Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 179496

Lizzyben:
> So I'm not sure if the echoes between Shacklebot & Snape are 
> intentional, but they're there. And the contrast between DD's own 
> Utilitarian philosophy is stark. This novel is a moral mess, but 
> every so often a good message sneaks through inadvertantly. 
> 
> 


Pippin:
I don't think Dumbledore is a Utilitarian. The statement "Dumbledore
would have been happier than anybody to think there was a little 
more love in the world" (HBP ch 29) gives the game away. Apparently,
that's Situational Ethics in a nutshell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics

Situational ethics differs from Utilitarianism in that it recognizes Agape,
absolute unconditional unchanging love for all peoples, as the only
law. I think we are to see Dumbledore as trying to live by this principle,
though failing whenever  he's subverted  by his instincts for domination
and secrecy, and Harry as doing the same thing more successfully, 
though failing when he gives into his anger and arrogance.

Dumbledore's intellectual superiority clearly tempted him to think that
only he possessed enough reasoning power to determine whether his
chosen course could  be expected to bring more love into the
world. In the end, IMO,  he recognizes Harry's saving people instinct as a
better guide. 


Anyway, those who are allergic to teleological ethics are bound to
find Situational Ethics revolting,  as this is definitely a consequence-based
system and not only do the ends justify the means, but *only* the
end justifies the means.  

Provided, that is, that the end achieved is more love in the world. 
This philosophy differs from Utilarianism in having Christian origins 
and in its absolute acceptance of love as the only good. 

The founder of situational ethics, the Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher,
presented ethical  dilemmas in which traditional moral values might have
to be set aside to achieve the greatest amount of love.  He did not offer
any final judgement about the morality of the outcomes, which
certainly resembles the way  Rowling treats dilemmas in DH. 

I think we are supposed to recognize that this system has flaws, but 
we are to see it as more successful than legalistic ethics, whose pitfalls 
are illustrated by Percy and the young Hermione, and definitely preferable 
to the anti-nomian non-ethics of Voldemort or Grindelwald. Dumbledore
did some harm, but it seems clear that he would have done vastly more if 
he had abided strictly by the WW's rules.

I'm not an expert on this stuff: does anyone else see this?
If so, do you think Rowling gives a fair presentation of the weaknesses of
situational ethics? Does love in the books  have the power of a
of a god, or of a deus ex machina, actually influencing events in its favor?

Pippin