Caring about people

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 184538

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184472>:

<< So, I guess in my book caring about people, but making tough
choices does mean acting a bit differently than Dumbledore did. >>

Catlady:
While I am no longer certain that DD cared about any people except the
late Arianna, and much good it did her, I am shocked at your post,
Alla. You indicate that 'caring about people' means to you putting the
personal honor and personal friendship loyalty of one's behavior
infinitely above winning the war.


Alla:

Heee, well, if you are going to be shocked at my post, let's make 
sure you are going to be shocked at my exact argument and this 
summary is not.

So, do I believe that one should put personal honor and personal 
friendship loyalty infinitely above winning the war? The short answer 
is no, BUT I do believe that one should try to keep personal honor 
and loyalty while trying to win the war. Please read on.

Alla:
<< Well, cared about people, but had to make tough choices in my book
does NOT mean make those choices without people's consent and without
giving them enough information to choose themselves whether they agree
or not especially in the matters of life and death. >>

Catlady:
All the Order members, including all 13 people who volunteered to
transport Harry, had signed up to be Dumbledore's soldiers. As such,
they had consented in advance to going on missions where they were
likely to die, and to obeying orders without explanation.

<SNIP>
Alla:

Where to start? Okay, first of all comparison between Dumbledore and 
real life generals falls flat for me for several reasons.

Reason number one is very simple; I do not remember Dumbledore having 
a military rank of the general or any military rank for that matter. 
I remember him assembling a group of volunteers, mostly his former 
students and some teachers who indeed agreed to follow him and fight 
with him.

I do not know, to me this arrangement implies in a way much more 
intimate and trusting relationship.

And I want to say while of course I have no personal knowledge of the 
military, I do believe that there are some orders for which real life 
general will go under the tribunal and will be tried.

I happen to believe that some of Dumbledore's orders qualify as such.

And another thing, how many real life generals do you know who are 
also the headmasters of the school at the same time. I am not saying 
that they do not exist, but I have not heard of any of them.

To me, the teacher cannot do what Dumbledore did to some of his 
students, even if the teacher is at the same time their commander.

For example if Rufus Scrimgeour gave an order to Kingsley or Tonks 
while he was still in charge of the aurors, that to me would have 
been a very different story from Dumbledore giving an order to Snape 
and  an order that includes killing no less. I do not know,  maybe it 
is multiple hats Dumbledore wears that to me means that he is 
something different from the general.


Catlady:
I agree that caring about people means not viewing them as tools, but
sending soldiers on suicide missions doesn't necessarily mean viewing
them as tools. The general can cry for those poor boys and their
bereaved families after the war is won, or perhaps during a break
after battle. I'm not certain that Dumbledore's plan was a good plan
but that depends on whether it was likely to work, not on whether it
set up some of his loyal soldiers to be killed as part of a
complicated feint.

Alla:

I absolutely agree with you that sending soldiers on suicide missions 
does not necessarily means viewing them as tools. I must not have 
been very clear though because I think that Dumbledore's telling 
Snape to leak this information was **unnecessary** and **stupid**, 
that's my main beef with this.  I do not believe that real life 
generals are justified in sending soldiers to the missions which  
would not stand any logical scrutiny either. Say Dumbledore did not 
give Snape that order and Voldemort would have attacked anyways. 
Would I have a problem with people dying?

NONE. I mean, I would be sad of course, but order members knew that 
when they guard Harry, they are going to the very risky mission and 
they can die. They did not know though that the portrait of their 
dead leader unnecessary IMO increased those risks. I take an issue 
with that.

Catlady:
That Snape's leak of the Seven Potters plan to LV was an 'Order' (dead
DD) feint rather than Snape's loyal to LV betrayal of the Order is the
kind of information (like troop movements in times of war) that is a
LEGITIMATE military secret and therefore protected by not telling
anyone people who don't 'need to know'. <SNIP>

Alla:

Sorry, but again I disagree that it was a good order, a necessary 
order and therefore I equal it to betrayal pretty much.

In "War and peace" there is an episode during Russia war with 
Napoleon when one of the characters who eventually becomes talented, 
dedicated, brave officer either witnesses or hears I do not remember 
which one it is about one of the Russian generals leading the attack 
of his unit with holding two of his boys' hands, which are either 
teens or preteens.

Other soldiers are praising his bravery, patriotism, etc. Nikolas is 
thinking how unnecessary it was for him to have his boys there in the 
first place. I am not arguing that Order members are his kids, they 
are of course adults, I am analogizing the unnecessity of some of the 
orders he made and quite a few of his actions.


Catlady:
DD should not have put the ring stupidly on -- maybe he deliberately
put it on, confident that Snape could keep him alive long enough, as a
technique to manipulate Snape to kill him at the appropriate time?

Alla:

Heee, anything is possible.

Catlady:
However, once he had planned that Snape must kill him in order to get
in really good with LV (some listies expected this to happen early in
book 5 or even between GoF and book 5, a theory which someone called
'Dumbledore's head on a silver platter' so I called it CHOP for
'Cranium of Headmaster On Platter'), then that plan will NOT be
advanced by DD committing suicide in order to spare Snape's feelings. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

And I believe that him including Snape in his plan IMO pretty much 
against his will can be analogized to the general who comes up with 
criminal idea even if it  may help his troops. Before  you say it, I 
am not saying that killing during the war is criminal per se. I am 
saying that there is a clear penalty to one's soul in JKR's world for 
doing what Dumbledore wants Snape to do and I believe that it could 
be a metaphor for something criminal that general may order a soldier 
to do.

JMO,

Alla