Yet another DD Dursley thread (was Harsh Morality )

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 121030


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <snow15145 at y...> 
wrote:
<SNIP> 
> Snow:
> 
> What a beautiful statement, Jen! I would like to add to that: that 
> this was Dumbledore's only choice
 given the sacrifice that Lily 
> made; he could only expand on Lily's sacrifice and give even more 
> protection to it. Was that a sacrifice in itself, yes! But it was a-
> worse-than-all-evils-choice. Dumbledore had less than 24 hours to 
> combat what he thought had happened with what could eventually 
> happen. Given the `gray' or unknown area Dumbledore had to face 
(the 
> plan), of not knowing absolutely who was trustworthy, whom better 
> than a muggle (and a giant)? And Dumbledore used them both
wisely. 
It 
> worked so far because Harry isn't dead from abuse or any other 
reason 
> that could stem from abuse but overcame his upbringing and has 
defied 
> Voldemort four times.

I said I wasn't going to get into this, but I'm afraid I can't let it 
go.  Could you elaborate, Snow, on what you mean by this?  I don't 
think you are saying that it's good that Harry was abused.  In what 
way was Dumbledore's decision correct?  Surely he could have forced 
the Dursleys to act more appropriately.  And surely you don't mean to 
imply that child abuse can EVER be a good thing, or it is ever 
appropriate to put someone in an abusive household to "strengthen" 
or "toughen" them.

I think I should elaborate a little bit on my own problems here.  I 
have no trouble in agreeing to DD's decision to place Harry with the 
Dursleys initially.  He had little time and did not know whom to 
trust, as you point out.  Indeed, safety was a huge issue.  The 
Longbottoms, after all, were presumably hidden and protected in every 
way available to the Order yet they were tortured into insanity AFTER 
Voldemort fell.  My problem is his inaction for ten years 
thereafter.  Surely once it became apparent that the DE threat was at 
least momentarily at bay there were more appropriate arrangements 
that could have been made.  Or given that he feared Voldemort's 
return (and I readily grant he had no way, as far as we know, of 
predicting when that might be) surely he had it within his power to 
force the Dursleys to behave more appropriately, not to mention he 
had it within his ability to provide more support for Harry from the 
Wizarding World.  Sirius was in prison, but why would periodic 
visits/checkups from Remus or even McGonagall have been out of the 
question, not to mention visits on his own initiative?  I fail to see 
how the safety of the entire Wizarding World could possibly have been 
jeapordized to any great extent if proper safeguards were taken. (And 
if we refuse to take any risks at all with the safety of the 
Wizarding World, if the few are really to be sacrificed to the many, 
there is a ready answer -- just have a headsman standing by for every 
time the Sorting Hat calls out "Slytherin!").

Now, some would argue that Dumbledore is too Noble and Good to 
threaten the Dursleys.  I'm afraid that, IMO, is simple and total 
balderdash.  There is nothing Noble or Good about standing aside and 
allowing a child to be abused.  Others have argued he adopted this 
attitude to "toughen" Harry.  Once again, balderdash.  He would be 
risking the creation of another Voldemort, which is something he 
would not do if he is truly as wise as JKR lets on.  Also he would be 
nowhere as Good as JKR lets on to adopt such a policy either.  

As to the idea that DD was preserving a weapon or arranging things so 
Harry would not be arrogant, IMO those are also non-starters, given a 
Good Dumbledore.  The only moral reason for his decision is to 
preserve Harry's individual life.  Sorry, but when push comes to 
shove all "the good of the many" stuff just doesn't cut it.  Morality 
isn't a numbers game, and you can't find out what is good simply with 
an adding machine.  Now, I'm not saying that numbers aren't 
important, but they can't be all there is.  I'm not saying the good 
of the many isn't important, but that can't be all there is.  There 
are times in life when the good of the one trumps the good of the 
many, and this is one of them.  It's true that sometimes in war you 
sacrifice a few to save many more.  It is also true, however, that 
you often risk many to save a few, even one, in war and in daily 
life.  If that weren't the case, we would not agonize so much as we 
do over such questions as hostages, nor would we have elaborate 
Search and Rescue procedures.  For that matter we also wouldn't have 
firemen to rush into burning buildings, rescue squads to risk 
themselves fishing people out of life-threatening situations, and 
constitutional lawyers who argue even a scumbag who may well be a 
serial killer deserves the presumption of innocence.   

A related case is executive orders forbidding assassinations.  Why 
risk some nut case getting nuclear weapons rather than kill him?  Why 
sacrifice thousands of soldiers and civilians to topple such a 
nutcase rather than kill him?  Why risk said nutcase using weapons of 
mass destruction you think he has rather than assassinate him?  I 
know there are practicalities in that argument, but there is also an 
oft-stated moral principle that there are simply some things that are 
too evil to do at any price, even if the cost of not doing them is a 
nuclear exchange.  Or, is it's often put in political and military 
circles, there are just some things good people don't do even if it 
seems stupid and incredibly destructive not to do them, and even if 
you know the bad guys WILL do them.  That, unfortunately, is part of 
the pain of being the good guys.  And if you say (the argument goes) 
that it's better and more sensible and more caring of your own 
citizens and etc., etc. to engage in certain behaviors, well ... 
congratulations, you've just erased the difference between you and 
the bad guys.  Pick up a black hat at the Villains' Desk and you'll 
be pleased to know there are still spaces available is Moustache 
Twirling 101.

Remember, I am not talking about Dumbledore's INITIAL decision, but 
about his failure to intervene in all the succeeding years of Harry's 
suffering.  His initial decision was clearly necessary to preserve 
Harry's life, but any decision not to intervene thereafter runs into 
much murkier waters.  Surely giving the boy a little support from the 
WW and acting to restrain the Dursleys would not have turned him into 
a raving maniac, nor would it have significantly imperilled the 
Wizarding World.  As I said above, that line of reasoning leads to 
killing everyone sorted into Slytherin on the philosophy that its 
better to strangle the serpents before they can develop poison glands.

I also don't buy the argument that it wasn't Dumbledore's 
responsibility.  By making the decision to leave Harry with the 
Dursleys, he MADE it his responsibility.

Unless of course, and this is what I fear, JKR's morality really is 
extremely harsh, and she really does see all of Dumbledore's actions 
and failures to act as Good.  In which case its time to take seven 
books and use them for kindling, since they don't illustrate any kind 
of morality I want anything to do with.

Now, I'm hoping rather against hope we are going to discover that 
Petunia and/or Vernon drove an incredibly stiff bargain that prevent 
DD from acting.  That is, that DD was in effect restrained against 
his will.  I don't have warm fuzzies on that one, though.


Lupinlore