Snape as infidel was Re: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 150294

> >>Pippin: 
> > I've always hoped Snape would survive, and in a more or less
> > unreformed state -- I mean, I'd like to see him change his mind 
> > about Harry, but in accordance with *his* moral code, not because
> > he decided his moral code was deficient. 

Betsy Hp:
I think Snape's moral code is okay, in that I think he is a moral 
person.  However I think there is some tweaking that needs to 
occur.  I think Sydney said something upthread about letting love 
into the picture.  Or maybe, to get more specific, I think Snape 
does need to learn how to forgive.  In a sense his moral code is 
*so* demanding there's not a lot of room for error in it.  You screw 
up, you're done.  (This is the reason I think the hardest person on 
Snape is Snape.)

On another thread Carol and Magpie are talking about Draco's 
redemption and Snape's role in it.  I wonder, though, if Draco might 
not have a role in helping Snape learn to forgive.  I have no idea 
how... something to do with the growth that's part of being a 
parent?  Yeah, not fully formed thinking again, sorry.

> >>Pippin: 
> > Snape to me is less a sinner than an infidel -- an unbeliever    
> > with respect to the Gryffindor chivalric ideal which I suspect   
> > is Rowling's stand-in for Christianity and with respect to      
> > enlightened methods of instruction.
> > <snip>

Betsy Hp:
This...  It bothers me a bit.  I think part of it is the idea that 
the Gryffindors are somehow *better* than the other houses.  That 
they've got the best ideals.  Also, it seems to go against the 
healing of the rift concept.  If the houses need to come together, 
shouldn't they all be morally equal?  Are all members of other 
houses infidels?  And wouldn't this suggest that somehow 
Christianity is better?  The faith or ideal of our Hero vs. everyone 
else?

Honestly, if JKR is trying to illustrate Christianity in these books 
wouldn't it be insulting to other religions to have a "lesser than" 
stand-in for them? 

> >>Nora:
> Now this is an interesting perspective, because I think it does   
> make a lot of sense.  However, I have to say that I think Rowling 
> thinks that Snape's moral code *IS* deficient, and that's a good   
> word for it.  It lacks something, it's missing something, it's not 
> totally wrong but there's something notably off about it.

Betsy Hp:
But off enough to make him a stand in for infidels?  There's too 
much of "other" or "not of us" in that word for me to agree that JKR 
is pushing for that view to prevail.  Would she really want the 
children of the world to label anything not Christian as deficient?  
Again, where's the healing?  It's about keeping seperate that which 
is seperate which goes totally against the Sorting Hat's song.

> >>Nora: 
> I do find it interesting that pretty much all DDM!Snape theories 
> depend heavily upon Snape's actions somehow having been validated 
> by Dumbledore's will, that he's still fundamentally acting with 
> Dumbledore's wishes in mind.  If he were not to be, it's just too 
> uncomfortably close to being evil, isn't it?  I don't recall too   
> many arguments for Snape's own morality being independently       
> superior or moral.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, of course it does.  Dumbledore is the moral standard of the 
books.  Those on the right side of things stand with Dumbledore.  
Therefore, a good Snape would be in agreement with Dumbledore.

I don't think it means that Dumbledore is the stand in for Snape's 
own moral sense.  Snape has his own independent morality.  And it 
must be a morality that Dumbledore trusts.  I wouldn't say it was 
superior to Dumbledore's.  Again, there's a lack of forgivness to 
it, a lack of gentleness.  But I don't think Snape is so lacking in 
morals he depends on someone else to do his choosing for him.  For 
one, that goes against Dumbledore's own code; for another, it's 
hardly the mark of a trustworthy man.

> >>Nora: 
> And for all of Rowling's talk of tolerance of persons and the      
> like, I think that's knotted together with the necessity that      
> those walking an inferior path (and not all paths are equal--this 
> is not a relativistic world) has to recognize this.  Draco lowers 
> his wand and does not kill--an admission that the path he was     
> following was wrong.

Betsy Hp:
I think it also points to Draco realizing that there is another path 
available.  That he *can* make a choice.  Something Dumbledore is 
very big on.

> >>Nora:
> This involves an acknowledgement of method and manner being 
> important, not only the actions but how one carries them out.

Betsy Hp:
Really?  There was a better method or manner to killing Dumbledore?  
That's where too much dependence on methods and manner strikes me as 
missing the main point.  The old nice is better than good argument, 
I guess.  It's not that Draco is being offered a chance to change 
his method and manner.  He's being offered a chance to change (or 
finally choose) his moral code.  A much more profound choice, I 
think.

I haven't gotten the sense that there's more importance in how a 
thing is done compared to it just being done.  Do you have a scene 
in mind that might illustrate that point?

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> Dumbledore wants Snape to independently realize why and what 
> that Snape has been doing or acting upon is wrong.

Betsy Hp:
Does he?  Where are you getting this from?  I've never gotten the 
sense that Dumbledore was waiting for some great aha! moment from 
Snape.

Betsy Hp