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

[Sharon Hayes]

No: HPFGUIDX 179533


________________________________________
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of horridporrid03 [horridporrid03 at yahoo.com]
Sent: 03 December 2007 02:09
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)

> >>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>

Sharon:
The Wiki definition of Situational Ethics is a bit confused. Situational ethics is about making decisions about morally problemmatic situations on aone-off basis. That is looking at each situation and deciding on the merits of that situation.  There are no overriding principles or values, except perhaps the value of coming to a good and ethical decision. So Agape might enter the picture in some situations but not others.

The HP books are a funny mix of ethical positions, but mostly deontological and utilitarian.  Gryffindors are supposed to be deontological--that is, bound by their duty to others, hence the displays of courage etc in the face of difficult situations. A deontological ethic is all about duties, rights and obligations, and universal moral principles. So a Gryffindor, such as Harry, should understand that there are guiding principles for his conduct, which tell him what he should do in any particular ethical dilemma.  For example, Immanuel Kant, famous german philosopher, claimed that universal moral principles were '"categorical imperatives" -- meaning they apply to everyone all the time--and the fist categorical imperative is that we should only act as if it would be Ok for everyone to act as we are. In other words, if you can't honestly say that it would be OK for everyone to do what you are about to do, then you shouldn't do it ebcuase it would be unethical/immoral. Now Harry doesn't always abide by this Gryffindor-ish morality. in fact, he often takes it upon himself to break the rules for a higher cause, which is utilitarian thinking.

Dumbledore is also confused.  He says who we are is all about our choices, meaning we should always choose to do the right thing, regardless of the consequences (deontological thinking), but THEN, he praises Harry for breaking  rules for a higher good (utilitarian thinking).

Slytherins are a paradigm of utilitarian thinking - -they do what they have to do to achieve their ends. But Gryffindors aren't supposed to be like that. Harry does follow the Gryffindor morality most of the time. Indeed, he saved his enemy twice becuase it was the right thing to do. Such supererogatoryu acts are very Gryffindor-ish and deontological.  He also takes his duty to vanquish Volidemort very seriously.  But he doesn't think twice about using whatever means he needs to achieve his ends, although the means he chooses are never THAT bad--usually just breaking rules such as curfews and going to forbidden places, etc.

<SNIP>

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.

Sharon:
I agree that JKR really didn't think about what philosophy underlies her books.  Most people don't even think about what their own personal view are, let alone what philosophy underlies them.  That doesn't make the books any the worse for me though. Life is complicated and people - -even really brilliant ones like Dumbledore--don't always think straight, or even rationally. It's difficult to be consistent in one's personal morality. In fact, I would say someone who is always consistent is a bit of a fanatic :-)  The books are more real to me becuase they characters get morally confused, they make mistakes and they pay the consequences.