Albus Dumbledore: Manipulator

[REDMONSTER1985]

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

[Wright1771]

"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!

[gottaloveLupin]

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.

[minervamc]

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.

[Cherryrose]

Originally Posted by minervamc

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.

[minervamc]

Originally Posted by Cherryrose

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

[Dumbledoreswand]

Originally Posted by RobbieF1

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:

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.

[NRHP]

Originally Posted by minervamc

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.

[UAM]

Originally Posted by NRHP

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.

[Manisa]

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.

[ArthurDent]

Originally Posted by Ginny1984

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.

[muggleborn1]

Originally Posted by UAM

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...

[Dumbledoreswand]

Originally Posted by UAM

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.

[Lord Godric]

Originally Posted by gyerv59

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:

DH; Am. Ed. The Forest Again; 692-693 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.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by UAM

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.

[FingolfinKing]

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.

[minervamc]

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.

[YellowRose]

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.

[FingolfinKing]

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

[mao]

Originally Posted by FingolfinKing

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)