Conflict, imposition, and morality (waRe: Sadistic Snape)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 140441

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" 
<delwynmarch at y...> wrote:

> 
> Del replies:
> Inappropriately according to your rules 
> and mine, but not necessarily according 
> to his own rules. He has absolutely no 
> obligation to adopt our rules, you know.
> 


But of course he has an obligation to live by our rules Del, if he is 
to be in the right!  Whether HE thinks those are the right rules or 
not is irrelevant.  I am totally convinced that my moral code is 
superior to Snape's.  If I was not so convinced, I would adopt 
Snape's code and abandon my own.  Therefore, Snape is totally and 
utterly in the wrong.  The fact that he feels the same about me is 
absolutely irrelevant to that.  There IS no objective stance in 
morality.  The only thing that can be done is for everyone to uphold 
the moral stances they honestly think are correct, which means that, 
whether they admit it or not, they think everyone who doesn't agree 
with them is the wrong and needs to mend their ways.

> vmonte wrote:
> "because he does not feel bound to do the 
> right thing, "
> 
> Del replies:
> Not necessarily. First, it's not certain 
> we and he agree on what "the right thing" 
> is. 


And once again, whether he would agree or not is utterly irrelevant 
to whether he is doing the right thing and needs to mend his ways.

As I said, the vendetta is the right 
> thing to do in some circles. Second, 
> not every moral system states that one 
> should always try and do "the right thing", 
> whatever it is. And third, there's the very 
> tricky matter of "exceptions": when do 
> we depart from our general rules? Different 
> people have different ideas of what 
> exceptions are acceptable.
> 
> vmonte wrote:
> "he has not learned the appropriate 
> standards of conduct from Dumbledore,"
> 
> Del replies:
> You're using the word "appropriate" yet 
> again, even though you haven't demonstrated 
> that your morality is inherently better 
> than Snape's. You argue that Snape should 
> have learned to act like DD, I ask why. In 
> the absence of a High Ruler who makes the 
> rules, everyone is free to make their own 
> rules, and nobody has to conform to anybody 
> else's rules. If one breaks the law, then 
> one can be legally punished, but that's 
> about it. If Snape doesn't want to adopt 
> DD's morality, that's his right.
> 

But the very point of having laws and rules, the only possible 
purpose for them, in fact, is to force people to do what is morally 
right whether they want to do it or not, and whether they agree with 
the assessment of what is right or not.  One can say that Dumbledore 
is not a High King and Snape has no legal obligation to obey him, but 
that is evading the point.  The point is who you believe is in the 
right.  If you believe that DD is in the right, then Snape absolutely 
has a moral obligation to adapt himself to DD's moral code -- whether 
Snape agrees with the code is of no importance whatsoever.

And you (the generic you) can say that this is no different than 
Voldemort, and you would be absolutely right, and the point is 
absolutely irrelevent.  Of course Voldemort is acting according to 
what he thinks is right and believes all others are wrong.  Nobody 
can act any other way.  The nature of human interaction is that a 
person will inevitably think their code is right and everyone else's 
is wrong, and that other people therefore have an obligation to do 
what is right.  Therefore Snape, by my code, is absolutely in the 
wrong and should be punished for not changing his ways, and I will 
regard it as extraordinarily bad writing on JKR's part if that is not 
part of his fate.

Is that imposing my moral code on someone else?  Absolutely.  There 
is no other way to be a moral person -- which is the same as saying 
there is no other way to be a person. Even relativism and tolerance 
amount to nothing more than imposing your code on someone else by 
proudly proclaiming that your morality prevents you from judging 
people except for people who judge people.  Does that guarantee 
permanent argument, stress, and conflict in human society?  
Absolutely.  There is no other way human society can be.  Does that 
mean that some people -- everyone in fact -- will often feel beset 
and imposed upon by people trying to force their morals on them?  
Absolutely, that is a part of human existance and there is no way 
around it.  Does that mean that there is no objective point at which 
one can stand and say that they can measure moral systems?  
Absolutely.  Will all of this ever come to an end?  Sure, most of us 
believe that God will eventually make a ruling.  But until then, 
constant conflict, struggle, and the constant attempt to impose our 
moral code on others is the best possible world that can exist.


Lupinlore