Conflict, imposition, and morality

[msbeadsley]

No: HPFGUIDX 140575

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

> Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote:
> "An obligation only exists if the person in 
> question adopts the majority's morality, even 
> if they only do so in the sense of trying to 
> use them to modify *others'* behavior. Once 
> they buy in, they're stuck. IMO."

> Del replies:
> Not sure what you mean here, sorry.

I was trying to say that the only reason to obey 
the rules is fear of consequences: UNLESS you 
invest in the rules for reasons of your own. 
Once you support a moral code, as in make it 
clear that you have expectations that *others* 
will follow it, you've struck a bargain with 
society, IMO, that you will adhere to that same 
code.

> Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote:
> "Snape is furious, AFAWK, when Harry invades 
> his privacy (memories in the Pensieve). 
> Privacy is part of a moral/social code outside 
> of law. Snape insists on other respectful 
> forms as well; IMO, once he demands that 
> others adhere to a code of moral/social 
> conduct, he obligates himself as well. It is 
> one thing to refuse to adhere to a code if 
> the reason is that you do not recognize it as 
> correct or relevant or useful; once you do, 
> if you ignore it at only at your own 
> convenience, then, IMO, you are morally in 
> error. Inherently. Regardless of the code in 
> question."
> 
> Del replies:
> You're making a slight mistake, though: 
> respect of the privacy and the person of 
> superiors are not components of only one 
> moral code. They are integral parts of many 
> other moral codes that *do not* include 
> reciprocity to inferiors.

I thought of that, actually. But if I go into 
the reasons I think Snape forfeited his right 
to that sort of respect, we'll be back on the 
Snape-go-round again, and I'll pass.

> In fact, they are 
> even part of LV's "moral code": he, as the 
> Lord, has the right to humiliate his 
> subordinates, torture them, invade their 
> privacy, and so on, but they don't have the 
> right to reciprocate, and they must always 
> show him respect.

I don't think of this as having to do with 
rights; it is merely a matter of brute power, 
IMO. (And this is how Snape wields his as 
well, come to think of it, as regards the 
students, which has me thinking yet again 
that a fair (oxymoron alert) amount of what 
he does in class is for show. His inclination 
to enjoy it is something else, however...and 
here I am hopping back off the Snape-go-round, 
really and truly)

> This is exactly how Snape 
> is acting towards LV: he always calls him 
> "the Dark Lord", for example, not 
> "You-Know-Who". He also tended to do that 
> with DD, shutting up when DD told him to, for 
> example, and always calling him in respectful 
> terms. So the facts that Snape reserves the 
> right to invade his students' privacy and to 
> disrespect them while at the same time 
> demanding that they respect his own privacy 
> and person are not at all incompatible. They 
> just show that Snape doesn't go with the 
> reciprocating-to-inferiors moral code, and 
> there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

It seems to me Snape stopped being quite so 
respectful during the conversation Hagrid 
overheard; is that a clue?

> Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote:
> ""The One Right Moral Code" changes from 
> country to country and believer to believer. 
> There is no absolute code, "
 
> Del replies:
> Exactly! What constitutes the One Right Moral 
> Code is particular to each person, and this 
> is why it cannot be used to judge others, and 
> it cannot be morally imposed on anyone else. 
> Which is precisely why I find it unfair to try 
> and force a particular brand of morality on 
> Snape.
 
Snape has expectations of others; he expects them 
to behave towards him in certain ways. Regardless 
of whether it is his "inferiors" or not, Snape has 
clearly "bought in" to certain codes. As a matter 
of fact, he is still apparently steamed that the 
Marauders were not dealt with harshly. It seems 
unfair to him still. If he rails against unfairness, 
and it seems clear he does, there's a moral code 
involved. Otherwise, there is no standard for 
fairness. So Snape has argued for what he considers 
right and wrong; he has invested in some part of a 
code, and should be held accountable by that code. 
It's the one he chose.

> Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote:
> "Personally, I recognize no deity; on the 
> other hand, the idea of life under no code or 
> law strikes me as terrifying and appalling. I 
> want to live in a world where people balance 
> their own wants and needs against the wants 
> and needs of others. I consider it a kind of 
> social barter system; I believe people grant 
> each other rights because they want to have 
> some themselves, and, essentially, there is 
> constant and infinite bargaining going on."
> 
> Del replies:
> That's the difference with LV: he doesn't 
> care about bargaining, because he has enough 
> *power* to actually impose his desires. And 
> unlike us, he's not at all afraid of living 
> in a lawless land, because he knows he's 
> powerful enough to survive it and even take 
> it over. Those are things he learned very 
> early in life: that he has the power to make 
> others do his will, and his "morality" is 
> directly derived from this knowledge. (I'm 
> saying " "morality" " when referring to LV's 
> code, because I think he's a sociopath, which 
> means that he doesn't actually have a morality.)

I actually agree. I think Voldemort is evil. So 
now I'm mulling over the idea that true evil is 
a result of not so much breaking the rules, but 
of failing to recognize any exist or of putting 
oneself outside them deliberately.

> As for Snape, we know that he always had poor 
> social skills, and that he never knew how or 
> bothered to do the social bargaining thing. 
> What he wants is respect from those "lower" 
> than him or on the same level as him, and he's 
> apparently ready to suck up to those higher 
> than him to obtain that. So LV's offer is 
> much more tempting for him than, say, DD's. 
> And I don't see that there's anything 
> inherently wrong with that either.

I really don't get how you can argue in favor 
of Christ's teachings on one hand yet fail to 
see that Snape's behavior is inherently wrong. 
On a personal level, I mean, not abstractly. 
I can make just about anything come out clear 
in the abstract. ;-)

<snip personal opinions on religion>

Sandy aka msbeadsley, toasting Del's faith (a 
thing she admires in those who do it well)