[HPforGrownups] Re: Bang! You're dead.

[Kathryn Cawte]

No: HPFGUIDX 86324


"The Loudest Noise Comes From The Electric Minerva."

Kneasy:

> Be warned; Kneasy is only happy when he causes other fans to fly to
> their keyboards in a "We'll soon see about that!" frame of mind.
>

K

Which is a pity, because I think I'm generally about to agree with you on
most things, albeit with some conditions.


> First up:
>
> Nora:
> Because means matter. In several ethical systems one might apply
> (from the real world, gasp!), but also the comments from canon
> discussed previously. It's notable that the Aurors were authorized
> to use these curses because they normally would not have been; one
> can view it not as saying 'Oh, but it's actually alright now', but as
> a concession to necessity that doesn't ameliorate their wrongness. I
> like Moody. He's interesting, and a good foil. He certainly has blood
> on his hands. But he also is described as being one of the ones who
> tried to capture and not to kill--a distinction worth noting. I
> think JKR has written in, and is examining, moral concepts--and I
> think she's made it pretty clear that both means and intention
> *matter*.
>
> Kneasy:
> I don't subscribe to "the ends justify the means" school either. Or not
> often -  it all depends on the ends that are envisaged and what means
> are either available or likely to be efficacious. If that  sounds like
> a cop out it's probably because I approach the problem from a slightly
> different angle.
>
K

Actually it sounds like you probably do subscribe to Machiavelli's original
meaning there though. The quote was originally something like (Sorry don't
have a copy of The Prince to hand, didn't expect to be using it in an HP
discussion, silly me) in certain circumstances the ends can justify the
means. He was talking about pretty much the type of situation we have in the
WW at the time - ie war and the survival of one's society. (The Prince is an
instruction manual for the potential ruler of a City)

I agree that JKR seems to be showing that morally (although not necessarily
legally) when and why we make certain choices ie killing someone, are very
important, in fact possibly more important than the decision in the first
place. Although other times it seems that the choice is important rather
than the reasoning behind it - eg Harry's decision to become a Gryffindor
not a Slytherin which prompts Dumbledore's comment about choices defining
us. In that particular case all that Harry's choice shows us really is that
he'd taking a liking to Ron and thought Draco an utter prat. I wnder what
this emphasis on the importance of choice tells us about Dumbledore who's
main choice in several circumstances seems to have been to stand by and let
someone else choose (of which more later)

Kneasy:

> The key question to Harry IMO is 'Are you willing to kill in whatever
> the prevailing circumstances are at the time?' That is the crunch
> question. If the answer is 'yes' then the moral and ethical criteria
> have been dealt with from Harry's point of view; what's  left are the
> practicalities. Once he decides that he can willingly encompass the
> destruction of Voldemort all  else fades in comparison. Intention is
> everything, means are a detail. Whatever means he uses will make no
> difference from Voldemorts viewpoint - and he'll be the injured (or
> mortified) party. He'd be equally pissed off no  matter which method
> Harry used.
>
K

I'm not so sure about that. I think the key question is "Are you willing to
kill *if necessary"? or was that what you were saying and I am
misunderstanding you?

Kneasy:

> I've had discussions off site where I've pointed out that killing may
> be an ethical question but murder is interpreted by legal means. It is
> a socially
> defined crime. The Aurors were told that the definition did not apply
> to their actions in certain circumstances. Such exclusions are made in
> the real world too and so long as the circumstances are as envisaged I
> have no objections. Moody  obviously tried to maintain the spirit as
> well as the letter of the law; he didn't kill gratuitously. What more
> could one ask for?
>
K

I think that the whole system surrounding the unforgivables is idiotic
anyway. Cruciatus I can understand being illegal, regardless of
circumstances. It is there only to cause pain and while one could use it to
distract/disable an opponent there are other equally effective spells.
However Imperius and AK have their uses. As I understand the law had James
AK'ed Voldemort to save his family and his self he'd have ended up in jail!
Imperius could be used when apprehending criminals, by medical staff with
patients who are in danger of hurting themselves or others etc.

> Nora:
> I also think it's notable that Harry's Crucio didn't work
> particularly well. Lack of practice perhaps, but also a lack of true
> will/intention; he wanted to hurt her on one level, but on another, I
> think he didn't have it in him to truly hurt another human being like
> that.
> (Carol  voices this opinion, too.)
>
> Kneasy:
> Sorry. According to canon it's a life sentence for "using any one of
> them on a fellow human being" -  being  bad at it doesn't seem to be a
> mitigating circumstance. And  I think Harry would use them in certain
> circumstances; I don't seem to be the only one either. The first thing
> Lupin did on entering the Shrieking Shack was to disarm Harry. If Harry
> had known about the Unforgivables at the time, who knows what might
> have happened?
>

K
See my above comments about it being a stupid system to make them illegal
for no reason. Although on the subject of Bellatrix I wonder why Harry
didn't try and kill her rather than just hurting her - not that I'm saying
he necessarily *should* have tried to kill her, I'm just wondering why he
chose to try and cause her as much pain as he could (which turned out to be
pretty much none - but the intention was there, even if his subconscious and
his nature wouldn't let him follow it up)but not kill her.

>
> Berit replies:
> >
> When a rash and potentially violent character like Sirius saw the
> problems of Crouch's decision, forcing his Aurors to "descend to the
> level of Death Eaters", do you really think Dumbledore didn't object?
> If so I want to know when, according to canon, Dumbledore started to
> become more "blood-thirsty" than Sirius :-))
>
>
>
> Kneasy:
> Circumstantial evidence maybe. But some circumstantial evidence, like a
> trout in the milk, is very compelling.
>
> There is no canon that I can find that mentions a counter-faction to
> Crouch's measures. When discussing the subject with Harry, don't you
> think Sirius would have mentioned one, if it existed?
>
> If Dumbledore did have objections, then he has gone down in my
> estimation. Not for objecting, but for not going public and causing a
> fuss. (If he had done so I'm sure we would have heard of it by now.) To
> my mind he would have been trying to have his cake and eating it too,
> if that was his stance. Has he no principles that he will publicly
> stand up for? Deploring methods in private, taking advantage of them in
> public seems a bit hypocritical.
>

K

As I was saying earlier he does seem to like to abdicate responsibility.
When he stands up to Fudge in OoP it's the only time I've really seen him
take action of any kind. Throughout PS he seems to allow Snape and Harry to
do all the work (alright we don't know that Snape told Dumbledore he was
suspicious but it's not very Slytherin to take all the risks oneself, the
only time we've seen Snape act *rashly* is around Lupin and he must have
told Dumbledore *something* to get to be quidditch umpire so why would he
have deliberately omitted his suspicions about *who* was the problem). He
seems in fact to give Harry all the clues for how to get to the Stone in
case it was necessary but not done anything himself about it. In CoS other
than warning the students he doesn't seem to do much even when students are
dropping like flies. The extent of his standing up for Hagrid seems to have
been telling Fudge that he didn't agree with him, no actual action of any
kind and again he knows that Harry and Co are 'up to no good' and possibly
about tog et themselves into danger but he doesn't try and stop them, in
fact he encourages them. In PoA he does nothing that we can see to try and
head off the inevitable confrontation between Lupin and Snape, apparently
choosing to let them settle it themselves. Knowing as he does at the end
that Sirius (one of the members of his Order, who obviously risked their
lives against Voldemort) is innocent but doesn't try and help him instead
seeming to let him survive on his own with no help from anyone, but then at
the end of GoF jumps back into giving him orders (I feel he has some
responsibility for the well fare of these people regardless of why they work
for him). He routinely fails to even pay attention to the emotional
wellbeing of his staff, 'friends' and students - Harry, Sirius, Snape etc.
He is worried about what Voldemort could do if he worked with Harry (but
it's fine to let Snape do it), he knows what the feeling between Snape and
Harry is but just blithely orders them to work together on occulomancy and
trusts them to sort it out for themselves. He seems to agree somewhat with
Hermione about the House Elves (although possibly not with her methods) and
to agree that there is a problem with the way the other races interact with
wizards - but we've never seen him say anything publically. The House
rivalries seem to have progressed past competition into something which is
counter-productive and may *encourage* Slytherins to join Voldemort (after
all is everyone's going to assume you're evil anyway you might as well get
some 'fun' out of it). 1/4 of his students  are written off as irredeemably
evil by what seems to be most of the students (and some of the staff) but he
doesn't seem inclined to do anything about it.

It seems to me Dumbledore is full of pretty words but precious few actions.

Kneasy:

> Just what did the old  Order achieve? Anything?
> We hear of no successes at all, just a string of dead members. I'll bet
> that the other  members were quite relieved that *somebody* was
> knocking off the opposition - it was the members that were in the
> firing line after all. Where was DD in all this? Did he put his own
> neck on the line?
>
K

A very good question. I'd like to know more about how fixed in stone
prophecies are - did Dumbledore even try and actually defeat Voldemort
(rather than just defeating his individual attacks and such) or did he just
put all that responsibility onto Harry's shoulders when the kid was born?
And if so how justifiable was that - can prophecies ever be changed?

>
> Kneasy:
> I can understand this view very easily (particularly as I was on duty
> in a Birmingham hospital the night of the '74 pub bombings.) The public
> demands that something be done - *now*. Civil rights go out of the
> window and Draconian measures are passed with a will, none daring to
> say nay. In hindsight it's easy to decry the actions and the attitudes,
> but when you're  fighting a terrorist war and the pile of innocent dead
> mounts  ever higher with no end in sight.... This, I imagine is how the
> WW was. This was not a chivalrous conflict with rules of engagement
> that everyone understood, Voldy and his gang was out there, killing,
> subverting, destroying society; no one was safe.
>
K

Understanding *why* something happens doesn't make it right however - do we
have any evidence that adopting these draconian measures actually did any
good? Or did they merely encourage more people to join the DEs? eg those
whose relatives had been killed by Aurors, those who might have agreed with
the principle of pure blood views but disagreed with the methods would have
been encouraged to fight if they felt they were likely to be discriminated
against/imprisioned/killed whether they did or not .... Regulus for example
seems to have drawn the line at some of Voldemort's actions and tried to
leave, would he have done so I wonder *after* the authorities had imprisoned
his brother without a trial (he might not have liked the guy but he *was*
family, and that does seem fairly important to a family like the Blacks)

> Kneasy:
> Well put.
> And I'll add a quote that was made by one of the enemy:
> "It might or might not be right to kill, but sometimes it is necessary."
> Gerry Adams PIRA.
> Sauce for the goose...
>
>
K

Do you *have* to use quotes that I agree with from people I don't like? :)
I do agree with the quote but the WW doesn't seem to have bothered to define
'necessary' when allowing the Aurors to use Unforgivables, the practice if
not the actual law seems to have gone from - no, under no circumstances, not
even in self-defence, to, as long as it's a DE and you can get away with it.


> Kneasy:
> Well, Moody did use the AK. At least, Sirius says so. But only when
> necessary, so that's all right, isn't it?
> I doubt Barty was trying to set a moral example. A judge is  not there
> to pronounce on morals but on actions against the common good. Trying
> to save a society and destroy a pestilence by means that may not be
> acceptable in normal times is a justifiable moral stance so far as the
> majority at risk are concerned, I doubt that the 'rights' of the DEs
> were considered by anyone.
>
K

Actually a judge is there to pronounce on the law and nothing else - no
matter how much he may agree or disagree with the law. I'm sure most of the
pure-blood supremacists would argue that upholding the 'rights' of
muggle-borns is contrary to the good of wizarding society as they are, as a
group, the biggest threat to it. That's why human rights cover *all* humans,
regardless of whether they 'deserve' them, and why the law aplies equally to
all regardless of who they are, to protect everyone in the case that you
suddenly become part of a group that is seen as a 'threat'


>
> Kneasy:
> I prefer to believe that DD did know about it, and approved. How else
> could he get Harry protected against the Imperio! curse? No way could
> such a lesson be  kept secret from the rest of the school; it'd be all
> round the common-rooms by that evening.
>
K

Um, how do you back that statement up? Harry's Occulomancy lessons don't
seem to have become common school gossip so why would anti-Imperious lessons
(and you can't tell me Snape wouldn't have *loved* a chance to use it on
Harry, and Dumbledore had no problems with him humiliating him with the
Occulomancy lessons so I don't see him objecting too much)

>
> Carol again:
> I like that little admission. Nice touch. :-) As for Dumbledore not
> taking an immovable moral stand, I suppose he feels that he needs to
> make compromises when Hogwarts and the WW are in danger. I'll have to
> think about that some more and come up with more quotes.
>
>
> Kneasy:
> Oho! Cracks in the facade of the great incorruptible?
>
K

Dumbledore doesn't seem to like taking immovable moral stands, full stop.
>
>  > Kneasy:
>  > Fine. But doesn't canon state that there is no defence against an AK?
>  > No blocking it, no counter-curse.
>
> Carol again:
> But Harry DID block it, effortlessly, as an infant of fifteen months,
> much as he instinctively blocked Snape's attempt to read his most
> private thoughts with a shield charm. Maybe what is true for other
> wizards isn't true for him because he's Voldemort's equal.
>
K

Well then the whole discussion about Unforgivables re Voldemort is moot
because if Harry is immune because he's Voldemort's equal then surely
Voldemort is immune too

> Kneasy:
> Something blocked it. But I notice Harry  would rather not have to rely
> on it happening again; in the graveyard he's ducking and diving all
> over the place. Voldy seems to think it'll work this time, too. Maybe
> it's like a "Get out of goal free" card: you can only use it once.
> Besides, my  response was to a comment you made about Voldy attacking
> Harry *or a friend*. I was just pointing out that it doesn't seem
> possible to protect against an AK.
>
K

Besides which he doesn't *know* how he did it even if he did. I might
survive falling off a cliff once but it wouldn't make me eager to start
throwing myself off them willy nilly.
>
> Kneasy:
> Please! I can't see  Harry as a parfait gentle knight, spotless in
> thought, word and deed. I  suspect that his faults plus those bits of
> Voldy buried in there somewhere are  necessary for his eventual
> triumph, even though he  may not be around  to celebrate.
>
>
K

Wouldn't he be boring if he became perfectly good? Although some basic
understanding that rules are rules and apply to everyone not just everyone
*else* would be nice.




K