Yet another DD Dursley thread (was Harsh Morality )

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 121053


Lupinlore:
 
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!").

Alla:

WORD of agreement, of course. But you see the fact the headsman is 
NOT standing every time Sorting Hat shouts "Slytherin!" gives me tiny 
hope. Not much, though.

Lupinlore:

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

snips excellent examples of why good of few should not always be 
sacrificed for the good of many.


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.
 
snip.


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.



Alla:

I think that we MAY discover that Petunia and Vernon drove harsh 
bargain, because JKR did state that even though Petunia is a muggle, 
there is more to her than meets the eye.

My bet will be that Dumbledore promiced to bind  her magic somehow in 
order for Petunia to be able to live "normal life" as she understands 
it.

And of course here we have the fact that there WAS correspondence 
between Dumbledore and Petunia. I wonder what exactly they talked 
about.

Just as you I am not keeping my hopes up though.


Alla