Jo's ethics was Sirius's hypocrisy

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 129316

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> But as I said - you get no argument from me that Sirius treated 
> Kreacher cruelly. I was not debating this point much, I was only 
> debating what right Dumbledore had to bring Sirius' faults in front
of Harry right after 
he died. My answer is no right whatsoever, I understand that yours is
the opposite, so we 
will have to agree to disagree on this oen, I suppose. :-)

Pippin:
I think I understand where you're coming from. In Jewish law,
for example, badmouthing anybody, alive or dead, is considered
as bad as  murder. But there are exceptions (as usual) and
one of them is when everybody already knows that someone has
done wrong. That is the case here.

It is Harry who first brought up Sirius's fault.
"And," whispered Harry, his hands curled into cold fists on his
knees, "and Hermione kept telling us to be nice to him--"

Harry already knows that Sirius was cruel to Kreacher and that
Kreacher was to be pitied.  His  hands are curled into fists because 
he thinks that Hermione's pity was wasted and that Sirius was right 
to hate the Elf. 

Dumbledore is trying to tell him that it was not so. That is his
business  (the other exception) as Harry's moral guardian. 
Just my opinion, of course. <g> 
 
> Pippin: 
> I don't think Dumbledore was ignoring Harry's feelings, however.
> I think he understood that Harry had found all this very 
> painful to hear. Why do you think he wept?
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Hmmmm, maybe because he realised that he just preached to 
Harry about how badly Sirius treated Kreacher, while he himself 
let Harry live almost the life of house elf for ten years? :-)

Pippin:
Hmmm,  I think Rowling may be dealing with certain
ethical principles, in particular the principle of formal and 
material cooperation with evil and the principle of toleration.
This is the language of Christian ethics, and as I am not a 
Christian or an ethicist I may have this all wrong and I would 
appreciate any corrections. My source is a Catholic website 

http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_p
rinciples/toleration.asp
http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_p
rinciples/cooperation.asp

and I realize that JKR, who is not Catholic, might not share these
views. 
But here goes :-)

My understanding is Dumbledore didn't send Harry to the Dursleys 
*because* he was going to be abused there, he didn't intend that 
either he or Harry would profit from the abuse,  and the danger to 
Harry from Voldemort and his servants was, in Dumbledore's
estimation,  far greater and more immediate than the danger of any 
harm the Dursleys  might do.  Since the Dursleys were Harry's only 
remaining family, they could have become Harry's guardians (and 
abusers) in any case, so the abuse  was not something that couldn't 
have taken place without Dumbledore's participation.

I think that  fits the criteria under which  mediate material
cooperation with evil may be allowed.

The principle of toleration allows one in power to permit the evil
actions of others if two criteria are met: one does not take part in 
the evil oneself, and the evil cannot be prevented without causing 
a greater evil or losing a  greater good. 

Not to take advantage of the blood protection would lose the good of 
Lily's sacrifice, and allowing Harry to be killed would be a greater
evil. 

Since Dumbledore believed that he would not have been able to keep
Harry safe any other way, according to these principles,
he made a moral decision to leave Harry at the Dursleys and tolerate 
their behavior,  though of course you can disagree with his premises
or the principles themselves. (Posts about ethical systems which do
not reference canon should go to OT-Chatter.)

As I said, I'm not a Christian or an ethicist, and I'm not saying
that this is how people should act -- just passing it along for what 
it's worth.


Pippin