= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobbBB comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 117 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (152)
Death and suffering can be sad even when its causal consequences are net-positive. And death and suffering can be sad even when it happens to bad people (to say nothing of their families).
Normatively speaking, I don't believe someone can involuntarily 'forfeit their life' in the sense of making it intrinsically OK to kill them. (Though it may be instrumentally necessary.)
I suppose Draco's grief is sad, since we know a fair amount of his backstory. Still, learning that Harry preserved all these monsters for later resurrection would make me sadder.
Are you serious? What if he brought them back as Muggles?
Or as good and upstanding people. Or as angels. But since we are talking about God-like powers he can just go back in time and save them when he pleases.
We have strong evidence suggesting that bringing people back to life is possible in this setting, and turning wizards into the same person except not-magic is possible. It does not require God-like powers, or even as much investment as bringing them back to life as magical beings, so much as it requires MoR!Harry to have been more invested in his ethics.
Of course, if he were, then they'd probably not have needed to die in the first place.
On the other hand... According to various world clocks, 37 people die every 15 seconds. I'm not so heavily into the effective altruism movement as to make an enemy of all but the most efficient options, but it's a number to remember. Most alternative methods for incapacitating the Death Eaters less-lethally would have had greater risk of failure, and most methods for would require significantly more time and magical power than saving an average life.
For as much as it makes Harry sympathetic to wish he didn't kill them, there's only so much investment to that purpose before it would be bad thinking of its own -- even if you don't value their lives less.
It has been shown experimentally (by HP and DM) that magic is genetic, though LV/QQ might not know that. So, as long as her eye color remains the same, so will her magic.
Since there are rituals that involve the permanent sacrifice of a "portion" of one's magic, it would seem plausible that the Source of Magic has some sort of accounting system for this purpose. And that resurrecting someone normally would not necessarily restore the initial "balance" (which was presumably revoked when the Source detected their "death"). Even if the initial balance is determined by your genetics.
There evidence that magic was genetic was extremely weak. While a single Mendelian allele is one explanation for what they saw, they need a lot more data to distinguish that from other inherited patterns (genetic or otherwise).