Truth or consequences

[pippin_999]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...>
wrote:
> 
> Talisman:
> Alas, DD never tells me anything.  I can only observe him telling 
> things to other characters, and in that context, he most certainly 
> does lie.
> 
> To repeat what I've noted so often before, there is no difference 
> between omissive and comissive lying. Oh, and asking subordinates
> to  lie for your purposes? That's culpable, too.  

Pippin:
Are we talking semantic, ethical or legal differences? Culpable
according to whom?
 
Not being argumentative, just curious as to your meaning. There is
surely a difference between legally culpable and ethically
blameworthy.

I've only testified once. But I  was instructed that I need only
state what I knew to be true of my own knowledge, and I was not 
required to guess.
Nor need I incriminate myself. 

Ethically, OTOH, is it  blameworthy to lie  in order to save a life?
According to the Talmud, which is the oldest ethical system in
continuous use, one may break any commandment except those 
against murder and idolatry in order to save a life.

(There is no direct scriptural prohibition against lying in general.
The sages considered it covered by the commandment against
stealing, so according to them, a lie is unethical only if  you tell
it in order to get something you would not otherwise be entitled to.
And of course one must not bear false witness against a neighbor.
I'm not sure dementors are neighbors, but in any case, they
weren't on trial. )

Talisman:
> Early on, we get to see DD suborn perjury. (OoP pp 143-145 ) It is 
> made plain in the text by Figg's hesitancies and inexactitudes, 
> coupled with what we as readers have previously "experienced" of  
> Dementors via the narrative, and confirmed by Harry's reaction, as 
> well as that of Madame Bones (whom we are introduced to as a fair 
> but competent judge).
> 

Pippin:
No one in that curious proceeding was placed under oath. Perhaps
Madame Bones thought a few irregularities in procedure
would not be amiss.

What  evidence is there that Dumbledore told Figgy to
lie?  He may, in fact believe that Squibs cannot see Dementors,
but since he was not asked for his opinion, is not, in any case,
an expert on Squibs, and is not an officer of the court, why is
that relevant?

Talisman:
> Alas, along came Rowling who told us quite 
> unambiguously: "Incidently, Arabella Figg never saw the Dementors 
> that attacked Harry and Dudley, but she had enough magical 
> knowledge to identify correctly the sensations they created in the 
> alleyway." (JKR's Site/Extra Stuff /Misc./SQUIBS.)

Pippin:
Figgy's evidence would have been more convincing if she hadn't lied. 
That, I think, is the moral message of the author.

Talisman:
> 
> To instruct a subordinate to lie on your behalf, is equivalent to 
> lying for yourself.   

Pippin:
McGonagall is instructed to lie in order to save a life (Arthur's). I
don't consider that morally culpable to either her or Dumbledore,
though of course you are entitled to think otherwise. I hope you will
make your reservations clear before offering your basement to any
fugitives from injustice.<g>

Talisman:
> Of course DD also tells Harry to lie.  Back we go to DD's office 
> where Harry is on the verge of admitting that he knows why he is 
> being brought in front of Fudge, et al.  Harry clearly knew the DA 
> meetings had been outlawed, and understood perfectly well that he 
> had been busted by the Inquisitorial Squad.  We, the readers, know 
> this as well. 

> 
> Therefore, when DD caught Harry's attention, and "shook his head a 
> fraction of an inch to each side," (OoP 611) Harry understands, as 
> we do, that DD has just instructed him to lie.  Harry changes his 
> answer in mid-word: "Yeh--no."  In case he, or we the readers, have 
> lingering doubts that DD wanted this result, Rowling then has DD 
> communicate his approval via  "the tiniest of nods and the shadow
of 
> a wink." (id.)
>
> Harry goes on blatantly lying to the leader of the British WW, in 
> conformity with DD's direction. 
> 
Pippin:
DD, Harry and Marrietta are  not under oath. DD offers to make an
official statement, but is ignored.

In point of fact, Harry does not know of his own knowledge why he
was busted. He only knows what Dobby told him. He is under no 
obligation to guess the  nature of his offense. He is then asked
to incriminate himself, and is not instructed that he can refuse
to answer.

Talisman:
> Fast forward: Marietta's testimony is suppressed and finally 
> Umbridge produces the list of names entitled "Dumbledore's Army."

Pippin:
Marietta was being asked to incriminate herself also. Besides that
Harry's life would be in danger if he were expelled.  

Talisman:
> First, he agrees to confess that the group is his, not Harry's-- 
> which is patently untrue. 
 
> Then DD goes on to "admit" that he, himself, organized the DA.  
> Again, the reader knows from their own observations that this is
not 
> true.

Pippin:
At least three members of the Order knew about the DA: Sirius, Molly
and Mundungus Fletcher. It can hardly be established that Dumbledore
was ignorant of it, whatever Harry thinks.

Talisman 
> Even if apologists want to give DD's statement a "secret" true 
> meaning (which would not negate its status as a dishonest statement 
> within the context in which it is given) they can only do so by 
> admitting that DD has, in fact, organized the overarching events of 
> Harry's fifth year, so as to induce the formation of the club. <veg>

Pippin:
I don't follow the latter part of your statement. We can only guess at
the depth of Dumbledore's involvement, but let's not forget that
Dobby, who told Harry about the RoR and warned him of Umbridge's
raid, works for DD. 

Talisman:
> The fibbery goes on:  "Tonight was supposed to be the first 
> meeting," said Dumbledore, nodding.  "Merely to see whether they 
> would be interested in joining me.  I see now that it was a mistake 
> to invite Miss Edgecombe, of course." (OoP 618)
> 
> The reader knows from a plain reading of the text that all of these 
> statements are unequivocally lies.

Pippin:
Um,  do we know that Dumbledore wasn't planning to meet 
with the DA for the first time that evening? 

Pippin
not an attorney, or a Talmudic scholar and begs pardon if she has made
any mistakes