Life debts

[maria_kirilenko]

No: HPFGUIDX 56240

Maria (me) said:

>I believe that in order for a life debt to be created, the "saver" 
>has to overcome a personal, emotional barrier that might stop him 
>from saving the other person. It's created when "What is right" is 
>chosen over "What is easy," or, in other words, what you'd actually 
>like to do. So, Pettigrew would indeed have a life debt to Harry, 
>because Harry couldn't care less if Pettigrew died. 

>James hated (I assume) Snape, but saved him anyway. => life debt.

Mme Malkin replied:

It's my feeling that a couple of conditions must be satisfied for a 
life debt to exist.  First, the "debtor's" life is must be forfeit 
to the "saver" already.  In other words the "saver" is in some way 
entitled to or justified in taking the person's life.  Secondly, 
the "debtor" comes under the power of the one he has wronged and is 
spared.  Because Pettigrew was responsible in the deaths of Harry's 
parents, Harry would have been justified in killing him.  The life 
debt wasn't incurred, however, until Harry was actually in a 
position to take his life.  Now Pettigrew "owes" his life because 
Harry was entitled to take it, and was in a position to do so, but 
let him keep it.

I guess I'm saying I agree with Maria except in the degree.  It's 
more than overcoming a "personal, emotional barrier," (what I take 
to be an inclination or preference), it's setting aside an 
entitlement.

By these critera, Snape must already have done something to deserve 
death at James' hands in order to incur a life debt when James saved 
him.  Hmmm, I wonder what that was? 

Me:

Entitlement? Well... I don't really think so. First of all, this:

>By these critera, Snape must already have done something to deserve 
>death at James' hands in order to incur a life debt when James saved 
>him.  Hmmm, I wonder what that was?  

See, it's kind of hard for me to imagine that Remus and Sirius 
wouldn't mention Snape's hypothetical evil deed when they were 
reminiscing about the Prank.

Then, Snape was trying, as I read it, to repay his life-debt to James 
by saving Harry from falling off his broom in PS. Assuming that the 
same conditions (entitlement to the savee's life) have to exist to 
repay the life-debt, the theory doesn't really work - how is Snape 
entitled to take Harry's life?

And also, I don't believe that a person can ever be entitled to take 
another person's life, no matter what the circumstances. I don't like 
this kind of revenge. I can *understand* it, if, for example, Harry 
kills Pettigrew, but I can't see it as justified. I was cursing at 
Harry when he was about to kill Sirius, and again when Remus and 
Sirius were about to murder Peter. Ick. I don't want Harry to murder 
Voldemort either.

Maria