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

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 184653

> Alla:
> 
> To me positive treatment of the student for **any** reason ( as long 
> as the reason is not illegal or immoral) is always better than 
> negative treatment.
> 
> Alla
>

Montavilla47:
I quite agree with you about that, and I think I overstated it when I
said it was "no better" to treat Harry well because of Lily than to 
treat him badly because of James.

But I think either of those does Harry a disservice.  Any kind 
treatment of Harry on Snape's part would be insincere.  He doesn't
like the child, and treating him like he did would be to lie.  

Or maybe he was afraid to let Harry think well of him, knowing
his guilt.  In which case, I'd say that Sirius acted better, since he
admitted his own part in messing up Lily and James' Fidelius
Charm.   And Harry did forgive Sirius, so you are right that Harry
would probably have forgiven Snape, after initial angst.

Then again, if Sirius had had his druthers, he probably would
never have made that confession to Harry.  He would have quietly
killed Scabbers and disappeared.  So, it wasn't exactly like
Sirius intended to do more than Snape was doing.  They were 
both trying to keep Harry safe.  They were just working at 
cross-purposes.

If you say Snape *should* have liked Harry, at least for Lily's
sake, I just don't see it.  He might cut Harry a break for
Lily's sake, but just because I might like Conrad Hilton, 
doesn't mean that I'm going to like Paris Hilton.  If I liked
George W. H. Bush, that doesn't obligate me to like 
George W. Bush, does it?

Liking one person does not mean that you will or should
have to like someone else in their family.  Plenty of people
get married, while hating their in-laws.