Harry from right or wrong in the matter.  I suspect Mab would quite approve of a Harry that becomes a monster.

Ah, sorry raidem, but we are talking about murder.  Murder is a legal term, not a moral one.  From a moral perspective killing is "always" wrong, so even the first one was morally questionable.

If we are going to go there, then we have to condem him for killing Kavros, Victor, The entire red court ....

[Mira]

I would argue that the second was sanctioned by Mab as well, by the fact that she then danced with Harry.  In Mab's realm Power is the law.  Harry was establishing where he was on the Power scale, and Mab approved of it.

  Yeah, did it really happen?  Isn't a rule about spilling blood at her court?  Because a little bit later when actual blood was spilled there was a big stink about it. Maybe it was an illusion?

[raidem]

From a moral perspective killing is "always" wrong, so even the first one was morally questionable.

Not true.  This largely depends on whose morality we are talking about.

Ah, sorry raidem, but we are talking about murder.  Murder is a legal term, not a moral one.

And in the view of Winter, Mab doesn't consider murder to be a crime.  She has two laws: neither of which prohibits murder.  Her law is such that one may not speak to her without first obtaining permission and secondly, one must not draw blood. 

And, there is no real life law that makes killing sidhe a crime.  For one, sidhe don't exist in our world. Also, there is no equating killing of an animal other than human to be a crime of murder.

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

  Morality is that which shapes what is lawful and what isn't.

[Tami Seven]

I'll say this, I don't think I could have killed anyone as easily as Harry did, even a Sidhe, unless it was in self defense.  Harry has had a lot of experience killing supernatural creatures. You can create a list of all the non-human, supernatural creatures he has killed and it would be a long one. This is even before the WK mantle. 

[raidem]

To have a view of Harry as this kind, generous, pure person is so far off the mark when compared to our, or at the least, my morality.  When I explain Harry and the Dresden Files to a non-reader, it becomes abundantly clear that Harry is so far across the moral line.  It doesn't become apparent to Harry until after Changes, that he has made some really bad calls.  The Dresdenverse has a very skewed morality and I have to remind myself of this when reading it.  It is fiction.  I don't have to base my morality on the morality that I find within the Dresdenverse.  If I did, I would be sorely Lost.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

  Yeah, did it really happen?  Isn't a rule about spilling blood at her court?  Because a little bit later when actual blood was spilled there was a big stink about it. Maybe it was an illusion?

Freezing someone solid and shattering them might well not technically count as spilling blood, it's just the sort of finicky detail Faerie enjoy.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

When I explain Harry and the Dresden Files to a non-reader, it becomes abundantly clear that Harry is so far across the moral line.  It doesn't become apparent to Harry until after Changes, that he has made some really bad calls.

I'm waiting to see whether he actually changes his behaviour based on those epiphanies before I'll credit that it's becoming apparent to him.

I strongly suspect a large part of the point of the series is to explore how the particular values of morality and heroism Harry buys into are flawed, by demonstrating the consequences of him acting on them.

[Elanmorin]

Murder is generally defined, or at least generally understood, as the unjustified killing of another human being.

Also, in order for something to be morally wrong there must be an absolute objective standard that makes it wrong.

In this case, Mab is the standard for what is or is not morally wrong in regards to Winter Sidhe. According to her, Harry was completely justified. Besides that, there is no standard in existence that prohibits the slaying of supernatural predators (obviously). For that matter, slaying natural predators is virtually always permitted if said predator is showing aggression. If I'm out in the woods hunting and find myself surrounded by wolves I'm going to shoot the most aggressive one and hope the others take the hint. Harry's actions were no different.

[raidem]

Also, in order for something to be morally wrong there must be an absolute objective standard that makes it wrong.

In this case, Mab is the standard for what is or is not morally wrong in regards to Winter Sidhe. According to her, Harry was completely justified.

We [or at least, I am not] aren't talking about Mab's morality, we are talking about Harry's.  As an outside viewer, I judge Harry's actions on the basis of \my\ morality.  Consequently, I find many of his actions to be morally questionable.  This action of killing the one sidhe isn't the most reprehensible thing Harry has done.  But, Harry's slide into immorality isn't going to begin with Harry slaughtering mortals; it will begin with how he mistreats non-mortals.

Also, in order for something to be morally wrong there must be an absolute objective standard that makes it wrong.

There are quite a few different versions of morals where one doesn't need an absolute objective standard. Moral relativism is more in line with my thinking of morality.

Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[2] It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards.

[Serack]

By the way, I think this quote from "Backup" is quite pertinant to this conversation: (btw, Backup is from Thomas' perspective)

(click to show/hide)

"Scratch one ghoul.  My brother hates the creatures with a passion so pure that it's almost holy."

Edit:  Some context for that quote from the White Night scene where that passion was born:

"Think they'll rat out their buddy?"
"If they think it'll save their lives?" I asked.  In a heartbeat.  Maybe less."
"Weasels," Ramirez muttered.
"They are what they are, man," I said.  "There's no use in hating them for it.  Just be glad we can use it to advantage.  Let's go."
[snip]scene where Harry finds that a ghoul killed 2 16 year old's eating parts of the little girl and gets rather upset about it (understatement)[/snip]
The quality of mercy was not Harry.
[/snip]
"Never," I told it.  "Never again."
Then I threw it down the shaft.
[/snip]
"Sixteen, Carlos," I said.  "Sixteen.  It had them for less than eight minutes."
[snip]An enraged Harry kicks one ghoul away to warn others not to pull these shenagans on his watch again and sets up a death trap for the other involving orange juce and desert ants[/snip]
moments later, Ramirez said, "What happened to not hating them?"
"Things change."

I think this is pertinant because it directly shows Harry's empathy for a class of magical beings getting destroyed in a fit of rage.  To these beings Harry's the monster.

[knnn]

Very much agree with the morality issue.

Ask yourself the following question:  Could Harry have similarly enforced his new Rule by simply freezing the offending noble, then letting him thaw out in a day or two?  If yes, then this killing really was mostly superfluous, and therefore (in my book) morally lacking.

Even if you argue that the only way to get the Winter Court to listen was to kill someone, I would argue that the correct thing to do would be to kill the next noble to break that Rule (i.e. make sport of mortals in front of Harry), not someone who for all we know wanted clarification under what exact circumstances (these are Faerie after all) the rule applies.


 

[Elanmorin]

We [or at least, I am not] aren't talking about Mab's morality, we are talking about Harry's.  As an outside viewer, I judge Harry's actions on the basis of \my\ morality.  Consequently, I find many of his actions to be morally questionable. 

There are quite a few different versions of morals where one doesn't need an absolute objective standard. Moral relativism is more in line with my thinking of morality.

Yet if moral relativism is true then you cannot judge Harry by your moral standards. Not to mention that falsifying moral relativism is simple as all I need to do is state that moral relativism is morally wrong, which causes moral relativism to be both morally right and morally wrong at the same time which violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[2] It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards.

Even if that were true in the Dresdenverse, that only supports my position. Harry was in a culture that did not have a moral prohibition against his action, neither is there any reason for Harry to subscribe to your relative code of morality nor for you to hold him to that standard.

[Serack]

I added some extra thoughts to reply #26