Turns out it's a moot point. I've just looked it up, and Harry gets points taken for cheek ("I don't know," said Harry quietly. "I think Hermione does though, why don't you try her?") which is fair enough, even if you think the cheek is justified.

That said, I think you're being incredibly generous to Snape's motivation in this scene; he starts out by singling out Harry as a celebrity, which by itself might be understandable if not OK (Flitwick also reacts to Harry's presence), but he doesn't comment on Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle sniggering at the comment. He then moves on to his big speech about putting a stopper in death, where he insults the whole class. Then he singles out Harry, again, for three questions, making snide remarks twice for not knowing the answer - "Tut tut - fame clearly isn't everything." and "Thought you wouldn't open a book before coming, eh, Potter?", while not asking anyone else a single question. Furthermore, when he tells Harry what the answers are, he finishes with "Well? Why aren't you all copying that down?", suggesting it's not knowledge he expected them to have already, or at least not memorised.

 

One thing to consider other than the timing of the point awarding, is if they deserved the points at all.

Think about it, them going after Voldemor't didn't achieve anything except that Harry caused Quirrell to die, Voldemort was never gonna get the stone out of the mirror anyway, in the minutes it took for Dumbledore to arrive after he, Quirrell and Harry reached it.

As it is the only thing they achieved was injuring themveles and breaking the rules, it's even possible that if Quirrell didn't die, Dumbledore could have faced Voldemort in front the mirror and might have captured and defeated him then.

Personally, my headcanon is that Dumbeldore gave Gryffindor the points, to cheer up Harry so he doesen't think about the fact that he just killed a guy.

 

But do you really want to encourage this behaviour? Wanting his students to charge in without a plan or getting help doesen't really seem like something Dumbledore, considering his whole "Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it" attitude. Like if the Trio had trusted Mcgonagall(or Snape if they hadn't suspected him) and told her everything they knew(or even just accepted it when she truthfully told them that the stone is too well protected, then they would never have been in danger in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, the world would be much better if more people were as moral and selfless as the trio, but you have to draw a line between bravery and foolishness.

 

Quirrell was willingly hosting Voldemort, so there's that. It would have been better for him to go to Azkaban, but the reason Harry doesn't feel any remorse is because it was basically something his mother did and he otherwise would have died. The reason they deserved the points is because they demonstrated academic ability and skills far above the level of the average first-year, as well as an almost inhuman amount of courage. While they might have delayed Voldemort slightly, it really doesn't matter what they achieved or what they did that no one else could have done; turning a needle into a matchstick generally doesn't achieve jack shit when you're learning a fire charm a few years later.
Part of the reason the three of them were awarded points is because they were right about someone trying to steal the Stone and the school was wrong. It wouldn't have mattered if they had suspected Quirrell instead of Snape, because Quirrell was also one of the teachers protecting the Stone, ostensibly. With Dumbledore having left the school for an urgent meeting with the Minister or something, they had no reason to suspect he would be back in time to stop Voldemort. If you're going to look at this from a consequentialist moral philosophy, you have to look at the consequences the moral agents could reasonably predict.

 

I remember being about 10 y. old when I read the first book.

And I could understand that the only reason the stone was in danger is that Harry pulled it out of the mirror (ah shit he has the stone what is going to happen now!!!). So basically he CREATED the danger. Should have just left it alone.

It didn't really stop me for enjoying the book, I mean the setting was still at the time whimsical and absurd. When Neville says he has been thrown through a window and people laugh at it, you know you don't take anything really seriously (it's like Matilda). So I just chalked it to wizards not having much sense and didn't think more of it.

Growing up I still thought it was incredibly stupid because even if Harry hadn't pulled the stone out of the mirror, he would still now be a convenient hostage (I have the boy who lives, give me the stone or he dies). Anyway you look at it, Harry didn't save anything, quite the opposite. Sure Dumbeldore is impressed with his stupidity and lack of self-worth selflessness (and relieved that he isn't like Tom) but still...

And when he gives Harry the ressurrection stone (which does not truly show the dead but rather incites people to suicide - see Cadmus) at a very convenient moment... his rewarding Harry for being... well... suicidal takes a MUCH more sinister undertone.

But that's because the series tried to be realistic later on. I liked it much better when it was Roald Dahl style and didn't take itself so seriously. Then the "poltholes" woundn't matter. I try to pretend everything from book 3 onwards doesn't exist (alas not very successfully).

 

Albus Dumbledore is canonically manipulative. Fanon takes that to extremes, turning him into a caricature that only cares about a murky 'Greater Good'*, but grooming Harry into the kind of person who could defeat Voldemort and hopefully survive doing so, while suspecting he was a soul anchor for Voldemort, might have been the best course with what Albus knew.

So, yes, it might feel sinister... but Albus encouraging reckless behaviour in Harry is far from being an inconsistency, in Albus' character or otherwise.

*Yes, I'm well aware that never once, after breaking off his friendship and/or romantic relationship with Gellert, did he say anything about the greater good. Even before, he only said 'for their own good'. Say that to all those shitty fanfic writers who treat it like canon.

 

This is a good point. If anything, it could be argued that Dumbledore didn't pay enough attention to the greater good. He seemed more obsessed with Harry's heroic journey and the 'elegance' of his sacrifice than the survival of anyone else.

I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but Dumbledore strikes me as more negligent than manipulative. He doesn't seem to care if students' lives are put in danger (hiding the stone at Hogwarts, letting Malfoy nearly kill Ron, Katie, etc.), and he certainly had no plan to counter Voldemort's rise after his death. You'd think a powerful, conscientious wizard would have brought people like Moody and Shacklebolt into his confidence. Instead he sent Harry, Ron, and Hermione off on a vague quest that was likely to fail, leaving the rest of society to fare for themselves. As far as we know, he didn't even attempt to do anything about the free Death Eaters in the interwar years.

Those are hardly the actions of a man who cares about the Greater Good.

Which brings us back to how he treats Slytherins. He had to know that awarding all those points to Gryffindor for something that couldn't even be publicly explained would cause resentment. But he made no attempt to redeem or reform Slytherin House before the war. Instead, he quarantined and belittled them.

 

Hmmm...
@darklordmike
About the quest for Horcruxes and keeping it secret: it might be Albus Dumbledore's penchant for keeping secrets, even when it's detrimental. Aberforth put it best: "secrets and lies, that's how we were raised, and Albus was a true natural" or something like that.

 

The courage maybe. Recklessness would be my word for it, especially since they were told specifically not to worry about it by McG, who was 100% correct by the way. LV would have never gotten the stone regardless of HP's actions. DD was what? 15 minutes or so behind Harry? 10? And QQ was already a suspect.

But academic ability and skills far above average first year level? Ha. I laugh derisively.

Harry flew a broom, Ron played some chess, Hermione used a standard first year spell, and then solved a logic puzzle.

They didn't even need to face the only things that would have actually been a challenge (Fluffy and the troll).

Hell, the idea that these obstacles were challenging is so laughable that there is a fan theory that DD designed then intentionally for HP and company to breeze by in an effort to force a showdown with LV.

 

Except he did read his books. "His school books were very interesting. He lay on his bed reading late into the night..." and "He had looked through his books at the Dursleys', but did Snape expect him to remember everything in One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi." I think fanon has sort of perpetuated the idea that Harry hates reading and studying when in fact he likes it. He just doesn't memorize everything in his coursework like Hermione does.

Dumbledore freely admits to not caring about the greater good when it comes to Harry. "I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed." I think that's one of the things that makes Dumbledore so interesting. Even in this scene when he is admitting his faults, he still isn't telling Harry the full truth. Even in the next book when he is dying and forced to tell Harry even more about what's going on he still holds out that final bit leaving Harry to figure out that he has to die on his own.

 

I'd argue second year was slightly different, seeing as Harry was needed to open The Chamber, but the point stands.