Marietta

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 169546

> Dana:
> To some level I agree because if Marietta really had a moral 
problem 
> with holding the secret of this illegal gathering (for instance 
> because he mother is a ministry employee) then she should have gone 
> to either DD or her head of house and not to Umbridge, who herself 
at 
> that specific time was not a specific *Hogwarts* authority. 

zgirnius:
Yes she was! She was the duly appointed Hogwarts High Inquisitor, by 
whom the rules being broken were promulgated.

> Dana:
> Marietta 
> did not just sneaked on other students breaking Hogwarts school 
rules 
> but Ministry rules and her betrayal was therefore not just a mere 
> student ratting out other students. The MoM was on a specific smear 
> campaign against both DD and Harry from the start of the school 
year 
> and Marietta being the daughter of a MoM employee must have known 
> this, especially because it was her own mother who was in charge of 
> monitoring Floo Network activity. 

zgirnius:
She may have known that the Ministry had it is for Dumbledore, but 
that is rather different from saying she 'knew' there was a smear 
campaign. What I think it is more likely she heard from her mother 
was the Dumbledore had gone off the deep end, and was spreading false 
rumors about Voldemort's return and trying to cause a panic. 

> Dana:
> In RL WWII, people in Europe, in occupied territory, snitched on 
> people giving shelter to Jewish people because they were scared of 
> repercussions if the Germans found out through other means. It was 
> not merely thinking about doing the right thing, it was being 
scared 
> of somehow being associated with those that resisted that 
occupation. 

zgirnius:
I do not understand the relevance of resistance movements in WWII to 
this discussion, I confess. The rules and regulations were being made 
by the government of the WW, the same government, run by the same 
people, who had been running it throught the course of the series. 
There was no ivasion, coup d'etat, etc. The same government that had 
been there all along simply decided it was not going to go along with 
Albus Dumbledore. This was surely a mistake, as we know in ways 
Marietta and her mother could not hope to, since we see what Harry 
sees.

Dana:
> I believe that is what happened with Marietta, her being scared 
that 
> her involvement in the DA would somehow either backfire on herself 
or 
> on her mother. 

zgirnius:
I think this is entirely possible. However, I am equally convinced 
she held no sincere belief in the return of Voldemort and the 
rightness of harry and Dumbledore. (Certainly, we are never shown her 
doing or saying anything to suggest she believes Harry). So, from her 
point of view, she had put her mother's livelihood in danger over an 
illegal study group, and upon realizing this, she decided to rectify 
this by making sure it did not harm her mother.

> Dana:
> Morality is not a static thing but 
> when you hold a specific morality to one group then one should 
apply 
> that same morality to the other and not apply different moral 
> standards just because people are on different sides of the fence. 
If 
> one wants to condemn Hermione for putting a jinx on a piece of 
paper 
> that every one signed out of their own free will then one should 
> apply that same standard to Marietta's actions and then see who's 
> actions had the biggest consequences. 

zgirnius:
It is my own opinion that the ethical value of a choice cannot be 
determined by looking at its consequences. Terrible things can result 
from accidents, honest mistakes, or even good actions (who blames 
Harry for Voldemort's return?), and great good from evil actions 
(Snape and the vaporization of Voldemort, e. g.).

This makes Harry's sparing of Peter's life no less admirable, and 
Snape's reporting of the Prophecy to Voldemort, his true master at 
the time, no less evil.