Views of Hermione

[wynnleaf]

No: HPFGUIDX 160535

Cyril
>>After
all, it is our choices (read intentions) that show us what we are, far
more than our abilities (blatantly copied from DD <g>)

That is certainly not what DD meant, nor JKR.  I would consider doing
quite unethical things and thinking them okay because one's intentions
are good, part of doing what is easy instead of what is right.  Not
easy in terms of physically easy, but it's so much easier to achieve
one's ends if one is not concerned with ethics, than if one is
concerned about what is right.

Charles
>>It comes down to what you'd like to see happen. Would you prefer
that the only person who can defeat Voldemort, and 26 other students
be expelled and get their wands snapped, leaving them defenseless- or
the person who would condemn them to that fate suffer disfigurement
that would warn the DA and give them a chance to escape?

Wynnleaf
The way things turned out, this is almost beside the point.  The hex
didn't stop Marietta from telling Umbridge, who immediately took her
to DD to confront him alongside Harry and some Order/Aurors, who ended
up modifying Marietta's memory so that she never got to tell who was
in the DA.  Nobody got expelled or otherwise and it had nothing to do
with Hermione's hex.  Without DD and the Shacklebolt's quick thinking,
Umbridge would eventually have gotten Marietta to talk (after all, she
didn't loose her voice, did she?), and the DA members would have been
found out.  Hermione's hex did No Good.  If she hadn't been so sneaky
about it, and told everyone up front when they were signing, it might
have prevented Marietta either from signing in the first place, or
from telling Umbridge.  But no, Hermione knows best
.  or at least is
convinced she does.  It's a good thing DD and Shacklebolt were around
to do the *real* defense measures.

Alla:
> 
> Main point that Hermione does not really care whether the person 
> deserves it or not?
> 
> Okay, could you give me an example, where Hermione harmed somebody 
> who did not deserve it, somebody who was not suspected of DE or DE 
> related, murderous activities?

Wynnleaf
As Carol mentioned, attack birds for Ron is one.  You don't seem to
consider rendering someone unconscious to be physical harm.  If
Hermione hit them and knocked them out, would that be harm?  But since
you seem to think that anything that doesn't cause permanent damage
isn't "harm," I'm not supposed to count knocking out Crabb and Goyle?
 And you know, at the time they *weren't* considered DE children.  And
then there's Hermione's plan which asked Harry and Ron to create an
explosion in potions class which harmed completely innocent kids.  And
if we get to include something beyond direct physical harm, what about
the house-elves?  What did they do to warrant having to risk having
their whole lives (which they love) entirely disrupted by a sneaky
trick simply because Hermione thinks it's best for them?  Slavery
isn't ultimately good for anyone, but good intentions don't justify
the RL equivalent of taking the safe, happy, well-fed and housed slave
who's known no other life and completely without their approval
freeing them with zero plan for how to maintain their lives and
happiness, and no ability to enact a plan if she had it.  Hermione
didn't *really* consider the elves lives and happiness, only her own
ideas of "rightness."

Crabb and Goyle were completely innocent of the crime Hermione was
investigating.  Simply being pureblood elitist shouldn't have made
them, or Draco, a candidate for attempted murder.  After all, who
exactly decided Draco was a good candidate to be a murderer?  A 12
year old kid.  Not Dumbledore – and he certainly knew far better than
the trio what kind of home situation Draco came from.  

By the way, do recall that in COS, the trio had no idea that any kids
were children of death eaters.  All they knew was that Draco was a
pureblood elitist, his family likewise, and he spouted off comments
about the fate of mudbloods.

No, the trio decided they knew better than all the teachers,
Dumbledore included, and that unbeknownst to all, Draco was the prime
candidate and "deserved" to be spied upon, and his friends – just
because they were friends of the 12 year old opinion of "prime
candidate" -- deserved to be knocked out for an hour and have their
identifies stolen for that hour.

On another note, I believe brought up by Alla (but am not sure):
Criticizing Hermione's actions and saying the ends do not justify the
means is in no way contradictory to supporting Snape as DDM.  

1.  No one is questioning whether or not Hermione is on the good side
or not.  No one is saying that Hermione's actions indicate she's a bad
guy.    

2.  In general, most people who think Snape is DDM are not trying
support his insulting speech as okay or even justified.  Often, those
who think Snape DDM do try to point out that Snape's  actions as a
teacher aren't nearly as awful as Harry thinks, or as harmful to his
students as some readers claim.  But that is not the same as saying
that his insults or unfair decisions as a teacher are justified. 
Further, regardless how untrue is the adage "sticks and stones may
break my bones, but words can never hurt me," it does not necessarily
follow that physical harm is *less* harmful than words.  Snape has
never physically harmed anyone that we know of in canon other than in
clear-cut self-defense with the Marauders, a direct attempt to capture
a well-known supposed murderer and his apparent accomplice, and
shoving Harry across the room for invading his pensieve.   Two of
these physical responses were definitely not physical harm to
innocents (although the shove was wrong), and one was to a person the
entire WW considered guilty of murder.

By the way, if we really want to find something comparable to compare
Hermione to Snape, I'd suggest Snape's spying on the Marauders, trying
to find out what Lupin was doing every full-moon.  Snape obviously
knew that it was partly sanctioned by the school, since he'd seen
Pomfrey escorting Lupin away.  So he must have had reason to think
that more was going on that the school *wouldn't* approve of, if he
really was hoping to get them expelled.

Many readers assume that Snape's spying on the Marauders shows what a
nasty guy he was.  Who else, but a nasty Slytherin would want to get
those nice Gryffindors expelled?   But if he had actually discovered
what they were really doing every full moon – running around
endangering the countryside – shouldn't he have been considered a hero
and the Marauders expelled?  And he wouldn't even have resorted to any
unethical actions like knocking out the innocent, stealing identities,
injuring classmates with explosions, stealing from teachers, etc. in
order to do expose what was going on.

Hermione, on the other hand, does resort to all sorts of unethical
actions in order to achieve her ends and does not seem to care if
others get harmed, even the innocent, if the actions seem to her
expedient to meet her goals.
 
Wynnleaf, who would love to see Hermione become aware of this.  She is
just too convinced of her own rightness.