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

[Gigglestomp]

Harry has never had a problem killing suprnatural beings OR humans, if given the correct reasons.

In retrospect, he was silently horrified about how many enemies, human or otherwise, never seemed to surive encounters with him. This was after marcone pointed it out to him.

But Harry would have no problem pulling a gun on a human and shooting them dead in the middle of a battle, or to protect someone.

The only time he ever really REALLY felt bad were after executing Cassus, Luccio(Corpsetaker), and Susan. He either did it cold or without thinking, and that is what scared him.

He had perfectly legitimate reasons to kill the two fae at his birthday party. After setting the standard, backing down in front of preditors is a sure way to become prey. Numer 1 died because they questioned him. Number 2 died because they questioned him. He was protecting humans like Sarissa, and he couldnt afford to come off soft, or he may find himself turned upon by winter.

He wouldnt feel bad about it if he killed 100 more, for the right reasons.

[raidem]

Yet if moral relativism is true then you cannot judge Harry by your moral standards.

Not true, I can do all the judging I want based on my moral standards.  By believing in moral relativism, I must allow that there are others who would disagree with me.  Case in point, you disagree with me regarding Harry's morality.

neither is there any reason for Harry to subscribe to your relative code of morality nor for you to hold him to that standard.

I disagree.  Harry wants to be a good guy.  Also, I am the person who is real; Harry isn't.  Therefore, mine is the opinion that matters.  And, as such, I will hold him to my moral standards whether you agree with that fact or not.

[Serack]

guess that settles that.

nevermind, what peregrine says

vv (down there)

[peregrine]

Not true, I can do all the judging I want based on my moral standards.  By believing in moral relativism, I must allow that there are others who would disagree with me.  Case in point, you disagree with me regarding Harry's morality.

Pretty sure that's not moral relativism, that's moral absolutism with the recognition that though you are of course right, others may disagree with you.

[raidem]

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong,

Moral absolutism states that there is an Absolute standard.

Moral relativism simply holds that there are disagreements about morals and that there is no "right or wrong."

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

[Elanmorin]

Not true, I can do all the judging I want based on my moral standards.

Not true. You cannot do all the judging you want based on my moral standards. Consistently applying moral relativism leads to absurdity.

By believing in moral relativism, I must allow that there are others who would disagree with me.  Case in point, you disagree with me regarding Harry's morality.

And according to moral relativism I am correct. Obvious contradiction is obvious.

I disagree.  Harry wants to be a good guy.  Also, I am the person who is real; Harry isn't.  Therefore, mine is the opinion that matters.  And, as such, I will hold him to my moral standards whether you agree with that fact or not.

And good is subjective according to moral relativism. If either Harry or I believes that killing Sidhe is good (or at least "not bad") then killing Sidhe is good (or not "bad"). And mine is the opinion that matters. 

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

The only time he ever really REALLY felt bad were after executing Cassus, Luccio(Corpsetaker), and Susan. He either did it cold or without thinking, and that is what scared him.

The degree of different Harry feels about killing people from rationally thought-through reasons and killing people in the heat of passion is one of the things I find most morally unpalatable about him, fwiw.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Not true, I can do all the judging I want based on my moral standards. 

Well, while you totally can do so, it's a mite counter-productive from an analytical perspective because it kind of cuts off a whole range of enjoyable debates about the books to funnel them into one's own personal moral standards, given that arguing our own personal moral standards is not a thing this forum is for.

[raidem]

Not true. You cannot do all the judging you want based on my moral standards. Consistently applying moral relativism leads to absurdity.

I didn't argue that I would judge Harry according to your moral standards, rather I said my own.  And no, consistently applying moral relativism leads to the fact that we have a difference of opinion.

And according to moral relativism I am correct. Obvious contradiction is obvious.

There is no 'correct.'  You are allowed your opinion, I am allowed mine.

And good is subjective according to moral relativism. If either Harry or I believes that killing Sidhe is good (or at least "not bad") then killing Sidhe is good (or not "bad"). And mine is the opinion that matters. 

This is true, but I do remind you that you were the one who argued that I could not judge Harry. 

Well, while you totally can do so, it's a mite counter-productive from an analytical perspective because it kind of cuts off a whole range of enjoyable debates about the books to funnel them into one's own personal moral standards, given that arguing our own personal moral standards is not a thing this forum is for.

The key here is I can judge all I want.  To the point that it lessens my enjoyment, that is something I wouldn't "WANT."  Also, I am not arguing my personal moral standard.  I am defending my right to use my morals in deciding what type of guy Harry is.  And, defending my judgement of Harry's actions based on those morals.  The following is one of my statements regarding morality that I made.  As you can see it is far from being TT or an alarming argument of what my personal moral standards are.

I hope Harry starts to feel more compassion for those he kills that are of the sidhe.  The wall between killing a sidhe and killing a mortal seems to be weakened each time he kills one of the Fae.
Of course, Mab is fine with it.  She is quite happy with her Monster in Traning.  Inez would be so proud.

Moral Relativism allows for equally 'right' points of view.  I can judge Harry according to my morality.  You are equally able to judge Harry according to yours.  Moral Relativism says nothing about who is "correct;" it simply states that there can be a difference of opinion regarding morality. 

[newfan09]

Harry referred to his party as his first day in the prison yard and I think he treated it as such.
I just got done reading Ender's Game and I think that Harry treated this interaction with the Sidhe much the way Ender handled his fight with Stillson.

(click to show/hide)

“Knocking him down won the first fight. I wanted to win all the next ones, too. So they’d leave me alone.”

Card, Orson Scott (2010-04-01). Ender's Game: 1 (The Ender Quintet) (Kindle Locations 633-634). Tom Doherty Associates. Kindle Edition.

Does this make it morally right? No, but Harry will be among the first to tell you that he isn't a hero. Look at how he dealt with Snake boy in the Hotel room in DM

I have wondered if perhaps Harry's instructions to Cat Sith or Harry's new rule led to Cat Sith being susceptible to a mortal who infects him.

I also wanted to address this comment. It wasn't a mortal that infected Cat Sith. We have yet to see a proven instance of a mortal being infected.

[raidem]

It wasn't a mortal that infected Cat Sith. We have yet to see a proven instance of a mortal being infected.

We don't know exactly who infected Cat Sith.  Harry believes it to be Sharkface and He is probably right.  But, it is also sensible that Harry's orders could be made in such a way as to place him in an unintended bind when it comes to the enemy.

[Gigglestomp]

Harry referred to his party as his first day in the prison yard and I think he treated it as such.
I just got done reading Ender's Game and I think that Harry treated this interaction with the Sidhe much the way Ender handled his fight with Stillson.

(click to show/hide)

“Knocking him down won the first fight. I wanted to win all the next ones, too. So they’d leave me alone.”

Card, Orson Scott (2010-04-01). Ender's Game: 1 (The Ender Quintet) (Kindle Locations 633-634). Tom Doherty Associates. Kindle Edition.

Does this make it morally right? No, but Harry will be among the first to tell you that he isn't a hero. Look at how he dealt with Snake boy in the Hotel room in DM

I also wanted to address this comment. It wasn't a mortal that infected Cat Sith. We have yet to see a proven instance of a mortal being infected.

To be 100% certain (Playing it that way) the only 100% for sure infected being has been Cat Sidth.

If you relax your standards for proof, it opens up other possabilities.

Harry was told Nemesis was responsible for warping victor sells against his family (A loving father against his family). As well as all the other happenings in chicago.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

No, but Harry will be among the first to tell you that he isn't a hero.

Except when he's telling you that what he's doing is the right thing or something he has to do; self-awareness about doing problematic things is something Harry has only in a few and fairly extreme cases, and I am pretty sure that scenes like his realisation about what letting the world burn actually meant, in GS, indicates that this is something Jim is doing deliberately. 

[Mira]

Except when he's telling you that what he's doing is the right thing or something he has to do; self-awareness about doing problematic things is something Harry has only in a few and fairly extreme cases, and I am pretty sure that scenes like his realisation about what letting the world burn actually meant, in GS, indicates that this is something Jim is doing deliberately.

  But he wasn't saying let the world burn because he didn't give a damn.  He was saying if it would save his little girl he'd be willing to do it..  Very few parents would disagree with him.   We  get hung up of the welfare of the many outweigh the welfare of the few or the one, but that isn't what we practice. 

[vultur]

Given that we have an authorial voice statement (outside any possible unreliable narrative / bias that Harry may introduce) that some/all intelligent NN beings "aren't actual people" - no, I don't think we can really classify killing such a being, within the context of the Dresdenverse, as murder (even morally rather than legally).

That (the fact that there can be intelligent beings which are soulless and from a moral perspective "not people") is reality (EDIT: within the fictional context of) the Dresdenverse, even if it doesn't hold true in the real world.