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

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 171363

> Carol a second ago:
> <snip>
> > 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.<snip> 
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. 
> <snip>
> mz_annethrope:
> <snip>
> > > 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> 
> 

lizzyben:

Although I believe Snape is on the good side, I have trouble truly 
seeing him as "Dumbledore's Man," because it seems like the two 
think differently and operate under different moral codes. They both 
might want LV gone, and both might act similarly, but it's for 
different reasons. I love this idea of a potential clash between 
Deontological!Snape & Teleological!Dumbledore. 

Deontological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus 
upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. Thus, in order 
to make the correct moral choices, we simply have to understand what 
our moral duties are and what correct rules exist which regulate 
those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When 
we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally. Kantian 
ethics are one example of a deontological moral system.

This definition seems to fit Snape fairly well.Because Snape does 
seem to be driven, above all, by the concept of duty. He has various 
& often conflicting duties that he takes very seriously - a duty to 
Dumbledore, a duty to protect his students, a duty to Lily (IMO), a 
duty to Hogwarts, a duty to Draco, etc. He performs these duties 
because he believes it is the right thing to do, regardless of 
whether he personally likes it or not. When he performs his duty, he 
believe that he has acted morally. 

Teleological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus on 
the consequences which any action might have (for that reason, they 
are often referred to as consequentalist moral systems, and both 
terms are used here). Thus, in order to make correct moral choices, 
we have to have some understanding of what will result from our 
choices. When we make choices which result in the correct 
consequences, then we are acting morally; when we make choices which 
result in the incorrect consequences, then we are acting immorally. 
Utilitarianism is one example.

This seems to describe DD's beliefs fairly well. While Snape focuses 
on duties, DD focuses on goals, plans, ends, & what means best reach 
that end. And for DD, the ultimate end is the salvation of the WW. 

These are totally oppositional ethical pardigms, so I can see a lot 
of places where DD's & Snape's beliefs might come into conflict. For 
example, Marietta. Teleological!DD believes that it is right to 
oblivate Marietta, because this prevents her from revealing the 
names of the other students in the DA. He considers the consequences 
of the action - it would protect many students from 
arrest/expulsion, as opposed to harming one student, and decides 
that the ends justify the means. Oblivating Marietta would bring 
the "greatest good to the greatest number", and is therefore the 
correct choice. 

OTOH, I don't think Deontological!Snape would agree w/this decision 
at all. He has always seemed to consider the safety of his students 
to be a primary concern; and he has never used magic against a 
student. Whether that student is pro-DA or anti-DA, they still 
should be protected from harm. Therefore, he would consider it his 
duty to protect Marietta from harm, as part of his wider duty to all 
his students (regardless of whether he likes them or not). This same 
conflict seems to exist in regard to Lupin, w/DD allowing him to 
teach for the greater good (to Lupin, to Harry, to the Plan), etc. & 
Snape focused instead on the harm Lupin might cause to students. He 
assigned the essay & told the Slytherins partially out of revenge, 
but also out of a genuine desire to protect students from danger. 

The interesting thing is, in Marietta's case, the oblivation 
actually didn't protect anybody else at all. One minute later, 
someone came in w/the entire list of DA members, so their identities 
were exposed anyway. Marietta was harmed, but the expected benefit 
never materialized. And the potential negative consequences might be 
worse than DD foresees - maybe it inspires Marietta to join the 
Death Eaters, or turn Ravenclaws against Harry, etc. This theme of 
unforseen consequences also springs up w/the Prank. Covering it up 
might have seemed the wisest choice at the time, because it 
protected the Mauraders (and DD), but it had consequences that have 
reverberated for 20+ years. This seems to point out the problems 
w/simply making a choice based on the likely consequences. As 
mz_annethrope said, how can we ever truly know the consequences of 
an action, or what will bring the greatest happiness?  Or as another
famous wizard said - "Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

lizzyben, who loves the image of Snape as a Saxon warrior.