DH discussions on ethics, violence AND SRS SPOIL
NOTE: Spoilers behind cut, and in all discussions linked!
magnetic_pole kicked off a much-needed discussion of how the gender roles in DH reveal some rather strong and, as most see it, conservative "norms" being promoted. Suffice it to say, the book's ending (yes, including that "E" part) may be "conclusive" for the canon, but are only just the beginning for continuing debate about the Potterverse's views on gender and sexuality.
Violence can be part of gender, and is another key issue in the Potterverse. After all, from the AK that starts Harry's life quest, through the previous books' Crucios and Sectumsempra, the wizarding world is very like our own in constantly confronting us with moral questions about the appropriateness of force: when; why; how much; and especially, by whom.
In particular, an entry by bonstar led me to a rock-awesome essay by schemingreader on "The Context for Crucio", where there are already 90 jillion comments, and I hadn't even read them all before I found the_bitter_word and dbassassin ZOMG talking exactly about this blend of topics that interests me so.
regan_v's early strong essay “Justice for Severus Snape”, with again, very thoughtful comments and follow-up discussion, is a more character-specific look that had us talking right away about the "justness" of outcomes within the book's own context and plot. Being a rambling big-picture thinker, all these discussions generated some desire for myself to do a little "descriptive ethics" on the Potterverse, in the same way scholars map it from ethnographically collected tales or legal cases.
But, so as not to ramble shamble all over LJ with the thinky tl;dr on ethical theory and religion, gender, and violence, I came back to my own place to take a run at
Ethics in Harry Potter: Calvinism as the Ultimate Morality of the Deathly Hallows
A comment by the_bitter_word to schemingreader's essay captured the basic question of what moral system is in play in HP, as well as its relevance far beyond the book and characters:
I just think her moral system boils down to something like this: The good are good, no matter what they do. If you are good and use bullying means, it's just an aberration, as your natural goodness will out in the end. The bad are bad, and can't be redeemed. They will always use hurtful means and besides, they deserve whatever happens to them. As a moral system, it's pretty simplistic, but I bet it's a system a lot of people in this world buy into.
I replied in part:
I've had very similar discussions of this, along with its linkage to gender depictions (women=mothers; men=frat boy Woo-hoo!Warriors) over in some other journals... I should *cough* work on my research paper find an excuse to do an essay on this. Rough draft follows.
... comments and contributions welcome!
Basically, I'm thinking that despite some attempted nods at ethical theories of utilitarianism (goodness of means depends on whether it serves the common good: most of the Order but also, unpleasantly, the Ministry), deontological or duty theory (also the Order, esp. Remus, Kingsley, Arthur), and possibly virtue theory, the series defaults, by the end, and very clearly, into a natural-law theological ethics. In particular, Calvinism.
The "elect" can do no wrong, as you say (James! etc.), and the "damned" can never be redeemed (all of Slytherin House, as it turns out). One's status as elect (predestined for success and Heaven) cannot be known, so one must work very hard to do all the right things (Remus, Tonks) or atone (Snape, Dumbledore) but in the end there is NO connection between how hard you tried, how well you did, and whether you are redeemed. It's divine grace only, no salvation through works.
This is strict Calvinism, IIRC. (I was raised Presbyterian so I sense some intentional amnesia here ;-) ETA: Yes, this is now confirmed by a comment on another great post-DH essay by schemingreader,
"Repentance without Redemption: The Moral Message of the Deathly Hallows"
Thus, if a "predestined hero" such as Harry or Dumbledore does horrible things, the motivation (bad childhood, jealousy, temper, 'he did it first') or intent, which is the key determinant of morality in Kant's deontological ethics, is actually irrelevant. Harry's ignorance of Sectumsempra is an example; Sirius's light punishment after trying to get Snape eaten by a werewolf is another. Snape, on the other hand, seems strongly Kantian where he seethes over the malicious bullying of him that went largely unpunished; and at least partly Kantian when he doesn't trouble to hide his self-loathing for what he chose to do as a young man.
Ethical theory 1: Deontology
Deontological (aka deontic, or rights-based) ethics focus the moral decision around one "rule" and one "categorical imperative." (This is a basic summary; the system was developed by Immanuel Kant, and is densely overlayered, not to mention written in some pretty difficult older German.) The rule is that we must never treat another person as a means, but only as an End in themselves. This comes from Kant's detailed development of a theory of the person as an individual with rights in their own life and person. "Using" your friends, for instance, to "get" a job or an introduction to that cool guy, is absolutely wrong, for Kant. So treating people differently depending on how much you like them is also wrong; slavery and the Holocaust are totally out.
The Categorical Imperative -- roughly "follow only those ethical decisions you would wish everyone to follow universally to follow" -- complements Kant's means/ends rule. It holds us to a rather high standard: no exceptions for friends, bad-hair days, "he did it first," being in a hurry, or claiming the other guy deserves to be treated like scum.
Alas, Kant was a product of his time and believed that since some people *cough* like women and non-whites weren't fully "people," you could treat them like ends. However, he explicitly stated that you oughtn't to abuse them indiscriminately, even animals, because that could lead you to forget to treat "real" humans well at all times. When Dumbledore asks Snape to kill him to prevent "damaging" Draco's soul, he follows this precept. Hagrid might be a good candidate for deontologist; some notable animal rights theorists find support for wide environmental rights in Kant's theories (not Singer, he's utilitarian, but Tom Regan).
My sense, without re-reading all of canon at this point, is that some of the youngsters, and definitely Arthur, maybe Remus and Kingsley as well, are very deontological. This makes sense, with them involved with law enforcement -- "Justice is Blind" is a deontological rule that bars us from considering circumstances or our opinion of others in moral decision-making. I don't think Kingsley or Arthur would have hurled a nuclear-strength Crucio at Amycus Carrow when he spit in McGonagall's face. That would be condoning Carrow having used it himself on students for fun, or the most trivial fault. Just because someone else used it first, or you never liked them, you're not free to do the same. You have to treat people as yourself -- this is more or less the "Golden Rule" of Biblical (and Greco-Roman, and Confucian) fame. In war, you can use only the level of violence necessary to secure order.
Deontology comes from the Greek word "duty." It judges your moral decision solely by whether *you* acted in accordance with the highest motives: to follow a "universal" standard that preserves each individual's integrity as equally as your own. The rule to treat all people as ends-in-themselves is also in many ways a restatement of Judeo-Christian and Greek concepts about human freedom. It balances out the C.I.'s potential to allow us to descend to the lowest denominator (treating everyone equally badly and accepting it yourself). In fact, Kant's complexly reasoned ethical system was in large part an effort to reposition traditional J-C religious ethics around logical reasoning rather than divine command. So it looks familiar, and like Snape in Potions class, it's highly demanding.
In fact, it can be hard to implement because it leads to contradictory situations: does Snape lie to Draco in order to keep serving the Order? It makes Draco a means to Snape's end. I'll have to go back and look at the Unbreakable Vow; it could be argued that Snape let himself be trapped into this partly by his own Kantian disinclination to use and manipulate others -- as he'd been manipulated himself, by Dumbledore. His irritation with Dumbledore may stem from this ethical dilemma, that as a spy, Snape *must* betray his own moral principles constantly. Dumbledore follows a different standard himself. Perhaps some of Snape's bitterness and anger come from being forced by war, and his unique position as the spy, to compromise his deontological desire for impartial justice with Dumbledore's cheerful utilitarianism.
Ethical theory 2: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism moves the focus from the intent behind the act, to the act itself -- specifically, to its outcome. Most criminal codes are utilitarian in their nitty-gritty workings, because it's easier to point to the "facts" (dead body, purchase of poison) than read a person's mind (though "mens rea," the state of mind, is used to qualify degrees of, say, premeditated murder from accidental 'manslaughter'). Pensieves and Legilimency -- and their unreliability -- are of great interest here. Perhaps because he knows how these can be manipulated to misrepresent the "inner truth," or be misread (Harry does this especially), or perhaps because he's a Potions Master, where results are all that counts, Snape is both utilitarian in his moral decision making, and at the same time spurns it. He spies, lies, sneers, and probably kills, in the service of Light. His only overt justification for this is the classic one: "the greatest good of the greatest number, over time." But inside, Snape wants more than the win, I think; he wants ultimate justice, a world in which sincerity of feelings are justly rewarded, whether they are his horrible DE-days ones, or the absoluteness of his feelings for Lily. (I think this high-mindedness comes through in a lot of Snupin.)
Dumbledore, like many politicians, is more utilitarian: a bad act for a good end is accepted. Manipulation of Harry, even unto his death, is part of the Grand Plan. Using Snape is of course nothing compared to this. Does Dumbledore regret, in the end, this willingness to use anyone as a tool, including his own death? Is the moral of his childhood story meant to show Harry that you "do what a man's gotta do" to get where you need to go? Aberforth may be the deontologist of this pair. Politics is the art of the compromise, of selling out one group to protect another.
Yet even though pragmatic utilitarianism is the hallmark of some HP characters, I believe this is not the dominant morality of the books, in the end. Because if the "ends" excused the means, then Snape would be not just posthumously "the bravest man I ever knew" but would also be redeemed and honored during life. And if the consequences weighed all, and the intent is nothing, James -- or at least Sirius -- would have been expelled for the Shrieking Shack and other incidents. Because remember, under utilitarianism your motives and personality don't count, only your results. So you don't get a free pass by calling it "a prank." At the same time, you can be the nastiest love-obsessed SOB in the history of wizardry so long as all your students pass NEWTS, none get killed, and you rescue Harry Potter repeatedly. By a utilitarian standard, Snape should live and be feted; he undertook the hardest task of all -- not killing Voldemort, whom he hated, but Albus, the wizard he most respected and with so many others, loved. (I don't know if this motivates Harry's Epilogue characterization of him as "brave"; the books tend to mix in two senses, of "brave" as "rash and splashy" Gryffindorism, with "brave" as meaning "holding back nothing to ensure the success of a long and tricky plan." That is Slytherin.)
Neither duty-based nor utilitarian (ends-based) morality is a guide to understanding the "right" and "wrong" of HP, as seen in the ending of DH. The survival of Lucius and Narcissa, and Draco's happy-ever-after (or at least parenthood-without-prison), are garish examples of both bad intentions (deontology) and bad actions (utilitarianism) with no moral consequences. If these people survive, yet Remus, Tonks, Fred, even Snape die, then "the moral is" that something else must "count."
Ethical theory 3: Virtue
Virtue theory is the third of the four grand old theories of morality (if you include religious Christian ethics as the fourth). Aristotle's notion that well-bred and educated persons just naturally do the right, or "virtuous," thing is a more slippery theory to apply, in part because it's somewhat less coherent in its theory. It large parts of it slipped into Christian ethics thinking, in particular the idea that if you are "the right kind of person" (from the right kind of family-values family), having been raised reading the right books, knowing the right people, etc., your acts will be "informed" by grace and dignity, with no justification needed. Goodness is virtue. Virtue is personal.
In virtue theory, morality is measured only as an effect of character (think of news stories where neighbors of the accused say "Oh, no -- s/he just *isn't* the kind of person who would do this!). This is subjectivity. At its worst, it skews into social prejudice: the belief that for some classes of people, the sun shines from their arsehole, and their enemies are always wrong (by definition, which is to say, tautologically).
Jeez. When I started to sound like my ethics notes is when I knew I should be back in my own LJ ... Ok, to conclude.
The disconcerting thing about all these years at Hogwarts is that there don't seem to be many efforts to make young wizards and witches "virtuous." They break rules constantly, and Dumbledore twinkles madly and offers a lemon drop. Aside from a few like Hermione, the only moral is "don't get caught": a utilitarian approach. If "Be All That You Can Be" (the US Marine Corps motto) more-or-less sums up Virtue Theory, then Hermione is one of the few main characters who follows this rule as a student. Hermione does break rules, increasingly as the books go on. This may be her own growth from children's rough utilitarianism (whine or whatever so long as you get what you want) and black-and-white deontology (don't break any rules, because -- Just Because) into a keener sense of virtue ethics. Hermione's work for SPEW is as much, perhaps, about developing her own virtue or standing in the new, strange Wizarding World as well as about the rights of elves. (The word comes from Latin "virtus," a complex concept of both manliness and "public character".)
Harry, on the other hand, gives no consideration to the rights of goblins when he decides to deceive Griphook, nor does Hermione fully stop him; Ron would do worse. (Bill's comments show the kind of intercultural sensitivity to ethics that anthropologists develop, which are not included here.)
Conclusion: Harry Potter Ethics - Do They Make The World A Better Place?
This brings me back to Harry tricking Griphook, happily blasting out Crucio, speaking well of Snape only years after he's dead -- forgiving him, in fact, perhaps only because Snape liked Harry's mother. He's no deontologist, valuing each person despite their relation with him. Nor a utilitarian, for even though he dies "for the greater good," Harry doesn't seem to feel principles count as much as individuals, with those individuals who are his friends counting much more than others. His courage going to his death seems to come mainly from his "buddies" James and Sirius egging him on, combined with a primitive fatalism after seeing Snape's memories. Harry does it for his family, that group of mainly rowdy guys.
But Harry will live, despite his acts and intentions, because he's the chosen one. The Trio will live because ... friends of Harry. Bad people will die, because they're bad, but so will good people, for no reason other than it's war so randomly selected people will die. But not the central heroes; they all survive and thrive. To paraphrase the_bitter_word, the good will win simply because their "natural goodness" counts for more than all their bullying or casual Unforgivables. They're the elect. If this isn't just moral unclarity in the book's writing, it's a moral theory that profoundly denies the logically reasoned, rights- and freedom-based ethics of social justice movements, democracy and law, in favor of the more authoritarian ethics of natural law, or theology. Calvinist theories of salvation through "grace" rather than "works" seems to map on rather well at this point.
And this is where it troubles me most, at the end. Not only is it contradictory and inconsistent that this "retrogressive" morality -- as the_bitter_word aptly put it -- is deployed to excuse everything in the "heroes" that it simultaneously condemns in the villains. By casting everyone as saved-from-birth or damned-no-matter-what, it subscribes either to a Calvinist God (narrow, but the author gets to choose), or if not directed by God, to biological determinism. The "good" people versus the scum. Genetically "better" vs. those who should be sterilized. If it's Calvinism, the books become problematic for a multicultural audience. If it's biological or social determinism, that's problematic not only for the audience, but the internal structure of the books.
For the disquieting result is that the concept of morality that upholds Harry as a Hero has just circled around on itself to end in exactly the same place as the "racial" bigotry (pureblood/muggle, wizard/weres, etc.) that the novels simultaneously claim to condemn.
Thoughts on Revision
Now of course, I need to go back and re-read in the whole, and also take a second look at the morally decisive moments. Moral theories are not mutually exclusive, they overlap. Each tends to foreground different elements or issues as the most important: Where does morality originate (God; ancestors; nature; the rational mind)? Which is the critical element in a moral decision (the intention, or the action)? Is morality universal and ultimate, cultural and relative, or situational? Are moral decisions the domain of individuals or the community, and who deserves moral consideration: oneself or one's family, one's House, or "blood," or everyone, and if so, equally, or "family first"?
And because I love feminist theory, and continental philosophy, I really need to look to see if there are any ethics of care or "I/Thou" (Buber) or Levinasian" approaches hinted at, though I doubt these post-structuralist and anti-hegemonic frameworks would be seen as more than potentials in HP.
Feminist "ethics of care" was perhaps the first meta-ethical work to study the difference between "male" and "female" ethical perspectives, and that between children and adults, using sociological data. Carol Gilligan was one of those who discovered that the "moral sense" as understood by adults, and the law, doesn't really develop until the late teens or perhaps even the early 20's. This is one thing that makes teaching "ethics" to college students even more complicated (speaking from experience here as well as research). Do ethics students not get it because they aren't studying, or is it because some are barely 18 and their moral brain-matter just isn't there yet? In addition, might it not gel because they're being taught a "male-perspective" ethics, and hey look, they're women, socialized into a completely different style of ethics which is relational-based, not individually-focused?
So I haven't yet taken into account that element of "moral development" either. Here, that interesting watershed exists not just internally for Hogwarts students like Harry (if there is any) and other characters, but externally, for the book's intended audience of children and teenage readers. The extreme significance of this is shown by the fact that one reason the US no longer (in most states, if not by federal law) punishes young teens the same as adults is due to the recent research on moral development. If the book is truly mainly read by children or teens, and its morality, while not fully approved by many adults, is in fact appropriate for the moral "grasp" of that age group, then HP can't be faulted as children's lit. OTOH, it may be that it doesn't offer material that helps move them beyond the traits associated with early-stage moral development. (*wonders which box all that is packed in*)
Finally, I should look at that one HP & Philosophy book I picked up, and see what else is out there... because nothing teaches ethics & ethical theory (casuistry, the case study approach :-) better than real life. And HP is "real life" in many ways: for people within the Potterverse, for fans who care about them, for the writing & publishing world, and for students and scholars. The time and thought invested are very "real," and the consequences are measurable in money (for publishers and future authors) as well as moral thinking and its development, so as to prevent future Dark Lords in either of our worlds.
magnetic_pole kicked off a much-needed discussion of how the gender roles in DH reveal some rather strong and, as most see it, conservative "norms" being promoted. Suffice it to say, the book's ending (yes, including that "E" part) may be "conclusive" for the canon, but are only just the beginning for continuing debate about the Potterverse's views on gender and sexuality.
Violence can be part of gender, and is another key issue in the Potterverse. After all, from the AK that starts Harry's life quest, through the previous books' Crucios and Sectumsempra, the wizarding world is very like our own in constantly confronting us with moral questions about the appropriateness of force: when; why; how much; and especially, by whom.
In particular, an entry by bonstar led me to a rock-awesome essay by schemingreader on "The Context for Crucio", where there are already 90 jillion comments, and I hadn't even read them all before I found the_bitter_word and dbassassin ZOMG talking exactly about this blend of topics that interests me so.
regan_v's early strong essay “Justice for Severus Snape”, with again, very thoughtful comments and follow-up discussion, is a more character-specific look that had us talking right away about the "justness" of outcomes within the book's own context and plot. Being a rambling big-picture thinker, all these discussions generated some desire for myself to do a little "descriptive ethics" on the Potterverse, in the same way scholars map it from ethnographically collected tales or legal cases.
But, so as not to ramble shamble all over LJ with the thinky tl;dr on ethical theory and religion, gender, and violence, I came back to my own place to take a run at
Ethics in Harry Potter: Calvinism as the Ultimate Morality of the Deathly Hallows
A comment by the_bitter_word to schemingreader's essay captured the basic question of what moral system is in play in HP, as well as its relevance far beyond the book and characters:
I just think her moral system boils down to something like this: The good are good, no matter what they do. If you are good and use bullying means, it's just an aberration, as your natural goodness will out in the end. The bad are bad, and can't be redeemed. They will always use hurtful means and besides, they deserve whatever happens to them. As a moral system, it's pretty simplistic, but I bet it's a system a lot of people in this world buy into.
I replied in part:
I've had very similar discussions of this, along with its linkage to gender depictions (women=mothers; men=frat boy Woo-hoo!Warriors) over in some other journals... I should *cough* work on my research paper find an excuse to do an essay on this. Rough draft follows.
... comments and contributions welcome!
Basically, I'm thinking that despite some attempted nods at ethical theories of utilitarianism (goodness of means depends on whether it serves the common good: most of the Order but also, unpleasantly, the Ministry), deontological or duty theory (also the Order, esp. Remus, Kingsley, Arthur), and possibly virtue theory, the series defaults, by the end, and very clearly, into a natural-law theological ethics. In particular, Calvinism.
The "elect" can do no wrong, as you say (James! etc.), and the "damned" can never be redeemed (all of Slytherin House, as it turns out). One's status as elect (predestined for success and Heaven) cannot be known, so one must work very hard to do all the right things (Remus, Tonks) or atone (Snape, Dumbledore) but in the end there is NO connection between how hard you tried, how well you did, and whether you are redeemed. It's divine grace only, no salvation through works.
This is strict Calvinism, IIRC. (I was raised Presbyterian so I sense some intentional amnesia here ;-) ETA: Yes, this is now confirmed by a comment on another great post-DH essay by schemingreader,
"Repentance without Redemption: The Moral Message of the Deathly Hallows"
Thus, if a "predestined hero" such as Harry or Dumbledore does horrible things, the motivation (bad childhood, jealousy, temper, 'he did it first') or intent, which is the key determinant of morality in Kant's deontological ethics, is actually irrelevant. Harry's ignorance of Sectumsempra is an example; Sirius's light punishment after trying to get Snape eaten by a werewolf is another. Snape, on the other hand, seems strongly Kantian where he seethes over the malicious bullying of him that went largely unpunished; and at least partly Kantian when he doesn't trouble to hide his self-loathing for what he chose to do as a young man.
Ethical theory 1: Deontology
Deontological (aka deontic, or rights-based) ethics focus the moral decision around one "rule" and one "categorical imperative." (This is a basic summary; the system was developed by Immanuel Kant, and is densely overlayered, not to mention written in some pretty difficult older German.) The rule is that we must never treat another person as a means, but only as an End in themselves. This comes from Kant's detailed development of a theory of the person as an individual with rights in their own life and person. "Using" your friends, for instance, to "get" a job or an introduction to that cool guy, is absolutely wrong, for Kant. So treating people differently depending on how much you like them is also wrong; slavery and the Holocaust are totally out.
The Categorical Imperative -- roughly "follow only those ethical decisions you would wish everyone to follow universally to follow" -- complements Kant's means/ends rule. It holds us to a rather high standard: no exceptions for friends, bad-hair days, "he did it first," being in a hurry, or claiming the other guy deserves to be treated like scum.
Alas, Kant was a product of his time and believed that since some people *cough* like women and non-whites weren't fully "people," you could treat them like ends. However, he explicitly stated that you oughtn't to abuse them indiscriminately, even animals, because that could lead you to forget to treat "real" humans well at all times. When Dumbledore asks Snape to kill him to prevent "damaging" Draco's soul, he follows this precept. Hagrid might be a good candidate for deontologist; some notable animal rights theorists find support for wide environmental rights in Kant's theories (not Singer, he's utilitarian, but Tom Regan).
My sense, without re-reading all of canon at this point, is that some of the youngsters, and definitely Arthur, maybe Remus and Kingsley as well, are very deontological. This makes sense, with them involved with law enforcement -- "Justice is Blind" is a deontological rule that bars us from considering circumstances or our opinion of others in moral decision-making. I don't think Kingsley or Arthur would have hurled a nuclear-strength Crucio at Amycus Carrow when he spit in McGonagall's face. That would be condoning Carrow having used it himself on students for fun, or the most trivial fault. Just because someone else used it first, or you never liked them, you're not free to do the same. You have to treat people as yourself -- this is more or less the "Golden Rule" of Biblical (and Greco-Roman, and Confucian) fame. In war, you can use only the level of violence necessary to secure order.
Deontology comes from the Greek word "duty." It judges your moral decision solely by whether *you* acted in accordance with the highest motives: to follow a "universal" standard that preserves each individual's integrity as equally as your own. The rule to treat all people as ends-in-themselves is also in many ways a restatement of Judeo-Christian and Greek concepts about human freedom. It balances out the C.I.'s potential to allow us to descend to the lowest denominator (treating everyone equally badly and accepting it yourself). In fact, Kant's complexly reasoned ethical system was in large part an effort to reposition traditional J-C religious ethics around logical reasoning rather than divine command. So it looks familiar, and like Snape in Potions class, it's highly demanding.
In fact, it can be hard to implement because it leads to contradictory situations: does Snape lie to Draco in order to keep serving the Order? It makes Draco a means to Snape's end. I'll have to go back and look at the Unbreakable Vow; it could be argued that Snape let himself be trapped into this partly by his own Kantian disinclination to use and manipulate others -- as he'd been manipulated himself, by Dumbledore. His irritation with Dumbledore may stem from this ethical dilemma, that as a spy, Snape *must* betray his own moral principles constantly. Dumbledore follows a different standard himself. Perhaps some of Snape's bitterness and anger come from being forced by war, and his unique position as the spy, to compromise his deontological desire for impartial justice with Dumbledore's cheerful utilitarianism.
Ethical theory 2: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism moves the focus from the intent behind the act, to the act itself -- specifically, to its outcome. Most criminal codes are utilitarian in their nitty-gritty workings, because it's easier to point to the "facts" (dead body, purchase of poison) than read a person's mind (though "mens rea," the state of mind, is used to qualify degrees of, say, premeditated murder from accidental 'manslaughter'). Pensieves and Legilimency -- and their unreliability -- are of great interest here. Perhaps because he knows how these can be manipulated to misrepresent the "inner truth," or be misread (Harry does this especially), or perhaps because he's a Potions Master, where results are all that counts, Snape is both utilitarian in his moral decision making, and at the same time spurns it. He spies, lies, sneers, and probably kills, in the service of Light. His only overt justification for this is the classic one: "the greatest good of the greatest number, over time." But inside, Snape wants more than the win, I think; he wants ultimate justice, a world in which sincerity of feelings are justly rewarded, whether they are his horrible DE-days ones, or the absoluteness of his feelings for Lily. (I think this high-mindedness comes through in a lot of Snupin.)
Dumbledore, like many politicians, is more utilitarian: a bad act for a good end is accepted. Manipulation of Harry, even unto his death, is part of the Grand Plan. Using Snape is of course nothing compared to this. Does Dumbledore regret, in the end, this willingness to use anyone as a tool, including his own death? Is the moral of his childhood story meant to show Harry that you "do what a man's gotta do" to get where you need to go? Aberforth may be the deontologist of this pair. Politics is the art of the compromise, of selling out one group to protect another.
Yet even though pragmatic utilitarianism is the hallmark of some HP characters, I believe this is not the dominant morality of the books, in the end. Because if the "ends" excused the means, then Snape would be not just posthumously "the bravest man I ever knew" but would also be redeemed and honored during life. And if the consequences weighed all, and the intent is nothing, James -- or at least Sirius -- would have been expelled for the Shrieking Shack and other incidents. Because remember, under utilitarianism your motives and personality don't count, only your results. So you don't get a free pass by calling it "a prank." At the same time, you can be the nastiest love-obsessed SOB in the history of wizardry so long as all your students pass NEWTS, none get killed, and you rescue Harry Potter repeatedly. By a utilitarian standard, Snape should live and be feted; he undertook the hardest task of all -- not killing Voldemort, whom he hated, but Albus, the wizard he most respected and with so many others, loved. (I don't know if this motivates Harry's Epilogue characterization of him as "brave"; the books tend to mix in two senses, of "brave" as "rash and splashy" Gryffindorism, with "brave" as meaning "holding back nothing to ensure the success of a long and tricky plan." That is Slytherin.)
Neither duty-based nor utilitarian (ends-based) morality is a guide to understanding the "right" and "wrong" of HP, as seen in the ending of DH. The survival of Lucius and Narcissa, and Draco's happy-ever-after (or at least parenthood-without-prison), are garish examples of both bad intentions (deontology) and bad actions (utilitarianism) with no moral consequences. If these people survive, yet Remus, Tonks, Fred, even Snape die, then "the moral is" that something else must "count."
Ethical theory 3: Virtue
Virtue theory is the third of the four grand old theories of morality (if you include religious Christian ethics as the fourth). Aristotle's notion that well-bred and educated persons just naturally do the right, or "virtuous," thing is a more slippery theory to apply, in part because it's somewhat less coherent in its theory. It large parts of it slipped into Christian ethics thinking, in particular the idea that if you are "the right kind of person" (from the right kind of family-values family), having been raised reading the right books, knowing the right people, etc., your acts will be "informed" by grace and dignity, with no justification needed. Goodness is virtue. Virtue is personal.
In virtue theory, morality is measured only as an effect of character (think of news stories where neighbors of the accused say "Oh, no -- s/he just *isn't* the kind of person who would do this!). This is subjectivity. At its worst, it skews into social prejudice: the belief that for some classes of people, the sun shines from their arsehole, and their enemies are always wrong (by definition, which is to say, tautologically).
Jeez. When I started to sound like my ethics notes is when I knew I should be back in my own LJ ... Ok, to conclude.
The disconcerting thing about all these years at Hogwarts is that there don't seem to be many efforts to make young wizards and witches "virtuous." They break rules constantly, and Dumbledore twinkles madly and offers a lemon drop. Aside from a few like Hermione, the only moral is "don't get caught": a utilitarian approach. If "Be All That You Can Be" (the US Marine Corps motto) more-or-less sums up Virtue Theory, then Hermione is one of the few main characters who follows this rule as a student. Hermione does break rules, increasingly as the books go on. This may be her own growth from children's rough utilitarianism (whine or whatever so long as you get what you want) and black-and-white deontology (don't break any rules, because -- Just Because) into a keener sense of virtue ethics. Hermione's work for SPEW is as much, perhaps, about developing her own virtue or standing in the new, strange Wizarding World as well as about the rights of elves. (The word comes from Latin "virtus," a complex concept of both manliness and "public character".)
Harry, on the other hand, gives no consideration to the rights of goblins when he decides to deceive Griphook, nor does Hermione fully stop him; Ron would do worse. (Bill's comments show the kind of intercultural sensitivity to ethics that anthropologists develop, which are not included here.)
Conclusion: Harry Potter Ethics - Do They Make The World A Better Place?
This brings me back to Harry tricking Griphook, happily blasting out Crucio, speaking well of Snape only years after he's dead -- forgiving him, in fact, perhaps only because Snape liked Harry's mother. He's no deontologist, valuing each person despite their relation with him. Nor a utilitarian, for even though he dies "for the greater good," Harry doesn't seem to feel principles count as much as individuals, with those individuals who are his friends counting much more than others. His courage going to his death seems to come mainly from his "buddies" James and Sirius egging him on, combined with a primitive fatalism after seeing Snape's memories. Harry does it for his family, that group of mainly rowdy guys.
But Harry will live, despite his acts and intentions, because he's the chosen one. The Trio will live because ... friends of Harry. Bad people will die, because they're bad, but so will good people, for no reason other than it's war so randomly selected people will die. But not the central heroes; they all survive and thrive. To paraphrase the_bitter_word, the good will win simply because their "natural goodness" counts for more than all their bullying or casual Unforgivables. They're the elect. If this isn't just moral unclarity in the book's writing, it's a moral theory that profoundly denies the logically reasoned, rights- and freedom-based ethics of social justice movements, democracy and law, in favor of the more authoritarian ethics of natural law, or theology. Calvinist theories of salvation through "grace" rather than "works" seems to map on rather well at this point.
And this is where it troubles me most, at the end. Not only is it contradictory and inconsistent that this "retrogressive" morality -- as the_bitter_word aptly put it -- is deployed to excuse everything in the "heroes" that it simultaneously condemns in the villains. By casting everyone as saved-from-birth or damned-no-matter-what, it subscribes either to a Calvinist God (narrow, but the author gets to choose), or if not directed by God, to biological determinism. The "good" people versus the scum. Genetically "better" vs. those who should be sterilized. If it's Calvinism, the books become problematic for a multicultural audience. If it's biological or social determinism, that's problematic not only for the audience, but the internal structure of the books.
For the disquieting result is that the concept of morality that upholds Harry as a Hero has just circled around on itself to end in exactly the same place as the "racial" bigotry (pureblood/muggle, wizard/weres, etc.) that the novels simultaneously claim to condemn.
Thoughts on Revision
Now of course, I need to go back and re-read in the whole, and also take a second look at the morally decisive moments. Moral theories are not mutually exclusive, they overlap. Each tends to foreground different elements or issues as the most important: Where does morality originate (God; ancestors; nature; the rational mind)? Which is the critical element in a moral decision (the intention, or the action)? Is morality universal and ultimate, cultural and relative, or situational? Are moral decisions the domain of individuals or the community, and who deserves moral consideration: oneself or one's family, one's House, or "blood," or everyone, and if so, equally, or "family first"?
And because I love feminist theory, and continental philosophy, I really need to look to see if there are any ethics of care or "I/Thou" (Buber) or Levinasian" approaches hinted at, though I doubt these post-structuralist and anti-hegemonic frameworks would be seen as more than potentials in HP.
Feminist "ethics of care" was perhaps the first meta-ethical work to study the difference between "male" and "female" ethical perspectives, and that between children and adults, using sociological data. Carol Gilligan was one of those who discovered that the "moral sense" as understood by adults, and the law, doesn't really develop until the late teens or perhaps even the early 20's. This is one thing that makes teaching "ethics" to college students even more complicated (speaking from experience here as well as research). Do ethics students not get it because they aren't studying, or is it because some are barely 18 and their moral brain-matter just isn't there yet? In addition, might it not gel because they're being taught a "male-perspective" ethics, and hey look, they're women, socialized into a completely different style of ethics which is relational-based, not individually-focused?
So I haven't yet taken into account that element of "moral development" either. Here, that interesting watershed exists not just internally for Hogwarts students like Harry (if there is any) and other characters, but externally, for the book's intended audience of children and teenage readers. The extreme significance of this is shown by the fact that one reason the US no longer (in most states, if not by federal law) punishes young teens the same as adults is due to the recent research on moral development. If the book is truly mainly read by children or teens, and its morality, while not fully approved by many adults, is in fact appropriate for the moral "grasp" of that age group, then HP can't be faulted as children's lit. OTOH, it may be that it doesn't offer material that helps move them beyond the traits associated with early-stage moral development. (*wonders which box all that is packed in*)
Finally, I should look at that one HP & Philosophy book I picked up, and see what else is out there... because nothing teaches ethics & ethical theory (casuistry, the case study approach :-) better than real life. And HP is "real life" in many ways: for people within the Potterverse, for fans who care about them, for the writing & publishing world, and for students and scholars. The time and thought invested are very "real," and the consequences are measurable in money (for publishers and future authors) as well as moral thinking and its development, so as to prevent future Dark Lords in either of our worlds.