Intrinsically Good magic, and motives over ends (Fwd from OTC)

[Grey Wolf]

No: HPFGUIDX 59225

Amy Z wrote:
> This OTChatter thread got into some very interesting on-topic 
> philosophical musing, so I'm forwarding it here.  The question was 
> whether magic in JKR's universe is morally neutral (i.e., can be good 
> or evil, depending on how it's applied) or there are some spells that 
> are intrinsically good or intrinsically evil.

My broad opinion (before getting down to specifics) is: magic, in 
itself, is an instrument. Thus, it is neither good nor bad, just 
dangerous and helpful. I have provided in the past ways to turn even 
the most innocent spell into a killing curse, by applying it in certain 
circunstance. Harry has done the same, in fact, in canon, with his 
"rictusempra" spell - a tickling charm used in combat as a very good 
attack. But just because the spells can be used this way, it doesn't 
mean that they're intrinsically evil (and neither can be said about 
magic).

Now, in OT someone suggested the unforgivables as intrinsically evil 
spells. What is more, David has reminded me that there is a whole 
section of magic called Dark Arts which could be asumed to be evil. So, 
what's up with this?

Well, I think it is well known (or was well known, when I actually 
posted every day instead of once a month) that I have a theory about 
unforgivables that tates that the name is nothing more than a legal 
classification, that might have included many other spells (or none at 
all) in ages past. Especifically, an unforgivable spell is one that'll 
get you thrown into Azkaban if used against another human being. If the 
MoM decides, this could include accio, wingardium leviosa and mobili 
corpus, to give a few examples. At this point, it has Imperio, Crucio 
and AK. But my point is that being unforgivables, in itself, doesn't 
mean that the spell is evil - just extremelly dangerous. Like, say, a 
rocket launcher. Rocket launchers aren't *evil*, just dangerous. Evil 
is the one that uses it against other people.

Now, some people have pointed out that AK, Crucio and Imperius are 
inherently evil themselves, that they cannot be used for good. There, I 
have to put my foot down. There are times when killing is justified, 
even in today's world. And I'm not talking about self-defence (or South 
Africa's brutal but very effective "shoot poachers on sight" policy). 
You can be attacked by an animal - or have to "put one to sleep". For 
all we've seen, AK is immediate and unpainful. Unlike USA's executions 
(some of which have been very badly mangled), AK is a very "humane" way 
of killing a creature. Dangerous? Of course. Evil? It is still a 
method. Evil is a consequence of morality, and thus AK is "evil" if 
whomever uses it is evil, or is performing an evil act (i.e. against 
the stablished morality).

What about the other two? Imperius had one consequence that I was very 
impressed with - allowing the Imperioed creature to act beyond his or 
her natural abilities. The spider dances on the table, Neville performs 
acrobatical acts. In correct hads, it could help people that need help 
- such as, during a fire, getting people to jump onto the safety net. 
Or to run at top speed towards exists, but in perfect order so 
evacuation proceeds perfectly. Yes, not everyday use, but neither is AK 
your everyday spell. I'm sure I could come up with other examples, too.

Crucio is the most complicated, since it is pain for the sake of pain. 
However, it could have it uses. When I was in South Africa, the guards 
of the parks would all carry rifles, to shoot at poachers and to 
protect the legal visitors from animals, if one decided to attack. I 
always felt sorry for the animals - after all, they're only trying to 
get food. A handy crucio would stop such attack without (physically) 
harming the animal, and it might even teach him not to attack humans 
(which isn't that bad idea, since you shouldn't bite the hand that 
feeds you). Pain is an accepted teaching method on animals, and has 
been for a long time. Again, an unlikely use, but it only takes one to 
make something NOT intrinsically evil (or intrinsically good, for that 
matter).

In conclussion, just like "good" (read: innocent-looking) spells can be 
used for evil, so can "evil" (read: dangerous) spells used for good. 
Because when push comes to shove, they're all instruments, and 
instruments aren't subject to morality. Just their use.

I'd add an example of good spells used for evil purposes, but David and 
Amy Z have covered it quite well, so I'll just mention it: if 
sacrifices are intrinsically good, what's with Peter's sacrifice of a 
hand for Voldemort's return?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf