The Model of the Modern Major General? / Ethics

[leslie41]

No: HPFGUIDX 169194

Leslie41:

> Snape believes he's going into a confrontation with Lupin
> and the man he thinks he's protecting, the outlaw and
> dangerous Azkaban escapee, Sirius Black.

Goddlefrood:

Does he now? Told us this did he? I think not. Severus had the very 
clear intention, IMO, of being the one to *capture* Sirius, not 
necessarily by violent means. 

Leslie41:

Yes, he says "how I hoped I'd be the one to catch you," so I intuit 
from that that he believes there's a possibility he was following 
Lupin to Black's hideout.  And of course he's thinking about revenge, 
especially after he has just heard Black admit that he doesn't have 
any remorse about the prank.   

What do you think Black and Lupin are thinking of when they're aiming 
their wands at Peter Pettigrew?  Reforming him?  

Goddlefrood:

Of his grudges against the Marauders in general his grudge against 
Sirius in particular was the strongest by far. It is quite clear from 
even a surface read that this latter is correct and sustainable on a 
second, third or umpteenth read through. 

Leslie41:

Yes, of course Snape's grudge is still strong.  With good reason.  
See above.  He has just heard Black discuss playing a deadly prank on 
him, and (unlike Lupin) Black bears no regret for his past 
actions.  "Served him right" he says.  So Snape is not the only one 
holding a grudge.  And Sirius, canonically, has far less reason.

<snip>

I will just comment that I totally agree with you on when Snape 
begins to overhear Lupin and Black's conversation.  

Goodlefrood:

Snape was certainly not going to listen to any further explanation, 
as he indeed did not do. He quite possibly felt that he had heard 
more than enough during the time in which he was present to confirm 
his prognosis that Lupin and Sirius were acting in tandem and even a 
likely danger to HRH from Severus's perspective, which was, remember, 
almost certainly clouded by his hatred of both the other adults 
present.

Leslie41:

Again, why shouldn't it be?  Aren't Black's and Lupin's actions 
clouded by their hatred?  Snape stops *himself* from killing Black.  
Harry has to stop Black and Lupin, who exhibit at least as much or 
more glee at the thought of killing Pettigrew, who is pleading for 
his life.  

> Leslie41:

> It seems to me that Snape's critics often seem to view his
> behavior with the knowledge and understanding that *they*
> have of the other characters (taking Harry's perspective,
> to [sic.] to speak), not the knowledge that Snape himself
> has.

Goddlefrood:

It is an impression that could be easily formed. That is
due to the rather odd notion that these books (each of which
contain the nominative Harry Potter in their titles) are all
written *from* Harry's PoV. The chapters that are not, and so
far there have been few, although I expect at least 3, possibly
4, chapters not from Harry's PoV to be included in Deathly
Hallows, are also *not* written from Snape's PoV so how is it
possible to form an *accurate* picture of how Snape himself
thinks?

Leslie41:

>From internal, canonical evidence.  Namely, from what the character 
says, and more importantly (especially in Snape's case) what the 
character does.  The same way we would analyze the actions of a 
character like Beowulf, as we never get inside the head of that hero 
at all.  

Goddlefrood:

That opinions can be given, as I do above, in respect of his possible 
line of thought should hold no real contention and as this list is 
well aware there are ways of making out an argument for many 
different forms of Mr. Multiplicity.

Leslie41:

And I would assert, as I have in the past, that the opinions against 
Snape are biased and hypocritical, because his actions and the 
actions of the "popular" characters are not held in equal weight.  
Snape critics make demands of him that are not made of other 
characters, and blame him where no or little blame is warranted. 
Lupin didn't take his potion? Don't blame Lupin.  Come up with ten 
reasons to blame Snape.  Etc.  

Goddlefrood:

If there might be any pointers available that contradict the above 
paragraph I would be extremely pleased to read about them. The point 
I want to make is that all versions of Snape are subjective to the 
person writing those views, and to make a more objective assessment 
is the challenge that faces us all.

To put it even more simply, each to their own.

Leslie41:

With flavors of ice cream, perhaps, but not with reasoned argument.   
Reasoned argument must be unbiased and supported with facts.  

> Leslie (less the 41):

> The "logical approach" when discovering a murderer is to run
> away and inform the authorities. If you're especially brave
> and skilled, you subdue them and turn them over to the
> authorities. Which is exactly what Snape tried to do.

Goddlefrood:

Not that I would wish to make any great claim for my experience in 
this area, but my working life suggests that in fact, when a 
situation is faced in which a murderer or any other type of viloent 
criminal is caught up with, logic rarely has a place in such states 
of affairs.

Leslie41:

That's evading the issue.  Whether or not Snape was feeling perfectly 
logical, he acted logically.  

Goddlefrood:

It is mostly adrenaline that drives the reaction to such 
confrontations as dozens of anecdotes I could go into, but won't, 
would attest. I will, however give you my personal experience of such 
a situation.

One evening, not so many years ago, I was confronted at a service 
station check out window (the kind where one stands outside while the 
server is safely ensconsed in a locked shop) by a man of lesser build 
than I who was wielding a kinfe and wanted to take some of my hard 
earned income. My first inclination was not to run away but to 
challenge this man, even though I rarely indulge in knife fights.

Once he was on the ground my sense (call it logic) kicked in and 
asked my what I was doing. I froze giving my intended violent 
assailant the opportunity to escape. He is, as far as I know, still 
at large, having never seen him at the Court precincts, which I 
frequent.

Logic was nowhere initially is the point, so why should Snape be 
given any credit for his actions? Adrenaline would fit the case in 
point just as well and many another wizard or witch finding 
themselves faced with a perceived to be notorious murderer would, 
IMNSVHO, have acted similarly to how Snape acted.

Leslie41:

Well, it doesn't surprise me that you don't want to give Snape credit 
for his actions.  It doesn't surprise me at all.  It's one of the 
hallmarks of those that hate Snape that they cannot give him credit 
for anything.  

And your experience, truthfully, is irrelevant.  It's Snape's 
experience that counts.  By using your experience to "prove" that 
Snape acted illogically in his situations you are demonstrating a 
logical fallacy:  the false analogy.  

> Anonymous (herinafter anon):

> As for the use of lethal force, it certainly was appropriate
> in Snape's case, as Black started toward him with "a roar of
> rage". Though wandless, Black obviously indended harm. If a
> known murderer heads toward me with a "roar of rage," and I
> have a gun, I'll shoot, even if he doesn't. So would a cop,
> most likely.

Goddlefrood:

Perhaps this is why the post was anonymous. Snape goes on to
say rather shortly after the incidents described by anon that
he would like a reason to be given to use violent force.

Leslie41:

You are quoting me there.  If it was not attributed in the original 
post that is likely my mistake.  I understand you're reasoning here, 
but there's a subtlety here I think you're overlooking.  

*Snape* saying "give me a reason" doesn't mean he doesn't already 
have one.  

Goddlefrood: 

If either a citizen or any member of the disciplined forces is 
leaning towards agreement with anon and ever finds themselves in the 
hypothetical situation which anon describes then be prepared to spend 
a good portion of your natural life in prison.

Leslie41:

So, you'd have us believe that if a murderer is lunging towards me 
with a look of rage on his face, and I shoot him, *I'M* the one who's 
going to prison?  

Yeah.  That makes an awful lot of sense.  

Goddlefrood:

Also be aware if you are an inhabitant of a country where the
death penalty is still available that you would most probably
face that penalty, that is if the knowledge that the person
approaching you, no matter how notorious, were not similarly
armed to yourself were not provable. I suppose perjury might
be in order, but I could never advise such a course of action.

Leslie41:

Oh, if I shoot a known psychopath lunging towards me with an intent 
to do bodily harm that's going to get *ME* the death penalty? 

What am I supposed to do?  Drop the gun and wrestle with him? Did you 
know that sometimes even a couple of gunshots won't stop a crazy 
person if they want to hurt you?   

Goddlefrood:

IMNSVHO it is far from a normal reaction to use deadly force
unless the situation merits its use, and remember that the
legal test for such things is an objective more than a
subjective one, although subjectivity can be taken into
account.

Leslie41:  

I'd really like to know on what occasion I'd be allowed to use deadly 
force without getting the death penalty.  No, on second thought, 
don't answer. You'd probably suggest that I have to toss a gun to the 
psycho to "even things up".