Dark Magic and Evil (WAS: Grindelwald and evil)

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 52509

Replies to both Steve and
Finwitch are in this post.


Steve wrote:
<snip> 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. <snip>

I reply:
On Immortality - Well, we're not really told about all of 
Voldemort's experiments. We know that they were dangerous, and that 
they resulted in his own transformation from normal Riddle into Snake-
man. We're also not told too much about Flamel/Dumbledore and how one 
creates a Sorceror's Stone... and although I can't find the thread 
now, if I recall correctly, the creation of such a stone wasn't, 
historically speaking, a very, um, savory act anyways. I'm not sure 
how JKR's backstory works that out. But the search for immortal life 
and endless money, sans the "fountain of youth" which is naturally 
occuring, has never involved upstanding methods, IMHO.


Steve wrote:
<snip> 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. <snip>

I reply:
Well, that's a good guess, I'd say, but we have no canon to support 
it, really, except for the unicorn's blood and the blood taken from 
Harry. And yes, we know that drinking the blood of a unicorn is an 
evil thing to do, so all we get from that is that Voldemort is evil, 
which I'm not disputing in the slightest. 

I'm wondering more about the Dark Art-ists in general. Are they 
necessarily evil? I still don't think that that's necessarily the 
case.


Steve wrote:
<snip>So the difference becomes very obvious, Light Magic immortality 
is not destructive. It doesn't kill, consume, or destory.<snip>

AND Finwitch wrote:
What comes to the Unforgivables...
Absolute control. Torture. Killing. That's all they're for. Death can 
be a mercy - I'd prefer death to Dementor's Kiss to say the very 
least. Better one year happiness than ten of misery.

I reply:
We're never told that the Unforgivables are Dark Magic, just that 
they're "unforgivable," which I interpret as being "pretty darned 
bad," but not "evil" if they're used to a greater good. And we're 
also told that a large part of the WW approved of Crouch's methods 
when he allowed their use in the capturing/killing of supposed Death 
Eaters. Though, Sirius also tells us that many likewise did *not* 
approve of their use. 

Still, I can see absolutely no redeeming value for these curses 
whatsoever, and they strike me as totally "kill," "consume," 
and "destroy" based.

And anyways, we're never told that "cursing," in general is "Dark" 
either – since all of our heroes and their friends curse freely. ;-) 
But whether or not Harry uses the "Furnunculus Curse" won't convince 
me that it's a positive thing to be able to do.


Steve wrote:
<snip> 
It's this destruction that makes it both Dark and Evil. 
<snip>
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. 
<snip>

AND Finwitch wrote:
Another Dark Arts - like Moody's Eye (Harry saw it in the shop) - 
well, I guess the eye had been taken from a human who had died 
violently...

I reply:
On the eye, wow. I'll have to go and find that one, since I don't 
remember it off the top of my head. Did he see it in Borgin and 
Burkes, where the Hand of Glory is?

I'm still not sure that learning/using the Dark Arts necessarily 
precludes that the user is "evil." Again, what about Durmstrang? We 
know that Karkaroff is teaching all of those kids how to use the Dark 
Arts. But do you really think that Krum is "evil" just because he 
uses the Dark Arts? I just don't buy it. There's a nuance here that 
we're missing somewhere.


Steve wrote:
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.

I reply:
Well, I still can't buy that Flesh-Eating Slug Repellant is a "Dark" 
or "Evil" thing, and yet, still, Hagrid knows that Knockturn Alley's 
where you go if you want that.

And ON Knockturn Alley – if it's such a terrible thing to 
practice/use the Dark Arts at all, has anyone wondered why this 
little place exists as an offshoot of Diagon Alley? I mean, why is it 
*allowed* to exist in the first place? Why doesn't the MoM just 
stampede in and haul everyone there off to Azkaban, if Dark Magic is 
so terrible in and of itself?

And still, we know that Dumbledore is familiar with the Dark Arts... 
although McGonagall says that he's too "noble" to ever use them. But 
I thought about this some more last night. How does one "learn" how 
to use something? One practices, i.e. one *tries* to perform said 
spell.

So, if Dumbledore *could* use these but has now chosen not to, that's 
okay – but it means that in order for him to be *able* to use them, 
he must've practiced/used them in the past. And Dumbledore's use of 
these Dark Arts would have necessarily included the destructive 
elements that Steve is talking about here, right?

No, I'm still not sure I buy the consumptive element as part of what 
makes magic "dark."

If we assume that the Dark Magic is necessarily 
destructive/consumptive, then Dumbledore would have had to use these 
unsavory techniques in order to learn them, right? The destructive 
element doesn't go away. So, doesn't the use of these techniques 
shadow the user? 

I mean, surely *some* Dark Magic, like Flesh, Blood, and Bone, or 
perhaps even the Hand of Glory *if* it's taken from a hanged man 
would be destructive. But, all of the Unforgivables are destructive, 
and since the MoM used them previously, I'm guessing that they're not 
Dark Arts.

I was trying to illustrate that, at best from canon, the exact nature 
of the Dark Arts is subject to massive interpretation. 

But that, whatever the case, "Dark" isn't the same as "Evil." 

And that "Light" magic still has curses, both in general, but also 
the Unforgivables, which make the lines a little more blurred, IMHO.

I think it would be reasonable to suggest that perhaps there's really 
nothing wrong with the "Dark Arts" – just how they're used. To return 
to Dumbledore's emphasis on the choices that we make, I mean, surely 
Dark Magic has some positive uses, i.e. the repellant, no matter how 
consumptive/destructive it may be to create (if it's 
consumptive/destructive at all.) And again, I don't think for an 
instant that Krum is evil, despite the fact that Durmstrang students 
are taught to use the Dark Arts.

So, as Dark Magic has positive uses (whether or not it's destructive 
in its nature is still only guesswork) so also does "Light" magic 
have negative uses, such as the plethora of minor curses and hexes 
that kids are learning to use at Hogwarts, but which don't seem to 
fall under the category of "Dark" Arts, as well as the Unforgivables.

Again, I'd have to guess that it's all in how you "intend" to use the 
magic, not that there's anything wrong with the magic *itself.* Minor 
distinction, perhaps, but IMO it makes all the difference.

-Tom