Nice (kind) vs. Good

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 153041

Pippin wrote:
<snip>
> I think JKR wants us not to put too much faith in kindnesss, just
> as she doesn't want us to put too much faith in rules.  It's
> a component of goodness but it's not the whole thing.  <snip>

Carol responds:
Apologies for oversnipping, but I think you've made a key point here,
or rather, a key point and a more precise word for the concept people
are discussing in this thread. "Nice," as any third-grade teacher will
tell her students, is a vague word that conveys almost nothing (almost
as bad as "positive qualities," used by college freshmen to sound as
if they're saying something important and meaningful). "Kind" is much
more precise, and is, I think, what most people in this thread are
trying to convey by "nice."

More important, kindness is, as you say, only one component of
goodness, or virtue, to use an old-fashioned term that has gone out of
favor thanks to its use in the nineteenth century as a synonym for
chastity in women.

What, exactly, is goodness? The dictionary provides very little help.
Thinking of goodness as virtue, or rather a composite of virtues, may
be of some help. If Dumbledore is "the epitome of goodness," what are
the virtues of which that goodness is comprised? What virtues does JKR
value and depict through him? What is a virtue, anyway, since modern
Americans and Europeans don't, to my knowledge, generally talk in such
outmoded terms?

For the ancient Greeks, moral excellence (arete) consisted of wisdom,
moderation/temperance, bravery, justice, and piety. I think we can
eliminate piety from the list as it doesn't seem to apply to the WW,
but the others seem applicable as components of overall virtue or
goodness in the WW. Kindness, however, is not on the list.

The Romans, who had a long list of virtues ("virtus" means manliness,
qualities possessed by the ideal man, women being expected merely to
be chaste, modest, and obedient to their husbands to be considered
"good"), including comitas (friendliness or courtesy), clementia
(mercy or gentleness), dignitas (a sense of self-worth), firmitas
(tenacity), humanitas (refinement, being cultured, as in "the
humanities"), industria (hard work), and my favorite with regard to
Severus, severitas (sternness[!] or self-control). Oddly, the Romans,
whom we tend to think of in terms of orgies and blood sports, with a
few aqueducts and "veni, vidi, vici" thrown in, did value kindness, or
the appearance of it, at least during the Roman Republic. I would say
that Dumbledore measures up to the Roman standard, whether or not it's
what JKR had in mind, even in terms of severitas (sternness on some
occasions and self-control almost always). And Snape has, at least,
firmness (tenacity), industria (hard work), humanitas (being
cultured--note his book-lined shelves and his appreciation for the
"art and science" of Potions), and, of course, severitas (except for
the three of four occasions in which he loses control).

What about Christian virtues, which are more familiar, and perhaps
more applicable, since JKR is a Christian? Of the theological virtues,
faith, hope, and charity (love), only love seems applicable. (Is DD
hopeful? Is hope a virtue in the HP books? I'm not sure. Possibly the
cardinal virtues--prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude--are a
closer fit. They don't fully characterize Dumbledore, but it could be
argued that Snape, who is so frequently unkind, does possess these
particular virtues and so is good or "virtuous" according to this
standard. If we consider the capital virtues (the opposite of the
Seven Deadly Sins), we have humility, liberality, brotherly love,
meekness, temperance, chastity, and diligence. I'm not sure about
liberality, and I doubt that many people here would consider meekness
a virtue, but I would argue that DD has brotherly love (in the sense
of an impersonal love of humanity and a love of his students and
staff), temperance (we never see him overindulge in sensory
pleasures), and, presumably, chastity. And Snape, though he lacks
brotherly love as it's generally understood, seems to value the WW in
an abstract sense, and AFAWK, he is temperate, chaste, and diligent.

There many other ideas of goodness or virtue or "manliness" as
advocated by the British public schools before WWI. A familiar list of
fairly modern virtues can be found in the Boy Scout Law, in which boys
promise to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind,
obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

Eliminating reverent as inapplicable to the WW and obedient as
inapplicable to Dumbledore, we could say that DD is (sometimes)
helpful, generally friendly courteous, kind, cheerful, brave, and
(presumably) clean, whereas (DDM!)Snape (whose position is closer than
DD's to the position of a boy, considering that he's 115 years DD's
junior and under his command both as staff member and Order member) is
trustworthy, loyal, helpful, obedient, and brave. (He may be clean as
well--naturally oily hair, you know.) ESE!Snape is, of course, none of
these things except helpful and obedient as part of his cover and
brave in taking the risk of exposure.

Which takes us back to what constitutes goodness for JKR, who may have
had some or none of these views of virtue/goodness/manliness in mind
when she wrote DD and Snape. Maybe the only virtues she has in mind
are courage (demonstrated by both characters) and mercy (demonstrated
by DD). I don't think so. The "epitome of goodness" is also wise, in
her view (and mine), and tolerant and forgiving. And Snape, for all
his faults, is hard-working, often if not always self-controlled
(perhaps repressed would be a better word), and, if he's DDM! loyal
and trustworthy and obedient, willing to be viewed as a traitor and a
murderer if it will serve Dumbledore's cause. 

I haven't even considered Harry, who certainly is not always kind (or
self-controlled or obedient or hard-working or forgiving) and is too
young to be wise, but is always courageous and generally loyal, with a
young person's sense of justice and fairness. Perhaps he will learn to
love people other than his friends, to love the WW enough to save it,
faults and all. Perhaps he will learn forgiveness and self-control, to
set aside anger and hatred and the desire for revenge. Then perhaps he
will be ready to do what is right rather than what is easy, which
perhaps is what goodness in JKR's world boils down to, after all.

Whatever goodness (or virtue) is for JKR, I don't think it's kindness
("niceness"). Certainly we can't reduce Dumbledore, or Harry, to that
one trait or virtue. Both of them are flawed, but both of them are
essentially good. (Harry, in becoming a man in more than age, can
become even better, with his mind and actions catching up to his heart
and soul.) If we want to determine whether Snape is good, it might be
best to examine the traits he has in common with DD and Harry rather
than focusing on the one virtue, the one component of goodness, that
we know he is short on, kindness.

Carol, noting that there are other virtues she hasn't even listed,
such as patience, that somehow got overlooked by the Greeks, Romans,
and Christians but not wanting to bore anyone by giving still more
examples