Dark Magic and Evil (WAS: Grindelwald and evil)

[Steve <bboy_mn@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 52538

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tom Wall <thomasmwall at y...>"
<thomasmwall at y...> wrote:
> 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 (TOM) reply:
> On Immortality - Well, we're not really told about all of 
> Voldemort's experiments. ...
> 

bboy_mn now replies:
Let's look at this from a perspective of Ethics. Who is more likely to
use ethical methods of achieving or studying immortality;
Dumbledore/Flamel or Voldemort/Riddle?

The answer seems pretty obvious to me. 

We can rationalize the possibility that Voldemort achieved his limited
degree of immortality by skipping through the meadow picking
dandelions and wild daisies while whistling the 'Spoon Full of Sugar'
song from Mary Poppins, but I think the odds are very much stack
against that possibility.

Voldemort clearly acts without conscience or regard for the impact of
his action on anyone but himself. So, I'm absolutely convinced that
the Dandelion/Daisy/'Spoon Full of Sugar' version is out.

Dumbledore on the other hand clearly acts with concern for the world
around him. I can't see him involved in any research that would
knowingly harm or deprive other humans or innocent magical creatures.

Point? Dark Magic isn't Dark because Voldemort choses to use it for
evil, he choses to use it because it is Dark and he has no ethical
problem with using a destructive/consumptive form of magic to meet his
evil ends.

Dumbledores magic isn't Light magic because he chooses to use it for
good, it's Light because it's very nature doesn't not contain the
destructive/consumptive elements of creation, and that is true whether
Light Magic is used for good or evil. 

There has to be a reason why Dark Magic is considered bad. The only
logical conclusion I can come to is that it has some
negative/destructive/consumptive element at the very core of it's
creation. I think it's safe to say that you never have to sacrifice
any virgins for Light Magic.
-end this part-


> 
> Steve (origianlly) wrote:
> <snip> Flamel's Stone is non-consumptive; it doesn't consume in
> order to create. Where as Voldemort is willing to use, consume,
> kill, or destroy anything necessary to achieve his end. <snip>

> 
> I (TOM) 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. ...
> 
> 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.

bboy_mn:
I too am trying to make a distinction between evil itself and Dark
Magic. Voldemort could go his entire life being unbelievably evil
without resorting to Dark Magic, but what are the odds. So now we must
ask what is it about the nature of Dark Magic that draws evil people
to it. The difference I note above when I discussed Ethics. Evil
people are more inclined to use Dark Magic because they have no
ethics, no concern for the consequences as long as they get the
results they want. And, of course, that's exactly why good wizards
stay away from Dark Magic, their ethics do not allow them to use an
inherently destructive process for their own gain.

You  brought up the example of Flamel/Dumbledore's search for
immortality and Voldemort/Riddle's search for immortality and
questioned why one was considered good while the other was considered
bad. I tried to establish a framework that made a distinction between
the two approaches which was independant of the character of the
wizard. That is, it's not the good or evil of the wizard that
separates Light and Dark Magic, but a destructive element in the magic
itself; sometimes destructive in the creation process, sometimes
destructive in the result.

As far as the destructive or non-destructive nature of Flamel and the
creation of the Philosopher's Stone, I point out the the Stone is a
historical fact (OK, a mythical historical fact). It is documented
outside the world of HP, and from what I've read, I've discovered no
distructive elements in it's creation. You don't have to sacrifice any
virgins to make a Philosopher's Stone.

Finally, we agree that Good Magic can be used for Bad purposes, and
that, while I say it still has a destructive element to it, Dark Magic
could conceivably be used for a benevolent purpose. 
-end this part-

> 
> 
> Steve (originally) 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 (TOM) reply:
> We're never told that the Unforgivables are Dark Magic, just that 
> they're "unforgivable," ...
> 
> Still, I can see absolutely no redeeming value for these curses 
> whatsoever, and they strike me as totally "kill," "consume," 
> and "destroy" based.
> 

bboy_mn:
Ah yes, but now you are off on a different subject. My 'kill, consume,
& destroy' comment was specicially directed at the quest for immortality. 

Although, I do agree with your basic statements as stand alone
statements. Unforgivable curses are bad, maybe even evil, but that
does not automatically make them 'Dark' in the Dark Arts/Dark Magic
sense. I suppose in a more general sense, we could say that they are
'dark' with a small 'd', but that is shifting the context of what we
are talking about.
-end this part-


Tom continues:
> 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.
> 

bboy_mn:
Again, how could I disagree with a statement like that? Certainly
'cursing' people is not fun and games. It is an act of agression, in
some cases spilling over into acts of violence, and although, not in
the examples you sited, it could certainly spill over into act of
evil. But bad, violent, evil use does not make the thing itself Dark;
that's Dark with a capital 'D'. 

That's part of the point I have been trying to make, that their is
something destructive in the very nature of Dark Magic that is
independant of how it is used, and independant of the nature of the
user. If we want to hyper-over-rationalize this, we could say that
Wormtail actually forcibly took Harry's blood for a good purpose.
Poor, tormented, lonely, isolated, lost and forlorn Voldemort was
given his body back. Wormtail made him happy again, and in a
hyper-over-rationalize way, we could ask, 'How can happiness be bad?'.
But setting aside ridiculously over rationalized thinking, we see that
blood forcibly taken and flesh of a servant willingly given, gives
this magic an inherently dark and destructive element. In Wormtails
case, his flesh my have been given by his own direct independant
action, but I don't think it was so 'willingly' given; reluctantly
given, desperately given, fearfully given, give rather than die given,
but not all that willingly.

My quote that follows did then and does now, express my feeling on
what it about the nature of Dark Magic that makes it Dark.
-end this part-

> 
> 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 (TOM)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. 
>

bboy_mn:
Sorry Finwitch, you lost me on this one as well. Harry may have seen
'eyeballs' but I don't think he saw Moody's Eyeball. I think Moody's
eyeball is a magic device created to replace the loss of his natural
eye. It is not the enchanted eye of another being.
-end this part-


Tom Continues:
> 
> I'm still not sure that learning/using the Dark Arts necessarily 
> precludes that the user is "evil." Again, what about Durmstrang? 
> 
> 
> 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 (TOM) reply:
> Well, I still can't buy that Flesh-Eating Slug Repellant is a "Dark" 
> or "Evil" thing, ... 
> 
> And ON Knockturn Alley – ...
> 

bboy_mn now comments:
Well, I'm not sure where to break in with my next comment, perhaps a
short one here. Oddly, we are in somewhat of agreement here. There is
absolutely nothing to imply that Flesh-Eating Slug Repellant is Dark
or Evil or anything other than what it's name implies. Not everything
in Knockturn Alley is inherently evil or Dark simply because it exists
on that particular street. It is certainly a rough and unsavory
neighborhood, but I can find neighborhoods in my town like that, but
that doesn't me the low-life neighborhood is full of evil dark people,
they are just your common everyday low-lifes.
-end this part- 

Tom Continues:
> ..., we know that Dumbledore is familiar with the Dark Arts... 
> 
> 
> If ... Dark Magic is necessarily destructive/consumptive, then 
> Dumbledore would have ... use(d) 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? 
>

bboy_mn:
Not necessarily. Dumbledore says that Voldemort has POWERS that he
(Dumbledore) will never have, and McGonagall replies that it is only
because Dumblefore is too noble to use these POWERS. 

To me the implication is that Dumbledore is an old enough, experienced
enough (general experience), and powerful enough wizard to use Dark
Magic if he chose to do so. But it doesn't imply that Dumbledore spent
years practicing Dark Art in case he ever needed them. He may be
intellecually aware of many forms and applications of Dark Arts. Much
of his experience and knowledge could have come from fighting Dark Art
and Dark (with a capital 'D') wizards. And, he may be a powerful
enough wizard that he could apply this knowledge any time he chooses,
but it never clearly implied that he practiced them to learn them.
-end this part-


> Tom continues to continue: 
> 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.
> 

bboy_mn:
Right on the money Tom; right on. Evil as in the Unforgivable Curses
is not necessarily Dark; it's dark, but not necessarily Dark with a
capital 'D'. I think to zero in on what makes Dark Magic dark, we need
to look at the creative process, and not necessarily the result. There
is something inherently destructive in the creation of Dark Magic that
is independant of the result.
-end this part-
 
> Tom Continues"
> 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.
> 

bboy_mn:
Once again we are in agreement. Exactly how many examples of Dark
Magic with a capital 'D' and capital 'M' do we see in the book. It you
step back an look, the is next to nothing that is specifically named
as being Dark (capital 'D') Magic (capital 'M'). Voldemort says he
rebirth was a piece of 'Dark Magic' and it clearly fits the pattern of
being consumptive and destructive. So what are some other examples of
things that have been specifically named as Dark Magic; I can't think
of any. 
-end this part-

More of Tom:
> I think it would be reasonable to suggest that perhaps there's
> really nothing wrong with the "Dark Arts" – ...

bboy_mn:
Can't agree with you here Tom. Both in JKR's books and in literature
in general, there is without a doubt something bad, something
inherently negative, something destructive about Dark Art/Magic. There
is a reason why people without conscience or ethics gravitate toward
it. It didn't get this reputation by being misunderstood. I say, where
there is smoke there is fire.

But I want to emphasize again, that while we have heard Dark Magic
spoken of, how much have we really seen. There is a whole lot, like
slug repellant, that people are assuming is Dark Magic when there
really is no direct evidence to support that. Look at what has been
clearly named as Dark Magic, and you will see we have very few but
very specific examples.


Tom:
> Krum (and) Durmstrang students are taught to use the Dark Arts.

bboy_mn:
In this case, I first suggest that they are not being taught extreme
Dark Arts. I seriously doubt if the are sacrificing virgins on a
weekly basis. Just like Harry and Ron, they are learning the basics,
but I think it is safe to say that they are being taught, among other
things, a form of magic that is destructive in it's creation simply
because the adminstrators of that school don't have the ethics or
principles to care about that destructive element.

>Tom finishes and luckly so will I:
> 
> 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

bboy_mn:
Well, you know I don't agree with that, but you did say something
earlier that I think summed things up nicely.

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

There is a lot going on that people are assuming is Dark Magic simply
because it is bad or is being used for evil purposes or is being used
by evil wizards. But I urge people again to search the books, and you
will see that there is very little magic that is specifically
designated as Dark Magic.

I would suggest that once we isolate things that are truly designated
as Dark Art, we would find ourselves in agreement.

Been nice talking to you.

bboy_mn