Dark Magic and Evil (WAS: Grindelwald and evil)

[Steve <bboy_mn@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 52478

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tom Wall <thomasmwall at y...>"
<thomasmwall at y...> wrote:
> Crunchy Chocolate Frog wrote:

[Crunchy Chocolate Frog explores the determining factors in Dark,
Light, and evil.]

> 
> Now, on immortality, we're given the idea somehow that pursuing it 
> is 'evil' or something, but DUMBLEDORE helped to research 
> immortality with Nicolas Flamel. We're never given any inkling on 
> whether or not Flamel is 'evil,' but I'd suggest that he's not. 
> ...edited...
> 
> But Dumbledore doesn't say that the stone is a 'dark' or even 
> an 'evil' object. So, why is it bad for Voldemort to desire 
> immortality, when Dumbledore worked on Alchemy with Nicolas Flamel, 
> and we also know that Alchemy is focused on creating the 
> Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone. So, is Dumbledore 'evil' for 
> researching immortality? 
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> And we have numerous other occasions in canon of 'good' wizards and 
> witches using curses on each other. So, a 'curse' isn't necessarily 
> Dark Magic, nor is it necessarily 'evil.' 
> 
> But on the other hand, I don't see how curses could really be used 
> for anything particularly 'good.'
> 
> So, I guess what I'm saying here is that it's not a foregone 
> conclusion that the Dark Arts are necessarily 'Evil,' although they 
> can be used for that purpose. 
> 
> It would seem to me that the 'Light' Arts, or whatever we call them, 
> can also be used for foul, or even 'evil' purposes.
> 
> And just because a witch or wizard learns, knows, or even uses the 
> Dark Arts, that doesn't automatically make that person 'evil.'
> 
> -Tom

bboy_mn:
In the first paragraph of what remains after I substantially cut your
post. You explore the nature of good and evil using the search for
immortality as an example. I have to assume your implication is, if
Dumbledore and Voldemort both search for a source of immortality, why
is it that we perceive one as good and the other as evil?

The answer is 'HOW'. How they search for immortality. Flamel developed
the Philosopher's Stone after years of dedicated research. One could
say the Voldemort has also dedicated years of research. So let's look
at that research. Flamel's Stone is non-consumptive; it doesn't
consume in order to create. Where as Voldemort is willing to us,
consume, kill, or destroy anything necessary to achieve his end. We
know he has no resistance to killing Unicorns, who are among the most
gentle and innocent creatures in the enchanted forest.

So the difference becomes very obvious, Light Magic immortality is not
destructive. It doesn't kill, consume, or destory. Flamel didn't have
to sacrifice any virgins to get what he wanted. While we don't know
all the details, I think it safe to say the the Dark Magic immortality
steals it's immortality by destroying some element or aspect of the
world around it. It's this destruction that makes it both Dark and Evil.

Let's look at another example, the Dark Magic in Voldemort getting his
body back. Harry's blood was forcibly taken. That's destructive; it
consumes for the gain of one at the expense of another. 

I believe all Dark Magic is that way. It requires the theft and
destruction of things that Dark Wizard has no right to have. Even the
simplest Dark Potion will have some small element of destruction in
it's creation. 

Certainly non-Dark Magic can be used in harmful ways, but that is
different than the magic itself having some destructive element in
it's creation. It's is reasonably possible for Dark Arts spell or
potion to be used for a positive purpose, but that doesn't erase the
destructive element that went into creating it. 'Does the means
justify the end?' 

I admit don't have a lot of examples from the book to base this on,
but clearly there is a problem with Dark Magic, and I think I have
given a reasonable explaination for why Dark Magic is a problem.

Just a few thoughts.

bboy_mn