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

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

No: HPFGUIDX 131670

I'm using webview reply feature, which I've never really done before
(despite 3+ years of membership), so bear with me if the 
formatting is off.

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 replied:
> 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.

I think that this, as a blanket statement, is clearly incorrect.  To
use an extreme example to prove my point:  today I read a 
brief article in the NYT about a woman in Pakistan who was 
gang raped by a group of men as a punishment because of 
something her brother did.  These men not only had the 
approval of their society, they also had the approval (instruction,
even) of the *law*.  Yet, somehow, I don't feel that the situation 
(or the state of human rights in that country) in that country is 
the woman's "problem".  I guess I'll be quite surprised (and a little 
awed) if you manage to disagree with me on this one. ^_~

Del:
> 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.

What if, instead, he had made it a habit to grab your butt in a
friendly (but still upsetting for you) manner?  If there were no 
laws in place against this, would you still feel that this was 
merely your problem?
 
<SNIP>

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.

Not sure I agree completely with Chris on this, although I'm not
entirely with Del either -- can I just sit on the fence? ^_~ 
Sometimes parents can put unfair pressure on teachers to 
change their habits when they really aren't doing anything wrong.  
On the other hand, if a large majority of said parents and their
children feel that they are being wronged, is it perhaps possible, 
per Del's immoral/illegal model, that a significant faction of 
society *does* perceive Snape's action to be crossing morality 
boundaries?

<SNIP>

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.

But if enough children (who *do* count, you know) and parents feel
that his conduct is unusual and immoral, then who is to say that 
he's *not* going against the morality of his society?

[Warning: Del, you will probably disagree with the following on a
very fundamental level, but I wanted to put it out there anyway.]

Even if this is not the case, I do believe that there are certain
morals that are rather universal.  For example, I don't think 
women deserved to be sexually violated, ever.  This comes 
under the general code of not intentionally harming others 
when you can help it.  I feel that Snape is in violation of this 
general code in a big way. Not only is he unnecessarily 
hurtful -- he takes pleasure out of it!

<SNIP>
 
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. 

Perhaps the basic life lesson is that being unnecessarily and 
intentionally hurtful to others is not only harmful to them 
-- it's harmful to you and it's harmful to your society.  I think 
this qualifies it as immoral in a broad range of moral theories.

We've already see this lesson played out in OotP:  Snape's treatment
of Harry obviously hurt Harry, but also was a significant factor in 
the damage caused tothe Order (and therefore to Snape and Snape's
society).

Personally, though, I don't think Snape is ever going to learn this
lesson, and I won't be particularly bothered if this is the case.  
What bothers me is when people go out of their way to justify his 
actions, but then come down hard on Harry for not being The 
Better Man. This comment is not directly at Del, BTW.  It's just 
something I've noticed a lot on this list over the years.

IMO, the vast majority of the moral responsibility for the problems
in their relationship lays with Snape.  Not only is he the adult, not 
only does he understand situations that Harry's only beginning to 
be privy to, not only was he the one to initiate and sustain the 
conflict -- he also is the one with the history of malicious,
gleefully unfair treatment of others. (That said, I *do* think that 
at some point in the story, Harry *will* be The Better Man to some 
extent -- if only for his own peace of mind.)

Del:
> Not being nice is not breaking any
> legal or moral rule. 

Maybe it doesn't seem so when you phrase it that way, but I really
believe that not being malicious *is* a moral rule.

Laura (who welcomes Del back to posting after her long absence.)