MAGIC DISHWASHER explanation (was: Re: Assassin!Snape's Next Victim)

[abigailnus]

No: HPFGUIDX 46907


Wendy wrote (greatly truncated):
> >  (I suppose that MAGIC DISHWASHER Dumbledore might not have a problem 
> > with this? But I don't subscribe to that theory in any case).

and then Grey Wolf replied:
> 
> Why does MAGIC DISHWASHER has such a bad image, then, to the point of 
> having Wendy say that she doesn't subscribe to the theory *in any 
> case,* even though she doesn't understand it? It's as if it was *wrong* 
> to believe in MAGIC DISHWASHER, and Wendy makes it look it so: no 
> matter what MAGIC DISHWASHER defends, she will not be part of it. (Yes, 
> I'm hurt by that comment. I hope it shows).

I don't think that's quite what Wendy meant.  She was voicing an objection 
to Assassin!Snape on the grounds that Dumbledore wouldn't approve of 
Karkarof's assassination - and then she wondered whether 
Dishwasher!Dumbledore would approve of it (frankly, I think he would).  
Wendy then states that she doesn't subscribe to MD, so the fact that MD 
might strenghen Assassin!Snape - and I'm a bit surprised to see that no 
one from the Safe House has showed up at the TBAY tavern to back Cindy 
up - doesn't affect her opinion. 
 
> 
> I suspect that the problem probably comes from one of the last attacks 
> on the theory: that Dumbledore was evil because he had helped to 
> resurrect Voldemort. This is partialy true: Dumbledore needs Voldemort 
> to be mortal so it can be destroyed (or redeemed, or whatever), and has 
> guided Voldemort into using a potion that is flawed. This method has 
> caused accidental deaths, and this is what the attack used to say that 
> Dumbledore is respoinsible for Voldemort's actions. The fact that, left 
> to his own devices, Voldemort would've killed many more people has been 
> ignored by the oposition (IIRC, the last time that point was debated, I 
> proposed a simple moral problem: if you are faced with a building in 
> flames, and you can only save a room with eight people, or one with 
> two, what would you do? I was told that, no matter what you chose, 
> you'd be evil. I certainly don't agree with that reasoning).

I don't believe that a person making this choice is evil, but I do believe
 that it's an evil choice.  Choosing one person's life over another because 
of maths is a terrible thing - but in life sometimes you have to do terrible 
things.  There's a beautiful passage in Terry Pratchett's book Carpe 
Jugulum that I think illustrates this.  Granny Weatherwax, the witch and 
midwife, has been called to the bedside of a woman in a difficult labor, 
and has to choose whether to save the mother or the baby.  It becomes 
clear throughout the book that she believes she is no longer a good 
person because she dared to make that choice, but that she also 
recognizes that the choice had to be made, and she was the only person 
strong enough to make it. (Unfortunately I don't have my copy of CJ in 
front of me - Pratchett explains things so much better than I ever could.)

However, I think I have a firm grasp of MAGIC DISHWASHER (I've read 
almost all of the discussions since the theory's inception) and I don't think 
your burning building analogy holds.  Dumbledore isn't like a man passing 
by a burning building who can only save some of the people inside it - this 
implies that the building was already on fire when he got there.  A 
more apt comparison would be, in my opinion, a man walking down the 
street who sees a building and says "This building is a death trap - the 
electrical system is about to go, there's no lightning rod, the fire escape is 
out of order.  When it catches fire - and it surely will, sooner or later - 
everybody inside will be killed.  But here, I've got a hose, and a shovel, and 
I'm the only fireman in this town.  What if I'm out of town, or dead, when 
this building catches fire?  Better I should just set it alight now and rescue 
everyone.  Sure, I can't save everybody in the building - I'm just one man 
with limited resources, after all - but it's certainly better than leaving them 
all to die in the next fire, right?" 

Now, MD objectors are willing to accept that the man can't just evacuate 
the building before setting it on fire - there will certainly be people killed by 
Voldemort, after all.  What we are pointing out, however, is that the people 
who are currently living in the building may not be in it when it catches fire 
on its own - it's not a question of whether they will die now or later but of 
whether they will die at all.  We're also wondering why the fireman couldn't 
wait a bit longer, get a few more guys on his team, train them properly, 
maybe get a truck and a ladder for those hard-to-reach floors.  In other 
words, we're not saying that the fireman is evil, just that his leaps of logic 
don't make that much sense to us.

Personally, my problem with MD stems from a more basic source - the fact 
that MD proponents claim that it is  canon-proof.  The rest of us are out there 
on the bay, daring the approaching storm, not a lifeboat among us, and where 
are the MD people?  In the Safe House!  Snug in their warm beds and secure 
in the knowledge that no storm could ever trouble them.  I just don't think 
that's playing fair.

Abigail