Newt’s Actions in Battle with Grindelwald: A Deeper Look

When Newt Scamander, the renowned Magizoologist, caught Gellert Grindelwald, the dark and internationally wanted criminal, in New York City, there was a profound ethical dilemma. The question arises: was it fair for Newt to distract Grindelwald and tie him from behind while battling a dozen Aurors from MACUSA? This article will explore the context, motivations, and broader implications of Newt’s actions, ultimately concluding that while his behavior may be seen as unfair, it was indeed for the greater good.

Newt’s Motivation: Protecting the Innocent

Grindelwald, a manipulative and dangerous figure, had been hiding and deceiving others for weeks, even months, and was responsible for the manipulation of a helpless boy named Credence. Beyond that, there is a possibility that Grindelwald had done further harm to Newt himself. This raises a fundamental question: how can such actions be deemed fair when they jeopardize the lives of countless innocent individuals?

The International Threat of Grindelwald

Newt’s actions were not trivial. If he had allowed Grindelwald to escape, the consequences could have been catastrophic. Grindelwald was a threat that not only endangered the magical community but also the non-magical world. His defeat at the hands of Newt was crucial in preventing the MACUSA from being defeated and in escaping the city. Moreover, had Grindelwald succeeded, there would have been a further risk of exposing the magical community, which was already compromised by the Obscurial.

A Duel or a Survival Scenario?

It is argued that taking on Grindelwald for a duel would have been foolish and impractical. The Aurors from MACUSA, while valiant, were outnumbered and outmatched. Newt had to act quickly and pragmatically. His distraction of Grindelwald and tying him from behind was a calculated maneuver designed to buy time and ensure Grindelwald’s capture. This action was not about engaging in a game but rather about surviving a dangerous and complex situation.

The Lesser Evil

Some critics argue that Newt’s actions were unfair, but in the context of a greater threat to the community, it can be seen as a lesser evil. The ethical dilemma presented here is reminiscent of the famous philosophical question, “Is it ever just to sacrifice one life to save many?” In this scenario, the survival and protection of countless individuals outweigh the perceived unfairness of Newt’s actions.

Conclusion: A Complicated Ethical Decision

While Newt’s act of distracting Grindelwald and tying him from behind may appear unfair from a conventional standpoint, the broader implications and context reveal a different truth. Newt’s actions were driven by a desire to protect the innocent and prevent further harm. His strategic approach was necessary to combat a serious and imminent threat. While one may feel a sense of regret at the failure to further eliminate the opposing forces, the overall outcome was a significant victory for the magical community and the non-magical world.