Somebody to blame (was re: McGonagall (and Snape) & Dementor)

[caliburncy]

No: HPFGUIDX 33432

This whole "who is reponsible for the Kiss of Crouch Jr.?" debate 
baffled me the first time it came up, and it baffles me now.  Every 
time I see this kind of thing I am reminded of the song "Your fault" 
from Stephen Sondheim's brilliant musical "Into the Woods".  Or even 
better, the witch's comment that immediately follows in the next 
song, "Last Midnight":

No, of course what really matters is the blame, 
Somebody to blame.
Fine, if that's the thing you enjoy, 
Placing the blame, 
If that's the aim, 
Give me the blame--
Just give me the boy.

(You'd understand the last line, if you had seen the musical.)

Anyway, I think there's a really interesting (OT-Chatter) 
psychological discussion to be gleaned from this on why it is that 
the notion of "blame" so permeates our society.  Clearly, it exists 
primarily because it is a comfortable defense.  But it also seems to 
be basically irrational to attempt to apply blame to any particular 
quarter.

Fudge is culpable for what Fudge did or failed to do.  McGonagall is 
culpable for what McGonagall did or failed to do.  Snape likewise for 
his own actions or inactions.

I guess I don't see how these can be "compared" to each other, as if 
they can be weighed to see who has the most overall culpability.  To 
some extent, we can argue (albeit unfairly, since we will never 
understand the exact circumstance) whether McGonagall, for example, 
did all that was in her power to prevent the Kiss . . . but how 
this "ranks" her compared to Fudge or Snape, I cannot see.

The same conundrum, I feel, permeates the long-standing debate on the 
GOF argument between Harry and Ron.  Both Harry and Ron acted in 
questionable fashion and in some manner contributed to the argument.  
I don't understand how we can compare the two's contributions and 
come up with one "greater" contributor, or someone who is more at 
fault.  We might be able to say that Ron did not act as well as he 
could have, and Harry likewise, but how does this gives us grounds to 
conclude that either Ron or Harry was more at fault?  How can one 
be "more" at fault, anyway?  Isn't fault a black-and-white concept?  
You either are at fault or you aren't--and while two people can share 
blame in the sense of both being at fault simultaneously, they do not 
share blame in the sense that the two might share a pie, taking 
differently-sized portions: this person with 60% and this person with 
40%.  Blame, as I see it, just can't work like that.  It's not a 
matter of the mathematics of it--there is no mathematics; that was 
just a convenient illustration--blame just isn't a "shared" concept 
in that sense, I don't think.  It's a purely personal one.

In any case, the consequences of individual actions are simply too 
hard to measure, and judgment too far beyond mere human wisdom.

At least, that's what I believe.

Which is why I don't like the concept of blame in the first place, so 
perhaps I am just being touchy.  :-)

-Luke