Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 179520

> >>Lizzyben:
> > So I'm not sure if the echoes between Shacklebot & Snape are 
> > intentional, but they're there. And the contrast between DD's own 
> > Utilitarian philosophy is stark. This novel is a moral mess, but 
> > every so often a good message sneaks through inadvertantly. 

> >>Pippin:
> I don't think Dumbledore is a Utilitarian. The statement "Dumbledore
> would have been happier than anybody to think there was a little 
> more love in the world" (HBP ch 29) gives the game away. Apparently,
> that's Situational Ethics in a nutshell.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics
> 
> Situational ethics differs from Utilitarianism in that it          
> recognizes Agape, absolute unconditional unchanging love for all    
> peoples, as the only law. I think we are to see Dumbledore as      
> trying to live by this principle, though failing whenever  he's    
> subverted  by his instincts for domination and secrecy, and Harry   
> as doing the same thing more successfully, though failing when he   
> gives into his anger and arrogance.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
On this point, I honestly don't know what JKR *wanted* us to see.  
But I can say that trying to tie Dumbledore to agape is an impossible 
task, IMO.  The assigning of points at the end of PS/SS is an example 
of Dumbledore's delight in "us vs. them" ethics.  As is his treatment 
of just about everyone around him.  Including his brother.  I'm not 
sure Dumbledore knows what love really is.  And he *certainly* has 
little tests and tasks that people have to fulfill before he figures 
them "worthy" of his time and effort (and therefore, love).

Harry is the same way, I think.  One has to show loyalty to Harry 
*first* and then he'll express an interest in you.  And that makes 
sense given Harry's background, but it also means that he can't 
really be held up as an example of agape.  I think if such an idea 
were put in front of Harry he'd ask, "But what about the bad people?"

So yeah, I don't think "Situational Ethics" as defined at the Wiki 
site really covers Dumbledore.  (I would say you could replace the 
word "love" with "fun" or "frivolity" and still capture Dumbledore's 
character in that HBP quote.)  I think both Dumbledore and Harry go 
with a "might makes right" sort of philosophy.  I think that's why 
it's so important to both of them that Harry win at everything all 
the time.  Whether it's a quidditch game, the house trophy or the 
TWT.  That's the only way for Harry to figure out his own worth.  As 
he said in DH "winners, keepers".

I'm not up on philosophy so I don't know its vocabulary.  But I'd say 
the sort of philosophy that embraces "might makes right" 
and "winners, keepers" is the philosophy of Dumbledore and Harry. 

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> I think we are supposed to recognize that this system has flaws,   
> but we are to see it as more successful than legalistic ethics,     
> whose pitfalls are illustrated by Percy and the young              
> Hermione...<snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, but the deck was definitely stacked there, wasn't it?  Percy 
never got to speak for himself, and Hermione wasn't really a 
supporter of legalistic ethics in the first place.  She only wore the 
cap a time or two to provide something to aim at.  Amusingly, the 
person most likely to shoot the legalistic ethic down was Hermione 
herself.  If she thought the goal just, than to hell with the rules, 
and isn't she just the sexiest thing ever when she gets like that 
says the author with a little nudge and a wink.

> >>Pippin:
> I'm not an expert on this stuff: does anyone else see this?
> If so, do you think Rowling gives a fair presentation of the        
> weaknesses of situational ethics? Does love in the books  have the 
> power of a of a god, or of a deus ex machina, actually influencing 
> events in its favor?

Betsy Hp:
Well, I'd say the biggest weakness of "Situational Ethics" is self-
love.  Or to maybe better define it: self-interest.  Agape is a 
pretty hard thing to achieve and when faced with a difficult dilemma 
it can be very hard to try and echo the divine.  How can one person 
decide what decision will best serve "love"?  And in that case, yes I 
think JKR beautifully shows the mess that sort of weakness can make.  
Harry was concerned about what best suited his personal views of 
life, as were his friends and as was Dumbledore.  In trying to better 
serve "love" they created or maintained a brutally dark world where 
the strong decide everything and the weak are uncared for, unthought 
of.  IOWs a world with a lot less love.

I don't, however, think JKR illustrated this *on purpose*.  I'm not 
even sure she really thought about what sort of "philosophy" she was 
putting forward.  I would say though, that IMO the thing that least 
influenced the plot, that was least felt by our "good guys" was love. 

Betsy Hp (glad to have the internet back!)