Bang! You're Dead.

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 86252

> Carol: You still haven't answered Geoff's argument
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85985 regarding
> the canonical evidence against having good guys use the unforgiveable
> curses. Surely they are unforgiveable and illegal for a reason, and,
> if so, JKR will need to provide some alternative to having Harry
> perform a curse that would send him to Azkaban. I don't think she
> believes that "all's fair in love and war" and that she will put
> herself in the tricky situation of having defined the rules and then
> decided to change them. She has clearly established a distinction
> between good and evil in the WW and it seems to me that she needs to
> maintain it. Geoff's quotations illustrate that distinction quite
> clearly, as do certain statements by Dumbledore that I will hunt up if
> necessary when I have more time. JKR has said in an interview that
> Dumbledore is "the epitome of goodness,"
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/0700-cbc-
> solomon.htm
> which I hope is sufficient evidence that his assertions matter in
> this discussion.
> >
> 
> Kneasy:
> Hmm. So  by your reading of the canon Harry should start volume 6
> in  Azkaban. He has used an unforgivable curse, hasn't he?

Carol again:
No, because he didn't succeed in using it, even though he tried. I
still think Bellatrix is right that he wasn't sufficiently cruel to
make the spell work. As I see it, the spells are unforgiveable because
they are evil--and only a person with a great deal of hatred and anger
in his heart (or alternatively a cold indifference like Bellatrix's or
Voldemort's) can work them. In GoF, Harry can't bring himself to use
Avada Kedavra against Sirius, despite his rage, or against Peter
Pettigrew, despite his cold contempt. He also persuades Lupin and
Sirius not to use it, not to become killers. He knows, through reason
or instinct, that they would be contaminating themselves by doing so.

<snip>
> 
> It's also canon that unforgivable curses were used by Aurors in old
Barty's
> day. Not a very popular character, I'll agree, but he was organising
the 
> fight for the survival of a free WW. The canon reads as if only
Aurors were 
> permitted to use the curses, though I doubt if Barty would have made a 
> fuss if one were used in self defence.

Carol:
Notice that Mad Eye Moody did NOT use them (except possibly against
Rosier in self-defence after hed had lost a piece of his nose), and
that Dumbledore approves of that choice. There were other ways to
bring the DEs to justice. As for Old Barty, he's not exactly the
person to use as a moral example, is he? Sent his own son to Azkaban
without a trial (BTW, I don't doubt that Barty Jr. was guilty, but
that guilt should have been proven in a court at which someone else
was presiding) and then sneaked him out, using an Imperius curse for
what he thought was a justifiable reason only to have the same curse
used against him by his son. Maybe turn about is fair play, but as far
as I can see, both of them belonged in Azkaban.


> The majority of the WW weren't comfortable with it, but accepted that it
> was the only effective way to fight back. Until Godrics Hollow Voldy was
> *winning*. 
> Note also that Moody was supposed to be the star Auror. Is he evil or
> stricken with a conscience that makes him run around chanting "Mea
culpa?"

Carol:
The real Moody was authorized to use them for the same reason that
policemen are allowed to carry guns--to protect others and bring
otherwise uncontrollabe criminals to judgment. He did *not* use the
unforgiveable curses except in self-defense, which is the point of my
previous paragraph. (I think the authorization itself was wrong, but
that's Crouch's culpa, not Moody's.)

Imposter!Moody (who of course has no conscience whatever) uses all
three unforgiveable curses on spiders and the Imperius curse on his
students, the second hint that he's evil (the first is turning Draco
into a ferret). (Note his indifference not only to the suffering of
the spiders but to the psychological pain he was inflicting on
Neville.) Imposter!Moody claims that he has Dumbledore's permission to
do demonstrate the curses and no one questions him, but I think this
statement was a lie given Dumbledore's view of the curses and
McGonagall's earlier warning to Moody that teachers were not allowed
to perform transfiguration on students (GoF, 206 Am. ed.). If teachers
can't perform transfiguration on students, then certainly they can't
perfom an illegal curse on them, either. Also, Ron asks Harry,
"Wouldn't Moody and Dumbledore be in trouble with the Ministry if they
knew we'd seen the curses?" (GoF 220 Am. Ed.) The answer is obviously
yes, assuming that Dumbledore really did give Moody permission, but
nothing happens because no one reveals the secret. Harry assumes that
Dumbledore is simply doing things "his way" as usual, but I think it's
a case of Imposter!Moody presenting a plausible lie that Harry and the
other students want to believe. And Imposter!Moody himself says that
the curses he's about to demonstrate are those "most heavily punished
by wizarding law" (212). Why would they be punished if their use were
justifiable by anyone other than aurors, the policemen of WW?

The real Moody, in contrast, tracked down Karkaroff and others turned
them in without killing them. Rosier was apparently killed in a
wizard's duel with Moody, who would have been authorized to AK him in
self-defense, presumably after Rosier himself had cast an illegal spell. 


> No. It's also canon that the old Order had other Aurors as members.
Didn't
> seem to bother Dumbledore much, so far as I can see. As the epitome of
> goodness you would expect him to take an immovable moral stand, but I 
> can't find any evidence of this. Moody is mentioned as one of his oldest
> friends, not an untouchable pariah who participated in Dark Magic.
> 
> Dumbledore 'the epitome of goodness' is a very interesting concept.
> I agree, but selectively. Then I can have it both ways.

Carol again:
I like that little admission. Nice touch. :-) As for Dumbledore not
taking an immovable moral stand, I suppose he feels that he needs to
make compromises when Hogwarts and the WW are in danger. I'll have to
think about that some more and come up with more quotes. 

<snip>
> Carol: 
> <snip> I never said that
> Voldemort would fight fairly, only that Harry should. The moment
> Voldemort raises a wand or other weapon against him or a friend, Harry
> has the right and responsibility to fight defensively. That's what
> DADA is for; Hogwarts, unlike Durmstrang, does not teach the Dark Arts
> themselves, only *defense* against them. So Harry must find a way to
> destroy Voldemort without resorting to Dark weapons, including
> unforgiveable curses, himself. I have never said that he should take
> pity on Voldemort, much less love his enemy. I have only said that he
> must not muddy the distinction between good (Dumbledore) and evil
> (Voldemort) that JKR herself has established.
> 
> 
> Kneasy:
> Fine. But doesn't canon state that there is no defence against an AK?
> No blocking it, no counter-curse.

Carol again:
But Harry DID block it, effortlessly, as an infant of fifteen months,
much as he instinctively blocked Snape's attempt to read his most
private thoughts with a shield charm. Maybe what is true for other
wizards isn't true for him because he's Voldemort's equal.

Kneasy: 
> I'm pleased that you have no objection to Voldy being smeared across
> the landscape; just the method used causes you concern. Why? Dead is
> dead. 

Carol again:
 No. Dead isn't dead and killing isn't killing. There's self-defense
and there's murder. There are legitimate and illegitimate methods.
Unless Harry is made an honorary auror exempt from the laws of the WW
or the law is changed in time of war, he should not break it. And the
moral law still applies: the curses are unforgiveable. Why should he
be forgiven for using them if no one else (except an auror when Crouch
was in charge) can be forgiven for using one? 

Kneasy:
Harry has already stepped across the line with a Crucio! Can he
> erase that from canon? 

Carol: Yes, because it didn't succeed. It was not only a failed tactic
but a moral mistake and I'm sure Dumbledore will make that quite clear
to him in future books. JKR has already made it clear that it would
have been wrong to murder Peter Pettigrew, at least in his human form
(Padfoot and Crookshanks eating him might be another matter). If so,
it's equally wrong to Crucio Bellatrix, however much she deserves a
taste of her own medicine. (Let Voldemort do it.)

Kneasy:
Or will his teenage bloody-mindedness continue
> or even increase?

Carol: I certainly hope not, which is why I find such comfort in his
refusal to kill PP in GoF. Snape is right; Harry needs to control his
passions, especially his anger, or Voldemort will use them against
him. I'm looking forward to seeing him mature in the next two books,
and getting a grip on his anger and his hero/martyr complex ("I did
it! They didn't!") is the crucial first step. He can't emulate
Sirius's recklessness. He has to know what he's doing and be in
control. And control, to me, means finding the necessary *defenses*
against the Dark Arts, not using them himself. Harry has done the
"impossible" before, as a baby. I think that as a full-fledged wizard
of seventeen in Book 7, he'll do the same thing. Maybe it won't be a
defense against AK; maybe it will be a way of overcoming Voldemort's
immortality (or whatever you choose to call his current deathless state).

Kneasy:
 DD may be the epitome of goodness, but is Harry?
> Doesn't look like he is; the way he's written he's a flawed personality.
> Harry has Voldy attributes - that is canon. Maybe there will be more of
> Voldy in Harry than you will find comfortable. Be prepared!

Carol:
I agree that Harry (like everyone else in the book) has some serious
character flaws--partly the consequence of his age and background,
partly the result of the spell that backfired, partly just human
nature. The point, I think, is that he must overcome those flaws
(along with many other obstacles) before he can bring down Voldemort.

 
> Carol:  
> You may be right about Bellatrix's comments being a red herring, but I
> don't think so. She and Voldemort appear to enjoy inflicting pain and
> death. If, indeed, that feeling is required to make the curses
> effective, then the reason they're "unforgiveable" is clear. They can
> be cast only by someone who is already cruel and well on his or her
> way to becoming irreversibly evil.
> > 
> 
> Kneasy:
> Yes, Bella and her squeeze do enjoy inflicting pain. Is that relevant
> to everyone else? Did the Aurors empowered by Crouch enjoy it? Did
> they all irrevocably become Dark Magicians with no redeeming features?
> I suspect that generalising from extreme examples could be misleading.
> Moody and his  confederates are irreversibly evil by that argument and I
> can see no evidence for it.

Carol again:
I can see your point here and I've revised my theory (above) to
include cold indifference regarding the AK. But the other two,
especially Crucio, are probably never justified in JKR's view. There
are plenty of other spells available to hinder an opponent, notably
shield charms, Expelliarmus and Stubefy (correctly pronounced). I
wouldn't mind seeing Harry hit LV with a combination of Expelliarmus
and Tarantellegra (if Harry's wand will work against its brother). But
Crucio is another matter altogether.

Carol

P.S. Has anyone hunted up all the references in the books to the
Unforgiveable Curses? Who's used them and in what circumstances and
why they're unforgiveable? That's what I really need to explore before
I take this discussion any further. C.