Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake?

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 123089


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at y...> wrote:
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kjirstem" 
> <stonehenge.orders at v...> wrote:
> > 
> > lupinlore wrote:
> > 
> > > Why did he not simply BRIBE the Dursleys?  
> > 
> > kjirstem wrote:
> > 
> > Seems to me that paying the Dursley's to treat Harry better is 
> pretty close to paying them to take him into their house.  To me it 
> seems likely that bribery would negate the blood protection charm 
> that allowed Harry safety at the Dursley's house.  
> 
> Tonks now:
> 
> DD does not bribe the Dursley's because he is a wise man who is too 
> good and too noble to do that sort of thing. Period.

That's not wisdom or goodness.  Morality is not so easy.  Are you
saying that it is moral, ethical, wise to allow Harry to be abused as
he was, even if improving his life would violate some principle?  Is
nobility found in watching a child be treated with cruelty?

No.  Dumbledore must not have the power, for whatever reason, to stop
what happened to Harry.  Probably the protective spells would not have
worked had the Dursleys taken him in because they were paid.  It seems
to me that Dumbledore was not completely aware how awful the Dursleys
were, or it was beyond his power to help Harry.

There's other ethical dilemnas about Dumbledore.  Why does he allow
sadistic teachers like Snape to do what he does? There's a lot that
goes on that is questionable.

Jim Ferer