= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nominull comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 14, chapter 82 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (790)
Well, Draco has probably already been removed from Harry's side of the gameboard, so at least Harry doesn't have to worry about honoring his promise to take Dumbledore as his enemy.
I don't think Harry's promises work like that, he seemed very earnest about them.
The thing that still gives Harry some room to maneuver is that he still doesn't know if Narcissa Malfoy was burned alive, or if Dumbledore just arranged it to appear that she was burned alive. This was one of the explicitly declared conditions, that if she wasn't burned alive, Harry will get to decide by himself whether to still go ahead with the pledge or not.
And there's also the secondary possibility that she was burned alive, but that it wasn't Dumbledore who arranged it to happen, he just took credit for it afterwards to serve his purpose of protecting the families of the Order of the Phoenix.
"And there's also the secondary possibility that she was burned alive, but that it wasn't Dumbledore who arranged it to happen, he just took credit for it afterwards to serve his purpose of protecting the families of the Order of the Phoenix."
Exactly. Similar mechanism as in "Breaking bad" TV series. The legend, that Jesse Pinkman crushed the non-payer Spooge with the ATM machine improved the payment discipline of other customers. Even though Jesse, in fact, did not do that and would never be able of doing it.
I thing it is more likely, that Dumbledore took credit for the murder rather than actually committing it. A premeditated, exemplary murder of innocent women seems too unprobable and OOC for a "light" character. The only think that makes me uncertain about Dumbledore innocence is this part of chapter 80:
When Lucius Malfoy spoke again his voice seemed to tremble ever so slightly, as though the stern control on it was failing. "Blood calls for repayment, the blood of my family. Not for any price will I sell the blood debt owed my son. You would not understand that, who never had love or child of your own. Still, there is more than one debt owed to House Malfoy, and I think that my son, if he stood among us, would rather be repaid for his mother's blood than for his own. Confess your own crime to the Wizengamot, as you confessed it to me, and I shall -"
"Don't even think about it, Albus," said the stern old witch who had spoken before.
What I meant is, I do not think Dumbledore would confess that he murdered Narcissa to Lucius, if he did not do it. I would rather expect evasive statements instead of a confession. Similar evasive statements as he used in confrontation with Harry. On the other hand, it seems more like Dumbledore to apologize for Narcissa's murder to Lucius, if he actually killed her. Well, this dilemma can be solved by assuming, that Dumbledore used evasive statements, which Lucius understood as confession. But Lucius was supposed to be intelligent, huh ?
Why would Dumbledore use evasive statements to Lucius if Dumbledore's purpose back then was to convince Lucius that he did kill Narcissa?
His words to Harry are different because the context is different - he wants Harry to understand the necessity behind the Death Eaters thinking he burned Narcissa alive, but there exists disutility both in saying "no, I didn't burn her alive" and this potentially leaking back to the Death Eaters, and in saying "yes, I did burn her alive" and this potentially leaking back to the Wizengamot.
So he gives Harry the reasons that the belief is necessary, but he doesn't tell him if it's true.
And what about the disutility of saying "yes, I did burn her alive" and this potentially leaking back to his supporters ? Wouldn't it destroy his image as the representant of Light ? Would it still be worth fighting on his side ? Maybe I am fooled by assuming, that Eliezer Yudkowsky has the same cultural background as I have, and that the light characters strongly believe in Geneva conventions, particularly the protection of non-combatants.
You mean if he actually said it as clearly as that to Lucius Malfoy?
Almost nobody believed Lucius, not even his own supporters in the Wizengamot, as has been mentioned in the story already. Only the Death Eaters seem to have believed it, perhaps because Voldemort believed it.
It's different if The Boy Who Lived testifies to the same effect (that Dumbledore told him he did it) infront of the Wizengamot.
Witness Draco's efforts to find some plausible deniability as a Malfoy, and realize what the odds are that anyone would believe Lucius even if he spoke simple truth.
My impression is that the senior Order of the Phoenix members already know the truth, and the Light-side power brokers who don't know the truth are not particularly interested in evidence.
If Dumbledore endorsed the burning-alive (even after the fact), then I think Harry's promise requires him to take Dumbledore as an enemy.
That said, I'm not sure that D has endorsed the act, so much as declined to shoot an ally - which isn't quite the same moral position. (Or is it? Have to think about that).
Well, if I evaluate in terms of expected consequences, it seems the question reduces to what effect the two things have on the odds that someone will be burned alive in the future.
The answer to which is of course uncertain, but I can certainly see the argument that demonstrating that I won't enforce any negative consequences for you burning our shared enemies alive has about the same effect on those odds as endorsing burning our shared enemies alive.
So your position is that HP is obligated (based on what he knows right now) to take D as his enemy or forsake his promise to Draco?
I don't have a position on that question; I don't know what HP promised Draco or how it relates to D.
My position is that declining to "shoot" (taking that metaphorically to mean punish) an ally who performed an act is usually pretty much morally equivalent to endorsing that act.
I hope Draco hasn't been removed from the story. I liked the convert Draco storyline as an example of what "raising the sanity line" would really look like.
Given all the character development Draco has undergone (best example is the scene with Goyle), I think it unlikely that he disappears, never to return. I would interpret that occurrence as evidence that raising the sanity line is not possible in magical Britain.
I expect he'll write letters to Harry on the sly.
Also, remember back about 60 chapters when Draco realized that Lucius would be ecstatic to have Harry in his debt? Sort of funny in retrospect.
Well Draco's not coming back now.
Hopefully Eliezer will throw us a short section from Draco's point of view as he extends the Bayesian Conspiracy to Durmstrang or wherever.
Nooo!!!!
(Just saw new chapter. Looks like you were right. But if Draco's really gone, then I'm really confused where this story is and has been heading. Draco is not capable of leading a Bayesian Conspiracy. HJPEV is barely capable of doing so, in that he is a ridiculously overpowered polymath genius. If the main person of Harry's age worth inducting into the Bayesian Conspiracy is not longer in contact with Harry, what's the point of the Bayesian Conspiracy? Conservation of detail, if nothing else. <Ok, I admit I'm biased because I like political-ish maneuvering like Dune and Game of Thrones, and HPMoR doesn't have that without Draco>).
I think I may misunderstand you.
Please explain how HJPEV is relieved of his promise?