Snape's abuse (Re: Would an "O" for Harry vindicate Snape?)

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 131660

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Circumstances and the local law are NOT paramount when it comes to 
the actions perpetrated by someone on another individual. The
standards of the individual being attacked is what matters in 
instances like these."

Del replies:
I completely disagree. If what Person A does to Person B is neither
immoral nor illegal by society's standards, then it is entirely Person
B's problem if they don't like it.

Example: back when I was working, I did not like the sexual pics and
jokes that my coworker pinned all around his work station, but because
this was neither illegal nor immoral, I had no recourse but to swallow
it. On the other hand, I could threaten them with legal action when
they smoked around me, because it is illegal to smoke inside buildings.

Note: it also works the other way. If Person B considers that it is OK
to beat up people, and consequently doesn't have a problem with
someone beating them up, it doesn't change the fact that in many
countries Person A can be prosecuted for beating up Person B.

Other example: a 14-year-old girl might have no problem personally
with girls her age having sexual relationships with 30-year-old men,
but in some countries her 30-year-old lover will be prosecuted anyway.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"WW authorities, Snape, DD, and whatever adult you can name in this
book may find it ok that Snape uses these methods with the children he
is teaching. However, if the children THEMSELVES OR THEIR PARENTS feel
like it is a problem, then it is a problem no matter what the law states."

Del replies:
Yes it is a problem. TO THEM. But it doesn't have to be a problem to
anyone else - not to Snape, not to DD, not to anyone. Nobody has any
kind of obligation to share their point of view, and nobody has to
effect a change just to satisfy them.

Chris labmystc wrote: 
"That is NOT all that matters! Who dictates morality standards to a 
society? It is not the authorities in charge, that is for sure!"

Del replies:
I never said that.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Morality is something that each individual defines on his or her own."

Del replies:
That's *personal* morality. But nobody's personal morality defines
what a society finds morally acceptable or not. Some people have a
very "low" morality and find many things acceptable that society finds
repulsive. Inversely, many people find that some things that are
accepted by society are morally offensive to them.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"If the kids in this story feel like they are being mistreated, then 
they are being mistreated, regardless of what WW law states or allows.
It is up to the individual to decide what violates his or her own
morality, not a governing official."

Del replies:
It is their right to do so, but it is nobody else's duty to agree with
them. If someone feels violated because I looked at them, it's their
problem, not mine. Nobody has a right to force me to apologise or to
look the other way. If I feel sexually harrassed because a co-worker
has a nude female pic on his computer, that's my problem, not his.
Nobody has a right to force him to apologise or to take that pic off
his computer screen.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"You live in France right? Do you have children? Would you like for
them to be mistreated in this way at their school? What if Jacques
Chirac decided one day to make it law that kids could be beaten within
an inch of their life for underperforming in school? Would that be ok
with you? According to you it would be since law and morality are
dictated by the people in charge. I think you would find that there
would be a problem with this. Or does your individual morality say
different?"

Del replies:
Many misconceptions in here, some important, some not.

1. I don't live in France anymore, but that is of no consequence to
your point.

2. Unless I'm mistaken, Jacques Chirac, as the President, doesn't have
the right to make such laws, but that doesn't matter.

3. I never said that it was the governing bodies who determined what
was moral, though they obviously determine what is legal.

4. Living in a democracy with a constitution means that this kind of
scenario as you described can't happen. Such a law would be
anti-constitutional, so it couldn't be passed. I notice, however, that
we have never heard of a WW constitution, which explains that Umbridge
was able to pass all those Educational Decrees. They would have been
deemed anti-constitutional in many RW democratic countries.

5. My personal morality does come at odds with the law and the general
morality quite often. But because my personal morality doesn't have
any power on other people, I just have to swallow what is legal, and I
can only try to fight what is generally considered moral.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"All I would want is that he (a) change his teaching methods and the
way he personally deals with these children or (b) his termination. "

Del replies:
Why should any of this happen? Just because YOU have a problem with
his teaching methods doesn't mean anybody else should have a problem
with them too. If Snape doesn't have a problem with them, he has no
reason to change them. And if DD has no problem with them, he has no
reason to fire Snape.

You are asking that Snape act as a convict by either reforming or
being put away, when he is NOT a convict, and can't be one since what
he is doing is neither illegal nor considered immoral by his society.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Personally, since I think he knows his stuff, he should simply change
his methods, quit the personal attacks, and teach these kids what he
knows in a constructive manner."

Del replies:
Should? But WHY should he do that? "Should" implies that there is some
kind of obligation, but Snape has NO such obligation, of any kind.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Also, there is a little thing called respect. As a teacher, he
deserves respect, but only if it is EARNED!"

Del replies:
That's your point of view, but it doesn't seem to be his, nor DD's,
and *their* opinion is what matters in the Potterverse.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"So far in these books, I have seen him do very little to earn any one
of these students' respect. He holds a grudge against a child for
something his father did in the past, he criticizes a child who may or
may not have a learning disability, and he conducts punishment in an
unfair manner. Basically, he is a bully, and thinks he can intimidate
someone smaller and less powerful than him."

Del replies:
How unusual in the WW... 

Chris labmystc wrote:
"I, for one, hope that in the last two books, somehow, someway, Snape
learns his lesson."

Del replies:
What lesson?? That he "should" be nice? I'm afraid this is not a
necessary basic life lesson. It's NICE when people decide to include
it in their own list of commandments, but there is *absolutely NO
obligation of any kind* to do so. Not being nice is not breaking any
legal or moral rule. If Snape is fine with being not-nice, who is
anyone to tell him that he is wrong? As you said, everyone decides
their own morality, and Snape obviously chose that being nice or fair
wasn't necessary. That's his morality, and as long as he respects the
law, he is perfectly entitled to it.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"They're going to need him in this war."

Del replies:
He's going to be useful whether he changes or not.

Now don't get me wrong: I WISH he would change. I WISH he would be
nicer, especially to Neville. But I am very aware that he has
absolutely NO OBLIGATION to change. He is ENTITLED to remain a jerk,
without having to endure any kind of punishment for it, since
obviously the WW doesn't have a problem with his behaviour.

Del