But Dumbledore has given no sign that he finds it unethical to make money. All he’s said was “You’re not ready to play, I’m not going to give you the bankroll to upset the board”. If the cash is going to something this concrete and hard to abuse, he’d likely allow it. I doubt he’d abet with a method as easy as the Philosopher’s Stone, but he’d likely not stand in the way.
That would be arguing that you should be allowed to do something because of all the things you were not successfully disallowed to do. It does not necessarily follow and probably does not Dumbledoredly follow.
But Dumbledore has given no sign that he finds it unethical to make money. All he’s said was “You’re not ready to play, I’m not going to give you the bankroll to upset the board”. If the cash is going to something this concrete and hard to abuse, he’d likely allow it. I doubt he’d abet with a method as easy as the Philosopher’s Stone, but he’d likely not stand in the way.
That is convincing and I’d change my post if this was that sort of place.
Still, with more that six years before the debt comes due, Dumbldoe can say the same thing, “Not old enough.”
And Harry can say, “Old enough to storm Azkaban. Old enough to get Lucius Malfoy to back down. Old enough to be deeply in debt.”
That would be arguing that you should be allowed to do something because of all the things you were not successfully disallowed to do. It does not necessarily follow and probably does not Dumbledoredly follow.