Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 184648

Leah: Sorry, I did not make myself clear. If we are discussing moral
courage in making an apology, then the person who is in the wrong
has to feel that, and to feel an apology is due, and then has to
make the apology however hard it might be. If the person is too
afraid to make the apology, then there is a lack of moral courage.
What I was trying to say about Snape is that I don't think there is
a time in the books when he would be able to calmly review his
relationship with Harry and come to the conclusion that he should
apologies to Harry for some aspects of his behavior to Harry (not
all, because Snape justifiably calls Harry to account on a number of
occasions). He can't lack moral courage in not apologizing because
he hasn't reached the stage of considering apologizing.
< HUGE SNIP>

Alla:

Ah I see. Well, but then we are coming in circle to my definition of 
moral courage, which includes courage to do the *right* thing and as 
far as I am concerned if Snape does not come to contemplate the idea 
that he owes Harry an apology, he is wrong on many levels and 
certainly I cannot call such person courageous, just person with very 
twisted point of view in my opinion.


Leah:
<SNIP>
And being a parent is not just about showing affection, it has to be
balanced with guiding and correcting the child. None of the above,
for various reasons, calls Harry on any of his bad behavior. Snape
does. His instincts there are right, but due to his personality and
all the reasons I have given above, he often goes wrong in the way
he tries to do it. Snape may well feel that protecting Lily's child
involves punishing that child for all the times he endangers
himself, rather than just twinkling at him.

Alla:

I consider one of the Dumbledore's worst offenses ever to force Snape 
into protecting Harry. I am of the opinion that with protectors like 
that who needs enemies. Yes, being a parent is guiding and correcting 
the child as well, but I would never call what Snape does guiding  
and correcting Harry, even if it includes that. 

And I did that in the past, I have to find my post. Snape instincts 
about what Harry did could be right, but they are almost **always** 
wrong about the reason why Harry did it.

If Snape was **fair** in punishing Harry, I would think differently, 
but since I think of him as abuser of his authority, I would think 
that Dumbledore should have find somebody else to protect Harry. So 
when he indeed wants to punish Harry for  true wrongdoing, I think he 
forfeited that right by coming up with punishments which should not 
be given out in the first place.

Starting with that point for Harry **not helping Neville** that is, I 
think. And then taking some from Hermione for **helping him**. I 
always think how brilliantly JKR paralleled it. 

Leah: 
<SNIP>
I'm also not sure it's
particularly moral to befriend a child as an act of revenge against
their father.

Alla:

If this is primary reason, then no of course it is not moral, I 
agree. But you see, I have absolutely zero problem with Snape 
entertaining thoughts of revenge against James. I mean, I consider it 
childish and think that Snape would have been much healthier man had 
he realized that he won by living already, BUT I fully respect 
Snape's right to hold a justifiable grudge against James.

It is him taking out his grudge on innocent kid (my opinion), which I 
wholeheartedly despise. Therefore, if Snape is sincerely befriending 
Harry and at the same time is thinking that he is now achieved very 
nice revenge against James, I have no problem with it. I think it is 
a healthier revenge, than the one that Snape was doing, if one has to 
think of it.


Pippin:
::clears throat::
First, I accept the definition of "moral courage" that Alla put
forward. But I think the interpretation she gave is too broad to be
useful. IMO, the definition should distinguish between moral
cowardice and moral apathy, because unless a person is as divided in
nature as Gollum, it's difficult to display both at the same time.

IMO, you have to be morally engaged, have some inclination towards
doing the right thing, before you can give in to moral cowardice and
fail to do it. <SNIP>

Alla:

So basically you are saying the same thing as Leah, yes? You think 
that unless person knows that this is the right thing to do, person 
cannot be accused of lack of moral courage to do it?

Then you do not really accept my definition, I do not think. Um, I 
guess I am still confused.
Say we have our DE, any DE, who genuinely believes that killing and 
torturing people is the right thing to do, so that means to you that 
if such person fails to stop these activities, such person is morally 
courageous?

All that is needed is a genuine conviction that what one is doing is 
right? Are you arguing relative morality?

Pippin:
<SNIP>
It's that no Slytherins, IIRC, ever did what Pettigrew did. We never
see them knowingly betray or desert their real friends, anyone they
care about, to save their own skins or for personal gain. Phineas
claims they will. But we never actually see anyone do it.

Alla:

Didn't Crabbe pretty much did betray Malfoy by refusing to listen to 
him? I guess it is not full blown betrayal, but I would think comes 
close enough to me. As soon as Draco is finished, Crabb dear forgot 
about being his friend awfully fast IMO.

But I meant to say that I found your observation about nobody 
betraying students' evacuation to Voldemort in another post to be 
stroke of genius and the strongest inference I had ever read that 
Slytherins indeed did not join Voldemort. Bravo.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
Slytherins have betrayed numerous people they *should* have cared
about. Riddle certainly did. But that is moral apathy, not moral
cowardice. See the difference?
<SNIP>


Alla:

I think I understand, but I guess I disagree that this is moral 
courage.

JMO,

Alla