Draco and Dumbledore

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 160139

> Renee:
> <SNIP>
> > Are we dealing with a Dumbledore who has to choose repeatedly 
> between two evils, instead of between what's right and what's easy? If 
> this is the case, the series would actually gain depth for me, because in
> > reality, choices aren't always between what's right and what's 
> easy, and suggesting they are has always struck me as a bit simplistic. 

Pippin:
I think it is about not being too quick to label something as evil because
it isn't as good as we would like it to be. It gets to be an excuse for 
choosing what's easy. If one choice is as bad as the other,  why not?

I've mentioned this a couple  of times and not gotten a response, but
I'm really interested in what others would have to say about this, so I'll
try again. When Snape says, "I see no difference" IMO, that's JKR 
showing us how cruel and wrong it is not to distinguish between a 
lesser evil and a greater one. Does the fact that Hermione's teeth
weren't pretty to begin with excuse Snape from doing anything 
about the fact that they'd been cursed? Does the fact that Draco 
was not a very nice person to begin with excuse Dumbledore from 
trying to save him from Voldemort?

I'm surprised, Alla, that you'd be all over Dumbledore for trying to
save Draco at the risk of other lives. Isn't that exactly what you'd
like him to do for Harry? Maybe Harry's life is more valuable to the
war effort, and maybe not. Wars are not won by heroes, at least
I've never heard of a losing side that didn't have heroes too. Wars
are won by people working together. Houses united, anyone?


Alla:

 > Okay, Dumbledore is choosing between two evils, over and over and 
> over again, let's say. He would keep telling himself that he does it 
> for the greater good - defeating Voldemort, right? That is why he 
> has to make those choices - in the context we were discussing it to 
> choose between safety of many students and his agent ( which may 
> really be a traitor, but let's forget about it for the sake of the 
> argument), but when push comes to shover eventually and Voldemort 
> has been done away with, how does that Dumbledore, who keeps 
> choosing between two evils is different from Voldemort?
> 
> How do his choices distinguish him from Voldemort then?

Pippin:
That Dumbledore is different because Voldemort does not choose
the lesser of two evils, he chooses the easiest way to get the most
power.

Dumbledore tries to choose what will save the most people from
Voldemort. I know you don't see it that way in this case, but think 
of it this way:

Finding traces of a rat in the baby's cradle is bad, but the thing 
about rats, as with Death Eaters, is that there's always a lot more than 
one. So which protects the baby better: getting rid of a lone rat? 
Or keeping watch and hoping it will lead you to the hole?

And they did find the hole! The way into Hogwarts 
through the vanishing cabinet was discovered and no
child was killed or bitten. Would that be the case if Draco was
hustled off and the problem was deemed solved?

Alla:
> Does it make sense to you? I just think that whether in fictional 
> reality or even in RL the leader, the politician who has supposedly 
> **right** or **light** objectives in mind, should at least enter the 
> fight **trying** to choose what is right, not between two evils.

Pippin:
How do you know Dumbledore isn't doing that?
What you seem to be saying is that you want Dumbledore to
beat his breast and say he's so sorry, it's not his fault he hasn't
got a better choice. Sounds whiny, no?  And what's the point? Either 
you trust him to make the best choice of those available, 
or you don't. If not, what difference would the whining make?

I don't know whether I'm right to trust Dumbledore or not. But
I'll tell you one thing, the characters in canon who trust Dumbledore
are certainly a nicer lot than those who don't. :)

Pippin