Jo's ethics was Sirius's hypocrisy

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 129324

> > 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.)
> 
> <snip>

a_svirn:

Suppose you repeat you arguments without inserting Christian 
principles of toleration? Would you logic and conclusion differ 
terribly? I think not, you'd just get something like:  "Since 
Dumbledore believed that he would not have been able to keep Harry 
safe any other way, he made a decision to leave Harry at the 
Dursleys and tolerate their behavior". So why do we need Christian 
ethic to figure out something DD already told us? 

a_svirn