Albus Dumbledore: Manipulator

[criostoir]

Originally Posted by Greeney

You mean wasn't?

Right. Wasn't.

The thing is that Dumbledore had both good intentions and good results.

It's that middle part, though. The means. I am certain that the means do not justify the end. However, I am less certain that the intentions do not justify, or at least mitigate, the means. Regardless, I am not wholly comfortable of DD's methods.

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.

I'm not asking DD to give facts about his own life. Rather, what he was really asking them, especially Harry, to do. He didn't give them facts about themselves and the path he was asking them to walk.

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 know if they would have or not, and neither do they. If DD had said, "I have a goal I am trying to accomplish, but to do that I am going to have to ask you all to allow me to manipulate you without ever asking me what I am doing and why." I think the Order thought they were "in on the take," not pawns in DD's chess game. A pawn who is willed and willing can be a beautiful thing. A pawn that does not know he is a pawn makes me angry.

Dispassion?

He said something in OotP which made me think he was strictly thinking of Harry as a player in his game against Riddle rather than an actual person about whom he cared prior to book 1.

What action did Dumbledore do that was immoral yet not neccessary?

An immoral action is never necessary. It is, by definition, immoral and, therefore, unnecessary.

Action, Intention, Effect.
What good is intention if you cannot commit to it?

Intention can absolve or damn many actions. Actions can do the same for effects.

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.

You cannot judge an action based on the potential outcomes. Torture is always wrong no matter whether one is saving one or one million.

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.

No, because he would have also had to kill Harry. My guess is that, if no solution had presented itself to preserve Harry's life, DD would have killed Harry himself, or allowed Harry to kill himself.

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.

What about little evils? What if one supports pure-blood beliefs, but not Riddle? Should they be disregarded as well? Should we disregard anyone who disagrees with our "correct" position?

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?

I'm not sure how this is a response to my question. Regardless, it doesn't matter if DD was the best, or even the only, man for the job. Necessity does not give one license to take power or manipulate others.

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.

You're confusing intelligence, ability and results with morality. Morality has nothing to do with what is accomplished or how smart one is, but how good one is. DD recognized this. It's interesting that you attribute all these qualities to him, but then won't give him the honor and respect of deciding his own moral position in relation to Harry.

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.

He regretted his actions because Voldemort was almost worse than Sirius and Lupin. He didn't want to kill someone because he was a coward and didn't want to get himself in too deep. And the way he died shows a life debt which must be obeyed, not any remorse on his part.

Snape was a traitor.
Being a traitor is far from the most immoral thing.

Unless you're Dante.

If there's one thing Pettigrew would be the worst character for it would be reviving Voldemort.

Again, you're confusing action with inner quality.

Not if honesty will cause them, and many others, their life.

The action itself is moral regardless of the consequences.

Because it's better if you die rather than your target who will kill thousands of others?
Hard to have a war without violence.

Ghandi drove out the British without raising a fist or firing a shot. It's possible.

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?

There's a difference between anarchy and pacifism. That said, I would know God wouldn't tell me that. What need a Christian fear of death?

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.

You misunderstand me. I mean that everyone does what they ultimately want, or else they wouldn't do it. If I go to work, it is because it is the best option for me given all other options. If I clean the house, it means I would rather have the house clean than dirty. And if DD arranges for Riddle to die, it is because he wants Riddle dead.

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?

DD = Good heart, bad actions
Fudge = Bad heart, bad actions
Scrimgeour = Somewhere in the middle

And, sadly, Fudge was someone the people had chosen, so he had more of a "right" to act than DD did, more of a "right" to take leadership over the people who chose him. It doesn't make him good, just official.

To be honest I forgot what we were arguing about here.

Pink Unicorns?

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.

We'll have to disagree there. I don't think even DD would have taken a gamble that huge.

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?

That's an awful lot of trust to put in another person. I might have, but even if I did I would want to know that I was making such a decision, to act blindly on DD's board.

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.

It's interesting that the things which bother you about our system I laud. It gives me some insight into the nature of our debate. You are a utilitarian and I am an idealist. You are Dr. Carrasco and I am Alonzo Quijana.

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?

Length? What care I for length? You're really mean vengeance, but I can't get vengeance. So then we're talking about detention, removing him from public danger, and that's not something that a victim should decide. A victim of a robbery would probably choose for the person to have life in prison. Is that justice?

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.

Worthy of love? It's not about the person's worth or lack thereof. If we choose to love only based on the other's worthiness, then we aren't really loving. Love is given regardless of the worth of the other. Love is like light. It isn't given based on worthiness, it is just given.

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.

The one with .... ummm ... Clarice from Silence of the Lambs? JODIE FOSTER! That's her name. I pray that the state is always more concerned with protecting the innocent than punishing the guilty.

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?

Because one protects the innocent and one wreaks vengeance on the guilty. It is the intention behind the action again.

The information in the circumstance was the difference between EVERYTHING.

I'm going with Kant here and saying the result is irrelevant to the morality of the action.

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.

I said it how I meant to say it, but I see what you mean. Regardless, you got the right meaning and we still are at odds.

Children who don't like to learn does not equal evil wizards. :P

You'd be surprised. Every day I expect another head to pop out of some of their heads.

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'm not talking about the number. I'm talking about the civilians. How did they get in the "war?" I think that kind of ruins the analogy on your part and wanted to make sure you wanted them there before I answered.

This is my last post in this thread, you know why, we can talk elsewhere.
You may have the last word here.

My last word is .... ummmm .... sock!

[wizardswheezes]

Originally Posted by criostoir

It's that middle part, though. The means. I am certain that the means do not justify the end. However, I am less certain that the intentions do not justify, or at least mitigate, the means. Regardless, I am not wholly comfortable of DD's methods.

I'm interested in this idea of Dumbledore using dubious or immoral means - I didn't see it this way at all. Can you give some examples of things you were uncomfortable with?

[TLFL22]

Originally Posted by Vertigo9

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.

I agree, but to me the fact that DD in a way intended Snape to die show his lack of love for the lives if others. For me book 7 in many ways ruined the Godliness that was Albus Dumbledore. I will never look at him in the same light.

[criostoir]

Originally Posted by wizardswheezes

I'm interested in this idea of Dumbledore using dubious or immoral means - I didn't see it this way at all. Can you give some examples of things you were uncomfortable with?

Basically, the witholding of information and the manipulation of his friends and allies to achieve the given end, the destruction of Voldemort.

Peace,
Christopher

[wizardswheezes]

Originally Posted by criostoir

Basically, the witholding of information and the manipulation of his friends and allies to achieve the given end, the destruction of Voldemort.

Peace,
Christopher

I don't see Dumbledore's behaviour as manipulation - strategising and planning, yes, but not manipulation.

As for witholding information, he certainly did that, but I think his reasons were more complex than merely trying to achieve the given end.

• In relation to Harry, what other choice did Dumbledore have? He could have told the 12 year old Harry everything that he knew - that Harry was destined to fight Voldemort to the death, that the fate of the wizarding world rested on his shoulders, and he was quite probably being used as a container for a fragment of Voldemort's soul and would therefore have to sacrifice himself (!) This would have been the most truthful course of action, but surely not the morally right one. I actually think Dumbledore did well at managing the balance between witholding information from Harry and trusting him to make the right choices. And when he did withold too much (not giving Harry enough information about the connection between Harry and Voldemort in OP), his reason was not a strategic one but an emotional one - he wanted to protect Harry from pain.
  
• Dumbledore also witheld information from his friends in the Order of the Phoenix - but again, I don't think this was entirely down to strategy. Dumbledore was at fault, but his weakness was his social isolation - he was detached from others and consequently reluctant to confide in them. I don't see this as evidence of cold manipulation. (And in the case of the Order of the Phoenix, Dumbledore's allies were not in any way misled about their task or the risks they faced - Dumbledore didn't manipulate anyone to risk their lives, they did this willingly.)
  
• I think it's also worth remembering that Dumbledore immediately, then persistently, told the wizarding community that Voldemort had returned and that they would need to make choices between what was right and what was easy. At the most crucial juncture, he didn't withold information - in stark contrast to the strategy of the ministry.

[wickedwickedboy]

This is how I am coming to see DD - as a manipulator. I think he did manipulate most of those in the Order, Snape, Harry, Hermione, Ron, the Professors and others who were involved in his plan. I don't think it was right of him to do so and I think it resulted in trials and tribulations that could have been avoided.

However, I do feel that from DD's viewpoint, he was acting in the best interests of everyone and that his decisions came from the heart. He really did want the wizard world to be a better place for all wizards. However, I think he was short-sighted in that regard when it came to those he worked with directly to see this come about.

DD ended up being the fall guy character imo; responsible for many negatives and one huge positive (saved wizard world) and other little positives. However his methods to reach that big postitive end, included many of the negatives and to be honest, I would say in the balance, his big positive end did not justify some of his means - in my opinion of course.

[Linuxman]

I can't believe a lot of you are saying such bad things about Dumbledore! This man did what was right. He had to withhold information from people. If he told the Order or anyone else for that matter how to destroy Voldemort or anything else he might have guessed,and they had been captured the consequences would have been incalculable.

I think He was also correct in not telling Harry he must die until the very last moment. How can anyone have the strength to do something like that until the very end. Could Harry have gone on an entire year knowing he was going to die? He would have been miserable and not telling Harry minimized his suffering however great it was.

He was even right about the Hallows, Harry obsessed over them the moment he found out about them, and if he would have obtained them he may have thrown himself at Voldemort at the wrong moment.

Some have also said that Dumbledore should have told harry about the sword as well! But if Harry had known about it wouldn't he have went straight to the school to try to obtain it and possibly could have been caught. I think it was the right decision for Snape to pass the sword to him.

Dumbledore has made mistakes but that just shows he is human. But he executed his plan almost perfectly and flawlessly except for the elder wand, which actually worked to his advantage and he saved thousands of lives by doing it the way he did. A true genius.

[randomperson]

I totally agree with Daelin. Dumbledore was a tich careless with his orders and several people died as result of him.

[LoveWeasleys]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

This is how I am coming to see DD - as a manipulator. I think he did manipulate most of those in the Order, Snape, Harry, Hermione, Ron, the Professors and others who were involved in his plan. I don't think it was right of him to do so and I think it resulted in trials and tribulations that could have been avoided.

I agree. I always have looked to Dumbledore as the master chess player. He had an eye for what was to come and knew the moves and sacrifice that was needed in order to acomplish the ulitmate goal...take down Voldemort. Yes there were trials and tribulations but what war or victory has ever come without some kind of hardship or sacrifice?

[sllagnire]

Originally Posted by randomperson

I totally agree with Daelin. Dumbledore was a tich careless with his orders and several people died as result of him.

Several people may have died because of him, but I have to wonder how many would have died without him. How much longer would Lord Voldemort have been around, how many more pointless killings would there have been? I can't see Harry or anyone else defeating Voldemort without Dumbledore's help. He may have been a manipulator, but I think it really was in the interest of of Magic community as a whole.

[randomperson]

Well Dumbledore is a malipulator. I hat to admit it and now I am a bit sad that I relize that this is true. He did manipulate people. he ecxpected people to do what they were told without being given the full picture.

[Chris]

One person's manipulator is another person's strategist. I feel that Dumbledore was a strategist in the fight against Voldemort, and he made many hard decisions - some right, some wrong - in order to try and fight the evil that was Voldemort.

[randomperson]

Originally Posted by chparadise

One person's manipulator is another person's strategist. I feel that Dumbledore was a strategist in the fight against Voldemort, and he made many hard decisions - some right, some wrong - in order to try and fight the evil that was Voldemort.

yeah I guess you are right. He may have manipulated many, but he also saved a lot more.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by sllagnire

Several people may have died because of him, but I have to wonder how many would have died without him. How much longer would Lord Voldemort have been around, how many more pointless killings would there have been? I can't see Harry or anyone else defeating Voldemort without Dumbledore's help. He may have been a manipulator, but I think it really was in the interest of of Magic community as a whole.

I respect your opinion, but I wasn't saying that DD should not have been involved at all. I think that he should have been more open with those he was working with and not placed himself in the position of power he did (over the Order and those involved in his plan). DD himself admitted that he had a tendency to abuse power and that is why he did not accept the position of Minister. And yet, he was really in that very position within the Order and over those assisting him - a position of unqualified power. He made unilateral decisions as head of the Order and his plan was all his alone to deliberate. I feel it would have been much better if he had worked openly with at least one other in order to keep his perspective in check and his position balanced. But even if he did not do that, I feel he should have been open with individuals with respect to the parts he had elected for them to play and the possible outcomes he foresaw and expectations he had for them personally. Their lives were at stake and they had a right to make decisions based on all of the knowledge he had pertaining to them. (i.e., he didn't have to tell Harry about Remus and the werewolf spying endeavors, he only had to tell Harry all he knew about Harry in relation to his plan, etc)

[DeathlyH]

Well, his plan benefated THE GREATER GOOD. What Harry had trouble realizing was that NO MATTER HOW DUMBLEDORE CARRIED OUT HIS PLAN, THERE WOULD STILL BE SACRIFICES MADE. Nothing great but as dangerous as that coulb be done without losing some people. Rita finally got one thing right, Ariana was the first person to die For the Greater Good.

[LoveWeasleys]

Originally Posted by sllagnire

Several people may have died because of him, but I have to wonder how many would have died without him.

Very good point.

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I respect your opinion, but I wasn't saying that DD should not have been involved at all. I think that he should have been more open with those he was working with and not placed himself in the position of power he did (over the Order and those involved in his plan). DD himself admitted that he had a tendency to abuse power and that is why he did not accept the position of Minister. And yet, he was really in that very position within the Order and over those assisting him - a position of unqualified power. He made unilateral decisions as head of the Order and his plan was all his alone to deliberate. I feel it would have been much better if he had worked openly with at least one other in order to keep his perspective in check and his position balanced. But even if he did not do that, I feel he should have been open with individuals with respect to the parts he had elected for them to play and the possible outcomes he foresaw and expectations he had for them personally. Their lives were at stake and they had a right to make decisions based on all of the knowledge he had pertaining to them. (i.e., he didn't have to tell Harry about Remus and the werewolf spying endeavors, he only had to tell Harry all he knew about Harry in relation to his plan, etc)

I diffentaly see the point here, however I guess I am not really sure how much "good" it would have done for everyone (members of the Order, etc) to know everything or even more than they knew. Timing is everything. People found out what they needed to know when the time was right. I think Snape and Harry are both really good examples of this. I wonder if they would have found out sooner the whole plan or more information if they would have still followed through and would have done what needed to be done. Dumbledore does say to Harry that he has made mistakes in not telling him things sooner and that he did that out of love. Yet, at the same time he is withholding some of the most important information yet...that Harry was an unintentional horcrux. With that information, timing was everything.

I don't really know how much more information the Order needed to know. It seems that at times certain members (like Molly...Lupin) are frusterated with Dumbledore that he did not tell them everything specifically about the plan to destroy the horcruxes. But, Dumbledore knew they would get in the way and therefore the information was with held.

I understand that Dumbledore put himself in a position of power over others when he led the Order and the mission to destroy Voldy. But, he had the right to in my opinion. He was the only one who really knew Tom, his life, his lienage, his mannerisms, etc. He was the only that could predict the way Voldy would work and manage. The very position that Dumbledore was in not only a choice, but was thrust upon him the day he went to the orphange to meet Tom.

I don't believe it was necessary to have everyone informed with all the information. Dumbledore knew to not to keep "all his eggs in one basket". Was this wise? I believe so. Was Albus Dumbledore a maniputalor..yes. Was his manipulation successful...yes. It is for that reason that I don't see what could have been gained by informing the Order of the more specific plans.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

Originally Posted by TnK

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.

completely. However, as for the love part, it's merely his philosophy, I wonder who he has ever loved.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by Voldemorts8thHorcrux

completely. However, as for the love part, it's merely his philosophy, I wonder who he has ever loved.

He loved his family, he loved Harry and I think he loved Snape, too.

[LudwigVan]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I respect your opinion, but I wasn't saying that DD should not have been involved at all. I think that he should have been more open with those he was working with and not placed himself in the position of power he did (over the Order and those involved in his plan). DD himself admitted that he had a tendency to abuse power and that is why he did not accept the position of Minister. And yet, he was really in that very position within the Order and over those assisting him - a position of unqualified power. He made unilateral decisions as head of the Order and his plan was all his alone to deliberate. I feel it would have been much better if he had worked openly with at least one other in order to keep his perspective in check and his position balanced. But even if he did not do that, I feel he should have been open with individuals with respect to the parts he had elected for them to play and the possible outcomes he foresaw and expectations he had for them personally. Their lives were at stake and they had a right to make decisions based on all of the knowledge he had pertaining to them. (i.e., he didn't have to tell Harry about Remus and the werewolf spying endeavours, he only had to tell Harry all he knew about Harry in relation to his plan, etc)

True, I think Dumbledore should have at least confided almost (not Harry being an Horcrux, imo that would have killed everyone's hope), everything of his plan (or feelings maybe too?). I think that swallowing almost the entire plan to himself must've been very stressful. Why didn't he confided the plan with his most loyal crew, the order? Maybe after how Gellert turned out to be, he was afraid of truthfully trust people? Or was it because of what happened with Peter, being a double agent?

[Ronny]

Dumbledore was a master manipulator and in the war against Voldemort adopted many of the flaws of his great enemy. However, it really was all for the greater good. Because some things, such as ethics or even human lives, need to be sacrificed in order to do a great service to the world.
He used others, he basically caused Mad Eye's death, he protected Harry so he could die, time after time he acted reprehensibly. But it is those actions which won the war. A good leader cannot have a heart. A good leader must care for nothing and no one except success. And in this regard Albus was a magnificent general.