Bang! You're dead.

[jwcpgh]

No: HPFGUIDX 86459

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" 
<kcawte at n...> wrote:
> K:
> > I agree that JKR seems to be showing that morally (although not 
necessarily legally) when and why we make certain choices ie killing 
someone, are very important, in fact possibly more important than 
the decision in the first place. Although other times it seems that 
the choice is important rather than the reasoning behind it 
> 
> >
> Kneasy:
> JKR is undoubtedly a moral person, but I question whether morality 
is the most  important criterium in the prevailing circumstances. 
<snip>> Given Harry's situation - a homicidal, paranoid megolamanic 
is trying to blow his head off - would the morality of what he 
(Harry) does be at the fore-front of his thinking? Very unlikely. 
And then for DD to come out with "It's either you or him; best of 
luck." doesn't exactly offer many options.
<snip>  
> > K
> > I think that the whole system surrounding the unforgivables is 
idiotic anyway. Cruciatus I can understand being illegal, regardless 
of circumstances. It is there only to cause pain and while one could 
use it to distract/disable an opponent there are other equally 
effective spells. However Imperius and AK have their uses. 
> 
> Kneasy:
> Makes you wonder why they're described and circumscribed in the way
> they  are. Back to the old argument that a gun is not evil of 
itself, only the way that it is used. 
>   
<snip> K: 
> > I do agree with the quote but the WW doesn't seem to have 
bothered to define 'necessary' when allowing the Aurors to use 
Unforgivables, the practice if not the actual law seems to have gone 
from - no, under no circumstances, not even in self-defence, to, as 
long as it's a DE and you can get away with it.
> > 
<snip>

Laura, emerging from the avalanche of leftovers and holiday visitors:

This business of the Unforgivables intrigues me.  Why these three?  
There are lots of ways to hurt people and kill them.  You don't even 
have to make it look like an accident the way one recent post 
suggested (i.e., Accio'ing something sharp into the victim's back-
nice one!).  And when you think about it, AK is inconsistent with 
the other 2 Unforgivables in that it's quick, painless and dignified 
(as it were).  The person is alive one moment and dead the next-no 
muss, no fuss.  But Imperio and Crucio are ways to inflict real, 
lasting damage, with effects that can be both mental and physical.  
I can see why those would be beyond the pale, but I don't know why 
AK is worse than any other form of intentional killing.  Sure, 
there's no known defense, but the theoretical availability of a 
defense against other forms of lethal attack doesn't mean the victim 
can use it at the necessary moment.  Dead is dead, after all. 

And why isn't it Unforgivable to invade someone's mind without their 
permission?  Lots of people have objected to the casual use of 
Obliviate as well, and I agree that it's morally questionable.  So 
the standards the WW is using to decide what curses are Unforgivable 
are obscure to me.

It doesn't surprise me that Aurors were given permission to use 
Unforgivables during LVI.  Soldiers during wartime are given powers 
to do things that they aren't supposed to do during peacetime, and 
in fact, they're trained to do just that.  Aurors must have to know 
how to use Unforgivables even if they never have to use them.  

As for the question of whether it's moral to kill, I think there are 
times when it's immoral not to (easy for me to say, never having 
been in such a situation, thank God).   My ethical tradition teaches 
that killing to save one's own life is a morally acceptable act.  To 
allow someone to take your life without trying to save yourself 
shows a lack of respect for the great gift life is.  For Harry to 
decide that killing Lv is immoral would be colossally wrong in every 
way.  This is not a fight he sought or provoked but it's one he's 
stuck with.  You don't even have to argue that other people's lives 
depend on Harry's willingness to take on LV.  We can assume that 
people died after LV fell the first time (because of what happened 
to the Longbottoms-there may have been rogue DE's around for a 
while).  Harry has the moral right-even the moral obligation-to 
defend his life.  

Where it gets morally interesting is when we theorize how proactive 
Harry can be and still be acting morally.  Killing in self-defense 
is morally justifiable; murder isn't.  S can Harry morally hunt LV 
down?  Can he kill LV in an ambush?  I don't think Harry will do 
either of those but they're harder moral questions to me than 
whether Harry can use lethal force to defend himself against an 
enemy using the same level of force.  In my mind, once someone has 
demonstrated that s/he really intends to kill someone else, that 
potential victim is free to do what s/he needs to do to protect 
her/his life.  

Laura, who is glad to be back on the list and thinks that Sirius and 
Remus should have turned Peter back into a rat and handed him over 
to Crookshanks