Why Severus Snape Is Not A Hero

↳ CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICS

Consequentialist ethics, also called teleological ethics after the Greek word for end and science, analyse actions based on their outcome. Though because consequentialism does not specify that a good outcome is a preferred one, people often refer to utilitarianism instead which argues that moral actions are those which lead to the most good for the largest number of people. Unlike deontology, consequentialism emphasises the ends rather than the means. Therefore, a person is moral if they act in such a way that leads to a positive outcome. This theory also allows for a more relative and nuanced perspective of morality, as an action is not just right or wrong, but rather the more good consequences that action produces, the more moral it is.

There are four main branches of consequentialism, though they are not all mutually exclusive and can be subscribed to in tandem with each other:

⇰ Act consequentialism: Moral actions produce more overall good than any alternative action.

⇰ Rule consequentialism: Moral actions are based on moral riles which are created on the basis of their consequences.

⇰ Utilitarianism: Moral actions maximise good for the greatest number.

⇰ Hedonism: Moral actions maximise human pleasure and happiness.

Regardless of their nuances, all these versions generally follow to these three axioms:

⇰ Happiness and pleasure are the only things that have intrinsic value. All other things have instrumental value.

⇰ Actions are moral insofar as they produce happiness, and derivatively, immoral insofar as they produce unhappiness.

⇰ Everyone's happiness has equal value.

And now it's time to return to Snape and the morality of his actions according to consequentialism.

Act consequentialism.

This branch focuses on each action individually, taking consideration of the specific situation at hand. So, Snape pleading to Voldemort to save Lily's life is absolutely a moral act. It is what resulted in her being able to give Harry his protective enchantment or whatever that ensured Voldemort could not kill him, which eventually led to Harry being able to defeat Voldemort and save the Wizarding world. Those are good consequences.

But let's take a second look. Act consequentialism states that an action is moral if it produces more overall good than any alternative action. Were Snape's choices the best of all his options? I would argue, no. There is no canon proof for this so feel free to disagree but I'm quite certain that Snape knew Peter was a Death Eater and not Sirius. Wouldn't it have been a better choice to inform Dumbledore of this, or even Lily herself, or just ensure that Peter would not have been able to betray the Potters? We can't know, I mean that's the problem with consequentialist ethics that you can't know the consequences in advance. It might have made things worse, so maybe Snape really did make the moral choice by allowing Voldemort to attack Harry.

But what about joining the Death Eaters in the first place? Telling Voldemort about the prophecy? Bullying his students? Inventing dark curses like Sectumsempra? Yeah, there is no way that those choices could possibly have been the best ones of all his alternative possibilities.

Rule consequentialism.

Here, rather than analysing each situation independently, general rules are created due to their outcomes. Where an act consequentialist might support murder in certain scenarios where it can save other people's lives, a rule consequentialist will not due to a general rule that murder always has negative consequences. So an act consequentialist would believe that Snape killing Dumbledore was moral, whilst a rule consequentialist might not agree.