Harsh Morality - Combined answers

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 121147


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
> 
<SNIP> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> You know, some  people ::waves at Nora:: are going to spill their 
> coffee when they read this, but I think this  Platonic morality 
> business is needlessly complex. I think Dumbledore is good 
> according to the old-fashioned Golden Rule. "Do unto others..."
> 
> Now of course that leaves us having to explain why he tolerates 
> the behavior of Snape and the Dursleys and so on. Again, the 
> standard  answer: "He believes in free will." 
> 
> The trouble is, most of us don't. A belief in a deterministic 
> universe in which our behavior is wholly governed  by physics, 
> heredity and behavioral conditioning doesn't seem to leave 
> much room for it. Obviously people can make us do 
> things--we're constantly bombarded by messages, including 
> those from JKR herself, trying to influence our behavior.  Surely 
> Dumbledore with all the magic at his disposal can do as much.
> 
> But on the metaphysical level, we can argue that we haven't 
> made people moral just because we've made them behave.
> 
> In Dumbledore's world, IMO, this is how free will operates.  No 
> one can make people be good. It's metaphysically  impossible, 
> like bringing back the dead. He *knows* he can't. Forced 
> goodness is a guaranteed imitation. 

Hmmm.  I can see your point.  Yet if JKR is really saying this, I 
must say I personally find it terribly silly.  Such a philosophy is a 
pure recipe for anarchy.  After all, why on Earth do you have laws 
except to force people to behave?  And there is the problem.  Law and 
force isn't necessarily about *redemption*, it is about *protection.* 
In my view, and it is only my view, Dumbledore should not worry about 
redeeming the Dursleys or Snape, so far as that goes I agree with 
this line of reasoning.  But he *should* worry about protecting Harry 
(and also Neville and others).  To say he does not do so because he 
knows he can't force Snape, for instance, to be good is to miss the 
point.  He should not force good behavior for the sake of Snape or 
the Dursleys.  However, he *should* force good behavior for the sake 
of the persons bad behavior injures.  Not to do so is to say that the 
wounds the Dursleys and Snape inflict on Harry are not as important 
as the wounds Dumbledore might inflict on the Dursleys or Snape by 
forcing them to behave.  If JKR is indeed saying that, then once 
again, there are seven books that will make good kindling.

Lupinlore