Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption

[houyhnhnm102]

No: HPFGUIDX 152995

Lanval:

> Arthur, Remus, Tonks, Hagrid, to name just a few. They're 
> all on the right side, so they qualify as 'good', right?
 
> Mind, I don't think for a minute ANY of them is always 
> nice/kind/polite. But on my personal Gray-Scale of Niceness, 
> they all score somewhere in the ash/driftwood/pale pewter 
> range. Snape's more of a charcoal. :)

houyhnhnm:

I thought we were arguing over whether it is necessary to be nice in
order to be good, or whether niceness constitutes goodness in and of
itself, or something like that, so the fact that Arthur, Remus, Tonks,
and Hagrid are on the right side does not make them good for the
purpose of this argument.  The question is whether or not their
niceness makes them good.

I agreed that niceness could be elevated to the level of goodness the
way you defined it as "a simple, basic feeling of goodwill towards
others -- and likewise a reluctance to hurt others". But I think that
the goodwill has to be expressed universally.  Betsy HP put her finger
on it.  "It's easy to be nice to your friends.  It's how you treat
those you dislike that can be the real sticking point."  And I think
that kind of niceness has to be supported by acts in order to be good.

The problem is that niceness is a mask for so many other things. 
Nastiness in the case of Umbridge.  Moral cowardice in the case of
Lupin (which is why I can't see Lupin as good regardless of what side
he is on in the war against Voldemort).  Mediocrity (I expect we might
find some examples among the Hufflepuffs if we knew them better).

I would agree that Hagrid is good, according to your definition, from
Firenze's point of view, because of "the care he shows all living
creatures" except that he doesn't always extend that care to all
living creatures if they happen to be Muggles. I don't think he is
good just because he is nice to Harry.  That seems like mere
partisanship to me.

I don't know whether or not Tonks is either good or nice. Her
self-centeredness, as evidenced by allowing herself to be drawn into a
funk over her love life when the future of the WW was at stake, does
not bode well for her goodness, IMO.  I find it hard to believe that
niceness would be a predominant personality trait in those who are
drawn toward a career as an auror.

I don't think Snape is the least bit nice.  I think he is an example
of how someone can be good without being nice.  His conjuring of
stretchers, declining to take revenge on Sirius when he probably could
have gotten away with it, turning Sirius over to the MoM rather than
taking him straight to the dementors, and shielding the Trio from
expulsion, none of it was motivated by nice feelings.  He did what he
did because it was the right thing to do, and that, in my humble
opinion, makes him good.

*******************

I read _The Magic Mountain_ *many* years ago as a teenager.  I did get
it, that Settembrini and Naptha represented opposing tendencies in
western culture, and even found their arguments interesting, but I
didn't have enough background knowledge at that age to fully enter
into it.  An awful lot went over my head, I'm sure.  I was more
interested in whether or not Hans would find True Love with Madame
Chauchat.  In other words I read Thomas Mann from the POV of a
shipper. LOL.

I may finally be motivated to reread it, now.  And I just had an
interesting thought.  Will Harry leave the conflicts of the WW behind
after his seven year sojourn in the Magic Castle, only to end up as
canon fodder in a Muggle war?