Somewhat offtopic, but it fits the thread and I havn't seen it before:

Popular ff believe claims Dumbledore is evil, because his actions do not make sense if he was both good and powerful/rational and he was portrayed as such. The're far to convulted for that.

But his actions still don't make sense if he's evil. Convulted plots for evil make just as little sense as convulted plots for good. FFs sometimes resort to stuff like senile/crazy (=his actions dont make sense, period), but that's a cop out.

More complex methods or a Doylist answer make some sense. But the fundamental logic of "his actions don't make sense if he's good, so he's evil" is flawed.

 

It's actually completely on-topic, it was even stated in Taure's original post that Dumbledore is "pigeon-holed him into one of two camps: perfect or evil." The following pages have then discussed his actions and the morality of said actions.

I myself believe him to be a good person at heart, he has seen the reality of trying to take power himself indirectly through Grindelwald, and the consequences were grave on his behalf.

It's like Spiderman's uncle Ben said: with great power comes great responsibility. Dumbledore has that great power and the rest of the wizarding world looks to him to set the example. Even though he does not want the power and responsibility, it is thrust upon him and he has to make the best decisions he can with the knowledge he has at that moment. I will repeat that sentence because it is a fact often forgotten: he has to make the best decisions he can with the knowledge he has at that moment. Though it might seem it at times, Dumbledore is not omniscient, he cannot see into the future, he does not know everything.

 

Yeah, I take that one back. Got lost in the hyperbole for a moment there.

The rest of my point stands, though.

---------- Post automerged at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------

Nope. In English law one of the requirements for it to be considered self defence is that you act in the heat of the moment. If you purposefully plan to put yourself in a situation where you will be forced to use violence against another person, you are disqualified from the right to self defence.

Is a soldier executing self defence when on duty in a warzone?

So what, in your moral code, does not qualify as necessary? Is there any act that would qualify as immoral to you?

 

...and would allow Voldemort to take over the country if not for some deus ex machina. Congrats for being a moral corpse.

 

There are big moral theories out there that would consider that better.

 

Golan, just how would he prevent it?

 

Suicide for a white vest? That's so fucking stupid.

 

If you'd paid more attention to my original post you'd have noticed that I said morality is divorced from necessity. An act being necessary does not make it moral, it merely makes it a necessary evil. In an ideal world we'd all be able to act morally 100% of the time, but this (and the HP world) isn't ideal, so sometimes we have to act immorally.

You're making a very simple mistake in assuming that because an action is justified that makes it moral. You can have a just war, for instance, but that doesn't make it innately moral. War is a terrible thing, no matter if it is justified or not, necessary or not.

I'm not some far left hippy preaching for free love and treehugging.

 

Why not?! What makes a necessary act immoral? What kind of moral code makes necessary acts immoral?!

 

This shit is getting deep. Can we all agree to go off and do a doctorate on descriptive and normative ethics before it goes any further down this black and twisting road?

 

Did you really just go there?

 

Yes, actually. At least according to the Rules of Engagement.

 

Huh. I've gotta be honest, that definition seems screwy to me.

An invading force is not, by definition, defending anything. If the soldiers of a given regime are defending their country, they are exercising self defence (on the part of themselves and others). Soldiers in the invading regime's army are therefore the aggressor and, by law, are incapable of claiming self defence.

They are there with the sole intent of forcing their will on other human beings with violence. Something that we can all agree gives the defending nation's soldiers the right to self defence. After all, even in the US where self defence laws permit deadly force to be used there are legal cases where people have been found guilty of murder due to being painted as 'trigger happy'.

That said, I can see the argument that since the invading soldiers are in a given country that is actively trying to get rid of them they are exercising self defence in preventing the defenders from killing them. There is the Duty to Retreat that is required in some US jurisdictions (though it is by no means universal), but given that an invasion force is specifically breaching that duty simply by entering another nation it can't really apply (this is obviously ignoring the practical aspects of war that would make such a duty pointless).

However, does the right to self defence on the individual level co-exist harmoniously with the soldier's duty to attack when necessary? If a drone pilot launches a missile at a concentration of enemy troops is he acting in self defence? Does the same apply to a sniper situated over a kilometre away from the battleground?

This is actually really interesting. I put that in there as more of a throwaway line than anything, but there's some definite room for debate in there. Assuming we leave aside the practical aspects of it all, of course. It'd be pretty stupid to make attacking the enemy a court martial offence except under narrow circumstances.

 

Late, but...

No, no it's really not. The fact that you think the difference between "best option" and "only option" is semantics says volumes about where it is you're coming from here. And it's not a place where reasoned analysis is really possible.

 

And what is this place called?

 

Reality? /10char

 

The internet.

 

I gotta say, the evil Dumbledore arguments in this thread do not make any sense.

But I am not sure I entirely agree with Taure's original posts. Not necessarily the points he makes, which personally I find completely valid, but I think one could push an interpretation of Dumbledore a bit further. I think of Dumbledore as a much more tragic figure, and more conflicted, than someone who tries his best with hindsight 20/20. The idea of Dumbledore's inner conflict being between a "freedom of choice/relinquishing of power" side and a "for the Greater Good" side seems much more pathological to me.

As in, I do not think Dumbledore ever manages to convince himself that he has stopped working for the Greater Good, and this fact haunts him - and that he cannot help himself but be manipulative. I would even view those actions he takes on behalf of Harry to preserve his innocence as more pathetic - delusions by whose means he attempts to transcend his tragic past, but which are doomed to fail. (Note: not Harry's innocence, which he succeeds in preserving as well as he can - the failure is his inability to transcend the sins of his past through his love for and protection of Harry.) This does not mean that his actions were not justified, or that they did not make sense, I think on the whole they do. But there is no amount of good that Dumbledore can do that would allow him, in his heart, to atone.

But more sinisterly, I'd venture that to a certain amount Dumbledore's right hand does not know what the left is doing. He claims to eschew overt power, when in fact, as Headmaster and leader of the Wizengamot, ICW etc., he actually does wield significant "soft power." And especially as headmaster. He addresses every adult in the wizarding world by their first name. Why? Because he taught all of them. He remembers every single one as a child. He has dirt on everybody. Even when the Minister drops by for a visit, he need take one step into the headmaster's office and he is put back into the position as pupil - Dumbledore essentially has carte blanche to influence the head of state. And one wonders why Fudge eventually became paranoid...

And I am skeptical of Dumbledore's honesty with himself when he says that he turned down the position of Minister of magic because he had learned to put aside positions of power. To be clear, that was certainly the reason - but I would argue that as Dumbledore takes on that act of atonement it becomes a delusion: so that he can assuage his guilt and pretend that he does not have as much power as he does. He manipulates, both so that no one can ever say outright that he has an agenda (however admirable) other than simple education - but also so that he never has to admit to himself that he is still using people like pawns, because he cannot help himself. It is a charade carried out for the world and for himself. This is regular-old, lit 101, fatal flaw Greek Tragedy stuff.

I always think about the essential scene in DH, in limbo, where Harry confronts Dumbledore, and suddenly is put in the horrifying position of having to comfort him. This is one of the most screwed up scenes in the book psychologically, in my eyes. But even more screwed up is the fact that Dumbledore affects perfect honesty. He tells Harry the absolute truth. Then he uses the truth to manipulate him into granting his soul a few scraps of redemption. ("You were the best [teacher]" etc.) I would not dare to say that he does not deserve it. But the fact remains that even in death there is no amount of remorse that Dumbledore can have for the fact that his childish self-absorption led to the death of his sister that will put him to rest, and that no matter what he does he is unable to change the "creeping fascism" inherent in the Wizarding world, or even in himself.

Personally, I find him a very sympathetic character.

 

Dumbledore has so much power and so much experience, his actions and inactions cannot be reconciled with him being competent and wise. It simply does not fit. The best "explanation" for his actions is that he's crazy, or has such warped morals that he actually believes he is doing good while he ruins lives left and right.