That was in is capacity as an Auror, ot as an Order member.

That's a matter of reading between the lines. Personally, I didn't read it as that, I read it as endorsing some harsher force but not shooting to kill. I guess it can be interpreted that way, but if so, that's about the only person who ever did such a thing.

The context still favors my interpretation though: what prompted Lupin to say that was how the Death Eaters could tell he was the real Harry because he used Expelliarmus. Do you really think Ron or Hermione would use the Killing Curse here?

I fail to see the relevance of that, but even supposing it is, no tactical advantage was gained from that anyway, precisely because they refused to do anything with any advantage they had.

 

I think you need to re-read the scene. Lupin clearly advocates lethal action:

"Harry, the time for Disarming is past! These people are trying to capture and kill you! At least Stun if you aren't prepared to kill!"

 

Taure, I believe you and I already debated this on IRC regarding what the Order did in the wars vs. the Ministry, for instance. The fact remains that the Order has appeared ineffectual throughout canon - even in the First War, the comment is made that they were outnumbered twenty-to-one by the Death Eaters and were being picked off one by one (that was in OOTP). And given what Sirius said in GoF regarding Crouch, who gave the Aurors new powers - powers to kill, not just to capture - the Ministry did indeed have a role in this conflict and even though they were in 'disarray', they were combatants. So I'll agree with Mordac here in saying that Rosier was killed by Moody under Auror jurisdiction, not Order.

Following DH, Kingsley does use lethal force in the 'Seven Potters' debacle, but do you see any other Order members doing that? Lupin only berates Harry for not using lethal force because the spell he did use was considered by Death Eaters to be his trademark and that it drew Voldemort to him. But do you honestly see Lupin using lethal force himself? Or Bill? Hell, Hagrid seems one of the non-Aurors most likely to use lethal force, and he doesn't. If anything, I think Lupin's comments were more spur-of-the-moment than anything, driven by frustration, nervous tension, and fear.

WARNING: tl, dr; ahead, skip over if you don't want to see me rant, 'cause this is mostly directed at Taure - nerd rage FTW!

Fixed that for you, because I know exactly what you're referring to. And you're right, they're not, Taure, but let's consider this - the ones that ARE seen as using lethal force are either Aurors or are so traumatized/angry that any 'killer instinct' seems brought out more out of passion than actual murderous desire.

Mind you, you can't consider Snape or Dumbledore with the rest of the Order, because both of their positions are vastly more complex (although I would like to add that you've never actually seen Dumbledore kill - which leads me to a question: if someone like Pettigrew can kill thirteen people with a single curse, why didn't Dumbledore kill the Death Eaters in the Department of Mysteries fight with one fell swoop while they were distracted fighting the rest of the Order?).

Honestly, let's consider Dumbledore's position here: the quote 'Too much knowledge never makes for simple decisions' is very apt when applied to him. In his circumstances and with what he knew (that ultimately, in the end, Harry had to die to kill Voldemort), he did what he had to do, pointing Harry in the necessary direction (which I do believe Dumbledore sincerely regretted having to do). He used a damaged Snape and his love for Lily as a tool, primarily because he didn't respect Snape in the slightest and because he was one of the few wizards that he knew could orchestrate the plan properly, but I still think it hurt Dumbledore to use Snape like that.

And even with Snape, the Death Eater who presumably killed in the past, even he has compunctions with murder. He doesn't want to kill Dumbledore, and he probably hates him as much as James for forcing him to kill. And the sick thing is that Snape only killed Dumbledore, only followed along with the whole grand scheme because of his love and grief for Lily, which never once faded.

Now I'm not saying that either Dumbledore or Snape are good people, but using them as prime examples of the Order's conduct doesn't work, because of all the extenuating factors. In reality, we aren't given an objective scene on how the Order operates, because the entire story is from Harry's perspective. I still don't think Harry was seriously capable of killing by the end of the series.

So, let's bring this to a close, shall we, Taure, and let's use a friendly example that we both recently discussed - my fic, Renegade Cause, which most of DLP is now familiar with. In the most recent chapter, Harry begins to have second thoughts about actually committing murder (which is a far different game than the deaths previously in the fic). Tonks makes similar commentary to Lupin in DH - that at this stage in the game, Harry's running out of options. But the fact that Harry's actually having second thoughts is realistic - firstly, because he's fifteen, and secondly, because he's clinging to some shreds of morality. But, of course, you never saw that because you never got past the first chapter, did you Taure?

And you're right when you've said that too many Indy!Harry fics make Harry a remorseless killer with a pacifistic Order wringing their hands behind him without proper buildup. But why do you think I've effectively thrown Harry into a corner with enemies at every turn (and btw, it is going to get worse)? He needs that sort of conditioning if he's going to transform into the ass-kicker that many Indy!Harry fans want. Without that 'conditioning', the characterization shift is fucked up the ass, and completely unrealistic. And frankly, canon didn't give Harry that sort of brutal conditioning. There was a lot of potential for it (particularly after the deaths of Cedric and Sirius), but it didn't happen. And a lot of Indy!Harry fics don't do it either. I think the Ender's Game analogy is extremely appropriate here, because that was a situation where said 'conditioning' was done right. And Ender was fucked up in the end.

And really, let's be honest here: the Order only began seriously 'killing' after Dumbledore died, and I'd like to see evidence of non-Aurors thinking or doing otherwise.

So yeah, I tend to advocate a stronger, more responsible Ministry and an Order of the Phoenix that does more spying/infiltration/information-gathering/surgical disruption of Voldemort's plans/etc. than actual fighting, but that's supported in canon. If I'm wrong, please show me otherwise.

/tl, dr;

Well, that was fun.

 

You've answered your own point here. The Order was losing the first war simply because they were outclassed, not because of any moral virtue that they refused to give up.

Ineffective combatants, who only made an impact once Voldemort had fallen.

You can't say this, IMO. Moody was at all times both an Auror and a member of the Order. They're both part of his identity. He doesn't switch between them. It'd be like saying "Bruce Wayne didn't do X, Batman did!". They're the same person.

This is covered by what I said above. The Order doesn't seek to kill. They try to avoid it if possible. But they will do it.

And these people are not part of the Order? Last I checked they were.

At the most this could form an argument that the Order does not all agree upon their tactics.

Because he didn't need to. Capturing them achieved his aims just as easily. In fact it achieved them better, given that his primary aim at that time was to expose Voldemort.

Firstly, as you will see above, you will note that I am not claiming that the Order is a group of cold hearted murderers. Just that it is part of their arsenal.

Secondly, while I agree that Snape probably doesn't like killing, using the fact that he didn't want to kill Dumbledore is a poor example, given that Dumbledore was on his side.

Nor do I.

I don't see how this is relevant. Harry isn't part of the Order, and nor have I claimed that the Order enjoys killing, or does not feel guilty about it, or does not have second thoughts about it.

Er... is this anything more than an advert for your fic? Again, Harry doesn't have much to do with the discussion, nor does potential ways to condition him into becoming a murderer.

Disagree. That there were deaths at the end of the first war shows that it's not just Dumbledore's death that leads to killings. Rather, it's the situation getting desperate. Which Dumbledore's death leads to, certainly.

The bulk of your argument appears to be arguing against a position I never advocated. I never said that the Order gleefully prances around shooting off Killing Curses and cackling at the fallen bodies of their enemies. Just that they were reluctantly willing to do what was necessary if the situation demanded it.

 

Dumbledore's decision to capture rather than kill also led to the Death Eater's eventual escape. That could be seen as a disadvantage to their cause, but I have no doubt that Dumbledore easily foresaw their escape, and the destabilization of Fudge which resulted. Furthermore, Pettigrew's curse killed 13 people, but not in the way that Dumbledore wants to kill 13 people. That demonstrates the key difference Taure seems to be getting at (if not, sorry, don't be insulted that I misread you). Peter's spell killed 13 people by causing damage indiscriminately, while for Dumbledore to execute a similar strategy, easily in his range of magical capability, would require him to sacrifice probably an equal amount of Order members as Death Eaters. That is why the moral high ground is sometimes a tactical disadvantage, simply because Voldemort and the DE's are playing with total warfare. But even they, apparently, while wanting to revolutionize the way society deals with its citizens, do not want to drastically change the system itself. The people preserving order must also preserve the the current society, or at least its foundations. That in no way means Dumbledore and, more loosely, the Order are not willing to kill, simply that they do not kill indiscriminately or without good reason.

 

Even though I think twenty to one is a bit of an exaggeration, that is no excuse. There are tactics to deal with that. They knew who most of the death eaters were; most of them weren't avowed supporters like Bellatrix. They had public lives where they would be accessible to determined people.

Well, the difference is that having done it on duty, he acts under the cloak of governmental legitimacy, while doing it 'on his own time' he is no more than a guerrilla fighter.

Who has the order actually killed?

Except for the part where they all escaped later. Yea, that worked out pretty well.

warning, tl;dr rant ahead

I know I do this a lot, but I can't help but remember a comparison Mike Smith made in his review of DE between the order and a real life resistance group, the Polish Resistance during WWII, the Armia Krajowa (Polish Home Army). Because the Nazis had regarded Poles as inferior untermenschen and really were just using Poland as a stepping stone for the invasion of the Soviet Union, they were greatly surprised when the Poles went underground to engage in a long string of sabotage and assassinations; the Nazis had made a policy of retaliating by killing one hundred Poles for every German killed, but this didn't deter the AK, and by 1943, Poland had become statistically the most dangerous territory in the Third Reich.

Sadly, the AK's exploits are mostly unnoticed today because of the biter irony that after their fight to rid their country of one occupying power, they ended up becoming satellites of another. And yet they continued to fight for their freedom, their country, and their very existence as a people.
This stands in stark contrast to what we see here. The Poles fought despite the hundreds of their number that would be killed in reprisal, and while there may have been some criminal elements in the AK, most of the members were normal people, not cold blooded killers either.

There is just no excuse for the Order's behavior Taure, and you know it. Possibly they couldn't have stopped Voldemort. But they could have stopped the ministry takeover and thus the worst of the second war. That a few isolated people in desperate circumstances killed some others (and I've yet to see evidence of this happening to the extent you describe) doesn't erase this.

I can't help but be reminded of Justice Sutherland's quote, "The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time."

Not only did they failed to stretch forth a saving hand, but they wouldn't even consider doing do.

In the end, they deserve Voldemort, really.

 

First of all, this is way of topic.

Second, placing Harry at his relatives was "For the greater good" even if it was for Harry´s greater good in this case.

What do you call Dumbledores treatment of Snape if not "for the greater good?". He was being a complete jerk to Snape all the time but he did it since it could win the war for the light side.

Anyway, with my quote that started this i just meant that you are no better then your worst action. If you tortured someone you can not claim to be peace-loving.

And, blaming fits of rage etc. is not a viable escape.

To be human is to fight you nature.

 

I'm not 100% sure, but as far as I remember Peter killed 13 Muggles with a explosion. Muggles.

We also have no idea where Sirius found Peter, but it could be somewhere with loads of people around, making it easy for a minor explosion spell blow a shitload of people up. Muggles can't shield either.

And a mistake scrittore seems to be making is that a lot of his arguments are presented with the knowledge of what happened after the decisions.

Dumbledore could've easily dump Harry with some wizarding family, but there was no way to be sure of what would happen after 10 years there. After all, it would be too easy for Malfoy to bribe them to get rid of Harry somehow(heck, you could easily tell him to misspronounce diagon alley so he show up somewhere else via floo aand get ak'ed on the face. And it would be a pain to legaly blame anyone)

My point is: Everyone makes decisions with the info they have at the time. Dumbledore's choices could've or not ended with a dead Harry somewhere, just as any other choice.

And yea, Harry could've decided to train after the end of any book, who knows, maybe stealing some time turner and living over 100 on some enchanted goblin cave, but the fact is: He didn't. Why?

Not sure if that line is cannon or not, but we see several instances where Harry says he doesn't want the boy-who-lived role. He does not want to battle dark lords at 15 years of age, nor kill any basilisks with a toothpick. He ends up doing those things either because he was forced to(1st year, prophecy\manipulation driven) or because his friends were in danger( 2nd year, DOM). All he wants is to enjoy his school years with his friends.

And dont even come to me with the "he created the DA to fight" bullshit. That was a way to learn what needed to pass his OWLS, and shield themselves long enough to get the fuck out of whenerver they were. If he truly wanted to fight, he could've escaped from Dursleys or Hogwarts without any trouble, and get himself killed by screaming "love shield" on the streets.

End of rant.

Ah, and I love to see fics where Harry goes around blowing shit up and becoming more skilled than every other wizard alive(as long as done realistic) but that shit is not cannon, and no matter our preferences on fanfictions, they should not be used on a cannon discusion.

Edit: Wasn't JK peniless when she started writting Harry Potter? I rather doubt she had all 7 books perfectly done in her mind by that time, nor that she didn't come up with new ideas by the time she was already way into the plot, with no way to change the first ones. Maybe she already had most of the stuff figured out by the end of book 2 or 3, but still, everyone gets new ideas for their books\ fics all the time.

 

Didn't the book say Peter was found in a Muggle street and just cast a spell that killed whatever was behind him?

 

from HP wiki:

So, yea. No big deal about him blowing shit up.

Edit: Unrelated quote:

Is it cowardice or courage to betray everything you stand for, everything you belive and everyone you know in an attempt to guarantee your own survival? Or both?

 

Harry's competence was one that wasn't going to come about until he matured, and that didn't happen until right at the last moment. There's the fact that Harry had to die, and the fact that there was no way that Harry was ever going to beat Voldemort in a straight fight at 17, prodigy or not (definitely not). Pretending otherwise was pointless, and Dumbledore needed someone with the right strength for the task, which was enough love to sacrifice himself, not enough power to kill Voldemort.

He goes on to become the head of the Auror Department, so he obviously becomes a competent wizard at some point. Dumbledore's solution was ugly, but it was the solution that worked.

As someone else correctly summarized, it was be unhappy for 11-17 years and live, or be happy for 11 years and die.

 

Back to the original topic for a moment: I have to disagree with you there, Taure. Dumbledore never says that he abandoned the ‘greater good’ as his guiding moral principle. He was simply horrified by what that phrase meant to Grindelwald.

You can see how much the principle governs Dumbledore’s actions in his plans for Harry. When he left Harry with the Dursleys, he knew that Harry would one day have to die at Voldemort’s hands—not only because of the prophecy, but because Harry was a horcrux. Dumbledore only ‘guessed’ this when Harry was an infant, he says, but it became clear to him when he started Hogwarts.

The plan all along was for Harry to die at Voldemort’s hands. He was placed with the Dursleys not because Dumbledore cared for him, but because it would keep Harry alive until it was time for him to be sacrificed.

Remember what Snape says to Dumbledore in one of the memories:

It was necessary for Dumbledore to sacrifice the life of an innocent child for the greater good, and it was the plan all along to do so. Dumbledore never expected Harry to survive the experience. That prospect became a possibility only after Voldemort used Harry’s blood in the resurrection ritual. That was why Dumbledore’s eyes ‘gleamed in triumph,’ and that was why Harry didn’t die when he was struck with an AK in Deathly Hallows. He was ‘anchored’ by his blood in Voldemort’s veins.

At any rate, I’m not suggesting that Dumbledore hated Harry. I think he became genuinely fond of him once he got to know him. In the end he got to have his cake and eat it too. The sacrifice for the greater good still had to happen—and Dumbledore certainly had to manipulate/mold/engineer Harry’s personality for him to be willing to do so—but it became possible for the boy he had grown fond of to survive the sacrifice.

tl; dr: The defeat of Voldemort outweighed the importance of Harry's happiness or even survival. Dumbledore never abandoned ‘the greater good’ as his guiding principle. It just meant something different to him than it did to Grindelwald.

 

I've posted upon this matter many times, but I'll do so again.

Dumbledore never intended for Harry to die.

Or rather, Dumbledore never intended for Harry to stay dead.

Dumbledore had an aim: remove the horcrux from Harry yet have Harry survive it.

That this was his aim is indisputable. Even if you were to claim that Dumbledore hated Harry, or only saw him as a weapon, it would still be his aim for Harry to survive, not die. Simply because if Harry is dead then he cannot defeat Voldemort, which the prophecy said he only can.

So yeah, your claim that Dumbledore intended to sacrifice Harry for the good of the wizarding world is false.

Rather, he wanted the horcrux in Harry gone for both Harry's good and the good of the wizarding world.

The only way he could do this is for Harry to think that he had to die. Only if Harry went to Voldemort as a willing sacrifice intending to die would he in fact survive.

The memory with Snape is a manipulation to make Harry think this.

And this plan was in place since the end of GoF, not 1981. This was Dumbledore's "triumphant gleam" when he learnt that Voldemort had taken Harry's blood.

(Also, it should be noted that the "for the greater good" justification is not a simple utilitarian judgement in which the action with the greatest utility/benefit is chosen. Rather, it is a twisted form of this in which a person uses this idea to justify any amount of evil in the name of a vague "greater good". So not every time someone does an action because they think it will lead to a benefit is the "greater good" justification being used, as it has been presented in this thread.)

 

That's the thing I never understood - what is the reason everyone interprets the damn words in a way that place the Potter boy as the Only one who can defeat him.
I'd guess that has been discussed before, but I didn't find the right threads, so feel free to point me to them, if not answering on your own.

edit:
OP: you are forgetting the point that JKR did not want to create a super hero. What we/you would rather prefer to see Harry turning into was not her idea of an ordinary boy which comes up against power plays he cannot possibly comprehend.

 

Quoted from OotP:

"The One with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies.... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives... The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies..."

"The One"

Now, to me, that indicates that only one person is capable of killing Voldemort. It's not saying "someone", it's saying "The One", implying a singular entity. Next we look at the specific parameters laid out: Parents thrice defied the dark lord, born as the seventh month dies, and the dark lord will mark him as his equal. That's pretty specific.

 

Alright, to continue my English lesson, although "the one" singles out one person, does that make it equivalent to "the only one"? And couldn't it be misinterpreted?
Besides, doesn't the first part refer to the events of October 31st? And from there on, after Voldemort's defeat(loosing his body = defeat in fight... or not!?), it's pretty much an open shot for everyone with enough skill.

 

On your first question: Not entirely sure, but it seems to me that "The One" = "The Only One". Not sure why I capitalised those, but I'm not gonna change them.

On your second question: Of course it could. I just don't think it was.

Personally, when I hear "vanquish" I think permanent defeat.

 

Yeah, if something is "the one" it seems to me it also means "the only one".

If there is one person who can do something, it means that there is not two, three, four... etc. that can do it.

If something is 1 it cannot be two - numbers are mutually exclusive.

 

Not quite, that night in 1981 was when Harry is marked as Voldemort's "equal"
Something he is no where close to, but still, Harry was the only one. But of course there are plenty of holes for you to keep poking at. Canon is full of them.

@OP:Regardless at the end of the day, we know what happened and it's rather pointless for us to argue why what anyone of us would have liked to see in the books is better than what we saw. There are plenty of fanfics of novel length that, in my opinion, shit on canon so go read something that caters to your desires as opposed to poking at holes that have already been poked at.

 

I only agree with you because "one" is capitalized in the story, otherwise it could be interpreted differently. "You are the one that need to dishes tonight" does not mean that "you" is the only one, merely that he is the one to do it.