![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
In the process of working out some plot ideas for a new fic, a question suddenly occurred to me, one with important consequences for any real appraisal of Severus' moral/ethical position in the books. Don't get me wrong - I love Severus and think he's gotten a bad rap from a lot of people. Considering what he's had to work with, his moral growth is striking. However, there's a point where I have to wonder if his submission to Dumbledore kept him from making a moral step he really should have made after the revelation of the Harrycrux. The question, namely, is this:
Was it truly necessary for Voldemort to be KILLED? Not just defeated, not just prevented from murdering and wreaking havoc, but actually killed. Or in the words of the prophecy, destroyed.
I ask because the answer to this question is also the answer to the question of whether or not HARRY had to die (or sort-of-die, but Severus didn't know that), and therefore has real implications when we try to judge not only Dumbledore's, but also Severus', moral status after Dumbledore's coming-clean about the Harrycrux. Severus was suitably shocked and horrified at the realization that Dumbledore had used him and had set up Harry to die, yes.
However, after that moment of horror had passed, he went along with the plan. Apparently (from what we're shown in canon) without much of a complaint or attempt to find another way of resolving the whole mess. Granted, I'm assuming here that, outside the boundaries of JKR's rather...strange moral world, the idea of actually sending a boy off to commit suicide for the Greater Good (TM), without telling him until the last minute that this is what he is doing, is going to be viewed as at least as questionable as secretly raising the boy for this purpose all along was. Considering his horror at Dumbledore's deception, I do believe that Severus could reasonably be expected to infer this. And yet this is precisely what he ultimately does. Which, in my reading of the situation, leaves us with two distinct options (please correct me if you see any other way out), one of which has almost no actual support in canon that I can think of at the moment. These options are:
1. It is truly necessary for Voldemort to DIE, and therefore for Harry to die. For some reason it is pretty much impossible - not simply very, very difficult, but actually impossible (or so close to impossible that the difference is negligible) - to simply imprison Voldie or otherwise render him harmless once the other Horcruxes are destroyed. Best-case scenario for Severus, though totally unsupported by canon, is that Dumbledore knew this and at some point explained to Severus exactly why this was, indeed, the situation. Very little in canon to suggest this, beyond the fact that the idea of capturing Voldemort rather than killing him simply never comes up. If this is indeed the case, I'd like some details as to why, please, and not just 'he's so POWERFUL.' We haven't really been given anything solid to suggest that his powers of of such a magnitude as to make his death the only viable option in the war, whereas in Grindelwald we HAVE been given an example of a powerful, formerly terrifying Dark Lord being defeated and locked up. By Dumbledore himself.
2. It is not, in fact, truly necessary for Voldemort (and therefore Harry) to die. He could theoretically, given enough time and manpower, be captured, rendered unable to do magic (there has to be a way, considering the existence of Azkaban in conjunction with the existence of wandless magic) and imprisoned. Dumbledore's and Severus' failure to thoroughly investigate this option (we are not shown that it is ever an issue for them) before sending Harry off on his death march then, in my book at least, counts as a moral failing for both of them.
I don't much like the implications of 2 for Severus, particularly considering how I stood up an applauded him with his "You have used me!" speech. But in light of what we are given in canon to go on, I find myself leaning towards this interpretation of events nonetheless. So I'm interested in how other people read the situation - and also your thoughts on why JKR doesn't seem at all concerned with this angle, and what that says about her and her creation in turn. What do you think? Am I missing something, or mis-reading something? Or has JKR for whatever reason slipped up and given us a big, glaring moral hole in her story? (And one more crack in the already-shaky foundation for her claims that Dumbles is ultimately really good)?
Anyway, thanks for listening to me rant. ;)
Was it truly necessary for Voldemort to be KILLED? Not just defeated, not just prevented from murdering and wreaking havoc, but actually killed. Or in the words of the prophecy, destroyed.
I ask because the answer to this question is also the answer to the question of whether or not HARRY had to die (or sort-of-die, but Severus didn't know that), and therefore has real implications when we try to judge not only Dumbledore's, but also Severus', moral status after Dumbledore's coming-clean about the Harrycrux. Severus was suitably shocked and horrified at the realization that Dumbledore had used him and had set up Harry to die, yes.
However, after that moment of horror had passed, he went along with the plan. Apparently (from what we're shown in canon) without much of a complaint or attempt to find another way of resolving the whole mess. Granted, I'm assuming here that, outside the boundaries of JKR's rather...strange moral world, the idea of actually sending a boy off to commit suicide for the Greater Good (TM), without telling him until the last minute that this is what he is doing, is going to be viewed as at least as questionable as secretly raising the boy for this purpose all along was. Considering his horror at Dumbledore's deception, I do believe that Severus could reasonably be expected to infer this. And yet this is precisely what he ultimately does. Which, in my reading of the situation, leaves us with two distinct options (please correct me if you see any other way out), one of which has almost no actual support in canon that I can think of at the moment. These options are:
1. It is truly necessary for Voldemort to DIE, and therefore for Harry to die. For some reason it is pretty much impossible - not simply very, very difficult, but actually impossible (or so close to impossible that the difference is negligible) - to simply imprison Voldie or otherwise render him harmless once the other Horcruxes are destroyed. Best-case scenario for Severus, though totally unsupported by canon, is that Dumbledore knew this and at some point explained to Severus exactly why this was, indeed, the situation. Very little in canon to suggest this, beyond the fact that the idea of capturing Voldemort rather than killing him simply never comes up. If this is indeed the case, I'd like some details as to why, please, and not just 'he's so POWERFUL.' We haven't really been given anything solid to suggest that his powers of of such a magnitude as to make his death the only viable option in the war, whereas in Grindelwald we HAVE been given an example of a powerful, formerly terrifying Dark Lord being defeated and locked up. By Dumbledore himself.
2. It is not, in fact, truly necessary for Voldemort (and therefore Harry) to die. He could theoretically, given enough time and manpower, be captured, rendered unable to do magic (there has to be a way, considering the existence of Azkaban in conjunction with the existence of wandless magic) and imprisoned. Dumbledore's and Severus' failure to thoroughly investigate this option (we are not shown that it is ever an issue for them) before sending Harry off on his death march then, in my book at least, counts as a moral failing for both of them.
I don't much like the implications of 2 for Severus, particularly considering how I stood up an applauded him with his "You have used me!" speech. But in light of what we are given in canon to go on, I find myself leaning towards this interpretation of events nonetheless. So I'm interested in how other people read the situation - and also your thoughts on why JKR doesn't seem at all concerned with this angle, and what that says about her and her creation in turn. What do you think? Am I missing something, or mis-reading something? Or has JKR for whatever reason slipped up and given us a big, glaring moral hole in her story? (And one more crack in the already-shaky foundation for her claims that Dumbles is ultimately really good)?
Anyway, thanks for listening to me rant. ;)