Should Harry have just let Padfoot and Moony kill Peter Pettigrew?
A short time ago I would have said, "Heck yeah!!!! Harry was an idiot for letting him live." I realized a little while ago though if Harry had let them kill him out of spite, none of them (him, Padfoot, or Moony) would have been any better than Death Eaters.
Harry was going to take him to Azkaban to get what he deserved. Justice would have been achieved and also would have kept all those innocent people killed after Voldemort's return alive.
If he had been killed it would have been pure revenge and left them with blood o their hands. Harry's mercy showed they were better than Death Eaters.
“I realized a little while ago though if Harry had let them kill him out of spite, none of them (him, Padfoot, or Moony) would have been any better than Death Eaters.”
The definition of spite per Merriam’s Dictionary is, “petty ill will or hatred with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart”.
So, I think its incorrect to say that killing Pettigrew would have been “spite”. Pettigrew intentionally caused the death of James Potter (father), Lily Potter (mother), and nearly Harry himself, when he sent Voldemort after their family. He also then framed family friend Sirius Black for this atrocity, condemning him to a life of imprisonment and torture. Whether or not you think the killing of Pettigrew would be justified, I think we can all agree that such a killing wouldn’t be out of petty “spite” but a moral desire for vengeance.
Therefore, I don’t think such a killing would have equated Harry and his friends to Deatheaters. Deatheaters DO kill out of spite, out of an irrational loathing for impure “mudbloods” (Lily Potter), and all those “Blood-Traitors” who defend them (James Potter/Sirius Black). Whether you agree with their killings or not, I think we can agree that Deatheater killings are much different than the potential killings of Pettigrew.
“Harry was going to take him to Azkaban to get what he deserved. Justice would have been achieved and also would have kept all those innocent people killed after Voldemort's return alive.”
Assuming like above, that Harry’s killing of Pettigrew would not be on the level of the morally reprehensible Deatheaters, why would this not be what Pettigrew “deserved”?
Furthermore, killing Pettigrew would have also “kept all those innocent people killed after Voldemort's return alive.”
“If he had been killed it would have been pure revenge and left them with blood o their hands.”
Why is “pure revenge” a bad thing? Furthermore, how is allowing your friends to kill this piece of vermin (literally and figuratively) “blood on their hands”, but condemning him to a life of torture where he will then shortly die (based on accounts of Azkaban), not blood on their hands?
Furthermore, wouldn’t this “revenge” executed by Harry, not just be for his good, but for the general public’s well-being? Pettigrew is a proven murderer, who will kill even his closest friends if he thinks it will benefit him. Killing Pettigrew wouldn’t just be justice for his past crimes, but would likely be preventing future murders/atrocities.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|