Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 166190

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai"
<amiabledorsai at ...> wrote:
>

> 
> Amiable Dorsai:
> So, let me see if I've got this correct: you're saying that allowing a
> malicious prosecutor to railroad an innocent person is "right", and
> that risking one's position, reputation, and freedom to prevent that
> from happening is "easy".
> 
> These are definitions of the words "right" and "easy" with which I was
> not previously familiar.
> 
> Amiable Dorsai
>

And yet, that is probably exactly the definition of right vs easy that
many people might invoke.  Certainly, to use a historical example, an
ancient Roman might well see things that way, not to mention the
previously described issue of a medieval Japanese samurai.  Within the
Potterverse, it is arguable that Percy might use exactly those
definitions.  And, in the real world, perjury is a crime, even if
invoked for the "right" reasons, such as to defeat a malicious and
unfair prosecutor.

The point is that right and easy do not have clear points of
reference, and that various images of Dumbledore bid well to make him
a hypocrite on this question according to arguable positions.  Or,
actually the real nub of the situation, is that we have spent quite a
while arguing back and forth about right vs easy when it comes to
Harry "lieing" in potions class, with all sorts of arguments that
lying is WRONG and taking the easy way out.  Well, if that is the
case, then Dumbledore has clearly taken the easy way out, here. 
Granted, its an extreme situation in which DD tells an extreme lie,
but potions class is a mild situation in which Harry tells a mild
"lie" so the comparison holds.  I agree that Dumbledore helping Harry
was the right thing to do -- albeit that the methods he used were, as
usual, incredibly stupid to the point of near contemptible
incompetence.  I also think that Harry didn't do anything wrong in
potions class, or if he did it is such a petty issue as to make
fretting over it utterly ridiculous.  

Frankly, I don't think the whole right vs easy construct is very
useful.  It is so utterly vague that it can be used to justify just
about any course of action in any situation.  As Magpie points out,
just about all the time what is "right" but not "easy" turns out to be
whatever is in keeping with a given character's personality and thus
what they want to do, anyway.  Right versus easy only means "what I,
DD/Harry/whoever think is right and what I, DD/Harry/whoever, think is
easy."  DD probably would say what he did in the hearing was choosing
right over easy, but Percy and Umbridge would certainly say he did
what was easy (i.e. subverted the system according to his own
morality) over what was right (i.e. obeying the law even when it gives
a result you don't like).  Many people say that Harry was choosing
easy (using the textbook) over right (following the rules even when
they gave a result he didn't like) in potions.  But Harry has the
example of Dumbledore that subverting unfair and nonsensical rules
isn't wrong if it agrees with your own sense of what is fair and
right.  If Harry is in the wrong then DD is arguably a hypocrite.  If
DD is in the right then arguably so is Harry.


Lupinlore