Deontological!Snape (Was: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights)

[mz_annethrope]

No: HPFGUIDX 171343

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
big snip:

As I
> said in another thread, I think that Hermione's otter Patronus
> represents Ron Weasel, erm, Weasley. What's your nonfacetious idea 
of
> Snape's Patronus (as opposed to his Animagus form, if any)?
> 
> As for a Boggart, I *suppose* it could represent guilt, but I think
> guilt is unlikely to be a person's greatest fear (Lupin's 
definition
> of what a Boggart represents), which is why I believe that it's
> Voldemort killing Harry and consequently destroying all hope of a
> victory against the Dark Lord.

mz annethrope replies:

I basically agree with you on the distinction between a patronus and 
an animagus. Or at least as I see it, the patronus protects you but 
your animagus represents your true self. I hadn't seen your post on 
Hermione's patronus. It seems plausible. I had seen the otter as 
being some aspect of herself that saves her from being so serious. 
But...
I really don't know what Snape's patronus is. I suspect it's wrapped 
up in the enigma of Snape. And it may have changed.
> 
> 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. <snip>
> > 
> > I do think that she [JKR], 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 <snip> 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.
> <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Brevity isn't always a virtue (or the soul of wit). I prefer 
clarity,
> myself, and I appreciate your explanation. (being philosophically
> challenged myself, and unable to deal in abstractions without
> suffering a severe headache, I had to look up "deontological." I've
> never quite grasped ontology, and am glad to find that deontology 
is
> another beast altogether, "the theory or study of moral 
obligation,"
> according to my trusty Merriam-Webster's Online.
> 
> I see a clash within Dumbledore between utilitarianism (the 
greatest
> good for the greatest number, meaning in his case the survival of 
the
> WW at whatever cost to the individual) and his personal love for
> Harry, which may or may not be represented by deontology. (I'd 
love to
> hear what you think.) He even states as much himself: "What did I 
care
> if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were
> slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were
> alive, and well, and happy?" (OoP Am. ed. 839). An yet, surely,
> privileging Harry's happiness and temporary safety over the lives 
and
> deaths of others can't be JKR's--or DD's--idea of right? He's 
caught
> between placing his beloved Prophecy at a terrible risk and keeping
> him safe at the expense of numerous other people, the whole WW, in
> fact. Harry must be kept safe until he's ready, but he *must* be 
made
> ready, for his own sake and everyone else's, "nameless and 
faceless"
> or not. Harry is the WW's only hope, and DD knows it.
> 
> In HBP, both DD and Snape are preoccupied with Draco's personal 
(and
> moral) safety as well as with Harry (over whom Snape has apparently
> been watching since SS/PS as part of his obligation either to DD 
or to
> his own set of ethics--certainly, you're right that he's not
> Machiavellian). Keeping Draco safe could jeopardize the school, but
> keeping the school safe by, say, expelling Draco, would guarantee
> Draco's death. Again, it seems to me, DD tries to strike a balance
> between the good of the individual (Draco and perhaps UV-bound 
Snape)
> and the good of the "greatest number" (the students and staff of
> Hogwarts). Expelling Draco would certainly be easy, but I'm pretty
> sure that DD doesn't consider it right. Instead, he has Snape watch
> over Draco (which he's doing anyway because of the UV) and try to
> question him; meanwhile, he puts as many protections on the school 
as
> possible. In the end, he talks Draco out of killing him, not for 
his
> own sake but for Draco's, and he seems to me to ask Snape to kill 
him
> as the only way to save Draco's, Harry's, and Snape's lives (good 
of
> the individual), save the school from the DEs (utilitarianism), 
place
> Snape in his role as saboteur to fight LV (utilitarianism), and 
save
> Harry, not as an individual but as the Chosen One for the sake of 
the
> WW (utilitarianism). So, in the end, his conflicting values come
> together. By allowing Snape rather than a DE or the poison to kill
> him, in which case he would *not* have gone over the wall and 
Snape,
> dead from breaking the UV, could not have gotten the DEs and Draco 
off
> the tower before Harry came rushing out, DD accomplishes a number 
of
> objectives. He can't save his own life, but he can choose how he 
dies
> and make sure he doesn't take anyone with him (assuming that his
> complete trust in Snape is justified and Snape does what's 
required to
> save those other lives). that, at any rate, is how I interpret
> "Severus, please!" DD is begging, not for his own life or for 
Snape's
> soul but for the safety of a valued ally and friend, two students, 
the
> school itself, and, ultimately, the whole WW.
> 
> As for Snape himself, I think his immediate action is motivated by 
the
> need to get the job done at whatever cost to himself. He hesitates,
> his expression changing as he looks into DD's eyes and (IMO) learns
> what he wants, but he doesn't raise his wand even though he surely
> knows that the UV has been triggered. DD's pleading seems to 
include a
> note of urgency--*Please,* Severus! Do it now or it will be too 
late!
> But part of Snape, I think, would rather die than kill his mentor 
(the
> very opposite of Peter Pettigrew, who would have saved his own 
skin in
> a second). So I see him at this point as what you're calling
> Utilitarian Snape. He does what's best for the WW and Hogwarts at
> terrible expense to himself (far worse than death, he's making 
himself
> an outcast and a fugitive hated by the whole WW). But there's also 
an
> element of what you call Deontological Snape because he's saving 
Draco
> (for whose sake he put his own life on the line with the UV in the
> first place, and perhaps his soul as well) and, as always, 
protecting
> the "arrogant," rule-breaking Potter boy, without whom the WW is 
toast.
> 
> I do think that Snape operates according to his own moral code, a 
set
> of strict, old-fashioned virtues of the sort rejected by Shelleyan
> Romantics in the early eighteenth century and more recently by the
> Beat generation of the 1950s and its postmodern offspring from the
> 1990s onward: Duty, Obedience, Respect for Authority, Loyalty
> (Loyaultie me Lie!), perhaps others that I can't think of right 
now.
> Courage is also important to him; Truth, on the other hand, is in 
DD's
> words, "a beautiful and terrible thing," to be handed out in small
> doses and, if the occasion requires, somewhat distorted.
> 
> Carol, not sure where she's going with this but intrigued by the
> concept of Deontological!Snape
>

mz_annethrope again:

This is not much of a response because there are too many things 
here, but here are a couple of comments.

My concern with utilitarianism or utilitarian!DD is not about 
sacrificing the one for the sake of the many. Doctors do that all 
the time when they resort to triage. There are rules for triage. 
When the rules fall apart, well you either resort to casuistry or 
you follow your heart (or work on instinct). My concern rather is 
that utilitarianism aims for maximal happiness, which is an 
epistemological problem. How can any one of us know what will make 
the most people happy? That doesn't seem to me to be the choice that 
DD or Snape makes. As a matter of fact, I think the most truly 
utilitarian characters we have met so far are Fudge and Umbridge. 
They actually try to make decisions for the happiness of all. 

Of course, JKR as author determines all the happy ends and we get to 
argue about whether or not her choices work. I am not so convinced 
that her more interesting characters do the same. I take Dumbledore 
at his word when he tells Harry that he was trying to keep him alive 
when he placed him with the Dursleys. It is a terrible choice to 
have to make. But I think his motive was love undiluted by the 
belief that Harry would be the one to save the Wizarding World.

You see it as both/and. I see it as both/and in a somewhat different 
way. DD is training Harry for the fight with Voldemort. He doesn't 
know how it will end. He doesn't teach Harry how to fight. Instead 
he gives Harry lessons in what every great warrior must do: know 
your enemy. But I still think his motive is love.

Or to put it another way, I see Trelawny as Dumbledore's opposite. 
Trelawny is our determinist, but DD seems to have a high view of 
freedom and doesn't put much stock in prophecy. In OotP he tells 
Harry that Harry is the chosen one because Voldemort chose him. Then 
in HBP we have these exchanges:

DD...."I told you this at the end of last year. Voldemort singled 
you out as the person who would be most dangerous to him--and in 
doing so, he made you the person who would be most dangerous to him!"
"But is comes to the same__"
"No, it doesn't!" said Dumbledore...."You are setting too much store 
by the prophecy!"
"But," spluttered Harry, "but you said the prophecy means__"
"If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been 
fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you think 
every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?" (am. ed. 
509-10)

And then on the next page DD tells Harry he has to kill Voldemort, 
but not because of the prophecy, but because Voldemort's choices 
have given Harry a thirst for revenge.

So I don't see Dumbledore as acting the way he does because Harry is 
the only one who can save the wizarding world. What I do think is 
that he knows Voldemort and that because of that he tries to use the 
prophecy against him. Voldemort is the one who puts stock on 
prophecies and he goes after it. Of course, DD doesn't tell Harry 
what he is doing. There could be so so many problems if he told him. 
And Harry, being a free person freely misreads the situation. This 
is the closest thing I can come to utilitarian!Dumbledore. And 
Dumbledore admits he made a mistake. Now it just occurred to me that 
in the consequentialist (utilitarian) world Snape might have been 
the one to suffer if Voldemort had gotten the prophecy. Go figure.

Hmmm. Shelley as anti-Snape. This is causing me to like Snape much 
more than I ought to.

mz_annethrope