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

[amiabledorsai]

No: HPFGUIDX 166296


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".
> > 

Lupinlore:
> And yet, that is probably exactly the definition of right vs easy
> that many people might invoke.  

Amiable Dorsai:
But if the question is whether or not *Dumbledore* is a hypocrite or
not, surely it's Dumbledore's opinion of what is "right" and what is
"easy" that matters.  So long as he is self-consistent, how can he be
a hypocrite?

Lupinlore:
> ...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.

Amiable Dorsai:
That's rather my point, isn't it?  It's a crime, and in committing it
Dumbledore risks everything in order to A) protect an innocent from a
monstrous plot to frame him, and B) to preserve the world's hope of
prevailing against the even more monstrous threat of Voldemort.  He
chose to do that when he could have taken the easy path of going back
to his pretty castle on the lake and leaving Harry and the world to
their own devices.

You may argue that Dumbledore's actions were, on some level,
foolish--in fact, you do just that in the next sentence I quote, but
where is the hypocrisy?

Lupinlore:
>  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.  

Amiable Dorsai:
So how would you have handled it?

Amiable Dorsai