I apologize if there is already a topic like this one, feel free to move or delete it as necessary.

Does the wizarding world create dark wizards?

Many of the death eaters come from abusive or unhappy backgrounds, or follow in their family's footsteps. If the wizarding world had stepped in when they were children, or while they were at Hogwarts, how would they have turned out?

For example, Tom Riddle (Voldemort) was abandoned at a muggle orphanage. Why was he allowed to remain there? Dumbledore at least knew he did not come from the best family, and yet Tom Riddle was allowed to grow up in a place where he was certain to be different, certain to be disliked, and certain to have no one who could explain what was happening to him or to teach him not to let his powers loose when he was angry or upset.

Snape had a mother who could explain his powers to him, but he still had a very unhappy childhood, leading him to turn to the dark arts for power and acceptance.

And then there are the children of death eaters, many of which are expected to follow in their parent's footsteps. Many of these parents have not been proven as death eaters, but their allegiances are known.

Muggles have child protection programs, why doesn't the wizarding world? How many children could be prevented from turning to the dark arts if they were taken out of bad situations?

Okay, I have a lot of mixed thoughts on this one. I'm gonna have to think this through.

Many of the death eaters come from abusive or unhappy backgrounds, or follow in their family's footsteps. If the wizarding world had stepped in when they were children, or while they were at Hogwarts, how would they have turned out?

Good question, I hope I have a good answer. Haha. Okay, I know there aren't nearly as many witches or wizards out there in the world as lets say there are muggles, but lets just pretend there are if not more. Could the wizarding world do anything at all for these people? In the real world, muggles are born into bad situations as well. As hard has the social workers and the governments try, they can't save everyone. I would think this same thought could be applied to the wizarding world. But onto the question at hand, how would they have turned out if they were given a different life? That depends on the person, deep down. They are their parents children so they have a 50% chance of still being like them or having their beliefs even without their influence. But they also have a 50% chance of not being like them because they go through life being influenced by the right people! So it just depends on the individual how they turn out. You can change your surroundings but you can't change who you are on the inside.

For example, Tom Riddle (Voldemort) was abandoned at a muggle orphanage. Why was he allowed to remain there? Dumbledore at least knew he did not come from the best family, and yet Tom Riddle was allowed to grow up in a place where he was certain to be different, certain to be disliked, and certain to have no one who could explain what was happening to him or to teach him not to let his powers loose when he was angry or upset.

Muggles have child protection programs, why doesn't the wizarding world? How many children could be prevented from turning to the dark arts if they were taken out of bad situations?

Let me ask this question, lets speak hypothetical here for a minute, lets say Voldemort could have gone to live with his grandfather and the rest of his family (if they wanted him) how would he have turned out? Do you think he would have turned out any differently? My answer would have been no. I think he would have still been angry at his father, at muggles and at anyone who was different from him. So to me, he was destined to be who he was. He was meant to be horrible wizard that he was.

Also, I will say this. Harry lived with horrible people as well. They didn't believe in him, they didn't treat him well and for the most part couldn't stand him. Harry's life with the Dursley's could have made Harry a very different person than he was. He could have hated all muggles for being who are they because they treated him bad. He could have decided "I'm going to do away with all muggles because they mistreated me" or "because they never loved me". But Harry never turned out that way, because deep down he was a good person. He came from a good background. The death eaters did not. Are they deep down good people? OR because of who their parents are, will they always be bad people? Or will they be good people? What determines it? What doesn't?

For the last question, I don't have an answer for. I'm in agreement with you. Why don't they have the same programs and regulations that the muggles have? Who knows how many could be saved. It may have changed many things and many people, or it could have changed nothing.

I realize Muggle child protective agencies are unable to save every child. But the wizarding world isn’t trying to save any. Also, I don’t think any person is born inherently good or bad . . . the way they are raised, the morals they are raised with, shape them later in life.

I don’t think Tom Riddle should have been left in a Muggle orphanage, but nor should he have been left with his family. His family is the type I was referring to that shouldn’t be allowed to raise children. His genetics were definitely against him, but if Tom Riddle had been taken out of the Muggle orphanage and placed in a wizarding family that was willing to accept him and care for him properly, would he have become so angry and desperate for power and acceptance?

Harry was raised in horrible conditions as well, and I don’t think Harry should have been left with the Dursleys. However, I don’t think Harry was ever really treated the same way as Tom Riddle. After all, no one at the orphanage cared. The Dursleys were definitely going to keep Harry alive, because I doubt they’d want the neighbors to see them carrying a dead body out of the house. Dumbledore was keeping an eye on Harry as he grew up too, and Dumbledore would have stepped in if something absolutely awful happened.

I find it amazing that the wizarding world has so many regulations and rules and yet nothing to protect children. No wizarding child should be allowed to grow up in a Muggle orphanage.

When you say that Dumbledore at least knew that Tom Riddle was stuck in the orphanage and didn't adopt him, what does that really prove? I mean, everyone knows there are kids stuck in orphanages and that doesn't mean they are going to adopt one. Some people do, others dont. Maybe dumbledore just didn't raise him because he didn't feel as if he wanted to. Also, anyone who grows up to become evil choses to do so themselves. Sirius grew up in a bad home, and look how he turned out. It all is decided by the person themselves whether they are going to be a good person or bad, the parents only give a push in the direction, the kid can chose to rebel.

I wasn't saying Dumbledore should adopt him. I was saying Dumbledore should not have allowed someone who already had genetics against him to grow up in that situation.

And yes, Sirius grew up in a bad home, but once he met James, he rarely was with his family. And his brother defected from the Death Eaters, so they must not have been brought up with that too strongly ingrained.

I wasn't saying Dumbledore should adopt him. I was saying Dumbledore should not have allowed someone who already had genetics against him to grow up in that situation.

I realize Muggle child protective agencies are unable to save every child. But the wizarding world isn’t trying to save any. Also, I don’t think any person is born inherently good or bad . . . the way they are raised, the morals they are raised with, shape them later in life.

See this is where I come at a crossroads and have some confusion about the wizarding world raising dark wizards (and I have this confusion in the real world too). Nature vs. Nuture. In the first quote, you said he shouldn't have been put in a situation that was already bad for him because of his genetics.

In the second one, you say that you don't think a person is born good or bad, that they are shaped that way, by the way they are raised and the beliefs and morals they are taught.

But which one is it? Or is it a little bit of both?? What is the dominating factor that determines whether a person will end up a serial killer? A rapist? A murdering Dark Wizard? Would he still have ended up that way because of genetics(nature) or would he have been a sweet loving wizard like Harry if he was raised in a better home(Nurture)? Or would it not have mattered at all because its determined upon the basis of genetics?! You see I go in circles because I don't know! And I'm suppose to be a psychology major!!!!!

Alannah ~ wow, just wow. This is great. My brain just spontaneously combusted with theories and thoughts and what ifs !

Does the wizarding world create dark wizards?

To answer your question; Yes and No. Asking that is like asking if the muggle world creates rapist (is that not allowed to be said..?), murderers, theives, etc.,etc. It definitely brings in to play Nature vs. Nurture.

You say many of the death eaters come from abusive/unhappy backgrounds, or follow in their family's footsteps; that doesn't mean the unhappiness was caused BY their families, or the abuse, and if they followed in their family's footsteps, wouldn't that be by choice (unless they are too cowardly to do otherwise, but that is still their choice not to stand up for themselves) ? We have to keep in mind that the wizarding world was, for the most part, held within the grasp of old money; that means old families, Purebloods. Suffice to say, a better question is, could the Ministry step in ? No, because they (Purebloods) are the Ministry.

For example, Tom Riddle (Voldemort) was abandoned at a muggle orphanage. Why was he allowed to remain there? Dumbledore at least knew he did not come from the best family, and yet Tom Riddle was allowed to grow up in a place where he was certain to be different, certain to be disliked, and certain to have no one who could explain what was happening to him or to teach him not to let his powers loose when he was angry or upset.

It is not the Ministry's responsibility to ensure the happiness of each of its citizens. It isn't possible in any case, much as it isn't in the muggle world. We all know governments are good at botching things up anyhow, and who's to say it wouldn't be made worse by their interference ? How were they to even know that Tom was different from any other magical human, that he was not happy where he was ? Dumbledore wasn't the Headmaster of Hogwarts even when he went to visit Tom at the orphanage. Yes, he was certain to be different - disliked though, that's a bit of an out of context statement. He wasn't innocently disliked, for sure. Tom Riddle Jr. did not like the other kids, and was very cruel to them, as HBP (I think) shows us. It can't be blamed on those muggle children for the situation he was in. Once again, the Ministry cannot be held accountable for Tom Riddle not having anyone to inform him of his magical abilities and that really isn't very good supporting evidence against the Ministry as all muggleborns and even some half-bloods and maybe even a few purebloods !

Snape had a mother who could explain his powers to him, but he still had a very unhappy childhood, leading him to turn to the dark arts for power and acceptance.

It's speculated that Snape's father (a muggleborn) was abusive, which has nothing to do with anything at all, so why did I bring it up. Except that maybe it gives Snape a reason to hate muggles, but he doesn't. No, what I think the root of Snape's problem was James Potter and Sirius Black. The muggle world can't even get a reign on bullying, so I don't see what could be done in the wizarding world. A ban on using magic against others is rather pointless, stupid, and uhm... not really an intelligent thing to even think of enforcing.

And then there are the children of death eaters, many of which are expected to follow in their parent's footsteps. Many of these parents have not been proven as death eaters, but their allegiances are known.

For children, acceptance from the family can be even stronger than acceptance from peers. Man of them were brought up to be mugglehaters and it's all they know. Purebloods are definitely examples of Nature and Nurture working together - they inherit genetics from their parents to have this mindset, and then they are nurtured further as they grow for the hate to fester and darken them. The thing about humans is that they fear the unknown and they fear change. Purebloods especially because change would slowly but surely strip the power they hold from them, and then where would they be (the unknown!). It's always about power.

As for allegiances being known but parent's not being proven as Death Eater's and tried for such... Well who's to say they all were Death Eaters ? Umbridge was a sure supporter of Voldemort, but we know for a fact she was not a death eater. It doesn't mean anything to support ideals and beliefs; if they could be persecuted for that, then who's to say that the "good guys" shouldn't be as well for thinking the opposite. It's all perspective, but it's not right to judge them on what they believe because others think it was wrong. Am I making any sense?

Muggles have child protection programs, why doesn't the wizarding world? How many children could be prevented from turning to the dark arts if they were taken out of bad situations?

Well, like I said before, the wizarding world is run by old money, the Purebloods are in power (which is why Hermione, Ron, and Harry revolutionize the Ministry when everything is over), and they don't think they are wrong, nor do they believe there is a need for child protection, because really... who would need it ? You think they're going to be all "Oh dear, my child needs to be taken from me because I teach them the wrong morals and ideals, yada yada..." Yeah right, and Lucius let's me hold his awesome cane (You know what I'm talkin about dear cousin!). Of course, if there were these agencies that could prevent the situations from occuring, many dark wizards could be prevented, but then who's to say that there wouldn't just be different dark wizards produced ? It really is a bunch of what ifs !

Let me ask this question, lets speak hypothetical here for a minute, lets say Voldemort could have gone to live with his grandfather and the rest of his family (if they wanted him) how would he have turned out? Do you think he would have turned out any differently?

He'd have turned out the same, as his grandfather's wishes were basically along the same lines as his own. There really isn't a whole lot I can say to this as it's nearly impossible for this to even happen if it was a real situation. He was a half-blood, for one. Secondly, his mother died shortly after giving birth, and he wouldn't have know how to find his mother's family because he had the last name Riddle and did not know she was a Gaunt. Thirdly, Morfin was in prison for 3 years, and Marvolo was in prison for the first 6 months of his sons inprisonment and died before his son was released. Hardly any amount of time to take care of a child, had he even been healthy enough, and the Gaunts wouldn't be a good family to live with anyhow. And just like you said, lupin<3tonks, he would have been angry still, and maybe even more so for diluting his pureblood heritage !

Harry couldn't have lived anywhere else, he needed Petunia's blood to keep him safe.

~ihkny

~~ I know you've posted after me Alannah, and I do want to respond to it, but I feel this post is already too lengthy so I will wait to remake one after someone else has contributed as well !

I'd just like to clear up a point, since my dear cousin has pointed out my wavering between nature and nurture.

I believe in both, actually. I believe a person is predisposed to act in a certain way, and if they had no outside influencing factors, would behave according to genetics.

But I also believe that nurture plays a role as well, since everyone is influenced. So, I believe a person who is by nature predisposed to evil can be taught that it is bad and shameful, and can be taught guilt. Just as well, I believe a person who is predisposed to be good can be corrupted and turn out badly.