Hey y'all,
I briefly discussed this in class the other day, but I wanted to start a discussion about the utilitarianism that Dumbledore exhibits in Harry Potter and how maximizing the benefit of society at the expense of an individual can be just as cruel as putting an individual's interest above everyone else's. As y'all know, Dumbledore tells Snape that Harry must die by Voldemort's hand because part of Voldemort's soul has latched onto Harry's; one of Voldemort's horcruxes lives within Harry. Only if Voldemort kills Harry (by Harry's willing sacrifice) will he be reduced to a mere man again, having gotten rid of all of his Horcruxes. Snape is furious at Dumbledore's cold-heartedness because the entire reason he turned to the Light was to protect Lily's son. He accuses Dumbledore of "raising [Harry] like a pig for slaughter" (J. K. Rowling) and knowing and not caring that he must die for the sake of the Light. I believe this is an example of utilitarianism because the emphasis is on the Greater Good and the interests of society rather than that of the individual. Although it all ends up working out in the end because Harry ends up surviving (Izzy mentioned that there are some passages in the previous books that hint at Dumbledore's possible knowledge of Harry's survival), there is no way he could've been certain that Harry would survive, and his detached explanation to Snape marks one of Dumbledore's many abuses of him. (The other most egregious offense is Dumbledore asking Snape to kill him, which causes the entire Order of the Phoenix to despise him.)
Anyway, sorry for this rant, but all this to say, Dumbledore is an adherent to the utilitarian philosophy, and Snape is, in Harry's words, "the bravest man" (J.K. Rowling) in the entire HP series (although Hermione is definitely the bravest person :)
2 comments:
Haha yeah I found this connection really interesting! Dumbledore definitely does take on an emotionally detached view to Harry dying for the greater good. I actually just watched the last Harry Potter movie over the break (and really want to re-read the books), so I just saw the scene of Snape's tears after he dies when Harry learns the truth behind everything. I think Harry realizes that he does indeed need to be selfless to save his loved ones. He values their lives over his own. I love it when English class plays into other aspects of life (especially Harry Potter)!
We're talking about this same time period in European History, and I thought some of the connections and context for what was happening at the time would be interesting. Here is what I have found from the other reform movements at this time that arose from the belief in individual thinking:
Romanticism (we already went over this in class so won't talk more): belief in the individual would be reflected in the movement for universal male suffrage.
With liberalism, the people held a confidence in the human capacity for self-government and control. Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle was part of this reform. Thus, they highly valued a parliamentary government. They pushed for freedom of the press and free rights of assembly. Adovation for freedom of international trade represented a movement away from mercantilism as well. They looked to Great Britain, favored a constitutional monarchy, explicit written constitutions outside of England, and feared excess mob rule by giving everyone the right to vote.
Philosophical Radicalism arose under Bentham, who wanted to reform the English criminal civil law, church, Parliament, and constitution. He believed that the government shouldn’t intervene with the people since everyone is already best promoting their interests and that of the community. He wants “security and freedom” from the government. Similarly, with Adam Smith’s laissez-faire policy, he wanted the government to be confined to the security of life and property, reasonable laws and courts, and contracts. With limited government interference, the economy can and will regulate itself. Radicals wanted total societal reform and demanded a vote for every adult English man. On the Continent, this form turned into militant republicanism. They were democrative in demanding universal male suffrage and favoring a parliamentary government. They were anticlerical and antimony. Republicanism branched off into socialism. They questioned private enterprise and wanted the government more involved. Robert Burns, Count de Saint-Simon, and Charles Fourier’s phalansteries (small units of society like Brooks Farm where everyone did work suited to their inclinations) were well-known socialists. The working class also began to gain a political voice. After organizing themselves into unions and solidified class interest, they began the Chartist movement for working class reforms like universal suffrage and annual parliament elections. One quote from the Chartist movement was, “Welfare of the multitude, not of one or two classes, is the proper object of social solicitude.”
Part 2 (too long to fit into one comment):
Feminism would also eventually rise, in the fight for voting of civil rights of women. “Egalitarian feminism” (how women and men shared the use of reason and universal human rights) most likely arose once again from the people that humans have the intellectual capacity to think for themselves and use reason. They focused on social, cultural, legal rights of women rather than voting rights. George Sand was a feminist icon.
Nationalism arose against the Napoleonic system. It overlapped with republicanism, romanticism, and liberalism. One motivating factor of unification was to advance political agendas. In Italy, this movement was called the Risorgimento (resurgence) under Joseph Mazzini’s Young Italy and in Eastern Europe, the Slavic Revival. Using Herder’s Volksgeist (national spirit), the German people sought a common history through folktales like the Grimm Fairy Tales and Hegel’s emphasis on the state. Persecution was widespread, so secret societies persisted.
After the Napoleonic Wars and the 100 Days, the Holy Alliance (Russia, Prussia, and Austria) came to represent a suppression of revolutionary and liberal activity. The Congress of Troppau, as an anti-revolutionary alliance with Austria, Prussia, Russia, quelled the Naples revolution. When the Decembrist revolts in Russia came to pass to put Constantine on the throne (brother of Alexander I who died in 1825) instead of Nicholas (who maintained a despotic rule), the revolt was harshly stopped, with the revolters hanged or exiled. France, with the Congress of Verona’s authorization, quelled the uprising in Spain. Portugal lost Brazil. The Spanish American colonies revolted, yet Russia and Britain didn’t intervene. Receiving support for the Monroe Doctrine in the U.S, the Tory Britain government favored revolutions that would break up and weaken the Spanish Empire to allow for free trade treaties with individual states.
Post a Comment