Fergus_Mackinnon comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 9 - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 09 September 2011 01:29PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (718)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TuviaDulin 11 October 2011 08:01:08PM 9 points [-]

Actually, I just had a chilling realization in regards to that. From chapter 62:

'"No," said the old wizard's voice. "I do not think so. The Death Eaters learned, toward the end of the war, not to attack the Order's families. And if Voldemort is now acting without his former companions, he still knows that it is I who make the decisions for now, and he knows that I would give him nothing for any threat to your family. I have taught him that I do not give in to blackmail, and so he will not try."

Harry turned back then, and saw a coldness on the old wizard's face to match the shift in his voice, Dumbledore's blue eyes grown hard as steel behind the glasses, it didn't match the person but it matched the formal black robes.'

I strongly suspect that Dumbledore burned Narcissa Malfoy so that the death eaters would stop targeting the families of Order members. Judging by his tone of voice and body language in this excerpt, this is probably the one action during the war that Dumbledore most regrets having had to do.

If I'm right, Harry will be in a difficult moral situation when he learns the truth. Was what Dumbledore did justified? On the one hand, torturing a mostly innocent person to death is deplorable no matter how you slice it. On the other, if that was the only way to stop many other innocents from being tortured to death...

Comment author: Fergus_Mackinnon 12 October 2011 08:46:52PM *  7 points [-]

Another thought which occurred, is that Amelia Bones killed Narcissa in revenge for the Death Eater's killing of her family members, then Dumbledore claimed responsibility in order to send a message to the Death Eater's and Malfoy to discourage further attacks on the Order's families, and prevent Lucius from finding any evidence of Amelia's responsibility, which might have allowed him to remove one of Dumbledore's more powerful allies. He probably would have had to have been careful to give the impression that he would be willing to do so 'again' to the other Death Eaters if he wanted them to stop, though, unless Lucius cares a lot more about his allies than shown so far, or at least made some threat against Draco, who Lucius seems to care about.

EDIT: I was wondering how killing Lucius' wife would provide leverage over the other Death Eaters when I realised something rather obvious in retrospect, Dumbledore is the Headmaster of Hogwarts. He already has plenty of leverage, doesn't he? If need be he can hold all the school age children of Death Eaters and their allies hostage, or expell them, denying them good education and potentially giving them a bad reputation. If the parents withdrew the children and sent them abroad though, they could grow up without the knowledge of local politics provided by a hogwarts education (including personal knowledge of everyone important in your age group, which in such a small society, not-having would likely be a big disadvantage.)

Comment author: TuviaDulin 15 October 2011 03:56:02AM 5 points [-]

Ah, good point. Using someone else's moral lapses to his advantage without getting his own hands dirty would be very much in character for MoR Dumbledore.

Either way, I suspect that Harry and Draco's attempt to uncover the truth, and Harry having to consider Dumbledore's position at the time, will be a major story arc at some point.

Comment author: Fergus_Mackinnon 15 October 2011 08:23:22PM 1 point [-]

I'd imagine that the Death Eater's own activities would be brought into the lime-light as well, if it were a major arc.

Comment author: TuviaDulin 16 October 2011 05:46:09PM 3 points [-]

Yes, especially considering that Harry already started to do this (when he made Draco admit that the death of Lily Potter was "sad"). When Draco learns that his father burned several other innocent women to death before Dumbledore/Bones returned the favor, he and Harry will both find themselves in difficult moral situations.

Comment author: pedanterrific 17 October 2011 02:17:36AM *  2 points [-]

How so? (Hint: in Harry's opinion, the moral response to burning several innocent women to death does not involve burning more innocent women to death.) In this case, the only difficulty on Harry's part would be explaining to Susan why he annihilated her aunt.

Edit: Okay, I've read over the thread again and I honestly have no idea what the downvote is for. Please explain?

Edit: Clarified in whose opinion that was the case.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 17 October 2011 03:42:58AM 3 points [-]

(Hint: the moral response to burning several innocent women to death does not involve burning more innocent women to death.)

Depends, it may very well make sense from a TDT/UDT point of view.

Comment author: pedanterrific 17 October 2011 03:53:40AM *  2 points [-]

Really, that's what people are objecting to? For goodness' sake, I'm not a deontologist or anything, I'm just referring to what was described as "condition three":

"Condition three is that Narcissa has to have been burned alive. If that part of the story turns out to be something exaggerated just to make it sound a little worse, then I get to decide for myself whether or not to still go through with the pledge. Good people sometimes have to kill. But they don't ever torture people to death. It's because Narcissa was burned alive that I know whoever did that was evil."

It wouldn't be a difficult moral situation on Harry's part because he specifically thought of this exact circumstance in advance.

Comment author: Asymmetric 13 November 2011 09:30:18PM 1 point [-]

Until he finds a person who he would describe as good but had legitimate reasons to torture someone? The situation would be contrived, but it's still possible.

Comment author: Fergus_Mackinnon 17 October 2011 08:40:07PM 1 point [-]

I can't remember whether it was Dumbledore specifically who was named in that pledge, making it invalid if someone else did it (technically, at least, Draco would probably consider it a betrayal if Harry found out who did it but didn't help him get revenge) but if Amelia did it, then Hermione could be dragged into the situation as well, as a friend of Susan's, and we could have a fascinating obligation tug-of-war for Harry.

Comment author: pedanterrific 17 October 2011 09:40:12PM 4 points [-]

"Condition two is that I'm pledging to take as an enemy whoever actually did kill Narcissa, as determined to the honest best of my ability as a rationalist. Whether that's Dumbledore, or someone else. ...

... Condition five is that if whoever killed Narcissa was tricked somehow into doing it, then my enemy is whoever tricked them, not the person who was tricked."

And yes, I think it would be somewhat difficult on Harry's part to explain himself to the people who care about the person who did it; but in this case, Hermione of all people would probably understand why Harry took as his enemy someone who - again - burned an innocent woman to death. I don't think that's the kind of thing Hermione would be willing to let slide just because the person is a friend's aunt.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 17 October 2011 04:46:29AM 1 point [-]

It wouldn't be a difficult moral situation on Harry's part because he specifically thought of this exact circumstance in advance.

This may indicate that Harry has not through the relevant issues enough to appreciate this sort of moral dilemma. That said, this is a good demonstration of a possible failure mode of TDT/UDT-like approaches where they might end up leading to something that looks like cycles of revenge which they have precommitted themselves to.

Comment author: pedanterrific 17 October 2011 05:18:09AM 1 point [-]

Harry has not [thought] through the relevant issues enough

Of course he hasn't, condition three up there is based firmly (or as firmly as anything can be based in such shifting sands) in some kind of fuzzy instinctual deontology. Harry isn't perfect.

In formulating this, I realized what my mistake likely was, and edited the original comment.