Why did Snape kill Dumbledore?
Why did Snape kill Dumbledore? Dumbledore knew he was dying from his encounter with one of Voldemort’s horcruxes, and so he told Snape to kill him when he and Harry returned from their quest for the locket. But even so, was it OK for Snape to carry out Dumbledore’s orders? We brought in two of history’s most famous philosophers to weigh in.
Jeremy Bentham: Hello, Immanuel. I understand that we are here to debate the morality of Snape's actions in killing Dumbledore.
Immanuel Kant: Yes, that is correct. I hold the firm belief that it is never moral to take another person's life, regardless of the circumstances.
Jeremy Bentham: Ah, but you must consider the consequences of one's actions. In this case, Snape's decision to kill Dumbledore was necessary to prevent greater harm and suffering in the long run.
Immanuel Kant: Necessity does not make an action moral. The moral worth of an action must be determined by the principle behind it, not by its consequences.
Jeremy Bentham: But the principle behind Snape's actions was to prevent greater harm and suffering. That is a moral principle, is it not?
Immanuel Kant: No, it is not. The ends do not justify the means. The moral worth of an action lies in the intention behind it, not in the consequences it produces.
Jeremy Bentham: But Snape's intentions were noble. He acted out of a sense of duty and loyalty to Dumbledore and to the greater good.
Immanuel Kant: Duty and loyalty do not make an action moral. The only moral actions are those that are done out of a sense of respect for the inherent worth of all human beings. Killing another person, no matter the reason, is never an expression of respect.
Jeremy Bentham: I must strongly disagree with you, Immanuel. Your theory is too rigid and fails to take into account the complexities of real-world situations.
Immanuel Kant: I will not be swayed by your arguments, Jeremy. You are clearly misguided and lack a true understanding of moral principles.
Immanuel Kant: Tell me, Jeremy, do you truly believe that the use of magic is a moral pursuit? Do you think that it is right to wield such power over the natural world and over other people's lives?
Jeremy Bentham: Well, I suppose it depends on how it is used. Like any tool, magic can be used for good or for evil. It is the intentions of the user that determine its moral worth.
Immanuel Kant: And what of those who use magic for selfish or malevolent purposes? Do you condone their actions simply because they have the ability to perform magic?
Jeremy Bentham: Of course not. I do not support the use of magic for evil purposes. But I also believe that Lord Voldemort had some good ideas about the role of magic in society.
Immanuel Kant: Good ideas? You cannot be serious. Lord Voldemort was a ruthless, power-hungry dictator who sought to enslave and kill countless innocent people.
Jeremy Bentham: Yes, I am aware of his actions, but I believe that his ideas about the superiority of pure-blood wizards had some merit.
Immanuel Kant: That is a reprehensible and dangerous belief, Jeremy. You are advocating for the discrimination and oppression of those who are different from you. Such thinking goes against the very principles of morality and equality that we hold dear.
Jeremy Bentham: I see that we will never agree on this matter, Immanuel. I stand by my beliefs, and I will continue to defend them.
Immanuel Kant: And I will continue to oppose your misguided beliefs. Our moral principles are incompatible, and I fear that our debate will never be resolved.
