TBAY- Dumbledore and Just War Theory (You had to Know It Was Coming!)

[lucky_kari]

No: HPFGUIDX 47166

"Well, well, well," says Eileen. "Things have come to a pretty pass.
You know what this reminds me of?"

"What?" asks Wendy.

"It reminds me of discussions around the dinner table at my house,
where everyone has a completely different view of whether war on
you-know-where would be justified."

Everyone shudders, knowing that current politics should not be
discussed on the list. 

"But," says Eileen, "I will not say the I-word. Instead, I'll say that
I've consequently been doing a lot of reading up on Just War Theory
over the last while."

Wendy shrugs her shoulder. "My inner Buddhist and Quaker must be
coming through, but I really don't like what Dicentra said. I would
say that turning into the thing you are fighting would be worse than
dying for your principles. If Dumbledore does as Dicentra suggests,"
Wendy says, looking disconcerted and more than a bit sad, "he's no
better than Voldemort, is he? Well, perhaps that's a bit extreme, but
I would definitely say that he's not lived up to the moral code I
expect from Dumbledore, and from the "good guys."

"I'm on your side entirely," says Eileen. "I think this proposed
killing of Karkaroff is wrong."

"But," says Dicentra, "Dumbledore isn't always going to have a clean
means to victory. He will often have to choose between the lesser of
two evils. And if it so happens that executing Karkaroff will bring
Snape back into Voldemort's good graces, for the purpose of getting
vital intelligence and an operative on the inside, then that will have
to be what he does."

"No!" cries Wendy. "I overheard someone here say that different rules
of morality apply during war.* And while I'll agree that this is a
widely held opinion, I think it is not only wrong, but a dangerous
thing to believe. It is a belief like this that opens the door to
things like the dehumanization that Eileen and Judy have been
discussing in their Choleric!Snape discussion. True morality doesn't
waver. That's not to say that values and mores can't shift over time.
But *true* morality - what really constitutes good and evil, if you
will - doesn't waver. If it does, then the whole concept of morality
becomes meaningless. And maybe that's the truth, after all - that all
morality really is just a human, societal construct and is,
ultimately, meaningless. But that's not what I'm wanting to argue
here. My point isn't necessarily the relation between two differing
sets of moral codes, but consistency within one. No matter what your
moral code is, it seems that some things should stand."

"Look," says Eileen. "I'll lay my cards on the table. I believe in
moral absolutes, natural law, inalienable rights, the whole thing. And
that may flavour my revulsion towards killing Karkaroff. Oh heck, why
say "may flavour?" That explains my revulsion towards killing
Karkaroff. I have to agree with Wendy, if you have a moral code, you
stick with it. And Dumbledore does have a moral code, and he believes
in sticking with it. The question is "What is his moral code?" 

"If killing people is wrong today," says Wendy. "It should be wrong
tommorrow." 

Dicentra interrupts, "Having moral courage sometimes means doing one
awful thing to prevent something worse from happening." 

"That's not my definition of moral courage. I think it takes more
courage to choose a path of non-violence," says Wendy.
Dicentra shakes her head. "Non-violence might not be an option in some
cases. Non-violence works only if your enemy has a moral code but is
blind to the fact that they're doing something evil. <snip example of
Ghandi and Britain> But Ghandi himself said that against the truly
immoral and brutal, non-violence wouldn't work at all, because the
immoral don't *care* if they're being immoral, and showing them their
evil doesn't cause the least bit of remorse."

Wendy shakes her head. "So if, under this rationalisation that "they
deserved it," or "there is no other way to stop them and we must
protect ourselves," you commit acts of terror, then you have become
exactly the thing you are fighting against - a terrorist."

"But," says Eileen, "Isn't there a difference between Just War and
Terrorism?"

Everyone stares at her, nervous that this debate is going to go all
political. George gets ready to call the mods.

"No, hear me out. This isn't about what is Just War and what isn't in
our world. You see we all believe in Just Wars here."

"We do?" asks George. He's echoed by a lot of the pub goers. 

"Of course we do," says Eileen cheerfully. "We wouldn't be fans of the
book if we didn't believe the good side is justified in fighting
Voldemort. Pacificism as a philosophy doesn't hold water in the
Potterverse. Even if you don't believe 99.9999% of this world's wars
are particularly justified, this one is. Does anyone want Harry,
Dumbledore and the rest to settle down and wait for Voldemort to
destroy the world? So, it's time for Just War theory. 

Just War Theory states that ther our four important principles to be
regarded in deciding whether to go to war and in conducting a war. 

First, war can only be engaged in as a matter of self-defense or the
defense of others. 

Secondly, the war must have a reasonable likelihood of success. i.e.
Killing additional people for no earthly reason is not a good thing.

Thirdly, war should only be entered when all non-violent means of
resolution are exhausted.

Fourth, non-combantants should be immune from deliberate attack.

Fifth, the use of force should be proportionate to the evil that is
being fought. 

Now, here's the evidence that Just War Theory fits JKR's moral beliefs
as shown in canon. 

Principle #1 is obviously observed in the Potterverse. JKR has upheld
the right to self-defense several times throughout the books.
Meanwhile, the war against Voldemort is one of self-defense against
Voldemort.

Principle #2. Yes, this is no futile uprising that is going to cost
more people their lives. The opposite is true.  

Principle #3 in the real world is one that causes the most doubt about
whether war is morallly justifiable, since there are so many ways of
non-violent resolution available to us. But JKR has set up a situation
in which there isn't an apparent non-violent means of resolution. When
Voldemort advances on Harry in the graveyard, JKR has Harry fight
back. There may be some questions about how far JKR sanctions violent
means of resolution (some listies note that Harry did try AK, and
there has been some debate over whether that was a moral choice there
or just the fact that he didn't know AK), but that's a Principle #5
question.

Principle #4 - JKR's entire condemnation of Voldemort's method of
going after non-combatants would suggest that she isn't planning to
have Dumbledore say, "Screw the non-combatants. Let's massacre the
Slytherin kids," which would be a jolly good idea by the way. Holding
Draco Malfoy and the others as hostages, that is. But he's not going
to do it, because Dumbledore doesn't believe in killing
non-combatants. Which, btw, is why, imho, this whole Karkaroff thing
doesn't wash. Karkaroff is a non-combatant. Dumbledore isn't going to
be killing him any more than he'd consider killing Draco Malfoy in an
attempt to intimidate Lucius Malfoy into something.

Principle #5 - This is where we get to "Padfoot Returns." Sirius
basically outlines Principle #5 when he said that Crouch became as
cruel as many on the dark side. You can go too far with force, and
when you do, what you are doing is just as bad as what you're trying
to get rid of. Using the Cruciatus curse on your enemies is a good
example of this. We haven't exactly seen where JKR draw the line, but
we do know she draws a line. 

So you see, I think that Just War Theory fits the moral framework
Rowling is building in that Dumbledore's war on Voldemort upholds each
of its principles. I claim that this is the morality she endorses, and
that it leaves no room for killing Karkaroff. I look forward to a long
and interesting debate on this."

Eileen