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

[lanval1015]

No: HPFGUIDX 153007

> 
> 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.


Lanval:
Oh no, you misunderstood me then. My argument was that 
niceness/kindness cannot simply be ignored, or looked at with 
contempt, when judging a characters 'goodness'.

Let me try again.

Character A works for the side of good, but is a generally nasty, 
disagreeable person. He tends to hurt others by his attitude.

Character B also works for the side of good, but is generally a 
friendly and kind person. He rarely hurts others by his 
attitude.

What I take exception to is this claim: that Character A not only 
deserves to be called as 'good' as Character B, but that A is 
actually superior, because B's niceness and kindness are a waste of 
time, and/or a sign of insincerity. 

And now there seems to be another claim, namely that Character A 
deserves higher praise, because as a nasty person, it's so much 
harder for him to be 'good'...? Sorry, but no.



> houyhnhnm: 
> 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. 


Lanval:

No. It doesn't have to be. It would be a fine thing, if people were 
able to treat everyone with equal kindliness, but it's unrealistic. 

> houyhnhnm:
> 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). 

Lanval:
And here we are again... Snape gets a pass for everything he's ever 
done, from possible murder and torture, to his general nastiness to 
everyone, all because he *may* be fighting on the right side, but 
Lupin cannot ever be called good?



> houyhnhnm:
 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.  


Lanval:
Great! Then forget Snape. If Tonks must be judged, and found wanting, 
on grounds of self-centeredness, then Mr Self-Centered himself 
clearly loses all claim to goodness. We're talking about the guy who 
viciously attacks the Promised One, the Boy Who Lived, the Hope of 
the WW, on their first encounter, for nothing but petty personal 
reasons.

> houyhnhnm: 
> 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.

Lanval:

See, I just don't understand this. You doubt whether Hagrid or Tonks 
deserve to even be called kind, much less good, because of their 
respective flaws, but when it comes to Severus Snape, there's no 
question about it ?

The mere fact that he put some people on stretchers deserves praise?
 

I'm not saying that Snape cannot be 'Good', I'm saying that he should 
not be praised to high heaven for acts that, in other characters, 
would be considered nothing more than common decency.



> *******************
> 
> 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.


Lanval:

So did I, the first time. *g* But I must have tackled it at least ten 
times since, often just in parts, and there's always something I've 
overlooked before.


 
> 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?

Lanval:
:) If he did, things might get rather interesting.