Caring about people

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 184543

 
> 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:

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

Pippin:

In explaining why only overage wizards can join the Order, Lupin says,
"There are dangers involved of which you can have no idea, any of 
you...." (OOP ch 5) No one takes issue with this. The adults all
understand that they cannot be given a complete picture of the dangers
they face. 

I agree that the Order has a trusting relationship with Dumbledore,
the question is, what are they trusting him to do? The Order is not a
social club or an anti-Voldemort lobby. It is a fighting organization,
whose members expect to be in harm's way. 

I agree that it's not an army, in service to a government or country.
The wizards have no king, no constitution that I know of, and arguably
no country either -- certainly Dumbledore feels no obligation to obey
the Ministry when it doesn't suit him.

If the Order's mission were strictly self-defense or even the defense
of the wizarding community, then I  agree that its members would
have a right to expect that to come first.  But I don't think that's
entirely what the Order stood for.

The Order's name suggests that like the orders of knighthood, it is in
service to an ideal. I believe that ideal is the one stated by
Kingsley -- "Every life is worth the same and every life is worth
saving." 

Kingsley is only talking about defending Muggles, but Dumbledore and
Harry appear to take it further, even applying to the enemy. That's
pretty radical, if you take it seriously. The blogosphere would light
up like a box of enchanted fireworks if one of the leaders of my
country said, even self-defense excepted, that the life of a terrorist
is worth just as much as the life of a Marine. Yet that does seem to
be what Dumbledore stood for, and I don't think he made any secret of it.

Alla:
> 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.

Pippin:

I believe the research for the Accio Snape trial unearthed a case in
which a British soldier was tried for shooting his mortally wounded
commanding officer. Having convinced the enemy he was a turncoat, he
then delivered vital information to his own side. The court determined
that the soldier had acted in the interest of king and country, and
that his action was acceptable as a ruse de guerre. He was  acquitted. 

(I don't have a reference for this since it wasn't actually used at
the trial.)


Alla:
 I do not know,  maybe it  is multiple hats Dumbledore wears that to
me means that he is  something different from the general.

Pippin:
If Dumbledore is the best person available to lead Hogwarts and the
best person available to lead the Order, isn't that simply another
tough choice that has to be made? Would Hogwarts or the Order have
been better off with another leader just to make things simpler? 

> Alla:
> 
> 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.

Pippin:
If Snape thought that Dumbledore was taking unnecessary risks with
Harry's life, he could have said so. He had done so in the past, for
instance when he warned Dumbledore against hiring Lupin. 


> Alla: 
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.

Pippin:
I don't think it is clear.   Firenze said that to slay a unicorn is a
monstrous thing and only one who has everything to gain and  nothing
to lose would commit such a crime. But Hagrid said that they may have
to put the wounded unicorn out of its misery. (PS/SS ch 15) 

Hagrid does not act as though that would be doing something wrong or
bringing a curse on himself or the children.  Only if you have "slain
something pure and defenseless to save yourself" would killing a
unicorn  be a crime.  Of course a unicorn is a Beast, not a Being, but
that wouldn't matter to a centaur. 

 I think that JKR is talking to the readers over the heads of her
characters when she has Dumbledore say that only Snape can tell if it
would tear his soul to do as Dumbledore asks. To me, she is putting it
to her audience that if they have already made up their minds that
euthanasia is murder, she respects their conviction, but she is asking
those who haven't made up their minds to consider another point of view.

At the level of the characters themselves, I think Dumbledore is
asking Snape to decide whether he can do this for Dumbledore's sake
alone, seeking no advantage for himself. 

Alla:
I think that Dumbledore's telling Snape to leak this information was
**unnecessary** and **stupid**, that's my main beef with this. 

Pippin:
I thought we were discussing whether Dumbledore cared about people,
not  whether he was smart. But I agree with Carol: if Moody thought
the element of surprise would be enough to keep the watching DE's from
summoning reinforcements in time  to overwhelm the Order and destroy
Harry, then he was the stupid one. 

Not that Moody is dumb, but even the smartest generals can be behind
the times.  I think  Moody assumed, based on past experience, that
Voldemort would hesitate before risking  open battle in a Muggle area.
But that was wrong.

Pippin