DADA: Nature V. Nurture Discussion

[mrdavismd.livejournal.com]

Hello DADA-ers!

I hope that you have gotten a lot of rest since our obstacle course and are ready for you next Challenge!

This challenge is fairly simple, all you have to do is express your opinion this may be hard for my fellow Slytherins just kidding!

Points:
This is a long debate, therefore there will be 10 pts awarded for first comment. 2pts for each additional comment. Initial comments must be 3-4 sentences and contribute to the on-topic conversation for credit. Follow up comments must consist of at least 2 sentences.

Deadline:
February 21, 2009 at 11:59 pm EST



Details:
Was Tom Riddle born evil or did he grow to be evil? Was Harry Potter innately good or could he have turned out bad? We heard some ideas from Dumbledore and Sirius when talking to Harry but what do you think?

Are people born being who they are or do they become who they are? Why are people good or evil? If Harry grew up like Tom Riddle would he have become Voldemort?

Participants will discuss and debate the idea of nature v. nurture and how one become good or evil. There are no sides for this discussion.

This suggestion was from thesamanthahope so extra 5 points if you participates.

Bonus Points
In your first comment please tell me if you own any of the following books:
#019 The Dark Arts Outsmarted
#024 Defensive Magical Theory
#031 The Dark Forces: A Guide To Self Protection
#032 The Rise And Fall Of The Dark Arts
#047 Practical Defensive Magic And Its Use Against The Dark Arts

Owners will get 2 points per book!


You have to be a member to participate so
Join Us

Comments

[fikuz.livejournal.com]

I think that Nature vs. Nurture debate in general is rather pointless. It's difficult (if not impossible) to distinguish one from another. Yet, evilness adds its own side to this discussion because it answers the question: who is to blame for?

There is a certain appeal in blaming nature; it takes off the responsibility from society’s shoulders, and especially so, if an “evil” person is considered to be faulty: there is nothing wrong with our morals or laws, he is ill, he is just a freak of nature. And of course, it’s easier to think that people like Hitler suffered from personality disorders or were in any other ways mentally unwell (with no regard to if they were actually damaged or not) . Because if we admit that a completely sane and perfectly healthy person can justify murdering thousands and thousands of people, than this becomes a pretty scary world to live in.

However, blaming society can be very convenient, too. There is an episode in "A Bit of Fry and Laurie", where a man kills his in-laws and then tells his wife that he is not the one to blame – the system made him do it. If someone has alcohol-addicted parents, it’s only logical to expect that he will develop some sort of addiction too. But the thing is, logic is not the most reliable source when it comes to human nature. There are a lot of people who were raised by abusive parents or grew up in the orphanage, but somehow managed to stay kind and healthy. And there twice as many people who were loved and cherished by their families, but ended up committing something horrible. Of course, exceptions only prove the rule, but in this case every exception is somebody’s life.

What I am trying to say is that despite Nature and Nurture being equally responsible for person’s behavior, people choose one of them either to blame for their misdeeds or to praise for their virtues. It’s a matter of convenience. Or we can suggest that nothing but random circumstances determine our destiny by allowing us to develop our natural instincts or our up-brought traits. Personally, I like the last one better, chaos is always fun.

As for Tom Riddle, well... Look at it this way: yes, he had a very, very evil heritage, but his nurture wasn’t something to be jealous of either. This is exactly the same way with Sirius: evil, evil family tree and insane unloving mother. But he turned out all right (well, as all right as anyone can possibly be after spending ten years in Azkban). See? Completely random.

Now , Harry. He is not a particularly good person. He is a normal person. He wants to stop (well, kill) Voldemort because he killed his parents, his parent’s best friends, his favorite teacher and pretty much everyone Harry cares about. He doesn’t want to kill the Dark Lord in order to restore some imaginary balance to the world. He doesn’t care that much about muggles. It’s only in the last book when Harry becomes a true, text-book hero. Save the humanity and all that.

If Harry grew up like Tom Riddle would he have become Voldemort?
I don’t think he would, Harry’s life with Dursley’s didn’t contrast too much with Tom’s life in orphanage to make any significant difference. But I think that Dumbledore believed that any family is better than no family at all. Why else would he leave Harry to live with Dursleys?

Maria//Slytherin