OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus (Snape ethics)

[mz_annethrope]

No: HPFGUIDX 171244

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> mz_annethrope wrote:
> <snip>
> >  Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? 
> >  PATRONUS: STAG; BOGGERT: DEAD POTTERS
> 
> Snape's Patronus a Stag, meaning that *James* is his spirit 
guardian
> (as he is Harry's)? I must say that seems to me most unlikely. Can 
you
> explain your thinking here? As for the Boggart, would his greatest
> fear be something that had already happened? I think he most fears
> *Harry's* death, but I'm not sure whether we can argue for our
> responses in this thread (appeals to TigerPatronus for an answer), 
so
> I'm just asking you to explain yours (assuming that's allowed). 
BTW,
> there's no "e" in "Boggart." I like to capitalize it, but that's 
just me.

mz_annethrope:

I think of a patronus as an animal that protects the witch or 
wizard. It might be a representation of what actually protects the 
wizard: DD's phoenix or Harry's stag. It might be a personal 
attribute; this is what I take Cho's swan to be. Cho is graceful and 
elegant when she isn't crying. I think of Snape's protective 
attributes are thick skin (elephant? dragon?) and his 
inscrutability. But sometimes the patronus is the virtue opposite of 
the person casting the spell. I don't think Hermione resembles an 
otter, but she has occasional bouts of playfulness (and viciousness) 
that save her from her seriousness. Why did I choose stag for 
Snape's patronus? It was purely facetious. 

I think the boggart could be what Snape fears will happen, but I 
think it also could be what he fears about himself--say guilt or 
shame. I chose guilt.
 
> >  1. Snape's connection to Harry will be one of obligation and 
debt 
> > (real or assumed). We will not find out that DD cut a deal with 
> > Snape to have Snape kill him. This is a vote against ESE/Snape, 
out 
> > for himself Snape or Utilitarian Snape/DD (Snape killed DD 
because 
> > he and DD thought it would have the happiest results). This is a 
> > vote for deontological Snape. Not that I would vote for him.
> <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> Again, can you explain what you mean here, 
especially "deontological
> Snape"?) If I understand your terminology correctly, I believe in 
what
> you're calling Utilitarian Snape--that is, his actions on the 
tower,
> particularly sending DD over the battlement (whether or not the AK 
was
> real--and, yes, of course, I know that DD is dead) allowed Snape 
not
> only to live and go underground as a saboteur against Voldemort 
but to
> save Harry and Draco from the DEs and get the DEs out of Hogwarts.
> (There was, IMO, no saving Dumbledore.) So is that what you mean by
> Utilitarian Snape? If not, can you clarify? And can you explain 
your
> alternative view (deontological Snape)?

ms_annethrope:
Let's see if I can be brief. I think there is a strong ethical 
dimension to the HP books and the key is DD's remark: "It is our 
choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our 
abilities." (CoS p.333, American edition)This seems to be an 
argument for virtue ethics or character ethics. Aristotle is the 
great proponent of virtue ethics. He thought that a person developed 
character through education and practice. I think JKR accepts this 
premise. The books are about the training of a young wizard, who 
sometimes makes good choices and sometimes makes appallingly bad 
choices. By book six he has learned a few things if not necessarily 
for the right reasons. But Aristotle also described a virtue as the 
mean between two opposite vices. In his analysis courage (Harry's 
attribute) is the virtue that lies between the vices of cowardice 
and foolhardiness (though more closely to foolhardiness). I dislike 
this part of Aristotelian ethics because it subjects virtue to vice 
and it assumes stasis as the goal. But I don't think that's where 
JKR goes anyway.

I do think that she, or at least DD, advocates some sort of virtue 
ethics. It's not about one's choices per se, but that one's choices 
reveal who one truly is. I think DD advocates (represents?) some 
sort of virtue ethics because out of his sheer goodness--or 
foolhardiness--he is always giving people, and creatures, second 
chances. This is not ends based action because he does not expect 
people to be good in return for his kindness. Of course, there are 
times when DD acts in a different way. He had a plan for keeping 
Harry alive. And he chose not to divulge critical information to 
Harry, much to his later regret. But I think virtues are for the 
most part emblematic of DD.

On to Snape. Some people think he is Machiavellian. That's Peter and 
Lucius. I think if Snape were Machiavellian he would not have worked 
nearly so hard to keep Harry alive in the first book. But I am 
troubled by the idea of DD cutting a deal with Snape to kill him so 
that some good may result. This I called Utilitarian for lack of a 
better word. By Utilitarian I mean the theory that action should be 
directed at the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number 
of people. I find this problematic, not just because it sacrifices 
the happiness of some for the happiness of others, but because I 
think any single perspective is limited and we cannot know if our 
chosen action will have the effects we anticipated. I find it 
difficult to think DD would cause Snape to kill for some good that 
might not happen. Of course, JKR might have set it up that way 
because SHE knows the answers. But DD doesn't.

But deontological (ethics of moral obligation) Snape is a 
possibility. Snape has various obligations: to Draco, to Harry, to 
DD, etc., and he holds to them as tenaciously as a Saxon warrior to 
his oaths. Deonotological Snape allows Snape to be a moral, if 
flawed, person--perhaps a tragic figure such as Jeptha, who swore to 
sacrifice the first thing he saw upon arriving home from victory, 
but discovered that to be his daughter. Ok, I don't think Snape is 
like Jeptha, but you get the idea. And I suspect DD acted 
deontologically when he sent Harry to live with the Dursleys. He had 
to do what he could to keep Harry alive. Ok, I wasn't brief.

 mz_annethrope
> 
> >  6. We'll see Snape cry.
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Interesting! I wonder if I could bear that. As long as he lives and
> Harry forgives him, I suppose I could endure it, as long as it's 
from
> remorse or grief or anguish and not weakness. (I *hate* the 
nickname
> Snivellus, which is one reason I can't endure Harry's dear 
godfather.)

mz_annethrope:
This was also facetious. 

> mz_annethrope:
> >  7. Luna will become a wandmaker.
> 
> Carol responds:
> If she lives, poor girl! Is it those silvery, Ollivanderlike eyes 
that
> make you think so? (Alternatively, she might become a true Seer.)
> 
> Carol, who found these responses intriguing but isn't sure how much
> discssion is allowed in this thread

mz_annethrope:

Frankly, I think she's toast. But if she lives I can imagine her as 
a wand maker for two reasons. One is that she makes things with her 
hands such as ridiculous jewelry and roaring lions. Another is that 
she is adventerous enough to go chasing presumably non-existent 
beasts. And she's unafraid of scary creatures. So I think she may 
have the personality and perhaps the ability to be a wand maker.

mz_annethrope, who is now exhausted and hasn't the time to check her 
spelling.