The Harry Potter books have come under fire from different critics for many reasons. Perhaps the most serious accusation is that it teaches immorality by telling children it’s OK to act immorally on behalf of some cause that is perceived as more important. Thus, it is argued, Harry Potter teaches kids to accept moral relativism or moral egoism rather than the moral absolutism of traditional Christianity. Does Harry Potter promote immorality? Is Christianity based on moral absolutes?
Read Article: Do the Harry Potter Books Promote Immorality and Immoral Behavior?
Thank you for a voice of reason. I’ve been saying again and again exactly what you explained: while there is some rule-breaking in the series that should be criticized, such as sneaking out of bed for a duel, the majority of rule breaking in the Harry Potter series, especially in the later books, is for virtuous purposes. I’ve read some far fetched opinions that even criticize Harry and his friends’ defiance towards Dolores Umbridge, the totalitarian and sadistic authority figure forced upon them in the fifth novel! Clearly you are well informed and know the series well but not blindly.
Ironically, most criticism comes from those who have never read the series and have only read published criticisms, such as Abanes’. (Abanes also claims that Rowling purposefully set out to indoctrinate children in the occult, which defies logic. Why would she, a church-attending Christian, invest so many years of her life promoting such a thing? Faulty logic. That is not to say that many of his other points aren’t worth considering, just that such a misrepresentation makes me question the validity of any other points he may try and make.)
Thank you so much for writing this thoughtful article. You didn’t claim that the series was perfect and the characters’ saints, you merely pointed out that they are realistic. Not only are they realistic, but they teach when rule breaking is acceptable and when it isn’t. As you said, lying to Nazi authorities to protect Jews during the Holocaust could hardly be criticized.
If Harry Potter was the only book available, I might care. I think the books promote the usual magical adventure suspense stuff that has been the stock in trade of the romanticism. It belongs on the shelf with The Hobbit, Gone with the Wind, etc.
Also, JK Rowling did not invent the rebellious teenager, not even in literature. There have long been youthful characters who have been “forced” into acting against the rules that were set up by the adults, who don’t have all the facts about the story’s villains, and who don’t understand why the kids “misbehave” the way they do.
All morality is relative.