Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing)

[slgazit]

No: HPFGUIDX 121031


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:

> Right, so do you think that JKT allows for gray area on this issue 
> or not?
> 
> "Harry's survival" v "Harry's living as abused child to save WW 
> later on in life".

I believe based on the information given in the books that Harry's
only chance of survival was if he was left with the Dursleys. Now it
is possible (this being a fictional literary work) that there was some
other magical way of saving his life but I can only work with what the
author has given us.

Your question should rather be "could there have been ways to make
Harry's life with the Dursleys easier?" Possibly. Again there is not
much information. Based on what Mrs. Figg hints in the second chapter
of OoP, any attempt by outsiders to make Harry's life better would
have resulted in further abuse (she more or less suggests that she had
to treat him badly or the Dursleys would not have let him go to her -
just think if they sent him to Aunt Marge instead... :-)). Add to that
the Dursleys refusal to deal with wizards and the risk that people
with whom Harry had contact might be hurt by the bad side. Also
Dumbledore had to weigh the risks of intervention against the
possibility that intervention would lead the Dursleys to give up on
the whole thing and renege on their contract to raise Harry.

So my answer is that based on the information we have, Dumbledore did
not have much choice. Possibly more information can shed better light
on this.

> Is Dumbledore AT LEAST feeling sorry for what he allowed to happen 
> to Harry or NOT?

That is pretty obvious from the "The Lost Prophecy" chapter. I can
bring up supporting quotes if you really insist but his sorrow and
regret were pretty obvious to me throughout the chapter beginning with
him letting Harry scream and break things through the end where he
actually sheds some tears...

> Because you see, if Dumbledore is OK with what he did, it does not 
> make him a very moral person in my book.

He thinks he did the right thing based on the information he had on
hand at the time. That's the best any of us can do...

> Sure, general has to sacrifice good of one for the good of many (I 
> cringe when I type this sentence, to tell you the truth), BUT 
> Dumbledore not only a general, but an epithome of goodness in 
> GENERAL SENSE,according to JKR and a such should, IMO, at least TRY 
> to lessen the pain of one child, who is expected to save them all.

I did not say that Harry had to be put in an abusive situation for the
general good. First and foremost it was to save his life. And I fail
to see what DD could have done to lessen Harry's suffering as a child
without putting him at the risk of mortal danger or even worse abuse.

Salit