[HPforGrownups] Re: Acceptable Abuses?

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 95918

On 14 Apr 2004 at 6:46, kyntor70 wrote:

> Dumbledore uses the fact that only Harry can defeat Voldemort as the  
> ultimate justification for allowing Harry to be abused, but is he 
> really justified?  Can child abuse ever really be justified?

Well, I'd say, yes, in certain circumstances, it can be. Although 
once again, it comes down to your individual definitions of abuse, 
to an extent.

I'm not sure that what Dumbledore 'condemned' Harry to was abusive. 
No, let me rephrase that, because I do think the Dursleys went far 
enough to be considered abusive at times. I'm not sure we can take 
Dumbledore's statement that he knew Harry would suffer, as evidence 
that he knew exactly how bad things would be. Dumbledore knew that 
the Dursley home would be far from ideal - but did he know exactly 
what was going to go on? Did he know how bad it would be? Those 
seem to me open questions.

Now - can child abuse ever really be justified? I have to say that 
yes, I think in certain specific cases, it sometimes can be 
justified because of the circumstances.

I'm going to speak personally here.

I was the victim of quite significant abuse at the age of 12 - in 
my case it was abuse at the hands of other children. Initially my 
parents had no idea it was occurring - I concealed it from them. 
When they finally found out what was happening, their initial 
impulse was to remove me from that school immediately.

In the end, however, they decided to leave me there - knowing that 
I would continue to suffer quite serious abuse. The reason for 
doing so, was that by leaving me there for approximately three 
months, they were able to ensure my access to another school that 
would hopefully be a far better environment for me for the 
remaining five years of my schooling.

They chose to leave me in an abusive environment, because there was 
a very clear possibility of significant long term benefits. It 
wasn't that the abuse itself was justified - but I believe their 
decision to leave me in an abusive environment was, in those quite 
specific circumstances.

To add to that - well, there were other 'fringe' benefits to what I 
experienced. These weren't planned, or even anticipated. But the 
fact is that abuse I suffered had significant long term benefits 
for me in all sorts of ways. They helped me develop a much stronger 
sense of justice than I might otherwise have had, a much stronger 
sense of self-reliance, and a much stronger sense of tolerance. 
There were negatives as well - serious ones. I wound up a clinical 
depressive and it took over a decade to get that under control, for 
example - I don't want to leave the impression that this was a 
uniformly positive thing for me, because it was far from that. Yet, 
there were positives. To the extent that... well, if I could relive 
my life, I'd take the abuse because the price was worth it for me.

Now, as I say, in my case, these weren't anticipated benefits - my 
parents didn't consider that there might be positives like this - 
but then again, my parents didn't have the wisdom of Albus 
Dumbledore (-8 I think it's possible to credit Dumbledore with 
enough wisdom that he can look at what Harry faces and make a fair 
judgement of whether or not it's likely to have desirable results.

I also (at least as far as I know) don't have the fate of an entire 
civilisation resting on my shoulders. Harry does seem to. And I 
think that can justify extreme measures.
 
> Dumbledore's actions raises a lot of questions (at least to me).  I 
> am very anxious to see how JKR portrays Dumbledore in her remaining 
> two books.  Will Dumbledore be the loving grandfather, the 
> manipulative chess master, or maybe his dichotomy will continue and 
> he will be a little bit of both?

At this point, I'd say he'd be both.

I think Dumbledore does love Harry.

But he also loves his world - and when there is conflict between 
those two loves, he'll do what he has to do to save that world.

I'll go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that 
Dumbledore loves Tom Riddle as well.

But he will kill Tom - and more than kill Tom - to protect his 
world.

Dumbledore does what he has to do.

Two of my favourite series of SciFi books - the Ender series 
(including the Shadow books) and the Seafort saga, both have 
situations where men with a genuine love and caring for the 
children they teach, are forced into situations where they have to 
use those children to save their world. In 'Fisherman's Hope' 
(spoilers ahead), Nicholas Seafort, Commandant of the Naval 
Academy, a devout Christian, who genuinely cares for the children 
he trains, deliberately sends numerous of them unknowingly to their 
deaths - because it is the only way he knows to save the human 
race.

It's not even a choice, really. The lives of a few against the 
lives of many.

Is it a horrible thing to do? Yes. Is it justified? That comes to 
many personal choices. I would say it is, by my own personal moral 
beliefs. But I'm sure others would disagree. I just thank my stars, 
I'm never likely to be faced with such a choice.

But such choices aren't uncommon in literature today (well, they've 
never been uncommon - but they are starting to emerge more and more 
often in contemporary YA and children's works).

Dumbledore has to make his choices based on his morality. Are his 
choices easy ones? No. Are they correct ones? That depends on your 
point of view, I guess.

But I'd say that whatever else they are, they are COURAGEOUS 
choices.







Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia