Albus Dumbledore: Manipulator

I want to be careful about this thread. I still think, for example, that Albus Dumbledore was noble and idealistic, a man who cared deeply about the children at Hogwarts, and about good creatures everywhere. That said, there were clues throughout the books which came to a head in "Deathly Hallows", showing that Albus Dumbledore could be ruthless and manipulative in carrying out his plans. While he explained himself, somewhat, to Harry in "Order of the Phoenix" about why he held off telling Harry about the prophecy, and in "Deathly Hallows" why he never explined the whole scope of the mission, it's obvious that Albus made some choices which had very serious consequences, for all of the major characters.

We know for example, that it was Albus who ordered Snape to reveal the date and time of Harry leaving the Dursley home, and so it was Albus Dumbledore, in the end, who shares responsibility for the death of Alastor Moody.

It was Albus who ordered Severus Snape to kill him, knowing the consequences would unjustly make Severus an outcast from the only people he could otherwise trust - in essence, Albus condemned Severus to serve as a spy until he was caught and killed, or else just killed.

It was Albus who set up a trap for Quirrell, hoping to catch out Voldemort, but which in the end resulted in Quirrel's death.

It was Albus whose plans prevented him from letting Harry and Sirius know enough to trust the word of Severus Snape, and so Albus shares respnsibility for the death of Sirius Black. Go back and look again at Albus' confession to Harry in the last part of "Order of the Phoenix", and you will see he plainly confesses this. It turns out this was not mere modesty or a humble friend trying to make Harry feel better, but the plain truth.

It can be said, and should, that many of the things Albus did which resulted in pain, suffering, loss, and death for so many peopole were necessary and the cost could not be avoided, yet it must also be noted that Albus Dumbledore made those choices, and some of those choices were mistakes. They were the "huge" mistakes Dumbledore meant, I believe.

It is a fact of Reality, that leaders must make hard choices at times. There are times when a leader has to give an order which he knows will result in someone's death. It is not evil or wrong to give such orders if there is an absolute need for this, but it is important to also see that the weight of these decisions has its effect. I noticed that Dumbledore never told Harry all he ought to have done, nor - it seems - all he meant to say. His plans were very good, but they never quite worked out as he planned, and Albus kept his own counsel, never asking anyone else to weigh his ideas and test them. In short, Albus Dumbledore was human, in great and wonderful ways, but also in less noble measures, as well.

Yes, I agree.
Dumbledore knew that he owned the Elder Wand and intended Snape to have it after Snape had "killed" him. This condemned Snape to death as Dumbledore knew that Voldemort was seeking the wand and that he would figure out that Snape was the wands owner.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting something here? But it sounds as if Dumbledore sacrificed Snape in a way...

Are you implying that DD is, in fact, still working for "the greater good," but that his interpretation has changed from the one he shared with Grindelwald?

Yes, I agree.
Dumbledore knew that he owned the Elder Wand and intended Snape to have it after Snape had "killed" him. This condemned Snape to death as Dumbledore knew that Voldemort was seeking the wand and that he would figure out that Snape was the wands owner.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting something here? But it sounds as if Dumbledore sacrificed Snape in a way...

Yes, I agree. But on the other hand, I see Snape as accepting this sacrifice; I don't think anyone who was a double agent for the Order and the Death Eaters would have thought they had a very long life expectancy anyway.

Are you implying that DD is, in fact, still working for "the greater good," but that his interpretation has changed from the one he shared with Grindelwald?

nice idea...
i agree

He had to, it was for the "greater good". When he was young, he was flawed. If his mother and sister hadn't died like they did, I am sure he may have become somewhat like Tom Riddle. He had the the same ideas about muggles before, and he was willing to sacrifice. After the death, it hit him hard so he became good and even once he was a bit flawed, it was all for good intentions

I also forgot to mention in my first post, Doge actually commends DD for pursuing the greater good in the obituary he wrote...

I agree on all counts. And as for Snape not having much of a life expectancy anyways being a double agent I think part of why he was able to do both rolls was he didn't think he had much to live for anyway. Judging from his memories given to Harry, I don't think he was happy living without Lily, she seemed to be everything to him. I do think that Dumbledore manipulated a lot to get every one and every thing as it needed to be and yes 'for the greater good', but I do also think that Snape knew what would be needed of him in the end as well.

It is a fact of Reality, that leaders must make hard choices at times. There are times when a leader has to give an order which he knows will result in someone's death. It is not evil or wrong to give such orders if there is an absolute need for this, but it is important to also see that the weight of these decisions has its effect. I noticed that Dumbledore never told Harry all he ought to have done, nor - it seems - all he meant to say. His plans were very good, but they never quite worked out as he planned, and Albus kept his own counsel, never asking anyone else to weigh his ideas and test them. In short, Albus Dumbledore was human, in great and wonderful ways, but also in less noble measures, as well.

Agreed. Dumbledore was working for the greater good (and not in an evil way this time). Harry is, basically, collateral damage- he has been groomed to bring Voldemort down, but rather than let Voldemort have him, Dumbledore has been equipping Harry for life. Granted, in the end it's a life he can't truly enjoy while Voldemort lives, and Dumbledore is aware of this- he's also developed an affection for Harry. What was really telling, at least for me, was Dumbledore saying that although Harry must die, that he wanted to give him a chance to test his mettle: "We have protected him, because it has been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength... If I know him, he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly meant the end of Voldemort." (pg. 687)

As Dumbledore said in an earlier book, because he is smarter than the average man his mistakes tend to be even greater.

Yes, I agree. But on the other hand, I see Snape as accepting this sacrifice; I don't think anyone who was a double agent for the Order and the Death Eaters would have thought they had a very long life expectancy anyway.

Snape definitely sacrificed himself in memory of Lily- recognition of his limited power (as opposed to Dumbledore's) is probably what brought him to seek the headmaster's help, rather then the fear of death.

Well said. I agree.

Great posts--Dumbledore certainly seemed the most human and fallible to me in this book---definitely removed from his pedestal! I'm a bit uncomfortable with him arranging for Snape to kill him--it's almost as if when Dumbledore asks Snape what he'll do for the Order since he regrets his association with the DEs and Snape replies 'anything' that Dumbledore takes him at his word... Snape, in the end, had to do 'anything' and 'everything'.

All is fair in love and war.... Good lord, that phrase rings SO true with Dumbledore and Snape and the whole situation between those two.

A lot of the things Dumbledore did was the fact that he was trying to repent for his past mistakes, although that cannot be said by telling Snape to kill him, almost all of his actions were planned in a way so that Harry would be the final one to finish Voldemort. The Greater Good was what Dumbledore was working towards, he wasnt only trying to protect Harry, he didnt use him, he was merely trying to get Harry to understand and pick up where he left off.

i dunno, I think that Dumbledore did sacrifice Snape and I think that he should have least told him the whole truth - I think Snape had earnt that.

I think Dumbledore was absolutely a manipulator, quite the puppet master and in some ways was quite similar to Voldemort in that he believed strongly in his own intelligence, kept his own counsel and didn't really seem to have friends but 'colleagues'. However, whereas Voldemort was all about personal gain, Dumbledore worked for the 'greater good'.

I have always loved Dumbledore but I wonder if the readers view of Dumbledore is tainted by seeing him through Harry's eyes? I don't think anyone else would have really regarded him as a kindly grandfather type figure. To anyone else he must have been a very powerful and influential wizard and people with power - from Voldemort to the Minister of Magic- were very wary of him. He did not encourage over familiarity, even with Harry, and seemed to keep everyone at arms length. Despite Dumbledore observing that various of Voldemort's followers would claim to be closest to him, or his right hand man etc, when in reality Voldemort needed nor desired anyone to fill this role, the same could be said about Dumbledore himself. IIRC when Snape confronted Dumbledore about refusing to give him all of the information in DH, Dumbledore said something about not putting all his secrets in one basket.

I can't help but think he must appear as a very different character to the adults in the book, of whom he expects so much, than to Harry who up until he met Dumbledore had been neglected and starved of affection. The beauty of seeing Snape's memories in the penseive was that we did actually get to see Dumbledore through someone else's eyes and we were shocked by what we saw.

I do think Dumbledore was a manipulator, but ultimately a good person - just not as saintly as I at first thought!

I remember getting to Snapes memories in DH and feeling really angry with Dumbledore, I was mollified slightly when Dumberdore admitted in 'Kings Cross' that he had a hunch that Harry would survive, but it still seemed as though DD had completely used Harry throughout his life, as he could never be sure that Harry would live!

I remember getting to Snapes memories in DH and feeling really angry with Dumbledore, I was mollified slightly when Dumberdore admitted in 'Kings Cross' that he had a hunch that Harry would survive, but it still seemed as though DD had completely used Harry throughout his life, as he could never be sure that Harry would live!

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that Harry had been used by DD throughout his life.... Knowing Harry as we do now through 7 books... If at the beginning of book 1, DD had sat Harry down and told him that in order to kill LV, he would have to die himself.... do you think it would have stopped Harry from doing what needed to be done?

I don't think he would have... though he would have had a much heavier burden to live with...

I think DD knew the same to be true and hoped to spare Harry that burdon as long as possible.

Dumbledore we find was a most patronizing man; I loathe him for it.

I think that there was a definite attempt to protect Harry, but that protection is also manipulation. Even when Harry demanded the truth about Snape, Dumbledore wouldn't give it to him. I understand at that point that Snape probably didn't want his love for Lily known to Harry, but still. I finished the book liking Dumbledore a lot less. He's still an incredibly wise man but I think that if he had told Harry when he told him about the Horcruxes that Harry might have to die, Harry would have accepted it and done the job anyway.

I was as mad at Dumbledore as Harry was for not giving them all the clues they needed. His ambiguous clue with the Snitch, his making it hard for them to get the sword. they had enough to do without worrying about those things.

i personally loved how JK took DD off his pedestal. Dont get me wrong, i felt that DD was that much needed guidence for herry. when he died, it scared me because firstly, it meant that harry had to do things alone without DD plans or hints or whatever. but by showing us (and harry) that DD did have a past of darkness and that he was flawed, it proved that harry was also capable of doing what DD did. never was harry interesting in the dark arts, but he wasnt a completely *perfect* person. he was proud, he was emotional and rash and did break rules. he lied to teachers etc. but overall, it proved that HE IS FLAWED. and since DD, the greatest wizard that ever lived, was also flawed (even more so in my opinion) it should that techincally, those postions of authority and recognition can be given to anyone.

But we must remember that Dumbledore did not revel in manipulating others, like Voldemort did.

He manipulated because it was necessary and in trying times, can you really blame him?

But we must remember that Dumbledore did not revel in manipulating others, like Voldemort did.

He manipulated because it was necessary and in trying times, can you really blame him?

I agree, he never manipulated people for his own personal benefit. He did it so that he could have a better understanding for things such as how to defeat Voldemort or how to find his horcruxes.

Great posts--Dumbledore certainly seemed the most human and fallible to me in this book---definitely removed from his pedestal! I'm a bit uncomfortable with him arranging for Snape to kill him--it's almost as if when Dumbledore asks Snape what he'll do for the Order since he regrets his association with the DEs and Snape replies 'anything' that Dumbledore takes him at his word... Snape, in the end, had to do 'anything' and 'everything'.

I agree with you completely about Snape - Dumbledore really did ask everything of him. He became a spy, killer and, ultimately, gave his life.

I was feeling uneasy about Dumbledore since HBP because I understood him risking students life (Katie, Ron) to save Draco. When people developed the theory that Dumbledore has ordered Snape to kill him I said everytime: No, never - Dumbledore would never do that. He did it, he made Snape to do him a favour: mercy-killing, isn´t it? I´m struggling very hard with this part of the story, I´m feeling very uncomfortable with it.
Dumbledores confession of his feelings for Harry at the end of OoP made him a very human puppet-master who almost had destroyed his plans for the greater Good. At the end of DH the humanity is overshadowed and that makes me unhappy.

I think he's a master manipulator. I think he was forced into a position of leadership too though, as the head of the order of the phoenix, and I think he had to learn to adapt to that, even though he knew that power was bad for him. He would use it from a desire to do good, but as a warrior, he realised that there would be casualties, himself included, most likely.

He did promise Snape never to reveal his secret, and he didn't. Snape did himself, and that's it. Dumbledore did keep his word to the man who had once betrayed him, just as Snape kept his word to Dumbledore until the day of his own death.

We heard for six books about how Dumbledore, being considerably more intelligent than most other men, made mistakes, and those mistakes were correspondingly catastrophic, but I don't think his manipulation of the situation was a mistake. Without his plans and plotting, I don't think that things would have turned out so well.

He accepted, as leaders do, the will and responsibility for making decisions, and it seems from his reliving of his worst memory after drinking that potion in book 6, that every bit of pain he felt, he channeled toward his punishment for killing hsi sister, or at least, being responsible for her death. Because he was responsible for her death.

In accepting that responsibility, he knew there woudl be casualties. The fact that he manipulated people into making decisions they might otherwise not have made is both a testament to his strength and to his weaknesses. He couldn't trust others to get it right, he had to do ti for them.

I can't hate him for not telling Harry everything. The man himself knew what it was like to not have a childhood, and he wanted Harry to have that at least. He probably gathered, from the way that Harry was so like his mother, that Harry had a sense of duty, and that the duty would not go undone. He wanted Harry to experience as much of his childhood as he could. I'm not sure that this is a bad thing. It just shows where Dumbledore hurts really.

I don't think I agree either, that he used Harry throughout his life. had he copped it, he probably would have one to the Chamber of Secrets himself. He would have faced Riddle for the Philosopher's Stone, he did help give Harry back his godfather, he believed him straight off about Voldemort coming back in the Hangleton graveyard. He brought Harry with him to get the locket. When he realised that he was not gonig to make it very far beyond this point, he set about making sure that Harry would know what to do and where to go next, but at the same time, that nobody else could work it out. He knew the Scrimgeour would be onto him like a sack of cats, and he didn't want everyone knowing the truth. I understand why.

I think he manipulated lots of people, but never made them do what they didn't already want to. That's why everyone was so loyal to him. Snape, because he came back of his own accord seeking forgiveness. The Order of the Phoenix because they all wanted to do good, to get rid of Voldemort.

He didn't even manipulate the Dursleys, simply asked that they let Harry stay one more summer. He wrote them a letter. They knew what had to be done too, and he counted on Petunia's feelings of remorse for not being a witch to hold Harry in that house.

I see his mistakes, but I don't think he was as bad as maybe he's made out to be, when we look at him a little more.

I was feeling uneasy about Dumbledore since HBP because I understood him risking students life (Katie, Ron) to save Draco. When people developed the theory that Dumbledore has ordered Snape to kill him I said everytime: No, never - Dumbledore would never do that. He did it, he made Snape to do him a favour: mercy-killing, isn´t it? I´m struggling very hard with this part of the story, I´m feeling very uncomfortable with it. I had similiar feelings. It bothers me to find out that Dumbledore actually did ask Snape to kill him. The Draco's soul excuse and the mercy killing excuse don't justify it, in my opinion. The Elder Wand does explain most of it, though. Dumbledore needed to die undefeated so that Voldemort could never be Master of the Elder Wand. I think he used Snape in order to achieve that goal. I have problems with this because Snape thought he was doing everything for Lily. Dumbledore was able to capitalize on his obsession. I have a lot of problems with the way Dumbledore sacrificed people for the greater good.

I had similiar feelings. It bothers me to find out that Dumbledore actually did ask Snape to kill him. The Draco's soul excuse and the mercy killing excuse don't justify it, in my opinion. The Elder Wand does explain most of it, though. Dumbledore needed to die undefeated so that Voldemort could never be Master of the Elder Wand. I think he used Snape in order to achieve that goal. I have problems with this because Snape thought he was doing everything for Lily. Dumbledore was able to capitalize on his obsession. I have a lot of problems with the way Dumbledore sacrificed people for the greater good.

But Snape was still doing everything for Lily. Dumbledore wanted the power of the Elder wand to die with him in order to protect Harry. Snape wanted to protect Harry for Lily....

Dumbledore we find was a most patronizing man; I loathe him for it.

Wow, don't miss the point here. I believe that Jo really painted a masterful picture of Dumbledore - you could argue that he is one of the most fully developed characters in the series - a man who is essentially good but human and flawed.
Dumbledore's biggest weakness, imo, is his inability to fully trust others. When it came to Harry, that meant groping around in the dark and being incredibly frustrated. That was quite unfair to Harry. But, when you begin to examine all the insidious threats that Harry and others faced, from the Ministry in particular, you see that Dumbledore erred on the side of caution.
It's important to remember, when examining DD's strengths and weaknesses, that he did everything to stop Voldemort. Imagine a world ruled by the Dark Lord vs. the lovely ending we got from Jo. That alone vindicates Dumbledore. :tu:

Wow, don't miss the point here. I believe that Jo really painted a masterful picture of Dumbledore - you could argue that he is one of the most fully developed characters in the series - a man who is essentially good but human and flawed.
Dumbledore's biggest weakness, imo, is his inability to fully trust others. When it came to Harry, that meant groping around in the dark and being incredibly frustrated. That was quite unfair to Harry. But, when you begin to examine all the insidious threats that Harry and others faced, from the Ministry in particular, you see that Dumbledore erred on the side of caution.
It's important to remember, when examining DD's strengths and weaknesses, that he did everything to stop Voldemort. Imagine a world ruled by the Dark Lord vs. the lovely ending we got from Jo. That alone vindicates Dumbledore. :tu:

Very well said. The ends justify the means.

I also have to agree with those that said that Dumbledore knew Harry had a sense of conviction about killing Voldemort. No matter what Dumbledore could have or should have said Harry was going to make it his mission to get rid of him. This is blazing obvious in all books. Harry did kill Voldemort, didn't he? And everyone that fought with him, and died, knew that he would.

As far as Severus and Dumbledore's relationship goes, I think that Snape, was a much more complicated character than some give him credit for. We never got to see his internal struggle between all sides; The Order, The Death Eaters, Lily, Harry...True, we get a glimpse of this in DH, but it's barely the entire spectrum. That being said, I think that he would have done anything to the man that gave him a second chance at protecting Lily, and all that she stood for.

Overall, Dumbledore's manipulations were necessary and vindicated. I think that makes him human, as many of you have said, and we really get to the heart of that when he confesses to Harry at the end of DH.

I am pretty sure I'm alone in this, but...

Did anyone else get the feeling, at the end of DH, that Dumbledore should have been a Slytherin? It's widely assumed he was a Gryffindor yet I don't see many traces of bravery in him after DH. He even feared facing Grindelwald because of what happened with Arianna -- sad, albeit, but still....

He was manipulative, vain, cunning and intelligent. He was ruthless in that he would sacrifice anything to get what he wanted (the greater good). Seems to me the hallmarks of Slytherin house.

That being said, I still like Dumbledore. I think he truly was trying to do good and he exemplifies the statement "sometimes what is right is not always easy." I think he's the perfect yin to Snape's yang -- we're shown the bad of Dumbledore (who is considered inherently good) and the good of Snape (who is considered inherently evil).

I have felt that Dumbledore was a manipulator ever since Philosopher's Stone and as such have never been a massive fan of him or put him on the pedestal that some other fans have. To me, Dumbledore has always been putting lives at risk and because he never fully shares anything with anyone, has put more lives at risk and has ultimately been responsible for deaths.

He was setting Harry up to kill Voldemort ever since leaving him on the doorstep of the Dursleys, but he never told Harry enough of anything to help him along the path. The frustration this could have caused might have been disastrous. And what if Dumbledore's irresponsibility led to Harry's death? I know he was wanting Harry to learn for himself and test his own strengths etc, but if Harry was to die in doing so, Dumbledore would have had yet another death on his hands.

Dumbledore must have been aware of what he was asking Snape to do, but would not know the full extent of the experience of what it was like to do it. Snape had to lead a double life for all those years, never being fully trusted by either side and putting his life at risk every day. Dumbledore was also asking (I say asking, it's really telling) Snape to kill and those who he killed were those on the side of Dumbledore.

I believe that Dumbledore could have save many lives and saved the heartbreak of others by not being so closed. He manipulated people for "the greater good" or so he told people.

I was as mad at Dumbledore as Harry was for not giving them all the clues they needed. His ambiguous clue with the Snitch, his making it hard for them to get the sword. they had enough to do without worrying about those things.

Dumbledore's clues are as clear as they can be. Remember, Dumbledore's will was examined by the Ministry and Dumbledore expected it. On the other hand, he left the trio just what they needed on their quest to destroy Horcruxes. Moreover, it was the Ministry which prevented Harry from getting a sword - Dumbledore made sure that Harry did get it.

But we must remember that Dumbledore did not revel in manipulating others, like Voldemort did.

He manipulated because it was necessary and in trying times, can you really blame him?

I agree. I don't think for a moment that Dumbledore didn't feel bad about the suffering and deaths he directly or indirectly caused, just as he was never free of the guilt of Ariana's death. Despite everything, I think Dumbledore was still a compassionate, loving person, and he did what he had to do so that peace would dawn upon the wizarding community.

I prefer to call Albus Dumbledore an "orchestrator" rather than a manipulator.

I am stcking to my original phrase for Dumbledore. Puppet Master.

Great posts--Dumbledore certainly seemed the most human and fallible to me in this book---definitely removed from his pedestal! I'm a bit uncomfortable with him arranging for Snape to kill him--it's almost as if when Dumbledore asks Snape what he'll do for the Order since he regrets his association with the DEs and Snape replies 'anything' that Dumbledore takes him at his word... Snape, in the end, had to do 'anything' and 'everything'.

Yes, and we know Snape didn't want to kill DD. I have trouble with the whole death arrangement too. Asking another person to murder is asking alot regardless of the circumstances. And poor Snape killed him and he didn't have to because of Draco got to DD first! The Elder Wand couldn't belong to Snape. Too bad Fenrir (or one of the others) didn't kill DD, then LV would have taken care of him.

I see DD as playing a game of chess and the people are his pieces. As Ron says in PS/SS you have to make sacrifices, that's chess. Easy enough to do with chessmen, much more difficult with real people.

I think DD was fond of Harry, maybe loved him, but DD was too willing to risk people's lives for "the greater good". He had too many secrets. Too bad he didn't feel like he could confide in others the way Harry could with Ron and Hermione (and eventually Neville). That might have been DD's biggest downfall which led to him being a manipulator.

DD didn't seek outward power ie: Ministry of Magic, but he still sought power through manipulation.

I am pretty sure I'm alone in this, but...

Did anyone else get the feeling, at the end of DH, that Dumbledore should have been a Slytherin? It's widely assumed he was a Gryffindor yet I don't see many traces of bravery in him after DH. He even feared facing Grindelwald because of what happened with Arianna -- sad, albeit, but still....

He was manipulative, vain, cunning and intelligent. He was ruthless in that he would sacrifice anything to get what he wanted (the greater good). Seems to me the hallmarks of Slytherin house.

That being said, I still like Dumbledore. I think he truly was trying to do good and he exemplifies the statement "sometimes what is right is not always easy." I think he's the perfect yin to Snape's yang -- we're shown the bad of Dumbledore (who is considered inherently good) and the good of Snape (who is considered inherently evil).

Erm..but he still faced his fear, didn't he? He still set out to face Grindelwald, however late it might be.

Bravery is not absence of fear, it is facing yur fear and IMO, that's what Dumbledore did.

I loved how Dumbledore was portrayed in DH and I love him even more now.

I do agree that Dumbledore was a manipulator. His plans(and the people he put forward for it) however, were for the greater good of the magical community, not like Voldemort who wanted to rule over it.

The means might be the same(though I get disturbed when people relate DD to Voldemort), but the reasons were different.

I don't think that DD would have ended up like Voldemort if his mother and sister hadn't died. Even during all his friendship with Grindelwald...he still had his scruples. I believe he would have got a shock about Grindelwald sometime or the other....it just happened in the form of the deaths of his family.

My impression of Dumbledore has been greatly altered after I read DH.

Dumbledore lost a lot of points with me.
He was manipulating everyone else, and did what was necessary to win, even if it was for "the greater good".

I am sorry if the following ideas have been repeated earlier it is hard to read all of the posts .

. I think Dumbledore was a great man doing everthing he could to limit the risk to others but understanding that others must also take risk or all would be lost. I do not think he thought Harry would have to come into play so soon. But once he knew he was going to die he knew it was esential for Harry to understand everything

. I don't think Dumbledore liked Snape. The only thing Snape loved was Lily. Who knows what evils he participated in before Lily's death. In Snapes memory when Snape becomes angry with Dumbledore for sacrificing Harry, Dumbldore for a moment says "have you come to care for the boy?" But snape immediatly proves his motivation is still Lily. I think Perhaps if Dumbledore believed Snape actually cared for Lily then he could have reveled more of the plan to him. But Dumbledore needed Harry to believe he was going to his death even though Dumbledore had done everything he could to make sure Harry lived. Dumbledore was willing to sacrifice his own appearence of nobility to be assured that Snape would believe Harry had to die so that Harry would truly believe he was going to his own death. It was the only way the Hallows could work. It takes a great deal of courage to sacrifice others good opinion and love of you.

I think Dumbledore was indeed unwise in his youth but I believe he learned a hard lesson. Nobody is born wise. I think everything Dumbledore did was to help protect everyone he could . Even a confidence in someone else could have risked everything. It must have been very lonely

I believe Snape didn't Want to kill Dumbledore but his anger and revulsion was indeed directed toward Dumbledore. He was mad at him for his revelations about Harry. I cannot see one unwise or uncaring thing Dumbledore did after his youthful tragedies. I think think things did not always go as he hoped. It is easier to see what to do when you are looking back. No one can predict the future.

I prefer to call Albus Dumbledore an "orchestrator" rather than a manipulator.

I like that. Much better than manipulator. Although i do think he was a bit of both.

DD trusted his powers of deduction and wisdom more than in those who commtted their lives to fighting in the Order. The way he shared information all in bits and pieces to so many who trusted him and the way he pulled the strings in his 'grand plan'; he was a manipulator in the strongest sense.

Was this fair to Harry, Snape, Sirius, and anyone else who was unaware of vital information that could have caused pause or even a change of mind towards a particular strategy? Certainly not.

Being a leader is hard. You have to keep the goal in mind. You have to make decisions that you know could cause the deaths of many people you care about. But the greater good is more important than anything. Peace in the wizarding world and the end of Voldemort justified the means. DD had blood on his hands. That's part of being a leader. He has karma for decisions he had made unlike Harry.

When DD mentions here and there that Harry is a better man than himself, he wasn't flattering Harry at all. He was being truthful. Harry was never tempted as DD was to those 'Magic over Muggles' nonsense. He trusted Ron and Hermoine as DD never had with him. Harry was the better man, no question in my mind.

DD trusted his powers of deduction and wisdom more than in those who commtted their lives to fighting in the Order. (...)Was this fair to Harry, Snape, Sirius, and anyone else who was unaware of vital information that could have caused pause or even a change of mind towards a particular strategy? Certainly not.
Being a leader is hard. You have to keep the goal in mind. You have to make decisions that you know could cause the deaths of many people you care about. But the greater good is more important than anything. Peace in the wizarding world and the end of Voldemort justified the means. DD had blood on his hands. That's part of being a leader. He has karma for decisions he had made unlike Harry.(...)

Whow, very good! I´m impressed! Yes he trusted his powers more than he trusted in the simple courage of people like James and Sirius. And that was not fair. But wise. But I don´t like it though.

Your words about leaders remember me of war. Sacrifices are necessary and then justified... That could never be my decisions. Yes, Dumbledore has blood on his hands. But you could always say, that he tried to save Harry through the quest. Harry never could have been a puppet-master, therefore he is the better man. But he had been the losing man without Dumbledores plans? That is a hard thing for me to take.

In my opinion, Dumbledore was the wisest person ever. Manipulation? Good, that's what you NEED to face someone like Voldemort. If Dumbledore had been blase about his plans, would they have worked? No!

Hell, even sociopaths become the greatest business leaders. What's wrong with a little manipulation.

PS: I'm not arguing that Dumbledore is a sociopath.

Dumbledore did pull the stings of all those involved in the fight against Voldemort. He told no one his master plan, except when Harry put all the pieces together after talking to Dumbledore at King's Cross and seeing Snape's memories. He pulled the strings for the "greater good" of all Mankind.

I have to admit, my liking for Dumbledore fell greatly upon reading The Deathly Hallows. But, as to be fair to Dumbledore, every human makes mistakes. It is quite plain that Dumbledore feels huge amounts of remorse for the things he has done. I think, could he have done things over, he may have changed the way he went about things. I think that Dumbledore may have had a sense of pride, being rather more intelligent than most wizards. I believe that this "pride" or whatever it was lead him to make mistakes or be too daring. I still think, though, that he is a wonderful man who should not be too harshly handled for his mistakes.

In my opinion, Dumbledore was the wisest person ever. Manipulation? Good, that's what you NEED to face someone like Voldemort. If Dumbledore had been blase about his plans, would they have worked? No!

Exactly, if he'd blabbed about his plans then Voldemort would've kept moving his Horcruxes around or just made more, and that would've produced an effective stalemate against the Order and Harry and co.

It needed to be kept secret to only those in 'the know' for it to ever work, and this was a war, and that along with revolutions always bring death and tragedy one way or another. That's just how they both work unfortunately, sacrifices sometimes have to made...

Overall though after reading DH, I loved Dumbledore even more! :rockon:

I must say the most shocking about this book was the revelations about Dumbledore, but i dont think less of him .. he was a man with a plan and what he has done is something i think made a big difference in harrys survival, and i agree with the fact that harry had to learn things for himself, and dumbledore sacrificed him self for a greater cause.. i respect him deeply even though yes he had his flaws and he wasnt perfect but now i know for sure that he was just human .. and to this day (even though Harry defeated the dark lord) dumbledore will always be the greatest wizard that ever lived ..

I think Dumbledore is the "weaver of the web" or controller of the plot of the series. He hangs his web between each character he encounters to enable Harry to catch the proverbial fly (Voldemort). Just after HBP came out I wrote a theory about the Spinner's End chapter was not about Snape, but was about planning the end of the Spinner of the plot, Dumbledore. In it I also thought that Aragog's death was foreshadowing the later death of Voldemort.

What I don't get though is that Albus definitely manipulates people, he chooses and what informationg to release and when to release it to get the reaction he wants out of people - I understand the argument that this kind of behaviour is necessary to defeat people like Voldemorte but surely the way this is put forward contradicts directly with the idea that all that 'greater good' stuff he was into at the beginning was wrong - which he admits, as it caused the death of his sister! He says that he never went to the Ministry of Magic because he wanted to avoid power, but although he never occupied a formal position of power (or at least power in government, he was head of the only magical school in Britain and could influence and entire generation at a time) he controlled and manipulated nearly the entire series of events in the Harry Potter books, the Deathly Hallows basically is an enaction of his master plan - and the deaths of characters like Sirius and like Snape waved off as necessities in the pursuit of the 'Greater Good', something he said he stepped away from.

I understand the argument that this kind of behaviour is necessary to defeat people like Voldemorte but surely the way this is put forward contradicts directly with the idea that all that 'greater good' stuff he was into at the beginning was wrong - which he admits, as it caused the death of his sister! He says that he never went to the Ministry of Magic because he wanted to avoid power, but...he controlled and manipulated nearly the entire series of events in the Harry Potter books....and the deaths of characters like Sirius and like Snape waved off as necessities in the pursuit of the 'Greater Good', something he said he stepped away from.

I agree that this is contradictory, and now we are not sure what the message was supposed to be. Is it is all right to do dreadful things for the Greater Good, as long as it really is the Greater Good? But what if both sides think they have the Greater Good in mind?

In line with that, to me, there is the sudden adoption the Unforgiveable Curses by Harry and others on the "Good Side." I thought the point of the Unforgiveables was that they were evil. And at the beginning of DH Harry told Lupin why he wouldn't Stun Stan -- basically, "The end doesn't justify the means." Killing people just because they were in the way was Lord V's job, Harry said, and I thought that was part of what made Harry special. I thought Harry was articulating Rowling's position. Now I'm not clear.

I agree that this is contradictory, and now we are not sure what the message was supposed to be. Is it is all right to do dreadful things for the Greater Good, as long as it really is the Greater Good? But what if both sides think they have the Greater Good in mind?

In line with that, to me, there is the sudden adoption the Unforgiveable Curses by Harry and others on the "Good Side." I thought the point of the Unforgiveables was that they were evil. And at the beginning of DH Harry told Lupin why he wouldn't Stun Stan -- basically, "The end doesn't justify the means." Killing people just because they were in the way was Lord V's job, Harry said, and I thought that was part of what made Harry special. I thought Harry was articulating Rowling's position. Now I'm not clear.

This puts me in mind of GOF where Sirius is explaining about Crouch (sorry I dont have the book at hand to look up pg numbers) and that Crouch started to use unforgiveable curses on suspected death eaters becoming just as bad as them. Or in HBP where the ministry are rounding up innocent people like Stan Shunpike all for the appearance of doing something. The greater good.
Im not comfortable with it at all. Im surprised at the tone the series ended with. Harry using Imperious and Crucio! JKR used to work for amnesty, she has a link to them on her website. but this book almost seems to be saying murder and torture are justifiable for the greater good. and who decides that?

I was shocked at the way Snape was used. At the beginning of the book when his colleague is being hung upside down ready to be slaughtered and pleading for help from him he turns away, when I first read it I was shocked at the brutality of this scene I felt it would take a person with a heart of stone to do that but then because I was under the impression that Snape was evil and attributed it to that. But then to find out that Snape was still acting out Dumbledore's orders. Dumbledore being somehow complicit in this and other brutal murders. He said it himself that murder was the biggest act of evil "it splits the soul" yet ordered snape to kill him anyway.

I agree with others who have posted on this thread and pointed out that Harry was a better man in the end than Dumbledore ever was.

I am so glad that someone started this thread and used this precise word, manipulator, because this is exactly what i think, especially after DH.

I started not to like Dd very much after OOTP, I was not that upset when he died in THBP, and I became very angry with him in DH. And I am surprised that nobody feels the same way, that everybody, including Harry helds him at the outmost respect.

This man cared for Harry and kept him safe and everything and trained him knewing very well that Harry was going to die. Until GOF, at least, when he finds out about the exchange of blood, he knew very well that Harry was a horcrux and had to die. How can you look a child in the eyes and knew that he is going to die and you are preparing him for that is beyond my imagination.

And he was manipulative with Snape and with a lot of other people.

Alberforth was right, Dd did not care that much about sacrificing people if it was for the "greater good".

I don't think the problem is that he didn't share the information. What bothers me the most is how he prepared poor Harry to die. What heart could this man have had to look Harry in the eyes and knew that he was going to die? I would never have sacrificed Harry for the "greater good" I would have looked for other ways!

This man cared for Harry and kept him safe and everything and trained him knewing very well that Harry was going to die. Until GOF, at least, when he finds out about the exchange of blood, he knew very well that Harry was a horcrux and had to die. How can you look a child in the eyes and knew that he is going to die and you are preparing him for that is beyond my imagination.


Yes, but we also know that he found this an extremely difficult task - he tells Harry, in OotP that the flaw of the plan - his plan, is that he cares about Harry too much, he says "what did I care about countless deaths in the future, as long as you, now, were safe and happy" (I paraphrase) and I think that although he did "manipulate" Harry, he did so with great reluctance as he cared for and loved Harry so much. He only told Harry his fate when he knew he could escape it no longer, so that Harry would not have to carry this burden all his life. And he only told Harry he was a horcrux, through Snape, at the last minute, so that Harry would not have to suffer with the agony of knowing (like Jesus did) for too long.

[QUOTE=gottaloveLupin;4682120]

This man cared for Harry and kept him safe and everything and trained him knewing very well that Harry was going to die. Until GOF, at least, when he finds out about the exchange of blood, he knew very well that Harry was a horcrux and had to die. How can you look a child in the eyes and knew that he is going to die and you are preparing him for that is beyond my imagination.
[QUOTE

Yes, but we also know that he found this an extremely difficult task - he tells Harry, in OotP that the flaw of the plan - his plan, is that he cares about Harry too much, he says "what did I care about countless deaths in the future, as long as you, now, were safe and happy" (I paraphrase) and I think that although he did "manipulate" Harry, he did so with great reluctance as he cared for and loved Harry so much. He only told Harry his fate when he knew he could escape it no longer, so that Harry would not have to carry this burden all his life. And he only told Harry he was a horcrux, through Snape, at the last minute, so that Harry would not have to suffer with the agony of knowing (like Jesus did) for too long.

Well, I fail to see how the fact the Dd cared for Harry is a good argument for Dd. Precisely, he cared for him and he prepared Harry to die. Which shows what a manipularor and cold hearted person DD was. I couldn't care less that DD cared for Harry.

If Dd was that smart, he should have looked for other ways to defeat Voldemort or to prevent him from coming to power again! Not to look a kid in the eye and protect him knowing fully well that all the things you are teaching him and all the love you are showing him are just instruments; you are just preparing him to accept his own death! You are making him to respect you, so that when the time comes, you just say jump and he will jump, you just say die and he will die.

No way is this aceptable for me! This is the way all leaders justify their wars and everything. It had to be done for the "greater good" Innocent people had to die for the "greater good". The purpose justifies the means? Why doesn't this sound ok to me?

Well, I fail to see how the fact the Dd cared for Harry is a good argument for Dd. Precisely, he cared for him and he prepared Harry to die. Which shows what a manipularor and cold hearted person DD was. I couldn't care less that DD cared for Harry.

If Dd was that smart, he should have looked for other ways to defeat Voldemort or to prevent him from coming to power again! Not to look a kid in the eye and protect him knowing fully well that all the things you are teaching him and all the love you are showing him are just instruments; you are just preparing him to accept his own death! You are making him to respect you, so that when the time comes, you just say jump and he will jump, you just say die and he will die.

No way is this aceptable for me! This is the way all leaders justify their wars and everything. It had to be done for the "greater good" Innocent people had to die for the "greater good". The purpose justifies the means? Why doesn't this sound ok to me?At the end of GoF, Harry tells Dumbledore that Voldemort had taken Harry's blood to form his new body. The scene where we see Dumbledore telling Snape that Harry had to die was between OotP and HBP. Dumbledore had already guessed that when Voldemort had tried to kill Harry, Harry would survive, because he shared the same blood with Voldemort, so as long as Voldemort was alive, Harry would be alive too, it was almost as if Voldemort was Harry's horcrux. Harry couldn't die as long as Voldemort was still alive. In GoF Dumbledore had his "gleam of triumph" when he realized this, he knew that Harry had won. However he still wanted Harry to think he was sacrificing himself when he went into the final confrontation with Voldemort. Harry needed to think he was going to die in order for him to fully understand everything.

Well, I fail to see how the fact the Dd cared for Harry is a good argument for Dd. Precisely, he cared for him and he prepared Harry to die. Which shows what a manipularor and cold hearted person DD was. I couldn't care less that DD cared for Harry.

If Dd was that smart, he should have looked for other ways to defeat Voldemort or to prevent him from coming to power again! Not to look a kid in the eye and protect him knowing fully well that all the things you are teaching him and all the love you are showing him are just instruments; you are just preparing him to accept his own death! You are making him to respect you, so that when the time comes, you just say jump and he will jump, you just say die and he will die.

No way is this aceptable for me! This is the way all leaders justify their wars and everything. It had to be done for the "greater good" Innocent people had to die for the "greater good". The purpose justifies the means? Why doesn't this sound ok to me?

But Dumbledore knew that Harry wouldn't really die - he would be Master of Death through the Hallows - don't lets forget that Dd gave Harry the resurrection stone as well - so Dd was still trying to preserve this boy that he had come to care so deeply for. Dd knew that Harry was pure, and worthy of the Hallows, and so he made sure that not only did Harry know enough about destroying the horcruxes, he knew about the Hallows as well (through the Tales of Beedle the Bard). If Dd really was a cold-hearted manipulator, he would only have given Harry the knowledge to destroy the horcruxes, and not the Hallows, which would enable Harry to walk to his death without fear, and also return from it.
Furthermore, I think that it makes all the difference that Dd cared for Harry - it shows that he, like all of us, is human. He was essentially a general in a terrible war, and I think the fact that he found it so hard to give such a tremendous burden to Harry - one of his "men" shows how different he is to your average general - he was restricted by his own love and compassion - he could not bear to burden Harry, at eleven, with the horrific truth, even though it ay have made more "tactical sense."

just a quick note...sorry, Lord Godric, if you're about, would you mind editing your post...just it looks as though I posted that, when in fact it was gottaloveLupin...and I don't really want to be credited with someone else's post...especially when our opinions are quite different.

just a quick note - sorry, Lord Godric, if you're about, would you mind editing your post? Just it looks as though I posted that, when in fact it was gottaloveLupin...and I don't really want to be credited with someone else's post, especially when our opinions are quite different.

just a quick note - sorry, Lord Godric, if you're about, would you mind editing your post? Just it looks as though I posted that, when in fact it was gottaloveLupin...and I don't really want to be credited with someone else's post, especially when our opinions are quite different.

In my opinion, Dumbledore was the wisest person ever. Manipulation? Good, that's what you NEED to face someone like Voldemort. If Dumbledore had been blase about his plans, would they have worked? No!

Hell, even sociopaths become the greatest business leaders. What's wrong with a little manipulation.

PS: I'm not arguing that Dumbledore is a sociopath.

i completely agree. yes dumbledore was manipulative but what were his other options? yes he could have trusted certain people but that could have backfired (lily/james & pettigrew)

i think he handled the situation well, he could have done it better but he was in a tough situation and did what he thought was for the best. if he had told harry that he was a horcrux and would most likely have to die i think harry would have gone to his death but imagine trying to get rid of all the horcruxes, face DEs, etc, knowing that you won't survive. dumbledore just wanted to protect harry until the time he really needed to know.
i think dumbledore was a genius although he was flawed, no one's perfect and he changed as a person because of the mistakes he made.

Yes, I agree.
Dumbledore knew that he owned the Elder Wand and intended Snape to have it after Snape had "killed" him. This condemned Snape to death as Dumbledore knew that Voldemort was seeking the wand and that he would figure out that Snape was the wands owner.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting something here? But it sounds as if Dumbledore sacrificed Snape in a way...

That's exactly my point of view about the matter.

I had never reflected very much about DD before DH, and his death shocked me because Snape being the killer and not DD being the victim. But now I can see Dumbledore as a manipulator. He did it all to defeat Voldemort and to save the world, yes, but I think he was still looking after "the greater good". As Aberforth says, "secrets and lies, secrets and lies" (quoting by heart, don't have the book here). But Harry chooses to break Dumbledore's web when he tells the DA about the diadem.

I just can't see Dumbledore as a manipulator...I know, "secrets and lies" but the people who help Dumbledore always have the choice - like the prophecy, all is not always as it seems - they choose to follow him, and, ultimatley make important decisions on their own, and this is "the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high. Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew - and so do I, thought Harry. with a rush of pride, and so did my parents - that there was all *** difference in the world."

I think that this passage prepares us for the revalations about Dd in DH - JKR means for us to understand this difference, and hence understand what Dd has done, and how he is still a hero, and is all the more great for having human flaws.

If Harry dies, the world gets saved.

I don't see it as a bad exchange.

It seems so easy to mark Dumbledore as a selfish bad powerhungry man.

But have ever thought about what woud have happened if he hadn´t intervened from the very beginning?

And on another note- he certainly had his faults, but he, unlike so many others, was able to stay out of things that might have been tempting.


Even, or better said, because of all the information we recieved in DH he still remains one of my favorite people.

I definitely didn't like the way he was acting towards Harry in HBP, it REALLY got on my nerves... and I didn't like how he was acting towards Snape in DH either. I still think that he's a decent enough person... I just didn't like this side of him... I'm glad that he REALLY did care and love Harry :clap:, at least that showed that he wasn't entirely self-centered and all that.

In the end, I had more respect (in some aspects) for Snape (even though he is not a nice person), than I did for Dumbledore.

Also, he had some qualities that he shared with Slytherin and Snape had some that he shared with Gryffindor.

I found this rather ironic...

He was a coward for not taking care of his family (esp. his sister, Ariana) and just going out with his "friend" Grindelwald (this part made me want to barf :scared:) and trying to do stuff for the "greater good", stuff which DEFINITELY wasn't for that end.

While Snape was a hero (an anti-hero for the most part) for protecting Harry and helping him out throughout his Hogwarts experience.

Sure, at first it was purely selfish reasons (his obsession with Lily), but as he got older... he changed and his view of Lily and her son did as well. So in the end he saw Harry for who he really was, and that all that he did to keep him alive was not done in vain.

Sorry to get off topic there -- just wanted to show one of the differences between him and Dumbledore :).

Despite the fact that I'm afraid everything I will say will be rather redunt amongst the rest of the posts in the thread, I simply cannot refrain from giving my opinion on the subject, as Dumbledore is and will always remain my favorite character of the Harry Potter series.

Yes, technically speaking, Dumbledore is a "manipulator." I do not believe, however, that the fact tarnishes his character. It seems very hard for a lot of people to accept the pressure of the position that Dumbledore was in. The world, the ENTIRE world, was under threat from Voldemort. Despite the fact that he devised a plan without divulging the entire details to everyone involved, it was his only choice - the right choice. I mean, you can say that it was wrong, and of course no one can really tell you otherwise. But do you really think any of the people that may have been sacrificed because of it would've had it any other way? I doubt it.

And does no one think it was honourable of Dumbledore to face Grindewald? I think if Dumbledore hadn't been so selfless, he would like to have ignored the mans existance. I get the feeling that Dumbledore was more upsets about him than he was angry. To me it seemed that Dumbledore not only wished that the incident with Ariana hadn't happened because it resulted in her death, but also because Dumbledore LIKED Grindewald. When that happpened, I think Dumbledore wanted to shun Grindewalds existance, and pretend that he wasn't an issue. But when things started to get too dangerous, he sucked it up and faced him because he had to. Why? Because he was the only one the could do anything to stop him. And the same applies to Voldemort. I think that Dumbledore felt is was largely his responsibility to deal with Voldemort because he was one of the few people that could stop Voldemort. So he did what he had to. And in the end, it worked out. People were lost, but as as been said, the losses were necessary. The amount of lives lost are negligable compared to what could have happend. What WOULD have happened.

Personally, I like what Rowling did in, essentially, dismantling Dumbledores innocence. It made him so much more human, it gave him so much more depth. And I love him all the same, despite the reputation of "manipulator" he is now tainted with.

Never another like Albus Dumbledore!

I have always loved Dumbledore but I wonder if the readers view of Dumbledore is tainted by seeing him through Harry's eyes? I don't think anyone else would have really regarded him as a kindly grandfather type figure. <snip>
I can't help but think he must appear as a very different character to the adults in the book...than to Harry who...had been neglected and starved of affection.

The beauty of seeing Snape's memories in the penseive was that we did actually get to see Dumbledore through someone else's eyes and we were shocked by what we saw.



Exquisite insights here. Thank you so much.

The clues have been there all along but I tended to disregard or excuse them because they clashed with what I wanted to believe about DD. Nevertheless, as things progressed I developed a more pragmatic view of him, certainly less full of hero worship and more cognizant of the flaws in his character, the mistakes in his behavior.

It's almost like the real DD falls somewhere between the two movie DDs...the idealized, whimsical, benevolent portrayal by Richard Harris and the heavyhanded, coarse, but powerful rendition from Michael Gambon. If we look at them as being on a continuum, we can move the meter halfway between the two, add manipulations and secrecy, and we've pretty much arrived at DD.

I think Dumbledore was still BLINDLY working for "the greater good". The ends DOES NOT always justify the means. I thought Dumbledore was the personification of pure goodness and light. I was so wrong. I can not say that I am a fan of Albus Dumbledore any longer. Too many people had to die in his quest "for the greater good". No matter what his intentions were, he was manipulative and untruthful. He used anyone and everyone to achieve the outcome that he wanted. I actually wonder if he loved anyone himself. It sort of makes all his talk about "love being the greatest magic of all" seem a little shallow. Of all the characters in the series, I am the most heartbroken and disappointed by Albus Dumbledore. Thats what I get for putting him on such a high pedistal! :no:

i dont really like the title of this thread cause dumbledore wasnt manipulative he just made some mistakes, he isnt Jesus, he isnt some almighty being, he is just human just like everyone else
manipulator is too strong of a word.
katchik is right, to busy working for the greater good to actually pay attention to the feelings of others or how others would be affected by his actions or what he was making them do

Are you implying that DD is, in fact, still working for "the greater good," but that his interpretation has changed from the one he shared with Grindelwald?


He intended that by succumbing to death willingly, Snape would not Master the wand and the wand's power would die that night.

It's almost like the real DD falls somewhere between the two movie DDs...the idealized, whimsical, benevolent portrayal by Richard Harris and the heavyhanded, coarse, but powerful rendition from Michael Gambon. If we look at them as being on a continuum, we can move the meter halfway between the two, add manipulations and secrecy, and we've pretty much arrived at DD.

That's a great point. I've always felt that the movies never got Dumbledore quite right. Richard Harris was probably the better of the two, but his performance lacked depth some how. Micheal Gambon left no doubt that Dumbledore was an intelligent and powerful wizard, but there was no "twinkle in his eye". That's to say that Micheal Gambon didn't portray the kind, clever and slightly excentric side of DD. Its a shame. But then again, the movies edit out so much its not like either DD got much screen time anyway...

As I have stated before, I do think that Dumbledore was a manipulator, but I also think it was for the greater good and that he was still ultimately a good person.

I am now wondering about the possibility that DD was so secretive with everyone, not only with the aim of manipulating them, but also of protecting them from the terrible burden he had of knowing the truth. Patronising -yes, but ultimately an act of kindness. Snape, although he never got the entire story from DD, got more than most and I can't help thinking that rather than this being an honour it was a burden that DD was determined Snape should bear in payment for his crimes as a DE - we are led to believe that Snape has killed during his DE days and there is no way DD would let a simple apology suffice.

The other thing I wondered was, looking back over the previous books and Harry's battles with LV in each - was DD more aware of what was going on than we previously thought?

I was always under the impression that if DD had known what was going on he would have rushed to Harry's rescue - however after seeing Snape's memories where DD asks him to 'keep an eye on Quirrell' and saying something about letting Harry test his strengths it made me wonder if he did treat Harry's battles as some sort of controlled experiments where Harry could 'practice' - always watching and aware of what was going on, ready to step in if things went too far, e.g. arriving just as LV is about to AK Harry in OotP .

Snape's memories showed that DD was aware of things such as Quirrell and Malfoy's attempts on his life - it seems increasingly unlikely therefore that he was unaware when Harry was in mortal danger.

I believe that the corruption in the MoM may have contributed to Dumbledore being too secretive. Also knowing that Voldemort is such a great reader of minds, how much info can you trust giving to other people?

The one thing that I did find hard to deal with at first is how Dumbledore truly seems to admire Harry at the series progresses. He doesn't go so far as to say Harry is a better person (that I recall) but that is how I read it. I think it is because Harry was tempted with power and was always able to make the right choice. The one flaw that Dumbledore had was his desire for use power for the greater good.

As I've let DH sink in my intial disappointment in Dumbledore has subsided. I do like the phrase orchestrator as manipulator is a bit too strong.

The other thing I wondered was, looking back over the previous books and Harry's battles with LV in each - was DD more aware of what was going on than we previously thought?

Snape's memories showed that DD was aware of things such as Quirrell and Malfoy's attempts on his life - it seems increasingly unlikely therefore that he was unaware when Harry was in mortal danger.


I agree with you. Hints and tools always seemed to appear at the right time and never a moment too soon, acting as prompts toward the solution of each new dilemma, starting with the cloak and the mirror.

Just look at the way the cloak was presented. It was rightfully Harry's and could have (or should have) been passed to him as any of his father's effects would have been. Instead, DD waits until Christmas, just in time so Harry can use it to find the Mirror of Erised, which is also conveniently placed in his path at a fortuitous moment.

Some of Harry's help does come serendipitously but I think there's an awful lot of it that's staged by DD.

Part of that comes from being a good teacher. You observe your student as his knowledge and abilities increase, and continually provide him with new tools as he progresses so he can explore and practice new skills.

But I also think part of it was DD being an orchestrator, carefully crafting situations for Harry's progress, testing him, training him, preparing him.

You're also right that while DD hovered in the background while Harry got on with it, he was nearby and aware in case Harry was in over his head (like the MoM scene in OoTP). He probably had his Deluminator tuned to the Harry frequency most of the time ;) I think DD fell down on the job in GoF, though, when he was in the dark about the Cup being a Portkey and all that. (He was, wasn't he?)

I think DD was good, but he was a manipulator to ensure that everything that happened was for the greater good. I do believe, however, that his definition of the "greater good" had changed from his days as a young wizard and was genuine prior to his death. Also, I believe it was a good job on JK's part to show that DD, although a great wizard, was still human and capable of making mistakes like the next person.

dumbledore was the master chess player he knew which peices he had to sacrifice in order to win the game, overall he is a good person but he knows in order for the situation to work out for the greater good he will need to be manipulative.

There are two things that I can't forget when it comes to Dumbledore: the words "Dumbledore's betrayal" and "For the Greater Good". Manipulator is definitely the word to use - orchestrator is sugar coating it. I mean what right does Dumbledore have to decide what's for the Greater Good? He raised Harry like a lamb for the butcher shop, he never told the Order the whole truth only enough so they would do what he wanted, and look how he used Snape. I think the line between Grindlewald/Voldemort and Dumbledore is very thin indeed. Aberforth was also right on the money.... That said I can forgive him some what since it worked out in the end.

I like the term "orchestrator" that has been suggested better than manipulator.

I think it's a fact that Voldemort would not have been taken down at all without Dumbledore. He put the pieces together and solved the puzzle of the Horcruxes. Harry found them, but Dumbledore informed him of them and clearly guessed correctly about them.

I think many situations that Harry faced were staged or allowed by Dumbledore. He admitted to Harry in Order that he had been keeping a closer watch on him than he knew or considered. Quirrell was clearly known. DD even asks Hermione if he's gone to fight him by himself, so DD had a very good idea what was going on.

I think he had a good idea in Chamber of Secrets too, though he might not have known where the Chamber was. I can see Dumbledore's greatest concern in Chamber being Harry. He probably already suspected that Voldemort had made a Horcrux and likely more than one by this time. He probably thought that Harry was one of them, so I'd wager he was concerned deeply by the attacks, knowing that Riddle opened the Chamber earlier and that Harry had a piece of Voldemort's soul.

Dumbledore had an idea about what was going on in Goblet of Fire. I'm sure that he hoped that Voldemort would use Harry's blood to return and he may have been lax in tracking down the perpetrator because he wanted Harry to be taken.

I don't think he saw Cedric, Sirius, Mad Eye, etc as collateral damage. Like in any war, people will die but if evil must be fought and there's no other way then those lives must be sacrificed. Cedric is the greatest regret because of his youth and lack of knowledge of the situation. Sirius knew the risks and took them before when he joined the Order. Lupin knew. Tonks knew. Fred knew. Mad Eye knew.

Evil cannot be defeated if you refuse to pay a high cost to defeat it. Dumbledore knew this and was willing to sacrifice himself to the cuse. I believe that he would have done so even if he had not put on the ring. He protected Draco in doing so and KNEW that Snape's soul would not be tarnished by a guiltless death.

He could not inform Snape of everything because of the possibility that Harry would find out. It was essential that Harry face death and confront Voldemort the way he did. That sacrifice protected all those who Harry died to protect from Voldemort just as his mother's sacrifice had protected him. V's body bind couldn't hold Neville and Harry had the ability to surprise Voldemort.

I came away liking Dumbledore more. He was flawed and I liked that about him. I already saw him more like that because of Order and how he had let his feelings for Harry cloud his judgement. He knew what Harry had yet to face and he wanted to protect him.

There's a very noble side to DD. He also knows his weaknesses, just like Harry but very unlike Voldemort. It is Voldemort's failure to understand his own weaknesses that end up being his undoing.

I don't know, I still like Dumbledore very much. Although, admittedly, his glow had ceased to shine as bright as before. Honestly, am I the only one disgusted with the scene at Voldemort's orfanage? How he extracted the information he wanted from a sick woman, am alcoholic, offering her repeatedly gin??
I don't think a can still accept it, it strucks me as very un-Dumbledorish as well..whatever he was, he would never sink this low. Dumbledore was grand, you know..It doesn't fir in his psychology to act like this. This was a huge flaw in the book.
But anyway, I can't see the Good Wizarding World surviving without Dumbledore- and whatever mistakes he made I feel they could be forgiven ;)

NutmegNevis - we seem to be on the same wavelength! I do think he dropped the ball in GOF - I think he was expecting something (and may have even suspected Mad-Eye) - but not what happened!

I absolutely love the character, Dumbledore. I don't think any less of him for being a flawed human being. I try not to have unrealistic expectations of people, whether real or characters in a book.

In this case, I think the ends did justify the means. There was simply no other way. Dumbledore sacrificed himself for the greater good, so I think that counts for something.

In what way did Dumbledore sacrifice himself? He was going to die from the curse off the ring anyway and that was down to his own greed. Dumbledore put other people in front of him and never sacrificed his own life for his perception of "the greater good", he used people to his own advantage.

So much has already been said, but I have to add that even though at first I was against the whole Dumbledore-isn't-perfect thing which I think started in OotP or possibly GoF, a few years later I absolutely looove the humanization of Dumbledore--making him more real intensified his relationship with Harry (even after his death). The best parts were when he cried in King's Cross and at the very end in the Headmaster's office--somehow his pride meant so much more and was so much more striking when he was a more human character. I almost cried there too.

In what way did Dumbledore sacrifice himself? He was going to die from the curse off the ring anyway and that was down to his own greed. Dumbledore put other people in front of him and never sacrificed his own life for his perception of "the greater good", he used people to his own advantage.

I didn't say that he did sacrifice himself. It's my belief that he would have sacrificed himself had it come to it even without the impending death sentence. Ultimately, he did sacrifice a bit because he may have had a few more months to live at the end of HBP.

As for the curse of the ring, I wouldn't say that that was caused by his greed. He received the curse because of his grief. As he said, he wanted to apologize to his family. Maybe desiring that ability to apologize to loved ones who have died is greed, but I don't see it as that. DD felt responsible for at least the death of Ariana and probably the death of his mother too because he had been greedy in his youth and overly self-centered.

Dumbledore did use people to forward his plan to destroy the worst wizard in history, yet those people participated willingly. Snape was a willing participant. Even Harry was willing. It was not Dumbledore's choice to walk out in the woods - he believed what Dumbledore said and went to face it himself.

People may want to blame DD for these people that met their demise because of his plan, but I never saw him use force. He didn't reveal everything to everyone because he could not without the possibility of foiling the plan. Not everyone knew that we had the Nazi Enigma code broken in WWII because if the wrong people found out then it would have done us no good.

The only victim that I see that did not willing go forth was Cedric and it can be argued that Harry's nobility in that matter doomed Cedric, not Dumbledore.

DD took some blame for Sirius' death, yet Sirius also deserved much of the blame. We saw how Kreacher acted after he was treated with respect by Harry. Had Sirius been more kind to Kreacher then Kreacher probably would not have betrayed him.

I think Snape ultimately knew that he would probably not survive, yet I find it silly to blame DD. You can make the argument about the Elder Wand, though it would have be useless for Snape because he would not have conquered DD and that was the plan, to make the Elder Wand impotent once and for all. Snape was killing DD on DD's orders, so it was not a conquest.

As for Quirrell, he sought power by taking on Voldemort. I feel no sympathy for him. He made his choice. Blaming DD for his death is silly. Voldemort abandoned him to die, not DD.

Dumbledore was never perfect. We saw the first crack reveal themselves in Order and saw more in HBP with DH providing an even deeper evaluation, yet I don't think less of him because I've never held an idealized perspective on the man. It was obvious from the get-go the Dumbledore was shaped by his own choices. So was Voldemort and so was Harry.

Dumbledore did use people to forward his plan to destroy the worst wizard in history, yet those people participated willingly. Snape was a willing participant. Even Harry was willing. It was not Dumbledore's choice to walk out in the woods - he believed what Dumbledore said and went to face it himself.
I disagree. Although some of Dumbledore's pawns may have been willing, mainly Snape, the rest weren't. Dumbledore was guiding Harry along for what Harry thought was his ultimate victory, he did not tell Harry he was a Horcrux or that he had to sacrifice himself in the end. It was a good thing that Dumbledore didn't tell Harry these things, because Harry would act irrational, and who knows what he would have done. However, it still shows that Harry was willing to an extent. Harry was only willing for what he knew, Dumbledore was raising Harry to sacrifice himself, and even if Dumbledore thought that Harry would survive, he still did not let Harry in on everything, and therefore who is to say that Harry was a willing participant. We do not know how he would have act if he had found out he was a Horcrux earlier, he could simply have walked away from the battle, killed himself or something else, we don't know that he would have remained a willing participant.

As for others, Dumbledore mentioned that the deaths of faceless people for the greater good meant nothing to him. So these nameless and faceless people who had died are the worst example of those who were not willing participants.

I actually gained a great deal of respect for Dumbledore in DH. He knew what had to be done and did it, regardless of the cost to himself or others. But not only that, he did it with as much integrity as he possibly could. That is the mark of a great leader.

In one way I agree that DD plan and actions had grave consequences including the death of Quirell, Sirius, Moody and Snape, but we cannot put this deaths on his account only, since in all the situations caused by his plans the other part had influence and free will to act, so the responsability was shared. It was not like the characters were under the imperius curse to do what he said and even so, he regrets some of his actions, he blames himself. For me DD suffered a lot with his plan ans its consequences.

Dumbledore himself says to Harry "Can you forgive me? he said. "Can you forgive me for not trusting you? For not telling you? Harry, I only dreaded that you would make my mistakes. I crave your pardon, Harry. I have known, for some time now, that you are the better man." US edition pg 713.

I'm not going to argue with him, lol.

I started wondering about Dumbledore during the Very Frosty Christmas chapter of HBP when Lupin said something like "there I was, a ready-made spy" and told how Dumbledore sent him to live among "his kind" and spy on Fenrir - the werewolf who had savaged him as a child. That seemed a ruthless thing for Dumbledore to do.

My opinion of Dumbledore dropped with these last 2 books. It seems like he didn't have to be quite so mysterious and manipulative! He accuses Snape of desiring to hide the "best" of himself from Harry and others but then what does he go and do with regards to how he got his blackened hand?! He does the same thing! And it seems like sheer dumb luck that Snape was able to get those memories to Harry before he died because he didn't know Harry was there in the tunnel. His death would have been (even more) pointless then, imo. I don't know why Dumbledore withheld quite so much info from both Harry and Snape that last year. But I guess that may be more of a plot device than a reflection of Dumbledore's character (because I also think Hermione would have figured out that Harry's scar was a horcrux but that is a different thread).
H

I really liked the development of Dumbledore's character in this book. His past made total sense. It really is typical of young people to get extreme ideas about how they're going to change the world, especially if those young people are super-intelligent.

As for Dumbledore being manipulative; I'm certain that there was an interview where JKR said that part of her writing was about her struggle with faith, that is, to keep believing. One of the Today Show interviews. Anyways, I really see Dumbledore as the God stand-in. He does things that make Harry question his benevolence, he lets people suffer, and Harry seriously doubts him. He grapples with his trust in Dumbledore the same way one grapples with their faith in God. But Harry eventually decides to follow Dumbledore's plan for him, and accepts that he can't know everything. The same way you hear people say that they believe that God has a plan for them in life, even though they don't know what that plan is, they say it's not for them to know, and that's how they can accept when bad things happen.

Of course, Dumbledore isn't just a God-figure, he's very human as well. The way he decides to let Snape leak certain pieces of information reminds of how during WW2, after the Allies cracked the Nazi's code (I forget what it was called), Churchill still had to allow some ships to sail through areas where he knew there were U-boats, otherwise the Nazis would realized what had happened and change their code. I'm not really sure where I was going with that.

I think that one of the most important lessons that JKR has taught us about Dumbledore is that Harry was Dumbledore's "weakness".

Sure, we can list all the ways he used his power over others, but when it came to Harry, he wasn't able to really do what he should because he cared so much. He wanted to put it off, to let Harry be a kid for just a while longer.

Every character in the HP books has a chink in their armor, and I think it's important to see that Harry was the softest spot in Dumbledore's heart.

Perhaps having Harry in his life had more to do with the way Dumbledore did things than any power kick or manipulative drive.

Yes, I agree.
Dumbledore knew that he owned the Elder Wand and intended Snape to have it after Snape had "killed" him. This condemned Snape to death as Dumbledore knew that Voldemort was seeking the wand and that he would figure out that Snape was the wands owner.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting something here? But it sounds as if Dumbledore sacrificed Snape in a way...

at this point in the story there is no canon that LV was seeking the elder wand. he was under the impression that all he'd have to do was use a different wand.

I didn't say that he did sacrifice himself. It's my belief that he would have sacrificed himself had it come to it even without the impending death sentence. Ultimately, he did sacrifice a bit because he may have had a few more months to live at the end of HBP. I don't think he considered that a sacrifice. I think he prefered to be killed by death eaters, rather than deteriorate due to a curse. Much more heroic. (and also better for the anti-Voldemort movement because he'd be an untarnished symbol for them.) And I found it interesting that even though Dumbledore didn't fear death, he feared dying painfully and ignobly. Again, better for the Order if he wasn't humiliated as well as killed, but I definitely saw weakness there. I can't really blame him, but I did find it surprising.

Dumbledore did use people to forward his plan to destroy the worst wizard in history, yet those people participated willingly. Snape was a willing participant. Even Harry was willing. It was not Dumbledore's choice to walk out in the woods - he believed what Dumbledore said and went to face it himself.It's disturbing how readily he seems to be to take advantage of that willingness. Of course it's necessary, "for the greater good," but somewhat disturbing nonetheless. And I don't think there's any reason why it shouldn't be.

He didn't reveal everything to everyone because he could not without the possibility of foiling the plan. Not everyone knew that we had the Nazi Enigma code broken in WWII because if the wrong people found out then it would have done us no good.The Enigma code! That's it!

The only victim that I see that did not willing go forth was Cedric and it can be argued that Harry's nobility in that matter doomed Cedric, not Dumbledore.Well, no one knew the cup was portkey, that's purely Voldemort's fault.

DD took some blame for Sirius' death, yet Sirius also deserved much of the blame. We saw how Kreacher acted after he was treated with respect by Harry. Had Sirius been more kind to Kreacher then Kreacher probably would not have betrayed him. And Dumbledore warned him about Kreacher too.
I think Snape ultimately knew that he would probably not survive, yet I find it silly to blame DD. You can make the argument about the Elder Wand, though it would have be useless for Snape because he would not have conquered DD and that was the plan, to make the Elder Wand impotent once and for all. Snape was killing DD on DD's orders, so it was not a conquest.Actually, I think the coldest thing Dumbledore did was ask Snape to kill him, despite the soul-ripping. That's why I was so convinced that Snape couldn't have been on Dumbledore's side, because I couldn't accept that Dumbledore would ever ask anyone to take a life. The way it happened, though, makes sense.

As for Quirrell, he sought power by taking on Voldemort. I feel no sympathy for him. He made his choice. Blaming DD for his death is silly. Voldemort abandoned him to die, not DD. True. Quirrell was as good as dead the moment he started sharing his body with Voldemort. That was his choice.

I think ultimately the only one to blame for all these deaths is Voldemort. He's at the root cause of it all.

I think that there was a definite attempt to protect Harry, but that protection is also manipulation. Even when Harry demanded the truth about Snape, Dumbledore wouldn't give it to him. I understand at that point that Snape probably didn't want his love for Lily known to Harry, but still. I finished the book liking Dumbledore a lot less. He's still an incredibly wise man but I think that if he had told Harry when he told him about the Horcruxes that Harry might have to die, Harry would have accepted it and done the job anyway.

I was as mad at Dumbledore as Harry was for not giving them all the clues they needed. His ambiguous clue with the Snitch, his making it hard for them to get the sword. they had enough to do without worrying about those things.

i'm not trying to defend DD but as i read these posts and comment on them it may seem that way. first i don't think harry could've quite accepted the burden of needing to die in order to save the world, he was having a hard enough time knowing that he was going to have to face him with just his ability to love, i don't believe he was ready just yet.

i think what was done with the clues was absolutely necessary, as we see thought the book, harry becomes obsessed with the hallows, this is what DD feared, harry needed to destroy the horocruxes, not find the hallows. while we find out that harry was man enough to possess the hallows that wasn't what he needed to do. as for the sword, how else was he supposed to get it to them, he tried to will it to harry but he knew the ministry would never allow DD to pass it to harry. he could'nt give it to harry before he died because while he knew his time was coming, he did'nt know he was gonna die that night and thought he was going to need the sword to destroy the locket. after the trio went on the lam no one knew where they were. as soon has phineus found out where they were, he had snape take action, in the only way snape could at the time. the sword had to be needed and had to obtained in a heroic action.

Your view of Dumbledore depends greatly on your values. Harry and many other Gryffindors admire Dumbledore for being wise, brave, and always working for the greater good---yes, I use that phrase deliberately. Aberforth, on the other hand, takes a dimmer view, saying the thing about "people my brother loves tend to end up worse off than if he'd left them alone." In general, I would say those who believe the end justifies the means are more likely to admire Dumbledore. I myself am somewhere in between.

There are two things that I can't forget when it comes to Dumbledore: the words "Dumbledore's betrayal" and "For the Greater Good". Manipulator is definitely the word to use - orchestrator is sugar coating it. I mean what right does Dumbledore have to decide what's for the Greater Good? He raised Harry like a lamb for the butcher shop, he never told the Order the whole truth only enough so they would do what he wanted, and look how he used Snape. I think the line between Grindlewald/Voldemort and Dumbledore is very thin indeed. Aberforth was also right on the money.... That said I can forgive him some what since it worked out in the end.

bravo! "raised Harry like a lamb for the butcher shop" is spot on! Thank you!

I don't think I will ever forgive Dd for doing this to Harry. Yes, yes, he was not evil, yes, yes he did mistakes. Yes, yes he was not perfect. I do not care that much about the whole Ariana, Dd's family, Grindelwald etc. The story kind of bored me! I wanted feedback about other characters! In the end, for Jk, it was all about the Weasleys. Dd, Snape and few others!

But I do care about how Dd used Harry in order to send him to his death! This is something that I cannot forgive him for. Alberforth was right!

And my beloved Harry in the end turned out to be a much better person than Dd ever was! Good for him!

bravo! "raised Harry like a lamb for the butcher shop" is spot on! Thank you!
I am just going to supply a quote to clear some things up, some people have a very wrong impression, because I think they forgot a few lines in King's Cross."He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's protection inside bother of you! He tethered you to life while he lives!"
"I live....while he lives? But I thought...I thought it was the other way round! I thought we both had to die? Or is it the same thing?"
<snip>
"You were the seventh Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make. He had rendered his soul so unstable that it broke apart when he committed those acts of unspeakable evil, the murder of your parents, the attempted killing of a child. But what escaped from that room was even less than he knew. He left more than his body behind. He left part of himself latched to you, the would-be victim who survived."
<snip>
"He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort's one last hope for himself."
Dumbledore smiled at Harry, and Harry stared at him.
"And you knew this? You knew - all along?"
"I guessed. But my guesses have usually been good," said Dumbledore happily, and they sat in silence for what seemed like a long time, while the creature behind them continued to whimper and tremble.
Dumbledore knew after the "gleam of triumph" scene that Harry would be able to survive, and not die, he was raising Harry to think he would die, that way he would go and sacrifice himself.

I'm going to venture a guess here... and please, correct me if I'm wrong... I would guess that most (all?) of you who are upset with Dumbledore's handling of harry are NOT parents...

When I look at Dumbledore, I see a "father figure" who realizes that his "child" has a task to do... but a task which Dumbledore desperately wishes Harry didn't have to endure... And throughout the books he does everything in his power to prevent Harry from having to deal with the depth of the task he has to undertake...

As a parent, one often finds themselves wishing they could lay out all the facts on the table and have their child make the right decisions... but we often don't do that... for fear that we'd overwhelm our child, or that they'd make the wrong choices, or they'd stumble, or give up, or whatever the case might be... We, more often than not, probably, fail to give our children enough credit...

Another thing to realize with Dumbledore's actions is that "this is war". Leaders all throughout history have been forced to make decisions KNOWING full well that it was going to lead to casualties... And I bet there are very few of those leaders who sat down their soldiers and said "You're going to die today and here's why".... Soldiers know that in war there are going to be moments of "kill or be killed" and they go to battle knowing that fact... they don't need their leader to outline that each time they step out to fight... Is that manipulative - sending people out to their death's for the greater good? Perhaps, but I don't see that manipulation as a weakness.... Personally, I don't think I could send people out to their deaths... a fact that would probably lead to my untimely demise were I a leader in a war...

Dumbledore was preparing Harry to die, but I think it's important to remember that Harry was bound to die anyways, due to the prophesy. Why not nudge Harry along a path that would allow him to die in such a way as to defeat Voldemort?

Disclaimer: I apologize for the length of this post. After the amount of time I spent on it, I couldn't stand the thought of simply discarding for being too long. For those who actually do tackle it, I hope you find the quality merits your time and attention.

I believe that Dumbledore was indeed a manipulator, but not in a negative sense. After all, Dumbledore was the leader of the Order of the Phoenix and, by extension, the leader of the resistance against Voldemort. As a leader, one of his primary duties was to manage the people working under and with him. Being a leader in a time of war means making tough decisions, knowing full well that sending your men into battle means risking their lives. Members of the Order, just like soldiers in real life, knew the risks of what they were doing. Nobody was forced to join the Order and none of them did so thinking that it would extend their life expectancy; they joined because they believed that stopping Voldemort was worth the sacrifice of their own comfort or even their own lives.

In a real life military situation, leaders typically keep their men on a "need to know" basis, meaning that they are only provided information they need to know in order to perform their job and nothing more. This prevents the soldiers from being overburdened with the macro scale decisions that have to be made, thus allowing them to focus their attention on the small-scale decision making and work required to complete the task at hand, while also minimizing the amount of information the soldiers could offer up under interrogation. This relationship between commander and soldier requires a tremendous amount of trust on both ends: the commanding officer must trust that his men will follow orders to the maximum extent of their abilities, while soldiers must trust that their commanding officers are competent and are acting in the best interests of the military effort as a whole, while not asking any more than his men have to give. Without this trust, any military effort, large or small, is doomed before it ever begins.

This rings true with what the Order is trying to accomplish. Dumbledore is appointed leader because the other Order members have faith in him; they know that he is wise, powerful, and has the best interests of the wizarding world in mind. They know that Dumbledore is making the best decisions he possibly can, and they must understand that sometimes this will involve him withholding information.

With that in mind, let's take a look at some of the issues that are causing readers concern over Dumbledore's character.

Was Dumbledore right to withhold seemingly vital information from Harry and the other Order members?

This issue is a struggle between idealism and pragmatism; how one regards Dumbledore will likely hinge on which quality that person holds more dear. As a leader, one must strike a healthy balance between the two. Strong ideals are important but not very useful unless they can be translated into practical action. For instance, one might maintain that it is our obligation to ensure that no child in the world goes hungry. This sort of idealism is admirable, but is it realistic? Is it possible, with the resources of those involved, to overcome the personal, political, financial, legal, and logistical challenges associated with providing aid to those in need? In other words, even the most morally righteous "end" must be met by practical "means." In dealing with a fascist who can't be reasoned with (whether his name is Hitler or Voldemort), the "ends" of stopping him and achieving peace can only be met by the grim and tragic "means" known as war.

Applying this to the books, what should Dumbledore have done differently? When would have been a good time to tell Harry what he was really up against? Would it have made much sense to lay this huge burden on an 11 year old boy with no magical training? What about a 12 year old with very little magical training? Would Dumbledore have made Harry's life any easier by confirming what Harry already knew in his heart: that he would eventually have to face and kill the most powerful dark wizard in history? Realistically, Dumbledore needed to give Harry enough time to grow up and get stronger before having to deal with this situation.

We must also consider that the plan we saw unfold in DH was probably not Dumbledore's original plan. I honestly believe that Dumbledore intended to destroy the horcruxes by himself, excluding Harrycrux. If that is the case, why would Dumbledore ever tell anyone else about the horcruxes? The fewer people there are who know about what Dumbledore is doing, the fewer ways there are for Voldemort to discover that his anchors to this world are being severed one by one. In fact, Harry is just about the last person Dumbledore would want to have information about the horcrux hunt, considering how easily and frequently Voldemort entered Harry's mind. On top of security reasons, why burden Harry with this knowledge if he's not going to be involved in the hunt? Does he not have enough to deal with already? Why not just wait until the horcruxes have already been destroyed to fill Harry in?

Now would be a good time to pause and put ourselves in Dumbledore's shoes and address an issue that has caused many people concern. Many people are quick to throw the blame at Dumbledore for grooming Harry to be killed at the hands of Voldemort. I believe that it is unreasonable to hold Dumbledore accountable for this situation. What choice did he really have? Harry was a horcux and thus a walking guarantee that Voldemort would always be immortal as long as Harry lived, no matter how many other horcruxes were created or destroyed. What was Dumbledore supposed to do? Would it be kind and benevolent of him to conceal the fact that Harry is the reason Voldemort can't be killed, while hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of innocent people die just so our beloved hero doesn't have to? Dumbledore didn't create this situation; Voldemort did. There is not a single thing Dumbledore could have done to spare Harry from his fate, so he did the only remotely humane thing he could: he hid the full truth of the situation from Harry until the very end, so that maybe he could experience at least some of the joys of life, love, and growing up that Voldemort had not yet ripped away from him.

Fortunately, this one remaining dilemma would resolve itself at the hands of the very man who was to blame for it: Voldemort. At the end of GoF, Dumbledore realized, with a "gleam of triumph" in his eye, that Harry wouldn't have to die (permanently) in order to bring down Voldemort after all; the final piece of the puzzle was in place. That must have been a huge load off of his conscience. However, even with this joyous revelation, Dumbledore still couldn't afford to tell Harry that he would have to knowingly and willingly walk to his own (temporary) death. I believe that in order for the Harrycrux to be destroyed and for his loved ones to gain the protection afforded by his willing sacrifice, he had to truly believe that he was going to die and still accept it willingly (or else it wouldn't be a sacrifice). Thus, Dumbledore had to keep the good news to himself.

Unfortunately, as we all know, everything changed in HBP. A single bad decision involving the ring horcrux cost Dumbledore his life and threw his plan into disarray. He had to tell Harry about the horcruxes after all and, in so doing, pass on the burden of tracking down and destroying them. Once again, the plan had been altered. Sadly, we will never know if Dumbledore had intended to make any final alterations to the plan, as his death had to occur more suddenly than I think either he or Snape had expected. Regardless, the rest is history.

What about all the deaths that resulted from Dumbledore's secrecy?

None of the deaths that occurred in DH or any other book could be prevented with any degree of certainty by all the careful planning in the world. There will always be casualties in any war, most of them sudden and unexpected; it is the nature of the beast. Tonks, Lupin, Fred, Moody, and Colin died in combat; these deaths could have happened to anyone at any time in any of the numerous battles that were fought. Sirius' death is as much Harry's fault as it is Dumbledore's, if not more so (if Harry had learned and practiced Occlumency like Dumbledore and Snape implored him to, he wouldn't have fallen into Voldemort's trap and Sirius wouldn't have died trying to save him). Hedwig died purely by accident; as wonderful a pet as Hedwig was, I highly doubt he was a high priority target for the Death Eaters. Dobby died from a knife wound while saving Harry and friends from captivity (a situation which was caused by another of Harry's careless mistakes).

Ultimately, we should place the blame for these deaths where it actually belongs: on the Death Eaters who cast the curses that robbed these brave souls of their lives.

None of these deaths were a direct result of Dumbledore's actions. They are casualties of war, and like all such casualties, they are senseless and random. To lay the blame at Dumbledore's feet is unfair. He would not have wished for any of these people to die any more than you or I would. His plans and decisions were made with an eye toward putting Harry in the best possible position to face Voldemort and end this war once and for all, which is exactly what he did.

Dumbledore is not perfect; he has flaws and is all the more real for it. Was Dumbledore a manipulator? In the literal sense, yes. As a leader, it was his job, and it's a job that he did well. Ultimately, for me, Dumbledore serves as a shining example of his own closely held belief that we are each a product of our choices. Dumbledore wasn't born a great man, he chose to become one in direct opposition to his nature. For that, I will always admire him.



Oh, and here's this smiley, because I like it: :relax:

RobbieF1 should be promoted to Auror for that stunning and well-written piece of work.

Yes, I read it all. And here is my smiley, because it sums up exactly how I feel about what he wrote: :clap:

Wait, I think I feel a bit more than that.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Yeah, that's more like it.

RobbieF1 should be promoted to Auror for that stunning and well-written piece of work.

Yes, I read it all. And here is my smiley, because it sums up exactly how I feel about what he wrote: :clap:

Wait, I think I feel a bit more than that.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Yeah, that's more like it.


I'll second that... :)

And yes... I read the whole thing too! Very much thoughts that had gone through my own mind as well, but I couldn't have done nearly as good a job getting those thoughts out of my head and onto paper (or a computer screen, as it were)...

Bravo.

I disagree. Although some of Dumbledore's pawns may have been willing, mainly Snape, the rest weren't. Dumbledore was guiding Harry along for what Harry thought was his ultimate victory, he did not tell Harry he was a Horcrux or that he had to sacrifice himself in the end. It was a good thing that Dumbledore didn't tell Harry these things, because Harry would act irrational, and who knows what he would have done. However, it still shows that Harry was willing to an extent. Harry was only willing for what he knew, Dumbledore was raising Harry to sacrifice himself, and even if Dumbledore thought that Harry would survive, he still did not let Harry in on everything, and therefore who is to say that Harry was a willing participant. We do not know how he would have act if he had found out he was a Horcrux earlier, he could simply have walked away from the battle, killed himself or something else, we don't know that he would have remained a willing participant.

As for others, Dumbledore mentioned that the deaths of faceless people for the greater good meant nothing to him. So these nameless and faceless people who had died are the worst example of those who were not willing participants.

on somethings i agree on others i don't.
on not telling harry everything. i think we agree that it was a good idea not to tell harry everything during HBP,i never thought that harry had all the information. and i always expected to be hearing the rest of the tale shortly before the final battle. it just made sense, harry had enough on his shoulders, he needed to destroy the horocruxes. if they weren't destroyed the fact that he was a horocrux would be meaningless.

were we disagree is i think harry's actions and thoughts show us hewas a willing participant all the way. i don't have the book with me so i can't qquote but he thought something along the lines of DD's betrayal meant nothing, he knew what he had to do. he finally understood what DD was trying to tell hin when he told him about the horocruxes in HBP. there is a difference btween being dragged to our death and going in with our head held high. he went willingly to his death and in turn fufilled DD's plan.

as for the faceless, nameless people who would be hurt during the war. well unfortunatly this is a fact of war, and a fact all leaders must deal with.

Dumbledore himself says to Harry "Can you forgive me? he said. "Can you forgive me for not trusting you? For not telling you? Harry, I only dreaded that you would make my mistakes. I crave your pardon, Harry. I have known, for some time now, that you are the better man." US edition pg 713.

I'm not going to argue with him, lol.

I started wondering about Dumbledore during the Very Frosty Christmas chapter of HBP when Lupin said something like "there I was, a ready-made spy" and told how Dumbledore sent him to live among "his kind" and spy on Fenrir - the werewolf who had savaged him as a child. That seemed a ruthless thing for Dumbledore to do.

My opinion of Dumbledore dropped with these last 2 books. It seems like he didn't have to be quite so mysterious and manipulative! He accuses Snape of desiring to hide the "best" of himself from Harry and others but then what does he go and do with regards to how he got his blackened hand?! He does the same thing! And it seems like sheer dumb luck that Snape was able to get those memories to Harry before he died because he didn't know Harry was there in the tunnel. His death would have been (even more) pointless then, imo. I don't know why Dumbledore withheld quite so much info from both Harry and Snape that last year. But I guess that may be more of a plot device than a reflection of Dumbledore's character (because I also think Hermione would have figured out that Harry's scar was a horcrux but that is a different thread).
H


i have to believe there was a backup plan. i can't imagine that DD or snape would have left harry getting the most important of all messages to the chance of snape beng able to find harry during battle. that just seems way to risky considering what was at stake.

Dumbledore was the leader of one side during a very long and tiresome war. ya think that the years between Voldemort's "downfall" and rebirth was wasted? i don't think so. i believe that Dumbledore spent countless hours researching ways to get around Harry havening to die to get rid of Voldemort. i have a sneaking feeling the Dumbledore knew that wormtail was goon go and find Voldemort after his escape in POA, and that Harry's name coming out of the Goblet of fire was just confirmation of it for him. i think that Dumbledore let it happen for that Voldemort could use Harry's blood and therefor Harry wouldn't have to die to vanquish Voldemort.

as to Dumbledore being a manipulator yes he was but all great leaders are. They have to know what to do to get the people under them to do what is needed. in a sense the order was a military and Dumbledore was the leader. the members of the order was the solders, and do solders question there leaders who has more in for then they themselves do? no they don't. so he did what was needed and the world is a better place because of what he chose to do. if he didn't do things the way he did Voldemort would have won and the world would be under Voldemort's rule

"Some things are worth dying for!" said Sirius...yes, Dumbledore was playing chess, but with human lives. He didn't want Harry's death....but!

Something I want to say:

to the person who said that Dd knew that harry was not going to die because of the hallows, please remember, that Dd wanted Harry to go for the horcruxes. Besides, the hallows did not make you immortal, only made you face and embrace mortality. i think this is what Jk said. What kept Harry alive was the fact that Voldemort took his blood. before GOF Dd had no idea that Harry can live. And I think that Dd was not sure even after GOF that Harry would live, so yes, he prepared him cold heartdly for his death.

to the person who said that you can sacrifice a person to save the world, I have to say, I would never do it! I don't think it is acceptable. This is how wars and everything else starts.

To the person who said that Snape came to see Harry for what he really is, I think it was in this thread, I have to disagree. He loathed Harry until the evry end, which even Jo, I think, said it, was unfair. Snape only loved Lily and nobody else. he didn't come to appreciate Harry. he only wanted to see Harry's eyes before he died, because it was like looking at Lily.

As I said previously my main concern was not Dumbledore's treatment of Harry as it was of Snape.

Consider he had him kill him thereby potentially splitting his soul, the act of ultimate evil and yes I know he was dying anyway but why couldnt he have let death take him naturally a few months later than to ask a colleague to kill him. Just think how helpful it wouldve been to Harry to the order, if Dumbledore had been alive for even just a week longer (not from the purposes of the overall story , I concede).

I was also dubious as to snapes double agent role post HBP. at this point what purpose does it serve. Yes you can argue it keeps the students safe from the Carrows but as McGonoggal said "we teachers are rather good at magic". It showed a real lack of faith in his own staff by Dumbledore.

I still cant over the evil crime that happened at the beginning of the book , the killing of Charity Burbage. Consider, she was a fellow colleague of Snape's for at least the previous 7 years and he just left her to her fate even when she was pleading for help from Snape. It was utterly heartless. As others have made the WW2 analogy, it was like the catholic church turning a blind eye to the holocaust.

And what for? Dumbledore's orders. Another WW2 analogy, as its been done so much in this thread, by people arguing that this was war and there are always casualities and all the stuff about the greater good and orders need to be followed by soldiers.

It was also soldiers blindly following orders which condemned millions to the gas chambers all for the supposed greater good. For the supposed good in this day and age we have suicide bombers allegedly blindly following orders. In the book we have death eaters doing all sorts of evil things in the name of the greater good.

Consider he had him kill him thereby potentially splitting his soul, the act of ultimate evil and yes I know he was dying anyway but why couldnt he have let death take him naturally a few months later than to ask a colleague to kill him.


But Snape had made the unbreakable vow, if he did'nt kill dumbeldore then, he would have died himself.

But Snape had made the unbreakable vow, if he did'nt kill dumbeldore then, he would have died himself.


Which he did after agreeing with Dumbledore about killing him

Disclaimer: I apologize for the length of this post. After the amount of time I spent on it, I couldn't stand the thought of simply discarding for being too long. For those who actually do tackle it, I hope you find the quality merits your time and attention.

I believe that Dumbledore was indeed a manipulator, but not in a negative sense. After all, Dumbledore was the leader of the Order of the Phoenix and, by extension, the leader of the resistance against Voldemort. As a leader, one of his primary duties was to manage the people working under and with him. Being a leader in a time of war means making tough decisions, knowing full well that sending your men into battle means risking their lives. Members of the Order, just like soldiers in real life, knew the risks of what they were doing. Nobody was forced to join the Order and none of them did so thinking that it would extend their life expectancy; they joined because they believed that stopping Voldemort was worth the sacrifice of their own comfort or even their own lives.

In a real life military situation, leaders typically keep their men on a "need to know" basis, meaning that they are only provided information they need to know in order to perform their job and nothing more. This prevents the soldiers from being overburdened with the macro scale decisions that have to be made, thus allowing them to focus their attention on the small-scale decision making and work required to complete the task at hand, while also minimizing the amount of information the soldiers could offer up under interrogation. This relationship between commander and soldier requires a tremendous amount of trust on both ends: the commanding officer must trust that his men will follow orders to the maximum extent of their abilities, while soldiers must trust that their commanding officers are competent and are acting in the best interests of the military effort as a whole, while not asking any more than his men have to give. Without this trust, any military effort, large or small, is doomed before it ever begins.

This rings true with what the Order is trying to accomplish. Dumbledore is appointed leader because the other Order members have faith in him; they know that he is wise, powerful, and has the best interests of the wizarding world in mind. They know that Dumbledore is making the best decisions he possibly can, and they must understand that sometimes this will involve him withholding information.

With that in mind, let's take a look at some of the issues that are causing readers concern over Dumbledore's character.

Was Dumbledore right to withhold seemingly vital information from Harry and the other Order members?

This issue is a struggle between idealism and pragmatism; how one regards Dumbledore will likely hinge on which quality that person holds more dear. As a leader, one must strike a healthy balance between the two. Strong ideals are important but not very useful unless they can be translated into practical action. For instance, one might maintain that it is our obligation to ensure that no child in the world goes hungry. This sort of idealism is admirable, but is it realistic? Is it possible, with the resources of those involved, to overcome the personal, political, financial, legal, and logistical challenges associated with providing aid to those in need? In other words, even the most morally righteous "end" must be met by practical "means." In dealing with a fascist who can't be reasoned with (whether his name is Hitler or Voldemort), the "ends" of stopping him and achieving peace can only be met by the grim and tragic "means" known as war.

Applying this to the books, what should Dumbledore have done differently? When would have been a good time to tell Harry what he was really up against? Would it have made much sense to lay this huge burden on an 11 year old boy with no magical training? What about a 12 year old with very little magical training? Would Dumbledore have made Harry's life any easier by confirming what Harry already knew in his heart: that he would eventually have to face and kill the most powerful dark wizard in history? Realistically, Dumbledore needed to give Harry enough time to grow up and get stronger before having to deal with this situation.

We must also consider that the plan we saw unfold in DH was probably not Dumbledore's original plan. I honestly believe that Dumbledore intended to destroy the horcruxes by himself, excluding Harrycrux. If that is the case, why would Dumbledore ever tell anyone else about the horcruxes? The fewer people there are who know about what Dumbledore is doing, the fewer ways there are for Voldemort to discover that his anchors to this world are being severed one by one. In fact, Harry is just about the last person Dumbledore would want to have information about the horcrux hunt, considering how easily and frequently Voldemort entered Harry's mind. On top of security reasons, why burden Harry with this knowledge if he's not going to be involved in the hunt? Does he not have enough to deal with already? Why not just wait until the horcruxes have already been destroyed to fill Harry in?

Now would be a good time to pause and put ourselves in Dumbledore's shoes and address an issue that has caused many people concern. Many people are quick to throw the blame at Dumbledore for grooming Harry to be killed at the hands of Voldemort. I believe that it is unreasonable to hold Dumbledore accountable for this situation. What choice did he really have? Harry was a horcux and thus a walking guarantee that Voldemort would always be immortal as long as Harry lived, no matter how many other horcruxes were created or destroyed. What was Dumbledore supposed to do? Would it be kind and benevolent of him to conceal the fact that Harry is the reason Voldemort can't be killed, while hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of innocent people die just so our beloved hero doesn't have to? Dumbledore didn't create this situation; Voldemort did. There is not a single thing Dumbledore could have done to spare Harry from his fate, so he did the only remotely humane thing he could: he hid the full truth of the situation from Harry until the very end, so that maybe he could experience at least some of the joys of life, love, and growing up that Voldemort had not yet ripped away from him.

Fortunately, this one remaining dilemma would resolve itself at the hands of the very man who was to blame for it: Voldemort. At the end of GoF, Dumbledore realized, with a "gleam of triumph" in his eye, that Harry wouldn't have to die (permanently) in order to bring down Voldemort after all; the final piece of the puzzle was in place. That must have been a huge load off of his conscience. However, even with this joyous revelation, Dumbledore still couldn't afford to tell Harry that he would have to knowingly and willingly walk to his own (temporary) death. I believe that in order for the Harrycrux to be destroyed and for his loved ones to gain the protection afforded by his willing sacrifice, he had to truly believe that he was going to die and still accept it willingly (or else it wouldn't be a sacrifice). Thus, Dumbledore had to keep the good news to himself.

Unfortunately, as we all know, everything changed in HBP. A single bad decision involving the ring horcrux cost Dumbledore his life and threw his plan into disarray. He had to tell Harry about the horcruxes after all and, in so doing, pass on the burden of tracking down and destroying them. Once again, the plan had been altered. Sadly, we will never know if Dumbledore had intended to make any final alterations to the plan, as his death had to occur more suddenly than I think either he or Snape had expected. Regardless, the rest is history.

What about all the deaths that resulted from Dumbledore's secrecy?

None of the deaths that occurred in DH or any other book could be prevented with any degree of certainty by all the careful planning in the world. There will always be casualties in any war, most of them sudden and unexpected; it is the nature of the beast. Tonks, Lupin, Fred, Moody, and Colin died in combat; these deaths could have happened to anyone at any time in any of the numerous battles that were fought. Sirius' death is as much Harry's fault as it is Dumbledore's, if not more so (if Harry had learned and practiced Occlumency like Dumbledore and Snape implored him to, he wouldn't have fallen into Voldemort's trap and Sirius wouldn't have died trying to save him). Hedwig died purely by accident; as wonderful a pet as Hedwig was, I highly doubt he was a high priority target for the Death Eaters. Dobby died from a knife wound while saving Harry and friends from captivity (a situation which was caused by another of Harry's careless mistakes).

Ultimately, we should place the blame for these deaths where it actually belongs: on the Death Eaters who cast the curses that robbed these brave souls of their lives.

None of these deaths were a direct result of Dumbledore's actions. They are casualties of war, and like all such casualties, they are senseless and random. To lay the blame at Dumbledore's feet is unfair. He would not have wished for any of these people to die any more than you or I would. His plans and decisions were made with an eye toward putting Harry in the best possible position to face Voldemort and end this war once and for all, which is exactly what he did.

Dumbledore is not perfect; he has flaws and is all the more real for it. Was Dumbledore a manipulator? In the literal sense, yes. As a leader, it was his job, and it's a job that he did well. Ultimately, for me, Dumbledore serves as a shining example of his own closely held belief that we are each a product of our choices. Dumbledore wasn't born a great man, he chose to become one in direct opposition to his nature. For that, I will always admire him.



Oh, and here's this smiley, because I like it: :relax:


RobbieF1.

That is a truely brilliant post, it sums it all up very eloquently. I agree with all of your senitment, especially the fact that DD is a manipulator in a very positive sense rather than in a negative sense. Lets call him an orchestrator as some have labeled him. You manage to convey this most important fact here brilliantly! I SUGGEST THAT EVERYONE READS THIS POST.

Concerning Sirius' death, we must not forget that Harry's lack of a truely inquisitive mind was as much to blame for Sirius' death than any other factor. The 2-way mirror!

Also of note. One must remember that no-matter what DD did or did not do in the end. Voldemort and Harry would have gone to kill the other no matter what other influences affected their decisions. That is an important point. Therefore DD all along was trying to find some way to remove Harrys Horcrux without him dying. He knew they would inevitably meet, he could not stop this stupidly named 'breeding Harry for slaughter', it was not his choice to make; it was Harry's and Voldemort's. He gave Harry the choice and he knew Harry would chose to fight no-matter what. All DD could do was attempt to find some way to save Harry. If DD was after all looking to the greater good only, he would have killed Harry, destroying the Horcrux. He then would have destroyed the other Horcruxes and taken Voldemort on, himself. That would have been for the greater good....

See The Elder Wand thread for futher discussion on DDs plan...

As I said previously my main concern was not Dumbledore's treatment of Harry as it was of Snape.

Consider he had him kill him thereby potentially splitting his soul, the act of ultimate evil and yes I know he was dying anyway but why couldnt he have let death take him naturally a few months later than to ask a colleague to kill him. Just think how helpful it wouldve been to Harry to the order, if Dumbledore had been alive for even just a week longer (not from the purposes of the overall story , I concede).

I was also dubious as to snapes double agent role post HBP. at this point what purpose does it serve. Yes you can argue it keeps the students safe from the Carrows but as McGonoggal said "we teachers are rather good at magic". It showed a real lack of faith in his own staff by Dumbledore.

I still cant over the evil crime that happened at the beginning of the book , the killing of Charity Burbage. Consider, she was a fellow colleague of Snape's for at least the previous 7 years and he just left her to her fate even when she was pleading for help from Snape. It was utterly heartless. As others have made the WW2 analogy, it was like the catholic church turning a blind eye to the holocaust.

And what for? Dumbledore's orders. Another WW2 analogy, as its been done so much in this thread, by people arguing that this was war and there are always casualities and all the stuff about the greater good and orders need to be followed by soldiers.

It was also soldiers blindly following orders which condemned millions to the gas chambers all for the supposed greater good. For the supposed good in this day and age we have suicide bombers allegedly blindly following orders. In the book we have death eaters doing all sorts of evil things in the name of the greater good. I must say I disagree with all you have said here.

As I said previously my main concern was not Dumbledore's treatment of Harry as it was of Snape.

Consider he had him kill him thereby potentially splitting his soul, the act of ultimate evil and yes I know he was dying anyway but why couldnt he have let death take him naturally a few months later than to ask a colleague to kill him. Just think how helpful it wouldve been to Harry to the order, if Dumbledore had been alive for even just a week longer (not from the purposes of the overall story , I concede).


Well, killing someone doesn't necessarily split the soul; this happens only if the wizard wants to make a Horcrux.

Well, killing someone doesn't necessarily split the soul; this happens only if the wizard wants to make a Horcrux.

No, I've always read it as killing someone will split your soul whether or not you make a Horcrux.

Dumbledore, so keen for Snape to kill him and send out his men to do his bidding, never wanted to kill anyone himself. He even regretted having to jinx people. I've always envisioned Dumbledore sitting behind his books and ordering his little pawns around whilst sitting pretty himself. In a real life war soldiers get told more than what the Order were given. And not all soldiers are willing, not all of them like what they do, much like not all of the Order liked what they were doing - I look to Lupin for an example.

Who is to say what the "greater good" is? Voldemort, his Death Eaters and sympathisers all thought they had the right idea.

I loved Dumbledore the whole time and it was very depressing when he was killed in HBP. I thought the pensieve scene was a big turn off for Dumbledore.
Before I thought Dumbledore was a very passive, easy-going guy...and for me, DH gave him a whole other personality that we never knew. Personally, i thought he was more bossy and selfish in his younger years.

I remember getting to Snapes memories in DH and feeling really angry with Dumbledore, I was mollified slightly when Dumberdore admitted in 'Kings Cross' that he had a hunch that Harry would survive, but it still seemed as though DD had completely used Harry throughout his life, as he could never be sure that Harry would live!

I do not think that Dumbledore was "at" King's Cross in the sense that you mean. King's Cross was in Harry's head, and the Dumbledore that was present there was simply Harry's perception of Dumbledore. If you notice, Harry became noticeably more like Dumbledore throughout the course of DH, and by the end it certainly would have been possible for Harry to recreate the man in his head.

With all the information Harry had available, it would have been possible for him to figure out that he was harboring a piece of Voldemort's soul without Dumbledore's help. He didn't need to hear that from Dumbledore, but Harry was used to hearing things from Dumbledore. So he conjured up the wizened teacher in his mind to bounce ideas off of. Still, Harry was speaking with a version of Dumbledore that he created in his own head, based on his own perceptions of how the man behaved. In other words, this was Dumbledore through the Harry filter to a degree that went beyond anything we had seen before.

If the Dumbledore at King's Cross said that he had a hunch that Harry would survive, you may as well attribute that to something Harry himself had thought (or hoped for) but that he had projected on Dumbledore because he prefers to think Dumbledore would think such a thing. In truth, it's a reasonable guess, but it's still a guess.

We don't need to worry about whether Dumbledore redeemed himself here, though, because he had already done that through Snape's memory. Everybody dies, but Dumbledore worked to enable Harry to become a man of substance and character before meeting his eventual end. This was quite generous, given that disposing of Harry would have disposed of a horcrux.

By the time Harry "sees" Dumbledore in King's Cross, he already has come to understand Dumbledore's motives and has forgiven him for any perceived slight. They are on level playing ground, and Harry approves of the plan, having more or less arrived on his own at the some conclusion Dumbledore drew years prior. Hence the casual nature of the conversation.

The beauty of Dumbledore as a teacher is that he does not lecture. He simply gives people the opportunity and encouragement to discover and succeed on their own.

I approve of his actions. :tu:

No, I've always read it as killing someone will split your soul whether or not you make a Horcrux.

Dumbledore, so keen for Snape to kill him and send out his men to do his bidding, never wanted to kill anyone himself. He even regretted having to jinx people. I've always envisioned Dumbledore sitting behind his books and ordering his little pawns around whilst sitting pretty himself. In a real life war soldiers get told more than what the Order were given. And not all soldiers are willing, not all of them like what they do, much like not all of the Order liked what they were doing - I look to Lupin for an example.

Who is to say what the "greater good" is? Voldemort, his Death Eaters and sympathisers all thought they had the right idea.

I've wondered about the soul splitting deal... First off, I think judging by the exchange between Snape and Dumbledore, Snape had killed before... Just a feeling I got, nothing to back it up, per se... Basically, Dumbledore is saying "Your soul is already ripped, while Draco's is not... let's spare him that, shall we?"

My second thought on this... I don't have a book with me, so perhaps someone else who does can help me out.... From canon, does "killing" rip your soul apart, or does "murder" rip your soul apart? Or does JK use the two words interchangably? In my mind, anyway, there is a difference... To me, Snape "killed" Dumbledore, but did not "murder" him. Murder, to me, implies malice... while killing does not, necessarily.... For instance, Harry "killed" Quirrell and LV (sort of, on both accounts).... but I don't think for a second his soul was ripped apart... So to me, by commiting "assisted suicide" for all intents and purposes, I don't think the soul would have been damaged... On the flip side of that argument, they've said that AK is unforgivable, so perhaps killing OR murder in that manner would damage the soul... I don't know....

As to "real life war".... I disagree with you that soldiers get more info than the order does... Soldiers get only the information they need to perform their specific task... Unless it affects them, and their ability to do their tasks, they don't get the low down on other platoons or squadrons or individuals, etc... As to willingness... The order was a VOLUNTEER army, as are many armies... meaning, whether you agree with your immediate orders, you are a willing participant... And I think part of the reason that a soldier might be upset with his immediate orders is that he does NOT know the whole picture, and so his task might seem foolish... And certainly, I would imagine, that MOST soldiers do not like what they do when it comes to war...

My wife and I watch "So you think you can dance", and last week they performed a piece which the coreographer described as "against the war in Iraq".. obviously, the show got some complaints... The response by the producer (Nigel Lithgoe) was this: "Just because we are anit war does not mean we are unpatriotic. We understand that some wars are necessary and that our governments (the US and Britain) enter into war in an effort to protect our freedoms, etc.... However, none of us are "pro-war". We all wish we could live in peace with our fellow humans without resorting to war, and that was what the piece was about"....

I mention that, because his "pro-war" comment struck me... We assume that when we see "anit war" demonstrations that the opposite position is "pro war"... When in fact, I think most people would agree that war - any war - is nasty business... I think the Order felt the same way, but understood that sometimes it is necessary to fight fire with fire, and the only way to defeat Voldemort would be to engage in a war with him - one that would certainly be bloody and lead to loss of their friends and loved ones... In that, I think they were all willing, however distasteful they found the idea of war.

And finally... Dumbledore and the greater good... We know that in his earlier days his thirst for power would probably have resulted in a much different "greater good"... In his later days - the ones we read about in these stories - his idea of the "greater good" was a societal idea... Society on the whole can agree on certain ideas.. murder is bad... thievery is bad... compassion is good... etc.. Dumbledore was not seeking to impose his own personal ideals on the world when he worked for the greater good... he was seeking to preserve the ideas which society held as true... Voldemort on the other hand, sought only to promote himself... All that to say that I don't have any problems with the "greater good" that Dumbledore was fighting for...

No, I've always read it as killing someone will split your soul whether or not you make a Horcrux.

Dumbledore, so keen for Snape to kill him and send out his men to do his bidding, never wanted to kill anyone himself. He even regretted having to jinx people. I've always envisioned Dumbledore sitting behind his books and ordering his little pawns around whilst sitting pretty himself. In a real life war soldiers get told more than what the Order were given. And not all soldiers are willing, not all of them like what they do, much like not all of the Order liked what they were doing - I look to Lupin for an example.

Who is to say what the "greater good" is? Voldemort, his Death Eaters and sympathisers all thought they had the right idea.

I must in good-consciance disagree with all of your points. First DD knew that Snapes sould would not split. He was not asking Snape to murder him. He also did not want Draco's soul to split, which would have happened because that is murder. Snape would not have murdered DD, he just would have spared DD the pain of the curse, and perhaps a moment where relatively weak characters in comparison to DD(such as Bella/Fenrir) could have tortured him to get out his master plan or for the fun of it, while he was powerless due to the curse to resist it. There is no problem with the that in my mind.

I have a problem with this statement, I do not agree with it at all:''He even regretted having to jinx people. I've always envisioned Dumbledore sitting behind his books and ordering his little pawns around whilst sitting pretty himself.'' If DD, always sat behind his chair, why then did he save the Order from the Death Eaters, duel and force Voldemort to flee, easily defeat Bella and keep Harry safe all in OoTP? Why then in HBP did he seek out Horcruxes,tell Harry of them and devise a master plan, and destroy one of them? Why if he just sat around watching others do his bidding?

If a character cannot accept the neccessity of the greater good, then that character is cowardly. There are choices in life that require sacrafice, even if we want to do the selfish thing, the easy thing, which DD did not do! DD chose what was hard and did the right thing, he got in the sticky situations as much as he permitted himself, after all if he did it all then Harry would not have learned. There are no two ways about it. The Death Eaters were cowards in general, Voldemort was a coward in general, his obsession in life was immortatlity.

Secrecy was essentiall to the whole plan. If the soliders had more information, the greater the chance of Voldemort finding out that the Horcruxes were DDs targets. If this came to pass, then there would be no way to kill Voldemort.

on somethings i agree on others i don't.
on not telling harry everything. i think we agree that it was a good idea not to tell harry everything during HBP,i never thought that harry had all the information. and i always expected to be hearing the rest of the tale shortly before the final battle. it just made sense, harry had enough on his shoulders, he needed to destroy the horocruxes. if they weren't destroyed the fact that he was a horocrux would be meaningless.

were we disagree is i think harry's actions and thoughts show us hewas a willing participant all the way. i don't have the book with me so i can't qquote but he thought something along the lines of DD's betrayal meant nothing, he knew what he had to do. he finally understood what DD was trying to tell hin when he told him about the horocruxes in HBP. there is a difference btween being dragged to our death and going in with our head held high. he went willingly to his death and in turn fufilled DD's plan.

as for the faceless, nameless people who would be hurt during the war. well unfortunatly this is a fact of war, and a fact all leaders must deal with.
I agree, that Harry understood after the fact and accepted it, here is the quote to say just that: Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing. Of course there had been a bigger plan; Harry had simply been to foolish to see it, he realized that now. He had never questioned his own assumption that Dumbledore wanted him alive. Now he saw that his life span had always been determined by how long it took to eliminate the Horcruxes. Dumbledore had passed the job of destroying them to him, and obediently he had continued to chip away at the bonds tying not only Voldemort, but himself, to life! How neat, how elegant, not to waste any more lives, but to give the dangerous task to the boy who had already been marked for slaughter, and whose death would not be a calamity, but another blow against Voldemort. However, assuming that Harry knew this before the immediate scene right before the final battle, who is to say how he would have reacted.

No, I've always read it as killing someone will split your soul whether or not you make a Horcrux.

Dumbledore, so keen for Snape to kill him and send out his men to do his bidding, never wanted to kill anyone himself. He even regretted having to jinx people. I've always envisioned Dumbledore sitting behind his books and ordering his little pawns around whilst sitting pretty himself. In a real life war soldiers get told more than what the Order were given. And not all soldiers are willing, not all of them like what they do, much like not all of the Order liked what they were doing - I look to Lupin for an example.

Who is to say what the "greater good" is? Voldemort, his Death Eaters and sympathisers all thought they had the right idea.

Remember, Snape was the only other person that knew DD was already dying. He even told Snape that for him to know and do that as a favor to DD wouldn't damage Snape's soul. In fact he justified it as a favor, sparing him a long painful death by making quick and painless. Protecting Draco who would have done damage to his soul by commiting murder. That would imply that intention and motive play a large role in what effect an act has on the soul.

Of course killing a person wouldn't be acceptable, but sometimes you have to do a little evil for the greater good. (quote to wherever that's from). I'm sorry, but if Harry had to die for the saving of the world, and I was Dumbledore, I'd get him killed and live with myself after.

And by the by, Dumbledore sacrificed his entire life toward working to stop Lord Voldemort, even to the point where he turned his own death into a way to defeat Voldemort rather than trying to avert it. Don't you see?! Everyone has a perception of the "greater good" and the greater good is necessary for society to survive! People need to make sacrifices, to manipulate etc. for others to live! If Dumbledore saved the life of even one person through all his manipulation, then I say that what he did is right.

The ends don't justify the means all the time, but in this case, something needed to be done, and there was only one way about it. All of Dumbledore's ideas are completely valid and logical. There is no reason to suggest that he was being stupid, or even that manipulation is wrong.

Interesting arguments but no one has addressed my point of the murder of Charity Burbage, as far as we are aware she was not part of the Order and in no way wanted to die from what is qoted in the book, she pleaded with Snape and he just sat there and watched her die without saying a single word, all to keep up the pretence of being on Voldy's side. This was just as evil as if Snape (or Dumbledore since it was his orders) had killed her themselves.

What advantage was there in keeping Snape as a spy at this point? Other teachers were more than capable of handling the Carrows at Hogwarts as they proved in the final battle and even when Umbridge was in charge in OoTP.

I think DD is a great example of somebody who has learned, the hard way, from his mistakes. I don't think he meant to be a manipulator but he could have been more generous with information with Harry. Though Harry can't complain, he is just as secretive as DD.

And what do you expect Snape could have done? He would have died along with Charity Burbage.

And what do you expect Snape could have done? He would have died along with Charity Burbage.

Agreed.
I think blaming Snape for the Charity Burbage incident is gaga (to put it in rita's words).
see it from his point of view:
His hands were bound and I am sure deep down he cared deeply, as she would go to death thinking of severus as a cruel traitor. This must have really tortured Severus, because we now know that he DID fear for his soul (What about my soul, Dumbledore? MINE?) and that he really tried to save people (Lately only those I could not save.)
So, sitting there, being pleaded with, not being able to show sympathy... I pity him! This is what DD had condemned him to do.

At this point IT WAS STILL VITAL that Severus keep his pretence as a Death Eater, because otherwise he'd have been killed and he needed to give Harry the information that he had to sacrifice himself.

So, had he helped Charity, Voldemort would have triumphed over Harry (because Harry would have fought back, presumably)

I think Dumbledore was guilty of telling half truths but I have no doubts that his intentions were always pure. Maybe he sometimes became too preoccupied with defeating Voldermort (the fabled 'greater good') to realise the effect some of his orders were having on those around him.

In a literal sense, yes, he was a manipulator. But I don't think he ever manipluated anyone who in his position would have acted any differently.

Harry was eventually willing to die for the greater good. Everyone within the Order of the Phoenix lept into battle and fought whole heartedly for the greater good. Even Snape spied and risked his life for the greater good (and Lily of course).

As for whether Snape's soul would have been split because he killed Dumbledore, DD himself states -

"You [Snape] alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humilation" pg 584 UK version (Prince's Tale chapter)

If Snape killed Dumbledore for (here's that phrase again) the greater good and not out of hatred then his soul would remain intact. Draco, on the other hand, didn't have that option. In his mind he was murdering an enemy, not fulfilling an old man's request, and his soul would undoubtably be affected. That quote also brings into question whether Snape had murdered before and already had a harmed soul or not but that's another discussion :p

In the end Dumbledore also sacrificed and manipulated HIMSELF for the greater good as his death allowed both Draco and the Malfoys and indeed Snape (because of the Unbreakable Vow) to live. It also set in motion everything that happened in Deathly Hallows and without it Harry would probably have remained at Hogwarts studying for his NEWTs instead of pitching his tent in random forests hunting Horcruxes.

Without Dumbledore's manipulations Voldermort would probably be lord and master of the Potter universe by now and I guess when the greater good really is 'good' it no longer matters.

I posted this in the albus dumbledore character thread, but the thread is not moving, so I thought I'd post it here:

So I've just completed my reread, and here are my impressions of Dumbledore now that I've gone through the book at a slower pace.
Dumbledore is definitely not the saint that Doge made him out to be, but he isn't the horrible person that Rita Skeeter painted him as either. He's somewhere in the middle, like most people are. But, unlike most people, he had incredible amounts of talent and intelligence, he was a leader with the capacity to frighten the greatest dark lords and inspire people to fight for justice. So his flaws stick out, because they affected so many more people than most people's flaws do.

Dumbledore had a lot of hard choices to make. With the exception of his obsession with the Deathly hallows, I think he made good choices under the circumstances. Dumbledore had to take chances - chances that would have horrible consequences had they gone wrong - but, in the end, I think that the possible gains (i.e. ridding the world of Voldemort) outweighed the possible (yet still horrible) losses. Even Dumbledore's maddening secrecy turned out to be part of his big plans.

I really liked the chapter with Aberforth. I think we got a pretty good picture of Dumbledore (even though it's colored by Aberforth's cynical nature) from him, yet we also get the huge contrast between the two brothers. Aberforth saw only the people involved, and hated that his brother risked them, yet he could not see the bigger picture (though this is completely off topic, I think that Aberforht is similar to Xeno Lovegood in this respect).

Dumbledore's own account in the chapter "kings cross" is very sad. We see how Dumbledore views himself. He does not deny his shortcomings - he readily admits them all, and he openly shows his regrets. I like that a lot about Dumbledore.

Good points all Rell, and I especially like the part about DD not denying his shortcomings. He's unusually aware of his weaknesses, and that's very unusual among any folks, especially the intelligent and clever. In part because of this I respect DD just as much as I did pre-DH, but I respect him in a different way now for knowing how he became who he is.

After reading DH I felt like I loved and loathed Dumbledore more. I loved that Dumbledore had a shady past, and he learned from it. But there were a few of his actions that disturbed me.

1) The fact that he was willing to sacrifice all of the people of the Order when he had Snape leak the 7 Potters info. Those people had sacrificed everything and had followed Dumbledore blindly. Yet he was willing to let them all die just so Snape wouldn't be suspected. I agree with the person who said Dumbledore was like Voldemort in the fact that he didn't really have friends: or that Dumbledore didn't mind sacrificing them.

2) I was also upset about how he treated Snape. I think both of them knew that Snape was going to die, but I was mad that he kept things from Snape. He made him believe that Harry was going to have to die. Snape had sacrificed everything to keep Harry safe for Lily, and then he thinks all of that work was just so they could postpone Harry's death. I think he deserved the truth; Snape did so much for Dumbledore, and Dumbledore made him feel like all those years had been worthless.

After reading DH I felt like I loved and loathed Dumbledore more. I loved that Dumbledore had a shady past, and he learned from it. But there were a few of his actions that disturbed me.

1) The fact that he was willing to sacrifice all of the people of the Order when he had Snape leak the 7 Potters info. Those people had sacrificed everything and had followed Dumbledore blindly. Yet he was willing to let them all die just so Snape wouldn't be suspected. I agree with the person who said Dumbledore was like Voldemort in the fact that he didn't really have friends: or that Dumbledore didn't mind sacrificing them.

2) I was also upset about how he treated Snape. I think both of them knew that Snape was going to die, but I was mad that he kept things from Snape. He made him believe that Harry was going to have to die. Snape had sacrificed everything to keep Harry safe for Lily, and then he thinks all of that work was just so they could postpone Harry's death. I think he deserved the truth; Snape did so much for Dumbledore, and Dumbledore made him feel like all those years had been worthless.

These two things disturbed me as well, but both must be seen in context. For #1, we must remember that Dumbledore was counting on Snape to take control of Hogwarts if Voldemort took over the Ministry. Dumbledore loved Hogwarts above all else, and in his mind it was essential that Snape and not the Carrows control it. As bad as this may sound, I can easily believed that Dumbledore would have sacrificed Mad-Eye Moody's life to keep Hogwarts from falling to Death Eaters. That was the main reason it was essential for Voldemort to keep trusting Snape. What doesn't make sense to me is how Snape managed to get in the office to talk to the portrait of Dumbledore, as he was not appointed Headmaster until August and McGonagall would never have let him in.

As for #2, remember that Snape's intentions were not entirely noble either. Snape was willing to sacrifice Harry and James to keep Lily alive. I do agree, however, that Dumbledore manipulated Snape by telling him to protect Harry for Lily and then saying Harry would have to die. Snape was right in saying "you have used me."

[QUOTE=AK_WDB;4693209]These two things disturbed me as well, but both must be seen in context. For #1, we must remember that Dumbledore was counting on Snape to take control of Hogwarts if Voldemort took over the Ministry. Dumbledore loved Hogwarts above all else, and in his mind it was essential that Snape and not the Carrows control it. As bad as this may sound, I can easily believed that Dumbledore would have sacrificed Mad-Eye Moody's life to keep Hogwarts from falling to Death Eaters. That was the main reason it was essential for Voldemort to keep trusting Snape. What doesn't make sense to me is how Snape managed to get in the office to talk to the portrait of Dumbledore, as he was not appointed Headmaster until August and McGonagall would never have let him in.


Hmmm. That's a really good point! Maybe J.K. just made a slip-up and didn't realize it. I didn't think of the Hogwarts fact, which was true. McGonagall wouldn't have been able to protect the students like Snape could have. But I'm still a little sickened by that thing.

Dumbledore is definitely not the saint that Doge made him out to be, but he isn't the horrible person that Rita Skeeter painted him as either. ... Dumbledore's own account in the chapter "kings cross" is very sad. We see how Dumbledore views himself. He does not deny his shortcomings - he readily admits them all, and he openly shows his regrets. I like that a lot about Dumbledore.

I liked your entire post. And I like the Dumbledore character quite a bit as well. Now that the series has come to an end, I find that I identify with him more than any other character. This is something I wrote after finishing DH in an essay:
One of the most striking things for me in the final book was Dumbledore's transformation from the all but infallible and humble head of Hogwarts to a broken, penitent man. This completed my cycle of identification with various people within the series.
Lupin came first. I have, for some time, realized that I struggled with a beast within (http://poor-blogger.blogspot.com/2005/06/summer-solstice-post.html). Seeing Lupin, his weariness with his status as a werewolf, and his horror at almost unleashing it on innocents ... it sounded like my song.
When Snape revealed that he had long loved Lily (Harry's mom), had repented of his days as a Death Eater because she was threatened, and promised to protect Harry because of his love for her, I again felt an affinity. Because of love, I repent of my past and dedicate my future to not being who I was. However, Snape wasn't really changed.
Thus, it was scarcely a chapter later that I found my true other in Dumbledore. He, in selfishness and pride, was the cause of the death of both his mother and his sister. Although he could have become the most powerful wizard in the world (and, indeed, defeated both Voldemort and Gridenwald), he knew that he could never hold a position of power because of his lust for power. So, he taught. He tried to help people. He gave up on all his grand and glorious schemes, deliberately denied the position of Minister of Magic and became "just a teacher". And, still, when he found the Stone of Resurrection, he was tempted to the point of foolhardiness to use it rather than destroy it immediately. That cost him his life. He knew that, though he would be lauded through the ages as a great man, he would always be haunted by his past and the lives ruined because of him.


Regarding whether Dumbledore manipulated Harry or not, I think it profitable to compare him with two other characters: Sirius and Molly.

Molly did not want Harry to do anything but be safe. She would have hidden him in the pockets of her apron if she could. She didn't want him in on the OotP meetings. She didn't want him to search for Horcruxes. And she didn't even want him to know about Sirius before they knew the truth about him. But it is apparent that she loved him. She would have rather the entire wizarding world go down in flames than risk Harry's life. This is not manipulation. But it is smothering. He would have had no choice.
Sirius probably offered the greatest freedom. He wanted to allow Harry in on their deepest councils from the beginning and urged him to potentially foolhardy actions sometimes. Yet, he too loved Harry and wanted the best for him. In this case, his love (prompted by his own character) took the form of offering Harry free choice with all the available information.
Dumbledore is a study in contrasts. If Sirius is the Yin to Molly's Yang, then Dumbledore is the Tao that unites them. On the one hand, he allows Harry the freedom to battle Riddle and other enemies, giving him just enough information to allow him to succeed. It was no coincidence that Harry found the Mirror of Erised, for instance. However, Dumbledore never gave him all the information. With his prodigious intellect, it appears that he acted very much like a chess player, moving Harry from place to place in order to achieve the final goal, victory over the Dark King. But did he love Harry? It seems that none of Dumbledore's actions towards Harry were not calculated. He froze Harry on the tower before his death so Harry wouldn't interfere with the greater plan, not to protect Harry. And his protection of Harry was always with the knowledge that Harry was probably a Horcrux. He knew Harry would have to die from early on. Yet we know that, at least regarding the prophecy, Dumbledore did not tell Harry because he just couldn't burden the young boy with that information. He always allowed Harry choices that Molly wouldn't have given him. But he never gave him the full story, as Sirius would have. So, did he care about Harry, or was his manipulation of him just for "the greater good."

I think Dumbledore was able to achieve both. He knew that Harry was going to have to die if Riddle was going to die. I would go so far as to say that if Dumbledore had to take a shot that would kill Harry and Riddle in one fell swoop, he would have done it, albeit with some regrets. But, and this was largely due to Riddle's own miscalculation, Dumbledore was offered a slim chance to allow Harry to defeat Riddle and retain his own life. To achieve this end, he HAD to manipulate Harry. He could have told him the entire story and given him all the Hallows to achieve this goal. But, in the end, Harry would have had to die and allow someone else to take Riddle out. Dumbledore actually took a significant risk allowing things to progress as they did. He showed significant trust in Harry's goodness, and staked all the rest of the world, wizard and muggle, on it. But Harry had to walk the path blindly until the very end or it wouldn't work.

So, did Dumbledore manipulate Harry? Yes. But did he love Harry and want the best for him? Yes.

Peace,
Christopher

^If Dumbledore was only concerned about the greater good, I don't think He would've given Harry the choice to move on or return to fight.

In Kings Cross, Harry asks Dumbledore what to do next. DD says he can board the train and move on, or return to fight. If DD was really cold-hearted and all for the greater good, he would've insisted Harry go back. Instead, he let Harry choose for himself.

Criostoir, I really loved your little essay. Don't you love how we can identify so much with these characters? And by the way, if you're love was anything like Snape and Lilys I can bet there would be so many girls wanting your number...my friend is obsessed with Slytherin and Snape/Rickman. lol

Criostoir, I really loved your little essay. Don't you love how we can identify so much with these characters? And by the way, if you're love was anything like Snape and Lilys I can bet there would be so many girls wanting your number...my friend is obsessed with Slytherin and Snape/Rickman. lol

Sadly, I connect with Snape only with the betrayal and my fervent desire that A) I make up for it and B) it never happen again. :sad:

Peace,
Christopher

Maybe he was a manipulator and seeking for 'the greater good', but still it must be remembered that his sacrifice is part of it, and in some way, i think he even manipulated himself to overcome his 'dark side'. But unlike Harry whose good side survived when he (either voldy or Harry himself) killed "the evil side" in himself, dumbledore couldn't technically survive his own death.
Or maybe his good side survived ? i'm thinking about his 'ressurrection' in the king's cross when he really looks relieved and free from a lifetime of loneliness, or the "white" tomb, cleaned from his evil part...
Through the book, death really looks like a way to clean people.

What do you think ?

Obviously DD manipulated, but why does manipulation make him wrong? Clearly his methods worked, and I'd like to see others come up with a better way of dealing with things than DD did. I saw myself in Dumbledore's youth, and honestly, I still think I'm right, and DD wasn't all that far off from wrong (minus the anti-muggle stuff). The greater good is important, and to be honest, some people really are more intelligent than others.

Dumbledore was manipulative, but that's a good thing.

Dumbledore needed Snape at Hogwarts and in Voldy's good graces for two big reasons. First, the Carrows in charge of Hogswarts would likely result in student deaths, IMO. Snape sent Ginny off into the forest with Hagrid as "punishment", thus saving her from far worse at the hands of the Carrows. I'm sure there were a few other examples of "punishments" that weren't really that punishing towards pro-Harry students.

Snape was also the only person who knew about Harrycrux. Dumbledore needed Snape to be close to Voldy, so that he could tell Harry when the time was right.

So, DD needed Snape to remain in Voldy's good graces...I assume that DD thought the Order could take care of themselves and escape, but he (DD) may have underestimated the strength of the attack on the Dursleys and the 7 Harrys.

Obviously DD manipulated, but why does manipulation make him wrong?

It might be considered wrong because you are attempting to control the other person. Kind of like a less invasive version of the imperius curse.

The greater good is important, and to be honest, some people really are more intelligent than others.
And who is to say what the greater good really is?

FingolfinKing, I agree with you. As to what the greater good really is that belongs in the greater good thread, we have already covered it; and the general concensus in that thread claimed DDs 2nd version of the greater good was indeed for the best.

I hardly think DD's manipulations/orchestrations were a less invasive form of the Imperius curse. With DD, he always gave the choice, to anyone, he never forced anything. Harry did not have to do what DD wanted him to do. I also don't think Harry blamed DD for any of those manipulations/orchestrations by the end of the series.

The ones who Dumbledore was responsible for dying would have sacrificed their lives to see Voldemort defeated. Dumbledore was a chess master working towards the greater good. I thinky uo should respect him even more now

Just wondering, if Snapes memories where vied in chronological order, why is the scene of him in sirius's house reading the letters after the 7potters fight? And jk rowling said snape went to sirius's house immediately after Dumbledore died.

Of all the things Dumbledore did the seven potters is the only thing that bothers me, but it isn't for the reasons you might think. The risk to the lives of the Order members I can understand. The risk to Snape I can not.

Voldemort believed Snape to be his agent within the Order. We of course know he had been doubled by Dumbledore. When Snape kills Dumbledore his cover is blown and he has to do a runner. Voldemort would know that Snape's access to information on the Order would dry up. So when Snape shows up at Malfoy manner with the juiciest piece of information of all, Voldemort should have immediately been on guard that Snape had been turned (which he had long ago) or that the information was a plant (which it was). Even with a very good story about how he had come by the information on Order plans, Voldemort should not have acted without another source. This is agent handling 101.

I really don't know how I feel about Dumbledore now. I think he used people and manipulated them, which upsets me. But the one thing that really bothered me was how he acted in Snape's memories. It was just so un-Dumbledoreish. He came of cold and just uggggh. I can't even think of a word other then un-Dumbledoreish. It makes me wonder if that sweet funny wise old man thing was just an act. I mean now it sort of seems like he was trying to mask how manipulative he was. Like in HBP when they go to Slughorn's house and he manipulates Slug into teaching. He played it off by joking about the muggle magazines but he used Harry to get what he wanted then too. I don't know if I'm making a whole lot of sense right now. This new side of Dumbledore is really throwing me off.

Dumbledore was the only one with any semblance of a clue as to how to defeat Voldemort... I mean it was laid out very plainly... There was only a certain way to defeat Voldemort, and if it didn't happen that way, Voldemort would have lived on and "cleansed" the wizarding world of anyone lacking 100% pure blood... It would have been general misery and eventually would have led to the end of the wizarding world as it was known before due to inbreeding and unnatural selection. It would have been horrible to live in that world. IT also would have led to the end of the muggle world.

Dumbledore knew this, he knew it had to be this way. People keep saying he had a choice. No, he didn't. There was only one chance to save the wizarding world from Voldemort, just one. Nothing else would have worked. Dumbledore did NOT have a choice. He did what absolutely had to be done.

He could have perhaps altered the plan a bit here or there, but it would not have led to fewer lives lost, and quite possibly could have led to more lives lost.

I feel wholeheartedly that Dumbledore picked the least bloody route to the ultimate end.

Let us remember that Snape chose to join the Death Eaters. Dumbledore gave him a reprieve. Snape likely would have ended up killing himself or being killed by Voldemort in the end anyway. It was obvious he was not willing to just "go along" with Voldemort's cause. It's obvious he didn't want that. It was clear after this book what side he was on, and it was clear he didn't want to live unless he was helping to bring down Voldemort.

Snape's life was over. He knew it, Dumbledore knew it.

As far as Harry goes... He had to do what he did. Just like everything else, Dumbledore knew this. Dumbledore's level of understanding was so much higher and more clear than anyone else's that he simply KNEW.

No he was no infallible... But he was closer than anyone else in the world to being so. He recognized this. He knew that he was the ONLY one that could set things into motion.

I'm sure that, if he would have been able to, Dumbledore would have gladly sacrificed himself in Harry's place. He had no trouble sacrificing himself to keep the plan going.

"The Greater Good"

Yes, that is the key, it always has been, it always will be. Dumbledore was a solitary person... Like others have said, he kept his own counsel. The reason he kept his own counsel is precisely thus: No one else was at the level of understanding needed to be of any help to him whatsoever.

Except Harry. Dumbledore knew it was always Harry. He knew Harry was going to have to sacrifice himself. He HAD to. Absolutely had to. The alternative was incomprehensible. Dumbledore COULD NOT LET IT HAPPEN. He was the ONLY ONE that could make sure it didn't happen.

So yes, Dumbledore used Harry. He used many people. He used HIMSELF. He did what he had to do. And if he hadn't done what he had to do, all would have been lost.

With that said, I want people to think for a second... Think about the thoughts that must have been going through Dumbledore's head throguhout all of this. He knew full well what he was sacrificing... He was sacrificing people he loved. People that were dear to him. And yet he KNEw he HAD to do it, or else all was lost. He cared not for his own life, he made that known many, many times. But he cared deeply for others.

The torment within himself must have been INCREDIBLE. Everyone wonders why Dumbledore spent so much time within the confines of his office. It was noted many, many times. Dumbledore was alone, in the most real and raw sense of the word.

The fact that she was able to convey these facts and show us a man that was faced with the choice between hopelessness and more hopelessness is a tribute to Jo's abilities as a writer.

I personally cannot comprehend what it would feel like to be "THE MAN" so to speak. It was him or no one else. Dumbledore had to sacrifice his loved ones. Dumbledore had to be responsible for deaths. Dumbledore had to deceive and mislead people. Dumbledore had to put others in danger.

HE HAD TO.

And it's so obvious to me that he absolutely detested every minute of it.

Of all the things Dumbledore did the seven potters is the only thing that bothers me, but it isn't for the reasons you might think. The risk to the lives of the Order members I can understand.
So can I.
The risk to Snape I can not.
This is interesting.
Voldemort believed Snape to be his agent within the Order. We of course know he had been doubled by Dumbledore. When Snape kills Dumbledore his cover is blown and he has to do a runner. Voldemort would know that Snape's access to information on the Order would dry up. So when Snape shows up at Malfoy manner with the juiciest piece of information of all, Voldemort should have immediately been on guard that Snape had been turned (which he had long ago) or that the information was a plant (which it was). Even with a very good story about how he had come by the information on Order plans, Voldemort should not have acted without another source. This is agent handling 101.
I suppose the story as how he gets the information was indeed good, Voldemort is also completely dependent on Legilimency, unlike DD, who has a greater understand of people themselves, thus his ability to find out if Snape is lying is very limited, as we know Snape's Occulmens is highly advanced. Now I think Voldemort's lack of understanding / lack of insight into other people hampered him here; his top general had just killed the man he had never been able to kill himself, so Voldemort obviously trusted Snape. He had nothing prove against Snapes name, and he himself was mortaly scared of death, hence he could not understand as soon as Snape killed DD, that DD was so willing to embrace death and sacrafice himself to the cause. Voldemort thought that is the worst thing that could happen to someone, so he must have been convinced as soon as DD died that it was indeed against DDs will that he died. Therefore in Voldemort's mind vindicating Snape, and giving Voldemort every reason to trust him, without needing the 2nd source or without suspecting the plant.


:) :)

I really don't know how I feel about Dumbledore now. I think he used people and manipulated them, which upsets me. But the one thing that really bothered me was how he acted in Snape's memories. It was just so un-Dumbledoreish. He came of cold and just uggggh. I can't even think of a word other then un-Dumbledoreish. It makes me wonder if that sweet funny wise old man thing was just an act. I mean now it sort of seems like he was trying to mask how manipulative he was. Like in HBP when they go to Slughorn's house and he manipulates Slug into teaching. He played it off by joking about the muggle magazines but he used Harry to get what he wanted then too. I don't know if I'm making a whole lot of sense right now. This new side of Dumbledore is really throwing me off.

Before you get thrown off completely read some theories as to why he was so apparently cold :).

http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=107985&page=14

Well said Stumper67, I do agree with what you have said, I have said it myself many times. But I also believe DD had a plan to keep Snape alive, and the only reason it did not happen was the Flaw in the Plan(aka Draco disarming DD). If you read my theory you might agree. DD felt sad over the death of Snape as it was clearly shown in King's Cross, and he also needed Snape alive for conveying information to Harry when he needed it, ie at the end, so I do believe he had a plan to keep Snape alive.

This will lead you to my theory:
http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109286&page=3

And it's so obvious to me that he absolutely detested every minute of it.

It is obvious that DD had everyone's best interests at heart. But the question is whether he had the right to ask people to play certain roles without giving them all the necessary information. What gave him the right to be the one holding all the cards?

Peace,
Christopehr

It is obvious that DD had everyone's best interests at heart. But the question is whether he had the right to ask people to play certain roles without giving them all the necessary information. What gave him the right to be the one holding all the cards?

Peace,
Christopehr

Well, for me the simple fact that he was the one to plot Voldemorts downfall; it gave him the cards in the first place. No one else had the ability to do this, so no one else would have the cards. Then it became a matter of secrecy, telling to much would put the Horcruxes/Sacrafice under threat. But if you read the links I do believe DD had a plan for the survival of Snape, as he was indeed crucial.

It is obvious that DD had everyone's best interests at heart. But the question is whether he had the right to ask people to play certain roles without giving them all the necessary information. What gave him the right to be the one holding all the cards?

Peace,
Christopehr

It wasn't so much a right, but a burden. Like Dumbledoreswand says, he was the only one with the ability to do it. Therefore, he knew he had to and that if he didn't, no one else would.

It wasn't so much a right, but a burden. Like Dumbledoreswand says, he was the only one with the ability to do it. Therefore, he knew he had to and that if he didn't, no one else would.I would agree it was more of a burden, however, I also think that it was in a sense a welcomed burden. Once Voldemort came to power, Dumbledore knew that he himself would be crucial to Voldemort's downfall - the Only One He Ever Feared, Dumbledore's defeat of Grindelwald, being the most powerful Wizard of the age. I do agree it was a burden, but I think, like Harry, if Dumbledore had to choice to step in or walk away, he would step in, not because he had to, but he would have wanted to.

I would agree it was more of a burden, however, I also think that it was in a sense a welcomed burden. Once Voldemort came to power, Dumbledore knew that he himself would be crucial to Voldemort's downfall - the Only One He Ever Feared, Dumbledore's defeat of Grindelwald, being the most powerful Wizard of the age. I do agree it was a burden, but I think, like Harry, if Dumbledore had to choice to step in or walk away, he would step in, not because he had to, but he would have wanted to.

Correct, I mean he technically could have distanced himself from the whole situation he he chose too. But in good concience he could not allow himself to do this, thus he chose to accept the terrible burden, for the right reasons.

It wasn't so much a right, but a burden. Like Dumbledoreswand says, he was the only one with the ability to do it. Therefore, he knew he had to and that if he didn't, no one else would.

I don't disparage DD for what he did. And I certainly think he had the right intentions. I guess I'm looking at the principle of the thing and not the reality of what happened. The idea behind DD is very similar to the ideas he had when corresponding with Grindelwald. "For the Greater Good." For the greater good, I don't need to tell anyone the whole truth. For the greater good, I can plan for Snape and Harry to live, but know that they might have to die. For the greater good, I can play this game of chess so that Harry makes the necessary decisions at the end. It's all for the greater good.

The attitude, and the acceptance of the attitude, concerns me. I don't mean to get into a political battle, and will not reveal my proclivities, but for the greater good can be used by governments for a lot of things. For the greater good, we can manipulate evidence so that the people will make the decisions we deem most prudent. For the greater good, we can limit liberties to protect everyone. That kind of thing.

When does DD's "greater good" end? He only ever told anyone exactly what was needed in order to achieve the ends he deemed necessary. It all worked out, but who is to say it wouldn't have worked out better if he had given everyone the information he knew. We can't know.

And, although I laud DD's stepping back from power to teach, as soon as he heard the clarion call of the "greater good," his machinations seemed very similar to his younger days.

Peace,
Christopher

I don't disparage DD for what he did. And I certainly think he had the right intentions. I guess I'm looking at the principle of the thing and not the reality of what happened.

That can be better discussed in the Greater Good topic, where some interesting arguments have taken place.

The idea behind DD is very similar to the ideas he had when corresponding with Grindelwald. "For the Greater Good." For the greater good, I don't need to tell anyone the whole truth. For the greater good, I can plan for Snape and Harry to live, but know that they might have to die. For the greater good, I can play this game of chess so that Harry makes the necessary decisions at the end. It's all for the greater good.

A risk, everyone was taking, whether DD shared his own knowledge, that he alone had gained, or not.

The attitude, and the acceptance of the attitude, concerns me. I don't mean to get into a political battle, and will not reveal my proclivities, but for the greater good can be used by governments for a lot of things. For the greater good, we can manipulate evidence so that the people will make the decisions we deem most prudent. For the greater good, we can limit liberties to protect everyone. That kind of thing.

True, this is all what the greater good can do in varying situations, and again this kind of argument would be beneficial in the Greater Good thread.

When does DD's "greater good" end? He only ever told anyone exactly what was needed in order to achieve the ends he deemed necessary. It all worked out, but who is to say it wouldn't have worked out better if he had given everyone the information he knew. We can't know.

Who is to say? None of us! But we can indeed speculate, and I am in the camp that repects DDs silence. There are many reasons/theories that support this point of view. I will post one of them for you to consider. Had DD had told Snape, and therefore Harry, that Harry would survive the end because of his sacrafice/love magic in Voldemort's veins. Would Harry be sacraficing anything in those final few moments against LV? If he knew he would live, that is no sacrafice at all. What would that result in? Well for starters it would not have created the same love magic protection for all the other people at Hogwarts that DD knew would be at risk in the final confrontation. So perhaps his silence was a very good thing :), despite him wanting to tell Harry more, because just mabye, it saved a lot more lives than it lost. So to conclude, giving Harry all the information, at the start might not have been a wise thing for Harry on a personal level(what if Ginny had died as a result of Harry not making that sacrafice; the one that was so dependent on DD not explaining, but teaching through someone elses self-discovery), or for the rest of the world, in the sense of the Greater Good.

And, although I laud DD's stepping back from power to teach, as soon as he heard the clarion call of the "greater good," his machinations seemed very similar to his younger days.

His perception of the Greater Good had changed over the years. Therefore his machinations as you call them changed accordingly.

Peace,
Christopher

Peace! :)

Looking more specifically at Dumbledore's relationship with Harry.... I think we need to consider why Dumbledore withheld information from Harry. Was it simply to manipulate him in order to play his part in a larger plan or were there more complex reasons? Perhaps at first, Dumbledore did view Harry primarily as a key instrument in the fight against Voldemort. But there’s little doubt that he came to care deeply about Harry and wanted to protect him from the tremendous responsibility of knowing about the prophecy for as long as possible. Rightly or wrongly, he wanted to protect Harry from pain, and from knowing too much too soon.

It is certainly arguable that Dumbledore’s reticence to confide in Harry was not in Harry’s best interests. But I think his decisions were based as much on his emotional attachment as on his broader plans. In fact, this affection for Harry was something Dumbledore himself hadn’t foreseen. As he points out, his fault was in caring for Harry too much (a fault arising from emotional closeness, not distance) leading him to withhold information for too long.

And of course there were some things that Dumbledore simply couldn’t tell Harry – specifically in relation to Harry’s sacrifice. In order for this to work, Harry couldn’t have known that he might live when Voldemort attacked him – he had to intend to die in order to protect those he loved. Dumbledore did hold all the cards there, but he also provided Harry with as much emotional and moral sustenance as he could, which is where the deathly hallows (and particularly the resurrection stone) played their part...

For me, 'manipulation' isn't an accurate description of Dumbledore's relationship with Harry. In fact it is the development of this relationship, drawing Dumbledore out of his isolation, that begins the humanisation of Rowling's characterisation of Dumbledore.

He's only human...He may have done some things that resulted in death and other bad things, but I still respect him. And he definitely regrets these things.

:welcome: to cos, wizardswheezes! That was a great post, and I completely agree with you.

I think Dumbledore's conversation at the end of OotP shows how much Dumbledore really cared about Harry. He was so emotional, and I think you can really feel his internal conflict about what he could and couldn't tell Harry at that time.

I agree with Rell Dumbledore knew what Harry had to go through and had his suspisions that Harry was a Horcrux. He wanted Harry to have some sembelance of a normal life. If Harry was aware that he was a horcrux and had to actually die to rid the world of Voldemort he would have not had a life. He wouldn;t have made friends with Ron and Hermione or fallen in Love with Ginny all the parts of having a normal life. DD didn't know that Harry would be able to live through it until the events at the end of GOF. Hence the triumphant look at the end of that book. As Dumbledore said himself the truth is a terrible thing. He believed that Harry was happier living in ignorance for a while than to be told the whole terrible truth

For me, 'manipulation' isn't an accurate description of Dumbledore's relationship with Harry. In fact it is the development of this relationship, drawing Dumbledore out of his isolation, that begins the humanisation of Rowling's characterisation of Dumbledore.

I checked the definition and it does have a negative connotation. So what would be a better word? I agree that everything DD did he did both for Harry and the world's good, but he definitely ... maneuvered circumstances? What would you say is a good descriptive term for what occurred?

Peace,
Christopher

Manipulator and schemer have negative connotations; yes. But something like "plotter" or "master strategist" don't have those negative connotations.

I think part of why Dumbledore fed Harry his information piecemeal is that he didn't want to overwhelm Harry. This probably was a mistake, however, since DD probably should have told Harry things faster - Harry had a right to know, and in the end, he barely found out a few vital pieces of information.

I quite understand, however, "why" DD did this. If he was truly a chess master who didn't care about Harry, he might have been able to do things differently. However, he cared about Harry, maybe too much (or maybe not), so he didn't want to hit Harry with what he considered "bad news".

Yes, strategist works better for me. Or even orchestrator. But 'manipulator' has implications of deviousness, unfairness and manoevring events for one's own benefit - in contrast, Dumbledore cares for Harry and, where possible, gives him the opportunity to make his own choices.

Manipulator and schemer have negative connotations; yes. But something like "plotter" or "master strategist" don't have those negative connotations.

I'm on board with "Master Strategist," but "plotter" definitely has negative connotations.

Peace,
Christopher

I'm on board with "Master Strategist," but "plotter" definitely has negative connotations.

Peace,
Christopher

:hmm:...you're probably right, here. Master strategist does put the best spin on things. And, there's no denying that DD was planning and plotting away; the real question does remain: was he "right" to do so. I think he was right; he just had his moments where he took it too far.

My sister and I were talking about this and we managed to trace every death in the DH back to Dumbledore's Plans which did include a good deal of manipulation. However, we also reached the conclusion that someone had to lead the way and he was the best person to do it.

He made some mistakes, but somethings just didn't go as planned because he misjudged those who were working with him; or they did not follow his instructions (totally or partially). Nonetheless, while all of the deaths could be traced back to DD's plans, I would not go so far as to lay blame at his door. The blame rests with Voldemort in the end...the reason for the plans.

I agree with the label differences. A manipulator seems to connote someone who doesn't care about the people involved. Dumbledore definitely cared about Harry and Snape, and everyone else, so strategist definitely fits.

I agree with Rell Dumbledore knew what Harry had to go through and had his suspisions that Harry was a Horcrux. He wanted Harry to have some sembelance of a normal life. If Harry was aware that he was a horcrux and had to actually die to rid the world of Voldemort he would have not had a life. He wouldn;t have made friends with Ron and Hermione or fallen in Love with Ginny all the parts of having a normal life. DD didn't know that Harry would be able to live through it until the events at the end of GOF. Hence the triumphant look at the end of that book. As Dumbledore said himself the truth is a terrible thing. He believed that Harry was happier living in ignorance for a while than to be told the whole terrible truthThat's very true. In DH when Harry thought he just had to fight Voldemort he thought of the future and thought of Ginny marrying some faceless man, and then he could only think of Voldemort for himself.

Dumbledore didn't want to place a greater burden on Harry. He already had such a great burden on him thinking he just had to fight Voldemort, imagine if he thought he had to sacrifice himself. Although I do believe Dumbledore was raising Harry and guiding him toward this moment, he knew, after GoF, how it would end, so he was raising Harry to win.

:hmm:...you're probably right, here. Master strategist does put the best spin on things. And, there's no denying that DD was planning and plotting away; the real question does remain: was he "right" to do so. I think he was right; he just had his moments where he took it too far.

I've been thinking more about this and the more I think about it, the more I think that if someone else were to show the same characteristics as DD, I (and most) would be quite put off. Here are the characteristics as I see them:

Thinks they know better than the general populace (whether they're right or not)
Thinks that, because they know better, they can withold information
And that they can maneuver people to do things because "it's for their own good"
Manipulates the flow of information to accomplish this end

Don't you think those characteristics describe DD? And don't they also describe quite a few people/governments with which you're not too pleased? Just because DD was correct, does that make him right?

Peace,
Christopher

cristoir, I think it depends on what end is being accomplished and how much these things are necessary to accomplish this end. I think that Dumbledore was justified in most of what he did.

cristoir, I think it depends on what end is being accomplished and how much these things are necessary to accomplish this end. I think that Dumbledore was justified in most of what he did.

I would add that it does take someone who knows his limitations to be able to pull off what Dumbledore did. Someone who is as smart and powerful enough to be in DD's position has to be afraid of the power to be able to concoct the strategy that he concocted. All it would take is DD making a grab for power himself to undo the work he did - and, as we saw, he almost did exactly that. But, in the end, it worked. As "nervous" as it makes me to use the phrase, DD did it "For the Greater Good".

Well I think in a sense Dumbledore is a manipulator, but I think that word sounds kind of harsh. He is the greatest, wisest person on the side of good, so he gets to call all of the shots. It's like his masterplan. I think that he knows each individual and there needs, so when he makes decisions, he has everyone in mind. He knows it is necessary that people will get hurt, but it is for the greater good. So in the end, I guess he is the kind manipulator.

Criostoir:
There's a thread somewhere called 'the greater good' - I think you'd be interested in the arguments going on there. :)

I understand the point you're making. But while your description could fit governments/people many of us feel uncomfortable about, it could also be used in reference to political activists, lobbyists, freedom fighters and leaders with quite different agendas. I think there will always be people who have a burden of knowledge and responsibility. But what sets them apart is how they use this responsibility and for what ends.

I actually think Dumbledore offers Harry far more opportunity to make his own choices then many would grant a teenage boy. We see this from the very first book. Dumbledore does become over-protective of Harry, which he recognises, but this comes from concern rather than cold manipulation. Dumbledore wants to protect Harry from yet more pain for as long as possible. And the prophecy is painful knowledge. (Witness the scene where Harry imagines Ginny’s future life, but can see no future for himself beyond Voldemort). Dumbledore could have told Harry everything he knew when Harry first joined Hogwarts. This would have been very candid, but it wouldn’t have been compassionate and it wouldn’t have been right.

There are some instances when Dumbledore has to withhold information – for instance, in terms of Harry’s sacrifice. Harry couldn’t know everything in order for this to work. I also think Dumbledore was right in manipulating the flow of information to Harry about the deathly hallows. Dumbledore knew that he might be fired up to pursue them too quickly and exclusively (and he was right) – but he also knew that, with a helping hand (from himself and from Hermione), he could trust Harry to make the right choices – something that Dumbledore himself had been unable to do.

As for thinking he knows better than the general populace, yes, that’s true of Dumbledore – but it’s also true of Harry, his friends and the Order of the Phoenix. And the crucial piece of information that Dumbledore doesn’t withhold from anyone is that Voldemort is back. He immediately informs the Hogwarts student body of this after Cedric’s death. This shows a great deal of respect for the right of children to know the truth. I think this is characteristic of Dumbledore.

cristoir, I think it depends on what end is being accomplished and how much these things are necessary to accomplish this end. I think that Dumbledore was justified in most of what he did.

Your point is mirrored by the others who replied as well. I must ask, does a good end justify any means? And who gets to decide what is a good end?

Peace,
Christopher

I disagree. Althought Dumbledore had to do somethings that are quite questionable on face value, they were ultimately for the greater good. If he went out blabbering his plans like Hagrid did then he would not deserve the title of one of the most powerful wizards to ever have lived.

I think that it was Alstor's own resposibility that he died. He chose to be part of the Harry's rescue party. Dumbledore was not the one to cast the AK curse, was he?

Dumbledore only made Severus kill him because that was the only way to keep Severus on the right track. Otherwise he might have returned to his old ways and all would have been lost. Severus also chose that life when he went to Dumbledore at the top of that hill after Voldemort had failed to kill Harry.

Again Quirrell had only his own actions to blame. Dumbledore was doing everything within his duty to weasle out anyone work for Voldemort at Hogwarts before anyone got seriously hurt or killed which almost happened in CoS and Dumbledore was told to leave the shool while it was investigated.

Severus expressly forbid Dumbledore to mention their plans and actions to anyone: - See The Prince's Tale, DH

It can be said, and should, that many of the things Albus did which resulted in pain, suffering, loss, and death for so many peopole were necessary and the cost could not be avoided, yet it must also be noted that Albus Dumbledore made those choices, and some of those choices were mistakes. They were the "huge" mistakes Dumbledore meant, I believe.

I can't believe what I'm reading. Do you thing that Dumbledore enjoys watching people experience pain...I think you have him mistaken with Voldemort and Co.

Also, do you think that those people who died would have escaped death if Voldemort had caught up with them. Cedric would have fought at the battle for Hogwarts and he could have been killed by Death Eaters...Or were Lupin and Tonks not good enough w/w that they were killed even though they have a child (son) to go home to.

It is a fact of Reality, that leaders must make hard choices at times. There are times when a leader has to give an order which he knows will result in someone's death. It is not evil or wrong to give such orders if there is an absolute need for this, but it is important to also see that the weight of these decisions has its effect. I noticed that Dumbledore never told Harry all he ought to have done, nor - it seems - all he meant to say. His plans were very good, but they never quite worked out as he planned, and Albus kept his own counsel, never asking anyone else to weigh his ideas and test them. In short, Albus Dumbledore was human, in great and wonderful ways, but also in less noble measures, as well.

Can anyone really tell me a plan that Dumbledore made knowing someone would die, And tell me who died.

- Cedris was teleprted away by a Portkey which Dumbledore was not aware of.
- Sirius chose to join the melee at the DoM at the MoM

There are only deaths in Deathly Hallows but Dumbledore was dead by then.

I would add that it does take someone who knows his limitations to be able to pull off what Dumbledore did. Someone who is as smart and powerful enough to be in DD's position has to be afraid of the power to be able to concoct the strategy that he concocted. All it would take is DD making a grab for power himself to undo the work he did - and, as we saw, he almost did exactly that. But, in the end, it worked. As "nervous" as it makes me to use the phrase, DD did it "For the Greater Good".

I think this is well stated. I don't think DD ever stopped working for what he considered "The greater good" it is just that the definition of greater good changed as he gained wisdom and experience. As we come t find out, DD is wise, but also deliberate and focused. He himself called worrying more for Harry than scores of nameless and faceless victims in the future a flaw in his plan, a flaw he had to avoid.

Your point is mirrored by the others who replied as well. I must ask, does a good end justify any means? And who gets to decide what is a good end? Peace,Not any means. If Voldemort had been victorious, then many many people would have died and/or been tortured and terrorized for many years to come. Dumbledore set up a plan in which there was a chance of death, but not a lot of a chance. It would have been better had Harry known about all of this, but then the chances of him dying would have been greater.

I think this is well stated. I don't think DD ever stopped working for what he considered "The greater good" it is just that the definition of greater good changed as he gained wisdom and experience. As we come t find out, DD is wise, but also deliberate and focused. He himself called worrying more for Harry than scores of nameless and faceless victims in the future a flaw in his plan, a flaw he had to avoid.

Thanks, I was afraid I'd made that confusing!

DD was very conflicted about Harry...and it was in a sense sort of luck and sort of planning that Harry survived. The "key" ended up being something that DD himself had little control over - the "gleam of triumph".

(One may call it luck, or one may call it JK's grand plan :lol:)

Dumbledore is one of my favorite characters. I really appreciated the character development we saw in him in DH. He is, after all, a flawed human. Still, he seems to be aware of and come to terms with his weaknesses and shortcomings. Because of this, his manipulation of Snape in particular was rather disturbing to me. As Harry says, he is still fighting for "The Greater Good" at the expense of a few bystanders. I would like to think that, after planting the scene with the vital information for Snape to pass to Harry, Dumbledore might have later explained what was really going on. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that he did. At least in the end Snape will know that Harry wasn't really raised to be killed, if only from the vantage point of Death.

Not any means. If Voldemort had been victorious, then many many people would have died and/or been tortured and terrorized for many years to come. Dumbledore set up a plan in which there was a chance of death, but not a lot of a chance. It would have been better had Harry known about all of this, but then the chances of him dying would have been greater.

Let's step it up a notch. What if there was no way for Harry to have lived. Or Snape. Would the ends have still justified the means?

How did DD know that Voldemort splited his soul accidentaly and Harry must die any way? Even Voldemort himself didn't know.
And I think what DD did was not good but was the only choice. Moody, Snape, Sirius and Harry all understand that "there's sth worth dying for".

Let's step it up a notch. What if there was no way for Harry to have lived. Or Snape. Would the ends have still justified the means?

That's one of the wonderful moral questions the series raise, isn't it? I have no answer to this. I believe a human life is not to be sacrificed in any situation unless it's one's own), but if failure to do so results in many deaths, would the person who had chosen not to kill one be responsible for the death of the others? Who can really answer this? I tend to think he wouldn't, because you can never predict the future with 100% certainty, but on the whole, I am undecided. It's a very tough dilemma... I wonder what Dumbledore would have said about that.

Let's step it up a notch. What if there was no way for Harry to have lived. Or Snape. Would the ends have still justified the means?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking for speculation about what Dumbledore would have done? Or is it a more general question? I agree with Yoana - this is one of those big question that the series raises, but does not resolve (and consciously so).

Let's step it up a notch. What if there was no way for Harry to have lived. Or Snape. Would the ends have still justified the means?Well we can't really play the "What If" game when it was planned the entire time to be that way.

I ended up liking Deathly Hallows Dumbledore the least of all the Dumbledores. Most things about his character didn't bother me but something about him seemed detached from Harry in DH and it was really disheartening. I had suspected it for some time that Dumbledore truly viewed Harry as an object and a means to an end which he would manipulate and mold but since OOTP and HBP I felt a little differently and I saw what I thought of as Dumbledore's great love for Harry himself. I'm back at square one now though because he's again become the man that left a little boy to be tormented by his relatives when it was within his power to do many number of things to prevent this because he saw not Harry the little child but the greater good. Oh well, Dumbledore is still and will always be my favourite character because despite this flaw in him, he's still a great character.

Cheers :tu:

It was a battle which he was fighting. He was the puppet master of the white briks and Voldemort was the master of the black briks. Chess. In the first book in McGonnagal's task Ron said that sometimes you had to make sacrefices and so he did. He sacreficed himself so Harry and Hermione could go on with the task, to stop Quirrel.

That's exactly what Dumbledore was doing- he was sacreficing himself so that Harry could finish the task. It was not him that was supposed to finish Voldemort, it was Harry. Manipulator, puppetmaster or what-so-ever, he was just in a battle and sacrefices are part of the battle.

Dumbledore wasn't mean or evil. He was realistic. He was human, but I think unable to share his feelings, his personal feelings. "I know how you feels" he said to Harry when Sirius died. He knew how he felt, he knew how it was to loose someone and he knew how it felt to think that it was his fault. But he didn't tell Harry that... no, the only personal thing Harry asked him "What do you see in the mirror" (or sumething) he lied... like Abeforth said- grew up with lies and he was the master of lies. But he was human and I reallly do respect this charecter even more than ever, even after all he did.

I'm going to go through this thread top to bottom to argue with everything I see that I feel is wrong. :)

That said, there were clues throughout the books which came to a head in "Deathly Hallows", showing that Albus Dumbledore could be ruthless and manipulative in carrying out his plans.

Manipulative, yes.
Ruthless, no.

We know for example, that it was Albus who ordered Snape to reveal the date and time of Harry leaving the Dursley home, and so it was Albus Dumbledore, in the end, who shares responsibility for the death of Alastor Moody.

We know that Albus ordered Severus to reveal the date to stay in Lord Voldemort's good book. Moody would have been perfectly fine if Fletcher hadn't dived. Moody also died how he would have wanted to, much like Sirius, and I doubt he would have regretted it. It's a war, sometimes sacrifices need to be made.


It was Albus who ordered Severus Snape to kill him, knowing the consequences would unjustly make Severus an outcast from the only people he could otherwise trust - in essence, Albus condemned Severus to serve as a spy until he was caught and killed, or else just killed.

Snape did not care about the consequences, the two people he cared about were Dumbledore and Harry. Nobody else mattered to him, and I'm sure he enjoyed being headmaster of Hogwarts.


It was Albus whose plans prevented him from letting Harry and Sirius know enough to trust the word of Severus Snape, and so Albus shares respnsibility for the death of Sirius Black.

No, he most certainly does not.
Dumbledore made a promise to Snape.
If Dumbledore broke the promise, Snape wouldn't have trusted him.
Snape is constantly practicing legilimency on Harry - there's no way Harry could have stopped him from knowing.
Snape ordered Sirius Black not to go to the DoM and wait for Dumbledore, Sirius disagreed.

If Dumbledore's at fault for something it's for not intervening in the Bellatrix/Sirius duel.



His plans were very good, but they never quite worked out as he planned, and Albus kept his own counsel, never asking anyone else to weigh his ideas and test them. In short, Albus Dumbledore was human, in great and wonderful ways, but also in less noble measures, as well.

Dumbledore had one essential plan.
Harry defeats Lord Voldemort.
It was successful.


Maybe I'm misinterpreting something here? But it sounds as if Dumbledore sacrificed Snape in a way...

Snape wouldn't have minded.
If you remember in his memories he told Dumbledore he wished he were dead.
He intentionally used himself as a sacrificial lamb to do what is best for Harry (not anyone else, just Harry)

As Vertigo9 said, Snape was a double agent with a short life expectancy.


I also forgot to mention in my first post, Doge actually commends DD for pursuing the greater good in the obituary he wrote...

Why is it that everyone know has this silly idea that "greater good" is wrong?
Greater good is important.
Would you tell a Christian Jesus was bad for sacrificing himself for the "greater good?"
The greater good is a great thing, Dumbledore was not however acting for the greater good back then, he was acting for something bad, due to peer pressure, using the term "greater good" as a persuasion technique.

Great posts--Dumbledore certainly seemed the most human and fallible to me in this book---definitely removed from his pedestal! I'm a bit uncomfortable with him arranging for Snape to kill him--it's almost as if when Dumbledore asks Snape what he'll do for the Order since he regrets his association with the DEs and Snape replies 'anything' that Dumbledore takes him at his word... Snape, in the end, had to do 'anything' and 'everything'.

Let me explain something.
Dumbledore was dying anyway.
If Snape didn't kill Dumbledore, Snape, Draco, and Dumbledore would all be dead by the end of the year.
Snape first for breaking the promise.
Dumbledore second because of the horcrux.
Draco third because without Dumbledore to protect him he's dead.
I have been arguing this since I finished HBP.

So what is lossed by Snape killing Dumbledore?
A few months of Dumbledore's life.
Dumbledore sacrificed himself for the greater good, and it was a very honourable thing to do.

i dunno, I think that Dumbledore did sacrifice Snape and I think that he should have least told him the whole truth - I think Snape had earnt that.

And what if Dumbledore was wrong about Snape?
What if Snape ended up changing his ways on Dumbledore?
What if Snape found someone else to love?
Well, Snape earned it, why not trust him with every little detail?

I think Dumbledore was absolutely a manipulator, quite the puppet master and in some ways was quite similar to Voldemort in that he believed strongly in his own intelligence, kept his own counsel and didn't really seem to have friends but 'colleagues'. However, whereas Voldemort was all about personal gain, Dumbledore worked for the 'greater good'.

Dumbledore did have a friend, Grindelwald, who he treated as an equal.
Dumbledore longed for someone who he could consider an equal.
He also treated Elphias Doge as a great friend similar to the friendship between Hermione and Harry - one is much smart, one is an incredibly loyal friend.


I remember getting to Snapes memories in DH and feeling really angry with Dumbledore, I was mollified slightly when Dumberdore admitted in 'Kings Cross' that he had a hunch that Harry would survive, but it still seemed as though DD had completely used Harry throughout his life, as he could never be sure that Harry would live!

If Harry had to choose between living with Voldemort killing everyone he cared for or dying by making Voldemort loyal - which would Harry choose?

I think it's obvious, and nothing to condemn Dumbledore for.

Dumbledore we find was a most patronizing man; I loathe him for it.

Yeah, the wizarding world would have been much better off without Dumbledore. That way Grindelwald could have been running around in Bulgaria with the Elder Wand while Voldemort was killing off mudbloods around England. Harry would have never knew what a Horcrux nor Hallow was. There would have never been a prophecy. Voldemort would have got the Sorcerers Stone, there would have been no Fawkes to save Harry, Sirius' soul would have been sucked out of him because nobody would have thought of going back in time, there would be no OotP as everything would rely on the Ministry, and Voldemort wouldn't have needed Snape in the first place.


I was as mad at Dumbledore as Harry was for not giving them all the clues they needed. His ambiguous clue with the Snitch, his making it hard for them to get the sword. they had enough to do without worrying about those things.

Someone should be Master of Death without even earning it?
Dumbledore knew Harry could manage to figure everything out, and he was right.
Just like Harry said in the first book:
"He's a funny man, Dumbledore. I think he sort of wanted to give me a chance. I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here, you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to help. I don't think it is an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked. It's almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I could..." (SS, p. 302)

I was feeling uneasy about Dumbledore since HBP because I understood him risking students life (Katie, Ron) to save Draco. When people developed the theory that Dumbledore has ordered Snape to kill him I said everytime: No, never - Dumbledore would never do that. He did it, he made Snape to do him a favour: mercy-killing, isn´t it? I´m struggling very hard with this part of the story, I´m feeling very uncomfortable with it.
Dumbledores confession of his feelings for Harry at the end of OoP made him a very human puppet-master who almost had destroyed his plans for the greater Good. At the end of DH the humanity is overshadowed and that makes me unhappy.

Do you know what the Order of the Phoenix wanted?
Do you know the purpose of the organization?
The real purpose?

The purpose was "the greater good."
Everyone who joined not only knew it, but wanted it.
Each and every Order member, with the exception of a few here and there [Mundungus, Pettigrew] would have sacrificed their own life, not just to save Harry, but to stop Voldemort.

As I explained earlier, the mercy killing saved two lives and didn't kill anyone who was going to live very long. Dumbledore did not have a problem with being killed, I don't understand why you would have a problem with him dying sooner, which would have happened much sooner anyway if Snape hadn't helped to cure him.

Dumbledore did keep his word to the man who had once betrayed him, just as Snape kept his word to Dumbledore until the day of his own death.

When did Snape betray Dumbledore?

I have a lot of problems with the way Dumbledore sacrificed people for the greater good.

I have a lot of problems with how people would have preferred Dumbledore not sacrifice a dozen people to save plenty a thousand who Voldemort would have ended up killing. It's a chess game, if you need to give up a pawn and a bishop to get a checkmate you go ahead and do it. Who did Dumbledore sacrifice that would not have died either for Harry or to defeat Voldemort?

Sirius? No.
Moody? No.
Snape? No.


It's important to remember, when examining DD's strengths and weaknesses, that he did everything to stop Voldemort. Imagine a world ruled by the Dark Lord vs. the lovely ending we got from Jo. That alone vindicates Dumbledore.

Hear hear!



He was manipulative, vain, cunning and intelligent. He was ruthless in that he would sacrifice anything to get what he wanted (the greater good). Seems to me the hallmarks of Slytherin house.

No he wasn't, but I would have loved to find out that Dumbledore was a Slytherin. Unfortunately, I believe JK Rowling wanted to show people that they ought not to be prejudice against Slytherin's just because of Harry's character - as so many readers turned out to be despite the purpose she claimed to have written the books.

He was not ruthless, he felt guilty for anything that he felt was his fault, even when it was not.

but if Harry was to die in doing so, Dumbledore would have had yet another death on his hands.

Dumbledore was watching Harry more carefully than either of us could imagine.

I believe that Dumbledore could have save many lives and saved the heartbreak of others by not being so closed. He manipulated people for "the greater good" or so he told people.

What lives could Dumbledore have saved by not being closed?
You know what could have saved the most lives?
If everyone listened to Dumbledore and Snape's orders. :)

Yes, and we know Snape didn't want to kill DD. I have trouble with the whole death arrangement too. Asking another person to murder is asking alot regardless of the circumstances.

I disagree with the term "murder"
Euthenasia is far more appropriate.

I see DD as playing a game of chess and the people are his pieces. As Ron says in PS/SS you have to make sacrifices, that's chess. Easy enough to do with chessmen, much more difficult with real people.

I concur, but though it was difficult it was necessary.
There is a difference between
"Should be done for the greater good" - Opinion
"Must be done for the greater good" - Fact

Putting muggles in their place would be the former.
Stopping Voldemort would be the latter.

No character who died, that was in the Order would have looked down on Dumbledore for it, I don't see why you should.

Dumbledore lost a lot of points with me.
He was manipulating everyone else, and did what was necessary to win, even if it was for "the greater good".

So he shouldn't have done what was necessary to win?
He would score more points with you if he allowed Harry to die in exchange for telling everyone the truth about everything?



Was this fair to Harry, Snape, Sirius, and anyone else who was unaware of vital information that could have caused pause or even a change of mind towards a particular strategy? Certainly not.

The word "fair" is a ridiculous word to use in a war in my opinion.
Everything Dumbledore did was intended to make things best for Harry.
Everything Snape did was intended to make things best for Harry.
Everything Sirius did was intended to make things best for Harry.

When DD mentions here and there that Harry is a better man than himself, he wasn't flattering Harry at all. He was being truthful. Harry was never tempted as DD was to those 'Magic over Muggles' nonsense. He trusted Ron and Hermoine as DD never had with him. Harry was the better man, no question in my mind.

No, I believe Dumbledore was the better man.
Dumbledore made-up for things he did that were wrong.
Dumbledore taught Harry enough to defeat Voldemort.
Dumbledore taught Harry to become Master of Death, even when not alive.
Dumbledore convinced Harry to sacrifice himself to save not only himself, but everyone else who was there in Hogwarts from being brutally slaughtered there after.
Dumbledore was better than Harry in every way, shape, and form in my opinion, even if Mrs. Rowling says otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if he would have told Moody, Sirius, Lupin, Fred, Snape, etc... that they were all better than him.

Dumbledore never brought himself to use an unforgivable curse - Harry had.

Though, I don't condemn Harry for using it, but I believe that is your type of logic of what's right. If there's one reason I would find Harry better than Dumbledore it is that he could use an unforgivable curse for the greater good, Dumbledore never had that sort of courage.


Just after HBP came out I wrote a theory about the Spinner's End chapter was not about Snape, but was about planning the end of the Spinner of the plot, Dumbledore.

That is quite impressive. :)

I agree that this is contradictory, and now we are not sure what the message was supposed to be. Is it is all right to do dreadful things for the Greater Good, as long as it really is the Greater Good? But what if both sides think they have the Greater Good in mind?

Then it would be like our muggle world.
Anti Bush vs. Pro Bush
Israel vs. Palestine
Pro Life vs. Pro Choice

We're all arguing about the greater good - we're all trying to persuade people using the greater good rationality.


but this book almost seems to be saying murder and torture are justifiable for the greater good. and who decides that?

Anyone with the brains to realize that people like McGonagall shouldn't have been killed and torturing someone who's likely to kill her (and many more people) is a fair exchange.


I was shocked at the way Snape was used. At the beginning of the book when his colleague is being hung upside down ready to be slaughtered and pleading for help from him he turns away, when I first read it I was shocked at the brutality of this scene I felt it would take a person with a heart of stone to do that but then because I was under the impression that Snape was evil and attributed it to that. But then to find out that Snape was still acting out Dumbledore's orders. Dumbledore being somehow complicit in this and other brutal murders. He said it himself that murder was the biggest act of evil "it splits the soul" yet ordered snape to kill him anyway.

This was what I wanted to reply to most in this thread.
What should Snape have done?
Should he have saved her life and shown his true allegiance to Voldemort?
Should he have allowed his dedication to Lily Potter to be intervened to someone who would have been killed anyway? If Snape disobeyed Voldemort, he would have been put in a position where he's facing a few dozen death eaters and Voldemort himself, and when they were done with Snape, Voldemort would have killed her anyway.

Dumbledore also said it wouldn't split Snape's soul if he murdered Dumbledore to prevent a man who was going to die the embarassment of how he would have been killed otherwise.

This man cared for Harry and kept him safe and everything and trained him knewing very well that Harry was going to die. Until GOF, at least, when he finds out about the exchange of blood, he knew very well that Harry was a horcrux and had to die. How can you look a child in the eyes and knew that he is going to die and you are preparing him for that is beyond my imagination.

And he was manipulative with Snape and with a lot of other people.

I think Dumbledore never expected Harry to die until GoF.
I believe Dumbledore would have aimed to get Voldemort to repent somehow.
I believe Dumbledore would have found another way.
I believe Dumbledore would have given Harry the choice of whether he wanted to die.
And I believe Harry would have done it willingfully.


I don't think the problem is that he didn't share the information. What bothers me the most is how he prepared poor Harry to die. What heart could this man have had to look Harry in the eyes and knew that he was going to die? I would never have sacrificed Harry for the "greater good" I would have looked for other ways!

You would have looked for other ways but Dumbledore wouldn't?
Did Dumbledore kill Harry when Harry was a baby? No he did not.
Dumbledore did look for other ways, and other ways managed to get involved.
Let's also not forget the Prophecy, which goes "the one with the power to defeat the dark lord approaches."

Can hardly defeat Voldemort if he's dead.

Yes, but we also know that he found this an extremely difficult task - he tells Harry, in OotP that the flaw of the plan - his plan, is that he cares about Harry too much, he says "what did I care about countless deaths in the future, as long as you, now, were safe and happy"

I'm glad I just saw this, this is a perfect example of what happens when you ignore the greater good and possibly the most terrible thing Dumbledore has ever said.

"What did I care about countless deaths"
Someone who would care for the greater good would certainly care about all these deaths rather than making sure someone was temporarily safe and happy.



No way is this aceptable for me! This is the way all leaders justify their wars and everything. It had to be done for the "greater good" Innocent people had to die for the "greater good". The purpose justifies the means? Why doesn't this sound ok to me?

Because you expect Dumbledore to be everywhere at once to save everyone who would be happy in the end if they just follow his orders, while making things happen that aren't remotely possible.

Rather than appreciating Dumbledore for leading Harry to defeat Voldemort, you dislike him for not doing everything in an impossible manner where Voldemort is not permitted to kill anyone. Dumbledore's good, but he's not that good. He's a fictional character who's incredibly smart and has more morals than I would say you or I do.

i think he handled the situation well, he could have done it better but he was in a tough situation and did what he thought was for the best. if he had told harry that he was a horcrux and would most likely have to die i think harry would have gone to his death but imagine trying to get rid of all the horcruxes, face DEs, etc, knowing that you won't survive. dumbledore just wanted to protect harry until the time he really needed to know.
i think dumbledore was a genius although he was flawed, no one's perfect and he changed as a person because of the mistakes he made.

Most intelligent statement in this thread thus far.

But Harry chooses to break Dumbledore's web when he tells the DA about the diadem.

No he does not, to break Dumbledore's web he needed to tell people about horcruxes. He broke this web when he talked to Ron and Hermione.

thought Dumbledore was the personification of pure goodness and light. I was so wrong. I can not say that I am a fan of Albus Dumbledore any longer. Too many people had to die in his quest "for the greater good". No matter what his intentions were, he was manipulative and untruthful.

You blame him for being untruthful?
Perhaps he should have told everyone, including Pettigrew what he believed of Voldemort? That would have definately made things better. I'm sure Voldemort wouldn't have created any more horcrux if there was someone who brought back to him the idea that Dumbledore knew about the ring, the locket, and the cup.

What would you have done differently in Dumbledores shoes?
Tell Snape to let himself and Draco die for him?
Allow Voldemort to kill plenty of other people so Harry wouldn't have had to have one more uncomfortable experience?
Do things that even he didn't have the skill to manage?

I actually wonder if he loved anyone himself.

Did you ever thing why he may not have had someone he loved?
Perhaps the first person Voldemort or Grindelwald would have targetted was someone Dumbledore loved? Perhaps he would have been blackmailed? Same reason Harry broke up with Ginny in HBP isn't it? You don't need to be in love to appreciate love, but you do need to appreciate it to be in it.

I mean what right does Dumbledore have to decide what's for the Greater Good?

Much more of a right than the corrupted Ministry of his time.
Much more of a right than anyone else who couldn't stop Grindelwald.
Much more of a right than random people (myself included) arguing on an internet forum. :)

I think the line between Grindlewald/Voldemort and Dumbledore is very thin indeed.

Right, because someone who killed plenty of people for personal gain and someone who refused to use an unforgivable curse to achieve quick "greater good" results are only seperated by a thin line!



In what way did Dumbledore sacrifice himself? He was going to die from the curse off the ring anyway and that was down to his own greed. Dumbledore put other people in front of him and never sacrificed his own life for his perception of "the greater good", he used people to his own advantage.

That's quite the unfair statement.
He used people to his own advantage?
Would you like to explain what advantage Dumbledore got out of this whole war?
He did his best to help the wizarding world as a whole and all he got out of it was to be put out of his misery. If Dumbledore was someone who did things to take an advantage he would have killed Voldemort without mercy.

In one way I agree that DD plan and actions had grave consequences including the death of Quirell, Sirius, Moody and Snape

Quirrel didn't deserve to continue living.
Sirius would have had a dementor suck out his soul if Dumbledore didn't hint to Hermione what to do.
Moody was killed because Fletcher was a coward.
If Dumbledore didn't suggest the plan Snape would be punished and probably not given the Headmaster post, which I'm sure Moody would agree was much more important.
Snape didn't fear death in the least.


But I do care about how Dd used Harry in order to send him to his death! This is something that I cannot forgive him for. Alberforth was right!

Because Harry was worse off following Dumbledore blindly than if he would have chosen to turn his back on the prophecy... I'm sure he could have been with Ginny without Voldemort killing her.

Maybe you think it would be better if Dumbledore didn't raise Harry as a lamb, and allowed other children like the Montgomery sisters little brother. Harry's life isn't worth a thousand of others, and I don't see Harry being the type of character that would disagree with this statement.

Harry had to die in the same manner as his mother.
He had to unwittingly sacrifice himself in order to remove the horcrux and protect everyone who was in the battle of Hogwarts from the wrath of Voldemort.

to the person who said that Dd knew that harry was not going to die because of the hallows, please remember, that Dd wanted Harry to go for the horcruxes. Besides, the hallows did not make you immortal, only made you face and embrace mortality. i think this is what Jk said. What kept Harry alive was the fact that Voldemort took his blood. before GOF Dd had no idea that Harry can live. And I think that Dd was not sure even after GOF that Harry would live, so yes, he prepared him cold heartdly for his death.

Then why may I ask you did Dumbledore protect Harry?
He knew Harry needed to die yet he went out of his way to protect Harry.
What kept Harry alive was Dumbledore watching him for sixteen and a half years.
Would Harry have been alive without Dumbledore moving him to his aunt's?
Would Harry have been alive if Dumbledore didn't have Fawkes working for him?
Would Harry have been alive if Dumbledore hadn't appointed the teacher who taught him to fight dementors?
Would Harry have been alive if Dumbledore hadn't stopped Barty Crouch Jr.?
Would Harry have lived if Dumbledore hadn't followed him during the DoM battle? Well yeah, he could have, but even then Dumbledore protected him rather than let him be a lamb!

Why? Because Dumbledore cared for Harry.

to the person who said that you can sacrifice a person to save the world, I have to say, I would never do it! I don't think it is acceptable. This is how wars and everything else starts.

Why do I have the feeling, that with your moral system, you would sacrifice yourself to save the world?

I personally feel that anyone who is selfish enough not to sacrifice themselves for the rest of the world doesn't deserve much better than death anyway.


He loathed Harry until the evry end, which even Jo, I think, said it, was unfair. Snape only loved Lily and nobody else. he didn't come to appreciate Harry. he only wanted to see Harry's eyes before he died, because it was like looking at Lily.

Did you miss the part where Snape produces the doe and says it was for Harry? It means he was thinking of Harry - as his happy thought - and therefore cared for him, even more so than Dumbledore IMO. I think you need to lower your standards of fictional characters. You expect each and every character to be some God like figure who can magically make everything perfect with a lunatic like Voldemort on the loose.


Consider he had him kill him thereby potentially splitting his soul, the act of ultimate evil and yes I know he was dying anyway but why couldnt he have let death take him naturally a few months later than to ask a colleague to kill him. Just think how helpful it wouldve been to Harry to the order, if Dumbledore had been alive for even just a week longer (not from the purposes of the overall story , I concede).


No, Snape's soul was never at risk.
YOU NEED TO MAKE A HORCRUX TO SPLIT YOUR SOUL - Murder alone does not do it. Snape knew Dumbledore would die soon, Snape lengthened Dumbledore's life already, Snape had no intentions of creating a horcrux.
It's about damaging the soul, not splitting it. All Snape would have to do is repent or regret his action for a single moment, which he would do, and his soul would have been all back together. Dumbledore also asked Snape to do it to save Draco, not himself. Should Snape have let Draco's soul go to waste or allowed Draco to be punished (capitally) for not killing Dumbledore? What should Dumbledore have done - realistically? Snape did everything for Lily Evans' son, if he had to choose between killing Dumbledore and keeping Harry alive longer, he would have chosen the latter.


I was also dubious as to snapes double agent role post HBP. at this point what purpose does it serve. Yes you can argue it keeps the students safe from the Carrows but as McGonoggal said "we teachers are rather good at magic". It showed a real lack of faith in his own staff by Dumbledore.

And as the Carrows showed, the teachers could not protect the students from the Carrows very well regardless of how good at magic they were.


I still cant over the evil crime that happened at the beginning of the book , the killing of Charity Burbage. Consider, she was a fellow colleague of Snape's for at least the previous 7 years and he just left her to her fate even when she was pleading for help from Snape. It was utterly heartless. As others have made the WW2 analogy, it was like the catholic church turning a blind eye to the holocaust.

Yeah, would have been better for Pope Pius XII to openly oppose Hitler to save one life rather than the hundreds he saved in a private manner. Pius saved more Jews than pretty much anyone aside from Schindler. Sometimes you need to choose the lesser of two evils rather than make an irrational choice that will cost far more deaths.


No, I've always read it as killing someone will split your soul whether or not you make a Horcrux.

And what puts it back together? Remorse!
Snape is a remorseful person.
Voldemort is not.
Snape was able to kill Dumbledore without effect to his soul.

Who is to say what the "greater good" is? Voldemort, his Death Eaters and sympathisers all thought they had the right idea.

No, Voldemort did not, but yes, the Death Eaters did.
Voldemort was selfish, and fully aware, his Death Eaters bought into the propaganda he was using for his persuasive method of greater good, which to them was worth dying for.

1) The fact that he was willing to sacrifice all of the people of the Order when he had Snape leak the 7 Potters info. Those people had sacrificed everything and had followed Dumbledore blindly. Yet he was willing to let them all die just so Snape wouldn't be suspected. I agree with the person who said Dumbledore was like Voldemort in the fact that he didn't really have friends: or that Dumbledore didn't mind sacrificing them.

You forget some key points.
1. Snape was there along with them secretly trying to help.
2. Snape made the 7 Potters suggestion.
3. All fifteen people there were willingfully going to intentionally risk their lives to save Harry, just like the OotP in the DoM.

2) I was also upset about how he treated Snape. I think both of them knew that Snape was going to die, but I was mad that he kept things from Snape. He made him believe that Harry was going to have to die. Snape had sacrificed everything to keep Harry safe for Lily, and then he thinks all of that work was just so they could postpone Harry's death. I think he deserved the truth; Snape did so much for Dumbledore, and Dumbledore made him feel like all those years had been worthless.

Snape deserved feeling that way.
Snape was originally going to let harry die so that Lily could live.
Snape was a double agent - if someone blindly trust a double agent, they're being willfully blind.





RobbieF1: That was a brilliant post you made.
Stumper67: I really liked yours as well.

In General:
Who are all of you to judge Dumbledore's character?
Do you not recall that Harry named his son after Dumbledore?
Obviously Harry doesn't have a problem with how Dumbledore raised him, why should you?

Why is it that everyone know has this silly idea that "greater good" is wrong?
Greater good is important.

Not accoring to DH - in it, the greater good was associated with gaining power and exercising terror.

Would you tell a Christian Jesus was bad for sacrificing himself for the "greater good?"

It's one thing to sacrifice your own life (and Jesus was God, wasn't He, so He knew what He was doing) and completely another to sacrifice another human being's life. That is definitely NOT right.

If Harry had to choose between living with Voldemort killing everyone he cared for or dying by making Voldemort loyal - which would Harry choose?

I think it's obvious, and nothing to condemn Dumbledore for.

I agree, because it was Harry's call. Dumbledore didn't decide his fate for him. In the end, it was Harry who had to decide whether to sacrifice himself or not. It's not like Dumbledore threw him to the wolves.

I have a lot of problems with how people would have preferred Dumbledore not sacrifice a dozen people to save plenty a thousand who Voldemort would have ended up killing. It's a chess game, if you need to give up a pawn and a bishop to get a checkmate you go ahead and do it.

Human beings ARE NOT chess figures! There's that difference between the two called human life, that's supposed to be the greatest value of the Western world and Christianity (I can't say about the rest of the world, because I don't know, but I stringly suspect it's the same there too). Sacrificing a dozen people is not like slaughtering a dozen lambs. Other people's lives is not anyone's to toy with. It's only upon God to decide that.

Who did Dumbledore sacrifice that would not have died either for Harry or to defeat Voldemort?

Sirius? No.
Moody? No.
Snape? No.

I would say Dumbledore sacrificed neither of them, as they entedred into it willingly and knowing the risk. They died fighting, which has nothing to do with sacrificing or manipulation.

That's one of the wonderful moral questions the series raise, isn't it? I have no answer to this.

I don't either. Jack Bauer would. :cool: Kant did answer this. He said you can never make a moral decision based on what might happen as a result because you can't predict the result. If lying is wrong, it is wrong all the time, even if by telling the truth you might be betraying a friend or something. If killing an innocent is wrong, it is wrong all the time, even if by killing said innocent you might prevent eight million deaths.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking for speculation about what Dumbledore would have done? Or is it a more general question? I agree with Yoana - this is one of those big question that the series raises, but does not resolve (and consciously so).

Not really, I wanted to know what you thought was right. But let's use DD. Let's say that there was no way for Harry to have lived. Let's say Voldemort hadn't used his blood to reconstitute himself. I wonder how DD might have changed his tactics. Would he have told Harry, or let Harry discover on his own? What if Harry had backed down? Would he have some trusted member of the OotP standing by to kill Harry? Based on his actions in the final book, I don't know.

Well we can't really play the "What If" game when it was planned the entire time to be that way.

First, "What if" games are the majority of ethics. We HAVE to play what if games or we won't know what to do when what if happens.

Second, it wasn't planned that way for the entire time. It was only in Goblet of Fire, with DD's "gleam of triumph" that there was hope for Harry. Until then, he was doomed. He had to die so Riddle could die. For the first three books and the majority of the fourth, DD must have expected Harry to die. That was the plan.

I'm going to go through this thread top to bottom to argue with everything I see that I feel is wrong.:)

Buckle up!

Manipulative, yes.
Ruthless, no.

I agree. I would also add he was not uncaring or unfeeling.

It's a war, sometimes sacrifices need to be made.

Yes. And, to some extent, Moody was aware of the risks, although he wasn't aware of the betrayal beforehand.

Snape did not care about the consequences, the two people he cared about were Dumbledore and Harry. Nobody else mattered to him, and I'm sure he enjoyed being headmaster of Hogwarts.

You think he cared about DD? I didn't get that. And I'm not sure his time as Headmaster was very enjoyable. He was hated by all the former teachers and having to reign in the new ones. Yech!

Dumbledore had one essential plan.
Harry defeats Lord Voldemort.
It was successful.

That's the problem. What costs was DD willing for others to pay, without telling them about the costs, in order to achieve his goal.

Why is it that everyone know has this silly idea that "greater good" is wrong?
Greater good is important.
Would you tell a Christian Jesus was bad for sacrificing himself for the "greater good?"

No one disagrees that "greater good" is a good and important thing. Except, maybe, Ayn Rand and Nietzsche. What we are contesting is that DD got to choose what the greater good was and what price would be paid to achieve it. Jesus sacrificed himself with full knowledge of what he was doing. Harry didn't have that luxury. At least, he didn't know it was going to come to that until the very end.

Dumbledore sacrificed himself for the greater good, and it was a very honourable thing to do.

Yes, it is always honourable to sacrifice oneself for the greater good. It is less honorable to sacrifice others for the greater good.

Yeah, the wizarding world would have been much better off without Dumbledore. That way Grindelwald could have been running around in Bulgaria with the Elder Wand while Voldemort was killing off mudbloods around England. Harry would have never knew what a Horcrux nor Hallow was. There would have never been a prophecy. Voldemort would have got the Sorcerers Stone, there would have been no Fawkes to save Harry, Sirius' soul would have been sucked out of him because nobody would have thought of going back in time, there would be no OotP as everything would rely on the Ministry, and Voldemort wouldn't have needed Snape in the first place.

We don't know any of that. Just because DD was the one to accomplish it all doesn't mean someone wouldn't have stepped into his shoes, or several someones, if he hadn't been there. Who knows what would have happened? We can judge DD's actions because they turned out all right in the end. We have to judge them on the merits of the actions themselves.

Each and every Order member, with the exception of a few here and there [Mundungus, Pettigrew] would have sacrificed their own life, not just to save Harry, but to stop Voldemort.

Again, "sacrificed their own life." Not "manipulated someone else into sacrificing theirs."

I have a lot of problems with how people would have preferred Dumbledore not sacrifice a dozen people to save plenty a thousand who Voldemort would have ended up killing. It's a chess game, if you need to give up a pawn and a bishop to get a checkmate you go ahead and do it. Who did Dumbledore sacrifice that would not have died either for Harry or to defeat Voldemort?

I have a problem with the chess game analogy. Not because it doesn't fit, but because it raises an uncomfortable question. Who gave DD the right to play the white pieces?

He was not ruthless, he felt guilty for anything that he felt was his fault, even when it was not.

You're right. He might have been a chess player, but he felt for each and every piece ... on both sides, no less. That doesn't make his actions any more moral. Necessary, maybe, but not right.

He would score more points with you if he allowed Harry to die in exchange for telling everyone the truth about everything?

That's the essential question. It would definitely have been more moral for him to have been forthright from as early as Harry could have understood. And we don't know what the outcome would have been if he had. Might have been better. Probably wouldn't have. But it is the action itself that is moral, not the result that makes it so.

The word "fair" is a ridiculous word to use in a war in my opinion.

So you truly believe all is fair in war? Should we use a nuclear bomb in Iraq?

Dumbledore never brought himself to use an unforgivable curse - Harry had.

We don't know that.

I think Dumbledore never expected Harry to die until GoF.

Why?

Quirrel didn't deserve to continue living.

And who gets to decide that?

Because Dumbledore cared for Harry.

Absolutely, he did. He hated that he had to risk Harry's life, even for the "greater good."

Who are all of you to judge Dumbledore's character?
Do you not recall that Harry named his son after Dumbledore?
Obviously Harry doesn't have a problem with how Dumbledore raised him, why should you?

Real people. :lol: We are discussing the bigger issue because our stance on this issue will determine our actions and decisions in real life. We have a problem because that kind of thinking, where someone takes it upon themselves to manipulate others for the "greater good" as they perceive it, usually doesn't turn out as well as DD's venture. If we accept DD's bending of the moral rules, where does it stop? Where is the line?

Peace,
Christopher

I don't either. Jack Bauer would. :cool: Kant did answer this. He said you can never make a moral decision based on what might happen as a result because you can't predict the result. If lying is wrong, it is wrong all the time, even if by telling the truth you might be betraying a friend or something. If killing an innocent is wrong, it is wrong all the time, even if by killing said innocent you might prevent eight million deaths.

Oh, thank you so much for that! I didn't know it, I have never read Kant. That is the thought I struggled with, predicting the consequences, in my post, I think. This is a thoroughly satisfactory answer for me. I'm so relieved now! THANKS!

First, "What if" games are the majority of ethics. We HAVE to play what if games or we won't know what to do when what if happens.I meant concerning the book. And I know I am never waiting for Voldemort to attack me.

Second, it wasn't planned that way for the entire time. It was only in Goblet of Fire, with DD's "gleam of triumph" that there was hope for Harry. Until then, he was doomed. He had to die so Riddle could die. For the first three books and the majority of the fourth, DD must have expected Harry to die. That was the plan. Do we have any canon regarding this? We do know this was the plan, but we see nothing before GoF saying that this was the plan then. All canon shows is that it was the plan after GoF.

My original point, btw, was to say that is was planned all along by Jo.

Do we have any canon regarding this? We do know this was the plan, but we see nothing before GoF saying that this was the plan then. All canon shows is that it was the plan after GoF. Dumbledore didn't even know about the horcruxes until CoS, and it took him longer than that to figure out how many there were. This was a plan many years in the making - with small bits added from time to time as Dumbledore discovered more information.

Dumbledore didn't even know about the horcruxes until CoS, and it took him longer than that to figure out how many there were. This was a plan many years in the making - with small bits added from time to time as Dumbledore discovered more information.Dumbledore's plan was always to have Harry sacrifice himself? I don't think so, maybe it was his plan to raise Harry and hope to help him defeat Voldemort, but the only canon we have saying that Harry had to die came after GoF, in fact it takes place during HBP. It could have been a last addition to the plan after realizing what would happen if Harry "died."

Dumbledore's plan was always to have Harry sacrifice himself? I don't think so, maybe it was his plan to raise Harry and hope to help him defeat Voldemort, but the only canon we have saying that Harry had to die came after GoF, in fact it takes place during HBP. It could have been a last addition to the plan after realizing what would happen if Harry "died." I think you misunderstood me. I was agreeing with you. I don't think Dumlbedore had a clear plan until HBP. He discovered bits and pieces of relevant knowledge as the series progressed and finally put them together when he worked out the whole horcrux picture.

I think you misunderstood me. I was agreeing with you. I don't think Dumlbedore had a clear plan until HBP. He discovered bits and pieces of relevant knowledge as the series progressed and finally put them together when he worked out the whole horcrux picture.Okay. Well then thanks. I didn't get that from your first post.

Not accoring to DH - in it, the greater good was associated with gaining power and exercising terror.

You missed something important I wrote.
The greater good as an opinion [wizards > muggles] is a bad thing.
The greater good as a fact [Voldemort = must be killed] is a good thing.


It's one thing to sacrifice your own life (and Jesus was God, wasn't He, so He knew what He was doing) and completely another to sacrifice another human being's life. That is definitely NOT right.

Who's life did Dumbledore sacrifice?
Surely not Moody's, as he was expecting trouble and was fully aware the potential consequences. Surely not Harry's, as Harry is still alive.


Human beings ARE NOT chess figures! There's that difference between the two called human life, that's supposed to be the greatest value of the Western world and Christianity (I can't say about the rest of the world, because I don't know, but I stringly suspect it's the same there too). Sacrificing a dozen people is not like slaughtering a dozen lambs. Other people's lives is not anyone's to toy with. It's only upon God to decide that.

Soldiers on the other hand are chess figures.
Harry requested that he be turned into one of these chess figures in OotP when he asked to be a part of it. If I could go back in time to kill a few Germans in exchange of saving twelve million people I would surely go back and do it. Am I toying with someone's life? No. I'm sacrificing several selfish people for the [factual] greater good. Perhaps you could live with yourself if you let those dozen million people all get slaughtered, I wouldn't be able to.

I would say Dumbledore sacrificed neither of them, as they entedred into it willingly and knowing the risk. They died fighting, which has nothing to do with sacrificing or manipulation.

So why do you bother arguing with me if we essentially agree?

Buckle up!

I don't know about that, I'm a pretty persistent debater online. I think I argued through four versions of the old stickied Snape thread when I was most active here.

I agree. I would also add he was not uncaring or unfeeling.

And essentially rational over emotional. :)

Yes. And, to some extent, Moody was aware of the risks, although he wasn't aware of the betrayal beforehand.

Someone who preaches 'constant vigilance' ought to consider a potential betrayal. He was going there to get Harry in order to help protect him from any Death Eaters, and not only that, but accepting that if there was an attack he would be the primary target. It's unfortunate, but Dumbledore hadn't forced Moody to go and he had no alternative plan he could rationally come up with to help protect Harry, and Hogwarts, and essentially defeat Voldemort.

You think he cared about DD? I didn't get that. And I'm not sure his time as Headmaster was very enjoyable. He was hated by all the former teachers and having to reign in the new ones. Yech!

Yes, I certainly think he cared about Dumbledore. When I was arguing my pro-Snape stance way back when I argued that the one thing Snape was most grateful for was that Dumbledore trusted him. Nobody, and I mean nobody, else in the series trusted Snape and nobody helped Snape out as much as Dumbledore. Dumbledore gave Severus a purpose to continue living.

As for being Headmaster, I'm sure he enjoyed it.
He had Dumbledore's portrait to talk to.
He could make sure Slytherin was ahead in house points.
I'm sure his life was easier than it was during the six years beforehand.

That's the problem. What costs was DD willing for others to pay, without telling them about the costs, in order to achieve his goal.

Dumbledore didn't pay with any life that wouldn't have been killed sooner or later as far as I'm concerned.

No one disagrees that "greater good" is a good and important thing. Except, maybe, Ayn Rand and Nietzsche. What we are contesting is that DD got to choose what the greater good was and what price would be paid to achieve it. Jesus sacrificed himself with full knowledge of what he was doing. Harry didn't have that luxury. At least, he didn't know it was going to come to that until the very end.

Nor was he permitted to.
You (and plenty of other people here) fail to understand that if Harry knew what he was doing, he could never get rid of the horcrux nor protect everyone else from being harmed. Harry had to unwittingly sacrifice himself like his mother did beforehand. It doesn't work if you sacrifice yourself knowing what you are doing.

Yes, it is always honourable to sacrifice oneself for the greater good.

You missed the post above yours then.

It is less honorable to sacrifice others for the greater good.

Not if they would willingly sacrifice themselves anyway.
If someone goes up to Dumbledore and says:
"I would willingly sacrifice myself to defeat Voldemort"
Then there is nothing wrong with sacrificing them.
Just like in the Order.
Anyone who joins the Order is practically saying:
"I would willingly sacrifice myself to defeat Voldemort"

Dumbledore lengthened Harry Potter's life.
Dumbledore made the prophecy come true by preventing Voldemort to murder Harry before he came to Hogwarts.
Dumbledore protected Harry far more than anyone else.
So Dumbledore extends Harry's life by sixteen years...
He's now a twisted selfish old man for that?

We don't know any of that. Just because DD was the one to accomplish it all doesn't mean someone wouldn't have stepped into his shoes, or several someones, if he hadn't been there.

Who would have stepped in his shoes?
Who had the competency, the morals, the skill, and the elder wand to step into his shoes? If there was such a person, they would have already been there. Dumbledore was irreplaceable.

Who knows what would have happened? We can judge DD's actions because they turned out all right in the end. We have to judge them on the merits of the actions themselves.

Dumbledore was acting with the best intentions, and absolutely no selfish thoughts, in mind.
If you question that, you obviously let a few Rita Skeeter comments in the last book cloud your common sense.

Again, "sacrificed their own life." Not "manipulated someone else into sacrificing theirs."

He didn't manipulate anyone who hadn't agreed to give their life to fight Voldemort, with the exception of Mundungus Fletcher.

I have a problem with the chess game analogy. Not because it doesn't fit, but because it raises an uncomfortable question. Who gave DD the right to play the white pieces?

He didn't play the white pieces, he played the black pieces. White goes first - Dumbledore reacted. The entire wizarding world gave Dumbledore the right to play with those pieces. Dumbledore was the only one Voldemort ever feared, Dumbledore was the only person who was fit to hear the full prophecy to carry it out, and Dumbledore was the only one with the strategy to have ever managed to defeat Voldemort. Dumbledore has morals, but he thinks rationally like a lieutenant rather than as emotionally as an animal rights activist. Dumbledore defeated Voldemort with as minimal casualties as he could manage, and continued to help out drastically even after his death.

You're right. He might have been a chess player, but he felt for each and every piece ... on both sides, no less. That doesn't make his actions any more moral. Necessary, maybe, but not right.

Yes it does make his actions more moral.
It makes him capable of remorse.
It essentially seperates him from Voldemort.
Voldemort - least moral character.
Dumbledore - most moral character.

That's the essential question. It would definitely have been more moral for him to have been forthright from as early as Harry could have understood. And we don't know what the outcome would have been if he had. Might have been better. Probably wouldn't have. But it is the action itself that is moral, not the result that makes it so.

Because Dumbledore would have been more moralistic if he permitted Voldemort to take over the wizarding world in exchange to give one boy more knowledge than he needed? What would you have done? Told Harry everything when you believed it was the only difference that would eventually save thousands of lives? Who would be the one toying with human lives then?

So you truly believe all is fair in war?
Should we use a nuclear bomb in Iraq?

I believe all is fair in war, yes.

No I don't think "you" (I'm Canadian) should have used a nuclear bomb in Iraq for several reasons:
1. You simply didn't need to - You could easily overpower them without degrading yourselves to nuclear warfare.
2. The war in the first place was for false reasons.
3. It would essentially kill more people than it would save.
4. You were the perpetrators rather than the defenders.
5. I hardly consider this a war, personally I feel it was more of a personal vendetta.

I am personally against the war itself.
I find it annoying though when people go to the nuclear weapons comment, it really does seem like they aren't putting in time to think of a realistic anology/argument, which I feel you had been doing pretty well up until that comment.

We don't know that.
[response to Dumbledore never using an unforgivable curse.]

I'm pretty sure I do.
Dumbledore didn't know who killed his sister.
Meaning, they weren't using green lights to kill her.
I strongly believe he would have never used an unforgivable curse after that - I think it made him mature as he did.
I doubt he had a reason to ever torture or brainwash someone else beforehand.
If he wanted to use unforgivable magic he could have done so in the DoM - he did not even do it then when he had most reason to - when Harry tried to use it.


Why?
[response to Dumbledore not expecting Harry to die until GoF.]

Because Dumbledore cared for Harry like a son/grandson.
He wouldn't have let Harry come to harm unless he was sure Harry would survive.

And who gets to decide that?
[Response to Quirrel didn't deserve to continue living]

Anyone with the brains to accept that the average Nazi was just as bad as Hitler.

Who gets to decide that Voldemort didn't deserve to continue living?
*How about the loved ones of his past victims?
*How about his future victims?
*How about the next Neville Longbottom whose parents were tortured to insanity by people who supported him? Should that happen to someone else just so Voldemort or people who do just as bad should continue to live?
*How about the next Lily Potter who would be given a choice between being alive or watching her son die?
*How about the average muggle who would have been forced into living as a slave?

I could go on and on, but I certainly hope you see my point.
It's like asking "who decides if Nazi X deserves to die?"
Anyone who would be potentially victimized gets to decide.

Absolutely, he did. He hated that he had to risk Harry's life, even for the "greater good."

Exactly, which is what makes him rationally moralistic.

Real people. We are discussing the bigger issue because our stance on this issue will determine our actions and decisions in real life. We have a problem because that kind of thinking, where someone takes it upon themselves to manipulate others for the "greater good" as they perceive it, usually doesn't turn out as well as DD's venture. If we accept DD's bending of the moral rules, where does it stop? Where is the line?

You mistake Dumbledore with the average person.
You can't hold Dumbledore up to the same standards you would hold up anyone else here.

It's like saying that a guy if there's a guy who cured cancer and saved millions of lives isn't moralistic because he brutally slaughtered someone who was planning on killing his whole family. Of course he would be a moralistic person, so long as he felt remorseful about what he rationally knew he had to do. Who would you or I be to judge someone like that?

I still want to believe that Dumbledore was a kind person, but there's still that voice in the back of my head reminding me of what he was willing to do for the "greater good" There was just so much that he was hiding that affected so many people, but at the same time he had his heart in the right place. I guess in the end this just undelines the fact that the world isn't divided between good and evil, but that there are indefinitely many shades of gray.

i think harry knew what he was getting into...that's why his acceptance of the prophecy at the ends of books five and six were so sad. i think harry was ready - long before he entered the forest - to make that sacrifice. and that's what dumbledore was counting on.

i wouldn't call him manipulative. but he was the mastermind behind voldemort's downfall. he was - i think - the only one who knew everything that was going on. people like snape and harry, who played key roles in dumbledore's plan, had only bits and pieces to work with. i don't think he ever used anyone, the way voldemort was always using people. i like that there's a bit of a parallel there between these two great wizards. to voldemort, people were nothing more than pawns. dumbledore, on the other hand, knew what had to be done, and put his faith in people that knew what had to be done as well. they were all willing to make the sacrifice.

I meant concerning the book. And I know I am never waiting for Voldemort to attack me.

No, but we all have to deal with evil in the world.

Do we have any canon regarding this? We do know this was the plan, but we see nothing before GoF saying that this was the plan then. All canon shows is that it was the plan after GoF.

That's true, but it seems pretty obvious that was the pre-GOF plan. DD had all the information except the diary and some of Harry's more bizarre behavior from book 1. He had the diary from book 2. And his suspicions were all but confirmed in book 4. I'm thinking he knew what Harry was and what was going to have to happen. I can imagine, because he is a good-heart, that he felt extreme relief when his one, slim hope that Harry could live presented itself in book 4.

My original point, btw, was to say that is was planned all along by Jo.

OK. So Jo wasn't willing to play chess with Harry's life. But DD was.

Peace,
Christopher

Interesting notion, though, that Voldemort never ever feared Harry. He feared Dumbledore, even when Dumbledore was dead, Voldemort looked at Harry and saw "The boy", "Dumbledore's puppet", etc.

I don't know about that, I'm a pretty persistent debater online. I think I argued through four versions of the old stickied Snape thread when I was most active here.

That's cool. I like debating, although I just started teaching again, so I may not have time to give this the same attention you do.

And essentially rational over emotional. :)

Yes, and in your favor, I'll admit that the one time DD was emotional over rational it ended in the death of Sirius.

Someone who preaches 'constant vigilance' ought to consider a potential betrayal.

Oh, I'm sure he was. I'm not overly bothered by the death of Moody. Snape didn't HAVE to follow DD's suggestion, after all.

Dumbledore didn't pay with any life that wouldn't have been killed sooner or later as far as I'm concerned.

Well, as every life will end sooner or later, he had a lot of lives with which to play.

You (and plenty of other people here) fail to understand that if Harry knew what he was doing, he could never get rid of the horcrux nor protect everyone else from being harmed. Harry had to unwittingly sacrifice himself like his mother did beforehand. It doesn't work if you sacrifice yourself knowing what you are doing.

No, I understand it. It's the one thing that gives me pause regarding the morality of DD's actions. Perhaps, if there had been no hope of Harry surviving, DD would have told him more earlier. DD definitely was not cavalier about what he did and definitely had Harry's best interests at heart. Nevertheless, he did play Harry like a chesspiece, even if it was for his own good.

"I would willingly sacrifice myself to defeat Voldemort"
Then there is nothing wrong with sacrificing them.

Yes, but no one, in so many words, did say that, despite your assertion that they "in essence" did. What they said was, "I am willing to fight to the death to defeat Voldemort." Not, "I am willing to stand there and let Voldemort kill me as well as let you lie to me and mislead me to gain the ultimate goal." They might have meant that, but they didn't say it.

Dumbledore lengthened Harry Potter's life.
Dumbledore made the prophecy come true by preventing Voldemort to murder Harry before he came to Hogwarts.
Dumbledore protected Harry far more than anyone else.
So Dumbledore extends Harry's life by sixteen years...
He's now a twisted selfish old man for that?

Who said he was twisted and selfish? Certainly not me. I definitely would have considered him heartless if he had only lengthened his life so that he could be sacrificed later with no consideration for Harry whatsoever. That's how you think about veal, not people. No, the thing that lets me know how much DD cared is his admission at the end of OotP. But even if he wasn't twisted or selfish, it doesn't make him morally right.

Who would have stepped in his shoes?
Who had the competency, the morals, the skill, and the elder wand to step into his shoes? If there was such a person, they would have already been there. Dumbledore was irreplaceable.

We don't know that. Someone always steps up. Or several someones.

Dumbledore was acting with the best intentions, and absolutely no selfish thoughts, in mind. If you question that, you obviously let a few Rita Skeeter comments in the last book cloud your common sense.

I don't question that in the slightest.

He didn't play the white pieces, he played the black pieces. White goes first - Dumbledore reacted.

I was referring to the White = Good guy and Black = Bad guy analogy.

The entire wizarding world gave Dumbledore the right to play with those pieces.

Absolutely not! At least, not indefinitely and with impunity. They gave it to him in certain circumstances, like when fighting Grindenwald. But he was meant to be like the old Roman dictators, to step up in times of trial and step down when peace was restored.

Dumbledore was the only one Voldemort ever feared, Dumbledore was the only person who was fit to hear the full prophecy to carry it out, and Dumbledore was the only one with the strategy to have ever managed to defeat Voldemort. Dumbledore has morals, but he thinks rationally like a lieutenant rather than as emotionally as an animal rights activist. Dumbledore defeated Voldemort with as minimal casualties as he could manage, and continued to help out drastically even after his death.

Agreed. DD was a good man, or more good than bad.

Voldemort - least moral character.
Dumbledore - most moral character.

I'd say Pettigrew was the least moral character, but that's another debate.

Because Dumbledore would have been more moralistic if he permitted Voldemort to take over the wizarding world in exchange to give one boy more knowledge than he needed? What would you have done? Told Harry everything when you believed it was the only difference that would eventually save thousands of lives? Who would be the one toying with human lives then?

Toying means you play with them like toys. Giving someone all the information is not toying with them. It's respecting them. What would I have done? That is an excellent question, and I don't think I can answer it. I will say that I might, indeed, be a raging hypocrite because I might have done exactly as DD did.

I believe all is fair in war, yes.

That concerns me, but I'll leave it at that.

No I don't think "you" (I'm Canadian) should have used a nuclear bomb in Iraq for several reasons:

But all is fair in war, right?

I am personally against the war itself.

As am I, and war in general. I ask because many of the qualities that you see as positivies in DD's war against Riddle I see in our president. People learn the facts on a need to know basis so that he can achieve the greater good in the Middle East.

I find it annoying though when people go to the nuclear weapons comment, it really does seem like they aren't putting in time to think of a realistic anology/argument, which I feel you had been doing pretty well up until that comment.

I was taking it to a logical extreme. If all is fair in war, then ALL is fair in ANY war. If all is not fair in war, then I'd like to know where the line is and who gets to choose where the line is.

I'm pretty sure I do.
Dumbledore didn't know who killed his sister.
Meaning, they weren't using green lights to kill her.
I strongly believe he would have never used an unforgivable curse after that - I think it made him mature as he did.
I doubt he had a reason to ever torture or brainwash someone else beforehand.
If he wanted to use unforgivable magic he could have done so in the DoM - he did not even do it then when he had most reason to - when Harry tried to use it.

I think he might have used it on Gaunt, but that's just a guess. I would be surprised if he never had.

Because Dumbledore cared for Harry like a son/grandson.
He wouldn't have let Harry come to harm unless he was sure Harry would survive.

I think he would have. I think, if it meant the death of Voldemort, he absolutely would have.

Who gets to decide that Voldemort didn't deserve to continue living?
*How about the loved ones of his past victims?
*How about his future victims?
*How about the next Neville Longbottom whose parents were tortured to insanity by people who supported him? Should that happen to someone else just so Voldemort or people who do just as bad should continue to live?
*How about the next Lily Potter who would be given a choice between being alive or watching her son die?
*How about the average muggle who would have been forced into living as a slave?

My point is that we're giving DD a LOT of power here. He gets to choose who dies, how it will be accomplished, and how much the people will know who choose their path.

I could go on and on, but I certainly hope you see my point.
It's like asking "who decides if Nazi X deserves to die?"
Anyone who would be potentially victimized gets to decide.

So, should it be victims and not the State who decide the guilt and punishment of criminals?

You mistake Dumbledore with the average person.
You can't hold Dumbledore up to the same standards you would hold up anyone else here.

We HAVE to! Intelligence does not exempt one from the rules of morality! I hate to use Hitler in case I invoke Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law), but he was a genius! Look what he did for Germany. Grindenwald and Riddle were also geniuses. They were not average people. Should we not hold them up to the same standards either?

It's like saying that a guy if there's a guy who cured cancer and saved millions of lives isn't moralistic because he brutally slaughtered someone who was planning on killing his whole family. Of course he would be a moralistic person, so long as he felt remorseful about what he rationally knew he had to do. Who would you or I be to judge someone like that?

No, it's more like saying that a guy who knew ten people who were going to die of cancer and used them as test subjects to come up with a cure for millions of people was immoral for his use of the ten.

Whew! Good round. I'll wait for your reply.

Peace,
Christopher

That's cool. I like debating, although I just started teaching again, so I may not have time to give this the same attention you do.

I just finished school so got about two weeks. :p

Yes, and in your favor, I'll admit that the one time DD was emotional over rational it ended in the death of Sirius.

:)

Oh, I'm sure he was. I'm not overly bothered by the death of Moody. Snape didn't HAVE to follow DD's suggestion, after all.

Yes he did.
Dumbledore was the chess master, and Snape needed to follow his orders to achieve the best results. Dumbledore was always one move ahead of Voldemort and he had to stay that way to save millions of lives.

Well, as every life will end sooner or later, he had a lot of lives with which to play.

I meant in the form of murder - as Voldemort would have eventually murdered anyone who ever opposed him. Would Dumbledore have been a better person morally if the story had an alternative version where Harry sacrificed himself willingly, accomplished nothing, and Voldemort killed every last opponent in the Battle of Hogwarts and have all muggles and muggle borns being turned into human house elves? O_o

No, I understand it. It's the one thing that gives me pause regarding the morality of DD's actions. Perhaps, if there had been no hope of Harry surviving, DD would have told him more earlier. DD definitely was not cavalier about what he did and definitely had Harry's best interests at heart. Nevertheless, he did play Harry like a chesspiece, even if it was for his own good.


Yes, but no one, in so many words, did say that, despite your assertion that they "in essence" did. What they said was, "I am willing to fight to the death to defeat Voldemort." Not, "I am willing to stand there and let Voldemort kill me as well as let you lie to me and mislead me to gain the ultimate goal." They might have meant that, but they didn't say it.

But it is part of being in an army, or a similar organizarion, who is fighting to essentially save the world. You don't join an army if you refuse to die for the greater good.


Who said he was twisted and selfish? Certainly not me. I definitely would have considered him heartless if he had only lengthened his life so that he could be sacrificed later with no consideration for Harry whatsoever. That's how you think about veal, not people. No, the thing that lets me know how much DD cared is his admission at the end of OotP. But even if he wasn't twisted or selfish, it doesn't make him morally right.

No, not you perhaps, but at the start I was arguing with people in this thread, not just you, you just replied to my arguments. As for lengthening his life, it would be better to just not care at all than temporary lengthen it? Of course it made him morally right if he had Harry's best interests at heart. Dumbledore was completely unselfish, people do immoral things in order for some sort of selfish gain or revenge - Dumbledore had neither intent in mind.


We don't know that. Someone always steps up. Or several someones.

Someone always steps up?
Eventually I suppose.
Perhaps they ought to have waited 200 years and 200,000 deaths later for that person to arrive?

I don't question that in the slightest.

So how can you argue that someone who is acting with best intentions in mind is being immoral?


I was referring to the White = Good guy and Black = Bad guy analogy.

I know what you were referring to, but I was changing it to the white = start | black = reaction anology.



Absolutely not! At least, not indefinitely and with impunity. They gave it to him in certain circumstances, like when fighting Grindenwald. But he was meant to be like the old Roman dictators, to step up in times of trial and step down when peace was restored.

Peace was restored with Voldemort in control of the Ministry?
There was only one organization left that could fight Voldemort.
It was the Order of the Phoenix.
The OotP was lead by Dumbledore.
Anyone with common sense, who didn't support Voldemort, would have given Dumbledore the commander status.
The entire wizarding world came to his funeral to show their support for what a great person he was and how he helped the wizarding world.

Agreed. DD was a good man, or more good than bad.

I would say DD was "more good" than any other character in the series.

I'd say Pettigrew was the least moral character, but that's another debate.

Pettigrew?
Who had feelings of remorse?
Who regretted his actions?
Who had only killed thirteen people [including Cedric] and framed another?

Less moral than Lord Voldemort?
Who killed mercilessly?
Who did anything for selfish gain?
Who caused loss and disaster for hundreds of families?

Toying means you play with them like toys. Giving someone all the information is not toying with them. It's respecting them. What would I have done? That is an excellent question, and I don't think I can answer it. I will say that I might, indeed, be a raging hypocrite because I might have done exactly as DD did.

I know what toying means.
It's not respecting someone if you give them information that will cause their life to be completely ruined - information that would have prevented Voldemort from having ever been defeated - information that would have prevented hundreds of people who would risk their lives for a boy to be protected in exchange.


That concerns me, but I'll leave it at that.

So where exactly do you put the limits in war?
How do you define international law when it can never truly exist?
War is war, you aim to win with as minimal casualties as possible.
And if someone prefers 3 million people to be shot to death rather than 500,000 people to be affected by a nuclear weapon they have no sense of strategy and no reason to criticize morals.


But all is fair in war, right?

1. You simply didn't need to - You could easily overpower them without degrading yourselves to nuclear warfare.
2. The war in the first place was for false reasons.
3. It would essentially kill more people than it would save.
4. You were the perpetrators rather than the defenders.
5. I hardly consider this a war, personally I feel it was more of a personal vendetta.

Read number 2, 3, and 4 over.

As am I, and war in general. I ask because many of the qualities that you see as positivies in DD's war against Riddle I see in our president. People learn the facts on a need to know basis so that he can achieve the greater good in the Middle East.

But Bush's greater good was a lie to persuade people to start a war that essentially killed more lives in exchange so he could get some oil.

Dumbledore's greater good was a fact that every person knew (100%) which he was defending others, and essentially saved more lives than it killed, in exchange for no personal gain.


I was taking it to a logical extreme. If all is fair in war, then ALL is fair in ANY war. If all is not fair in war, then I'd like to know where the line is and who gets to choose where the line is.

Exactly.
Who gets to choose where the lines is!
Surely Bush/Fudge/Scrimgeour is too personally corrupted to draw the lines!
Surely Voldemort/Hussein would be too villainous to draw the lines!
So who is the best person to draw the line and who could be better than Dumbledore, a man fighting for the good who could essentially gain nothing while losing his own life? Who is more likely to fight in the best interests of good as a whole with the skill, intelligence, experience and morals as he has?


I think he might have used it on Gaunt, but that's just a guess. I would be surprised if he never had.

Dumbledore is skilled at brainwashing, and there are ways, not using unforgivable curses that Dumbledore could have used. Veritaserum or legilimency for starters.


I think he would have. I think, if it meant the death of Voldemort, he absolutely would have.

He gave Harry the choice of going back to fight Voldemort.
He did not tell Harry that if he went on Voldemort could never be defeated.
He did not allow Voldemort to kill Harry in OotP did he now - when Harry hadn't even attempted to raise his wand?
I think that last line in itself proves you wrong here.

My point is that we're giving DD a LOT of power here. He gets to choose who dies, how it will be accomplished, and how much the people will know who choose their path.

No, we're giving DD the power that is needed to defeat Voldemort. He gets to choose the strategy, the people who are willing to go along in his strategy get to choose if it is worth risking their life for. He gets to choose which information each individual is allowed to have in order that the information stays best protected while still able to be used how it's needed to be - to destroy Voldemort. He gets to do this because he collected the information himself - If Harry received or collected information himself it would be his to share with whoever he feels should hear it.


So, should it be victims and not the State who decide the guilt and punishment of criminals?

The state are the worst to decide punishments.
Victims are slightly better.

Do you have a child?
If this child is killed, would you not say you have more rights than the government to deal with the person who you saw kill him/her?

Would you not say Molly had the right to kill Bellatrix in the duel for what Bellatrix had attempted to do to her daughter right infront of her?

We HAVE to! Intelligence does not exempt one from the rules of morality! I hate to use Hitler in case I invoke Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law), but he was a genius! Look what he did for Germany. Grindenwald and Riddle were also geniuses. They were not average people. Should we not hold them up to the same standards either?

I'm not talking about Dumbledore in the sense that he's just smarter.
I'm talking about Dumbledore in the sense that he's a commander of a small army. I'm talking about Dumbledore as someone who would knowingly do more harm than good by releasing too much information, the infromation you feel that some people should have been given. I'm talking about the Dumbledore who had to work in secret in order to lose as few lives as he possibly could think of. I'm talking about a Dumbledore who was the worlds greatest hope of winning a war. I'm talking about a Dumbledore who was in a position you or I will never be in.



No, it's more like saying that a guy who knew ten people who were going to die of cancer and used them as test subjects to come up with a cure for millions of people was immoral for his use of the ten.

No, it's like saying would you sacrifice 10 civilians and 10 of your own soldiers in a war in order to kill Hitler who would kill tens of millions.

Whew! Good round. I'll wait for your reply.

Peace,
Christopher

Speak with you later then. :)

There is a recurring argument in this thread which should be addressed. Does the good INTENTION of DD justify the ACTION of DD? If you mean well, does that make your methods moral?

In my opinion, it is beyond obvious that is does make the methods morals.
After all, what's more moralistic than intending to mean well?

There is a recurring argument in this thread which should be addressed. Does the good INTENTION of DD justify the ACTION of DD? If you mean well, does that make your methods moral?

Peace,
Christopher

Don't get me wrong I love Dumbledore, but I think he was a master manipulator.

He always suspected about the horcruxes, and even when he asked for Snape's help to protect Harry he knew Voldemort would return and that Harry would have to take some role in killing him - he was raising Harry to eventually meet his possible untimely death.

Snape was right to be angry, Dumbledore misled him when he asked him to protect harry for Lily - it was never about that, but Dumbledore knew that this was the thing to say to secure Snape's help and loyalty. Very, very deceitful!

I'm asking 'debaters' to drop the real life arguments about the atomic bomb, Iraq and President Bush. Those items can be debated in the DoIMC. This topic is about Albus Dumbledore, a fictional character in a fictional setting.

I just finished school so got about two weeks. :p

What school, major and degree?

Yes he did.

I mean he had a choice in that he was under the imperius curse.

I meant in the form of murder - as Voldemort would have eventually murdered anyone who ever opposed him. Would Dumbledore have been a better person morally if the story had an alternative version where Harry sacrificed himself willingly, accomplished nothing, and Voldemort killed every last opponent in the Battle of Hogwarts and have all muggles and muggle borns being turned into human house elves? O_o

This is where Kant comes in. If we judge actions based on their results, then any "good" action which has a "bad" result is bad and every "bad" action which has a "good" result is good. We have to judge actions on the actions themselves, not on what happens afterwards. Or what could have happened.

But it is part of being in an army, or a similar organizarion, who is fighting to essentially save the world. You don't join an army if you refuse to die for the greater good.

There is a slim but important distinction here. Being willing to give up one's life is different than being willing for someone else to give up your life. They trusted DD, but they didn't have all the facts about him. They may have decided differently if they knew everything. Thus, the witholding of information invalidates the ability to choose and makes the manipulation sinister (apologies to the left-handers out there).

If the OotP "oath" went, "I pledge myself to the service of Albus Dumbledore, no matter how much he lies to me, manipulates me, or uses me to further his goals," that would be something different. Finally, the descriptive "Order" in their name makes me believe they think of themselves as a band of equals, not pawns under the direction of a mastermind.

Dumbledore was completely unselfish, people do immoral things in order for some sort of selfish gain or revenge - Dumbledore had neither intent in mind.

I don't think DD was selfish, but the admitted dispassion with which he thought of Harry pre-Philosopher's Stone bugs me.

Someone always steps up?
Eventually I suppose.
Perhaps they ought to have waited 200 years and 200,000 deaths later for that person to arrive?

Again, we can't judge on what might have happened, or results at all, only on the actions themselves. Well, I guess we could, but I'm not.

So how can you argue that someone who is acting with best intentions in mind is being immoral?

That is another issue and one which should be given due consideration. Let us suppose three potential indicators for the morality of any given action:

Intention
The Action itself
The Effect

Of the three, which should be used to determine the morality? If more than one, which is the most important? I posit that:

Intention is most important
Action is secondary
Effect is irrelevant

In the case of DD, his intent was good. The action itself is murky. I can't decide if his primary goal was the preservation of Harry's life or the death of Riddle, no matter what. However, I am willing to concede that, although Dumbledore is a manipulator, his actions were, on the whole, good; with some immoral elements.

Anyone with common sense, who didn't support Voldemort, would have given Dumbledore the commander status.

But not everyone does have common sense. Does that mean their wishes are irrelevant? And who gets to decide what common sense is?

The entire wizarding world came to his funeral to show their support for what a great person he was and how he helped the wizarding world.

One can admire another person and still not wish to be manipulated by them to achieve a given end, or want them to be their leader at all.

I would say DD was "more good" than any other character in the series.

And he would disagree with you. He says Harry is the "most good." I tend to agree. He had a piece of Riddle's soul in him from almost the very beginning, yet he never succombed to it. The goodness overrode the evil. DD didn't even have someone else's evil soul. He had to struggle with his own evil. I will grant him this, though; he overcame it (for the most part).

Pettigrew?
Who had feelings of remorse?
Who regretted his actions?
Who had only killed thirteen people [including Cedric] and framed another?

Regretted his actions? When? And I dislike him because, although Riddle seems more evil, Pettrigrew was a traitor.

It's not respecting someone if you give them information that will cause their life to be completely ruined - information that would have prevented Voldemort from having ever been defeated - information that would have prevented hundreds of people who would risk their lives for a boy to be protected in exchange.

It is always respect to be honest with someone.

So where exactly do you put the limits in war?

Never resist. But never capitulate. Die before doing evil or surrendering, but never return violence for violence.

How do you define international law when it can never truly exist?

I'm a bit of a Christian Anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism) so I'm not sure I can answer that question.

War is war, you aim to win with as minimal casualties as possible.

That is different than "all's fair in war." That is, "All is fair in war given __________."

And if someone prefers 3 million people to be shot to death rather than 500,000 people to be affected by a nuclear weapon they have no sense of strategy and no reason to criticize morals.

I'll respond to this and the other current events material somewhere else, for obvious reasons.

Dumbledore's greater good was a fact that every person knew (100%) which he was defending others, and essentially saved more lives than it killed, in exchange for no personal gain.

Well, that depends on how you define personal gain. I'm sure DD felt he personally gained by having Voldemort defeated and his friends and family safe. All actions, in some fashion, are selfish. And, even though everyone knew they were defending others, they didn't know in what fashion they were being used.

Exactly.
Who gets to choose where the lines is!
Surely Bush/Fudge/Scrimgeour is too personally corrupted to draw the lines!
Surely Voldemort/Hussein would be too villainous to draw the lines!
So who is the best person to draw the line and who could be better than Dumbledore, a man fighting for the good who could essentially gain nothing while losing his own life? Who is more likely to fight in the best interests of good as a whole with the skill, intelligence, experience and morals as he has?

This is incredibly thin ice. It is a small jump from "a good man should make the tough decisions" to "a good man should make all decisions" to benevolent despotism. Now, I'm not entirely against a benevolent monarchy. In fact, my ideal political environment is one in which a form of Christian communism (as described in Acts) is practiced under the leadership of a good person. Essentially, a monastic community. But there is one, huge caveat. The members of said community MUST be voluntary members! DD was not chosen for the position he took. He took it because he felt he had to. I will say this for him. He, like Ron, did not dictate the game from afar, but played his position to the death. He was part of the war, not a distant controller.

Dumbledore is skilled at brainwashing, and there are ways, not using unforgivable curses that Dumbledore could have used. Veritaserum or legilimency for starters.

Yes, it's just a hunch. Something about the way he said it. But I have less proof than I do of the existence of nargles.

He did not allow Voldemort to kill Harry in OotP did he now - when Harry hadn't even attempted to raise his wand?
I think that last line in itself proves you wrong here.

I will concede that there was a big gamble that DD took, even as he manipulated people. If he had really and truly wanted to control things, he would have killed Harry right off, or let Riddle do it, and then gone after the horcruxes himself. I definitely believe he wanted to find a way to keep Harry alive. But he knew, from the beginning, that Harry would have to die one way or the other. Fortunately, it was the other.

No, we're giving DD the power that is needed to defeat Voldemort. He gets to choose the strategy, the people who are willing to go along in his strategy get to choose if it is worth risking their life for. He gets to choose which information each individual is allowed to have in order that the information stays best protected while still able to be used how it's needed to be - to destroy Voldemort. He gets to do this because he collected the information himself - If Harry received or collected information himself it would be his to share with whoever he feels should hear it.

DD took the power/responsibility without it being given to him. He might have infered it, but I think he would have done it anyway. There was never a moment when the people said, "Do with us as you will."

The state are the worst to decide punishments.
Victims are slightly better.

Then the law loses all objectivity. (Not that I disagree with you, though.)

Do you have a child?
If this child is killed, would you not say you have more rights than the government to deal with the person who you saw kill him/her?

If my son (Josiah (http://poor-blogger.blogspot.com/search/label/josiah)) was killed, what satisfaction am I going to get from the death of the killer? It doesn't take the pain away. I would want them to feel the same pain. So I would need their child to die. But that isn't fair to their child. No, what I really want them to feel is my pain. So I would want them to love me. I would want them to love me so much that they would feel my pain at the death of my son. But when we reached that point, I wouldn't want them to die any more anyway.

As for rights, that's another can of wormtails. Locke says we have rights to three kinds of property: life, liberty and estate. None of those are "justice." Rarely, in any "civilized" society has justice resided with the victim. It has always resided with the state. Because, often, the victim will be too blind to tell the guilty from the innocent. Or to take mitigating circumstances into account.

Would you not say Molly had the right to kill Bellatrix in the duel for what Bellatrix had attempted to do to her daughter right infront of her?

Perhaps out of self-defence/defence of others, but not out of justice for the deaths of her other children.

I'm not talking about Dumbledore in the sense that he's just smarter.
I'm talking about Dumbledore in the sense that he's a commander of a small army. I'm talking about Dumbledore as someone who would knowingly do more harm than good by releasing too much information, the infromation you feel that some people should have been given. I'm talking about the Dumbledore who had to work in secret in order to lose as few lives as he possibly could think of. I'm talking about a Dumbledore who was the worlds greatest hope of winning a war. I'm talking about a Dumbledore who was in a position you or I will never be in.

Whether the information would have done more harm than good is irrelevant. It is whether the release of that information, being honest and trusting of those from whom he expected honesty and trust, was a moral act in and of itself.

And I have to fight off evil wizards at least every other week, so I don't know what you're talking about.

No, it's like saying would you sacrifice 10 civilians and 10 of your own soldiers in a war in order to kill Hitler who would kill tens of millions.

10 civilians? How did they get in there?

In my opinion, it is beyond obvious that is does make the methods morals.
After all, what's more moralistic than intending to mean well?

I think "meaning well" is the intent. Next is "doing well". The question is whether the meaning is more or less important than the doing. After all, the road to hell is, they say, paved with good intentions.

Peace,
Christopher

What school, major and degree?
Computer related in a Canadian college.

I mean he had a choice in that he was under the imperius curse.

You mean wasn't?


This is where Kant comes in. If we judge actions based on their results, then any "good" action which has a "bad" result is bad and every "bad" action which has a "good" result is good. We have to judge actions on the actions themselves, not on what happens afterwards. Or what could have happened.


The thing is that Dumbledore had both good intentions and good results.


There is a slim but important distinction here. Being willing to give up one's life is different than being willing for someone else to give up your life. They trusted DD, but they didn't have all the facts about him. They may have decided differently if they knew everything. Thus, the witholding of information invalidates the ability to choose and makes the manipulation sinister (apologies to the left-handers out there).

Then it would be their fault for being so naive to blindly trust someone. It is not Dumbledore's duty to give every last fact about his life - especially if people have never asked.

If the OotP "oath" went, "I pledge myself to the service of Albus Dumbledore, no matter how much he lies to me, manipulates me, or uses me to further his goals," that would be something different. Finally, the descriptive "Order" in their name makes me believe they think of themselves as a band of equals, not pawns under the direction of a mastermind.

How about when Lupin said in DH that he hoped his son understood that he died to make the world a better place for him.

How about when Moody, Mundungus, Kingsley, Hermione, Tonks, Ron, Bill, Fleur, Lupin, George, Arthur, Fred, and Hagrid all went to Privet Drive to risk their lives for a boy who was supposed to fulfill a prophecy?

What about when Tonks, Moody, Sirius, Kingsley, Lupin, Neville, Luna, Ginny, Ron, and Hermione all went to the Department of Mysteries [which Dumbledore would have prevented had he the opportunity] willingly to fight for Harry's life?

What about when the entire Order and School Staff fought to the death in order to protect one boy's life? You think a single one of them would have had a problem being manipulated into the greater good if the greater good was defeating Voldemort?


I don't think DD was selfish, but the admitted dispassion with which he thought of Harry pre-Philosopher's Stone bugs me.

Dispassion?

Again, we can't judge on what might have happened, or results at all, only on the actions themselves. Well, I guess we could, but I'm not.

What action did Dumbledore do that was immoral yet not neccessary?


That is another issue and one which should be given due consideration. Let us suppose three potential indicators for the morality of any given action:

Intention
The Action itself
The Effect

Of the three, which should be used to determine the morality? If more than one, which is the most important? I posit that:

Intention is most important
Action is secondary
Effect is irrelevant


Action, Intention, Effect.
What good is intention if you cannot commit to it?

This however is different than an ordinary circumstance.
This is a matter of saving an entire world - therefore in this circumstance, as circumstances do change things, effect would take priority over action and intention, though each is relevant always.

In the case of DD, his intent was good. The action itself is murky. I can't decide if his primary goal was the preservation of Harry's life or the death of Riddle, no matter what. However, I am willing to concede that, although Dumbledore is a manipulator, his actions were, on the whole, good; with some immoral elements.


Preserving the life of Harry.
Dumbledore wasn't interested in the death of Riddle - he could have ripped apart Riddle's soul from his body plenty of times, if he cared about that he would have been willing to use unforgivable curses.




But not everyone does have common sense. Does that mean their wishes are irrelevant? And who gets to decide what common sense is?

Any character who is braindead enough to not be able to say "Voldemort = evil" should either be hospitalized or would be a Death Eater, so yes, their wishes are irrelevant to me.



One can admire another person and still not wish to be manipulated by them to achieve a given end, or want them to be their leader at all.

And how do you go about defeating Voldemort when Dumbledore chooses to be an immoral person? Who then tells others about the horcruxes? Who then gets to understand a prophecy? Who then strategizes others in a way that would defeat Voldemort?



And he would disagree with you. He says Harry is the "most good." I tend to agree. He had a piece of Riddle's soul in him from almost the very beginning, yet he never succombed to it. The goodness overrode the evil. DD didn't even have someone else's evil soul. He had to struggle with his own evil. I will grant him this, though; he overcame it (for the most part).

I've read the book, and I know what he said.
I disagree, I think Dumbledore is a humble and modest character, despite his comments in HBP, and I think Dumbledore did "more good" than Harry. Dumbledore was able to change his ways to prevent him from being power hungry, he was able to save lives by defeating Grindelwald, and he saved plenty of lives [and delayed plenty of deaths] by strategizing against Voldemort. Harry carried out his instructions as Dumbledore told him to, he could have done nothing if he was alone without Dumbledore.


Regretted his actions? When? And I dislike him because, although Riddle seems more evil, Pettrigrew was a traitor.

He regretted his actions once he found Voldemort.
He regretted putting himself in a position where he would need to kill someone who saved him - he kept begging to use someone else.
The way he died shows he was killed for being remorseful.

Snape was a traitor.
Being a traitor is far from the most immoral thing.

If there's one thing Pettigrew would be the worst character for it would be reviving Voldemort.


It is always respect to be honest with someone.

Not if honesty will cause them, and many others, their life.


Never resist. But never capitulate. Die before doing evil or surrendering, but never return violence for violence.

Because it's better if you die rather than your target who will kill thousands of others?
Hard to have a war without violence.


I'm a bit of a Christian Anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism) so I'm not sure I can answer that question.

Then may I ask if you would kill someone if you were given a prophecy from God telling you that you need to kill person X because if he survives he will kill every Christian in the world?


That is different than "all's fair in war." That is, "All is fair in war given __________."

Your sentence does start "all is fair and war"
You hadn't asked me what makes a war.
You hadn't asked me about conditions I feel are necessary.
You hadn't asked me if I feel war's are justified in all conditions.
You simply asked me if I feel "all is fair in war."


Well, that depends on how you define personal gain. I'm sure DD felt he personally gained by having Voldemort defeated and his friends and family safe. All actions, in some fashion, are selfish. And, even though everyone knew they were defending others, they didn't know in what fashion they were being used.

Dumbledore had no friends, not in the sense that he put them equal to him, besides perhaps Elphias Doge.

Dumbledore had one family member, who was capable of defending himself.

The only thing Dumbledore gained by having Voldemort defeated was having a character he considered his own "heir" to be safe.

This is incredibly thin ice. It is a small jump from "a good man should make the tough decisions" to "a good man should make all decisions" to benevolent despotism. Now, I'm not entirely against a benevolent monarchy. In fact, my ideal political environment is one in which a form of Christian communism (as described in Acts) is practiced under the leadership of a good person. Essentially, a monastic community. But there is one, huge caveat. The members of said community MUST be voluntary members! DD was not chosen for the position he took. He took it because he felt he had to. I will say this for him. He, like Ron, did not dictate the game from afar, but played his position to the death. He was part of the war, not a distant controller.

Holy headaches Batman! :p

Better a good hearted person [Dumbledore], capable of achieving the ends in a difficult situation, gets to make the tough decisions that a self centered person [Fudge] or a person who is not powerful enough [Scrimgeour] gets to make the tough decisions because they played a game of politics. Would Fudge be justified to do what Dumbledore did because he was chosen for the position? Do you not recall that the wizarding world requested for Dumbledore to be in that position beforehand?

Yes, it's just a hunch. Something about the way he said it. But I have less proof than I do of the existence of nargles.

To be honest I forgot what we were arguing about here.


I will concede that there was a big gamble that DD took, even as he manipulated people. If he had really and truly wanted to control things, he would have killed Harry right off, or let Riddle do it, and then gone after the horcruxes himself. I definitely believe he wanted to find a way to keep Harry alive. But he knew, from the beginning, that Harry would have to die one way or the other. Fortunately, it was the other.

That's where I disagree. I believe Dumbledore comprehended the entire prophecy. I also wouldn't be surprised if Dumbledore allowed Barty Crouch to capture Harry. If Voldemort knew a way to come back I'm sure Dumbledore could have forseen it, and if there was one safety Dumbledore & Voldemort could have given Harry it was to use his blood to revive the Dark Lord.

I believe Dumbledore understood the prophecy, I also believe we still fair to understand the exact context.

"The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches.

It is possible this could be either Harry or Snape or Dumbledore.
Harry had the power to defeat Voldemort, but Snape had the power of love as well and was the most effective spy and was literally approaching the door, while Dumbledore himself had the power in the sense of knowledge and strategy to outplay Voldemort. Though it most likely refers to Harry, it does fit both the others.

… Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies …

Could be Harry or Neville as both followed the criteria, but the latter still had destroyed the last of the horcruxes.

and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not

Harry did not and would not comprehend this power until Dumbledore explained it to him.

… and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives.

At this point I think Dumbledore realized that Harry would become a horcrux if the prophecy was not prevented and why I believe he personally wanted to be the Secret Keeper.

… The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies. …".

This obviously refers to Harry alone [or potentially Neville] at the time.

Of course, I could be dead wrong.
But Dumbledore is far more intelligent than anyone else in the wizarding world.

DD took the power/responsibility without it being given to him. He might have infered it, but I think he would have done it anyway. There was never a moment when the people said, "Do with us as you will."[/quoted]


If you joined the Order would you be willing to be manipulated in order to stop Voldemort? If you were in the Order would you not do anything necessary to help stop the Dark Lord? If not, why are you in the Order in the first place?


[quote]Then the law loses all objectivity. (Not that I disagree with you, though.)

But I disagree with plenty of our laws.
The fact that certain people could be released on technicality.
The fact that judges are forced to believe that's it's better to release 10 criminals than imprison 1 innocent person - what if all these criminals are murderers who will kill again? Why is that 1 innocent person worth 10-20 others?
The fact that you need a dozen people to unanimously agree before throwing a murderer into prison.
The problem that "life" means 25 years and not actually life.


If my son (Josiah (http://poor-blogger.blogspot.com/search/label/josiah)) was killed, what satisfaction am I going to get from the death of the killer? It doesn't take the pain away. I would want them to feel the same pain. So I would need their child to die. But that isn't fair to their child.

I agree, it's not fair to the child, why should the son be punished for the father's crimes? But why should you allow someone else to feel that pain? What if he kills someone elses child? Should you not be the one allowed to choose the length of the punishment?

No, what I really want them to feel is my pain. So I would want them to love me. I would want them to love me so much that they would feel my pain at the death of my son. But when we reached that point, I wouldn't want them to die any more anyway.

You think someone who murders a child for no reason can be worthy of love?
I don't think you could ever forgive someone who does something like that.

As for rights, that's another can of wormtails. Locke says we have rights to three kinds of property: life, liberty and estate. None of those are "justice." Rarely, in any "civilized" society has justice resided with the victim. It has always resided with the state. Because, often, the victim will be too blind to tell the guilty from the innocent. Or to take mitigating circumstances into account.

But the state itself is far more interested in protecting the innocent to properly punish the guilty. I actually just saw a commercial to a movie yesterday that I believe covers this exact topic here. :p


Perhaps out of self-defence/defence of others, but not out of justice for the deaths of her other children.

I agree in the sense that Bellatrix had not killed any of her other children.
But I disagree with you in the sense that if Bellatrix had she wouldn't have the right.
Why should she be allowed to kill Bellatrix in her daughter's defence, but not if her daughter would have just been killed infront of her?


Whether the information would have done more harm than good is irrelevant.

The information in the circumstance was the difference between EVERYTHING.

It is whether the release of that information, being honest and trusting of those from whom he expected honesty and trust, was a moral act in and of itself.

I don't think that turned out how you mean, I think you meant whether the lack of information was a moral act, and I think it was since it essentially saved Harry Potter's life.

And I have to fight off evil wizards at least every other week, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Children who don't like to learn does not equal evil wizards. :P

10 civilians? How did they get in there?

Random number, but you neglected my more important question.
"No, it's like saying would you sacrifice 10 civilians and 10 of your own soldiers in a war in order to kill Hitler who would kill tens of millions."


I think "meaning well" is the intent. Next is "doing well". The question is whether the meaning is more or less important than the doing. After all, the road to hell is, they say, paved with good intentions.

Peace,
Christopher

This is my last post in this thread, you know why, we can talk elsewhere.
You may have the last word here.