Nice vs. Good...was Hagrid and Snape, Snape, Apologies, and Redemption

[leslie41]

No: HPFGUIDX 152818

> > Leslie41:
> > 
> > Yes, exactly.  "Nice" is defined as "pleasant or pleasing or 
> > agreeable in nature or appearance".  Snape's not "nice".  He's 
> > most definitely unpleasant and disagreeable.  But the 
> > word "nice" has little meaning in a moral sense.  One can be 
> > very "nice" and not be good at all.        
>   
> Lupinlore: 
> And therein is the problem, because many of us simply don't agree 
> that "nice" and "good" are not the same thing.  Or let me put it 
> another way -- one can be nice without being good.  However, I 
> really don't think it's possible to be good without being nice.  

Leslie41:
Tell that to Jesus.  There's plenty in the New Testament that shows 
him to be a surly fellow who confronts people (often angrily) and 
tells them exactly what they don't want to hear.  Had Jesus 
been "nicer," my guess is he wouldn't have ended up hanging on a 
cross.

I can come up with other examples from religion or history if you 
like, but that's just the most potent one.  

> Lupinlore: 
> And that is where the question of whether Snape can ever be 
> admirable or deserve to be praised comes in, doesn't it?  I would 
> say most definitely NO.  Because, you see, I think some of use do 
> hold that nice VERY DEFINITELY has meaning in the moral sense.  

Leslie41:
But how can "nice" have meaning in the moral sense when you yourself 
just admitted that "nice" people are often not "good"?  If one can 
be nice without being good, how *can* it have meaning in the moral 
sense?  And, my own example of Jesus nonwithstanding (which I think 
shows that one can be good without being nice) why would it be 
necessary to be nice in order to be considered good to begin with?
  
> Lupinlore:
> And a person who abuses children simply can never be seen as good, 
> or admirable, or worthy of praise.

Leslie41:
There are two problems here: one is that you keep bringing up the 
issue of "abuse" as if it's factual, which it most certainly is 
not.  It's your opinion, one that isn't necessarily shared by myself 
or any number of others.

But for the sake of argument, let's agree on that point in this one 
instance.  Snape abuses his students.  Does that eradicate any other 
good that he might do?  Any other actions which might be worthy of 
admiration or praise?  Or does the fact that he's an abuser 
invalidate every positive thing he does?  Can we not praise Snape 
for being brave and selfless and putting his life at great risk for 
the order?  (You might not think he does, but again, for the sake of 
argument, let's agree on this as well.)  

Do you think that Snape's "abuse" of his students makes him wholly 
and completely bad and incapable of good?  Or doing anything 
praiseworthy?

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two 
opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability 
to function. 

> Lupinlore:
> And thus we stand on the bridge, with one side saying 
> passionately  "nice is not the same thing as good" and the others 
> of us saying with unmovable firmness "oh yes it most certainly is."

Leslie41:
I think you yourself have admitted that nice is not the same as 
good.  See above.