Intrinsically Good (and evil) magic (Fwd from OTC)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 59369

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" <dfrankiswork at n...> 
wrote:
> 
> Part of the difficulty of this topic is the meaning of good and 
> evil.  If by 'intrinsically' good we mean that something is good 
> despite the bad motive that uses it (think of the doctrine of the 
> efficacy of the sacraments despite the quality of priests), or that 
> it can't be used unless the motive is good (think of the Grail), 
> then we are forced to think in terms of consequences.


I think a way to unravel this is to analyse the Unforgivable curses 
as they are defined in the WW. 
The fact that using an Unforgivabel curse earns the person a life 
term in Azkaban - regardless of the *motive* - shows that they are 
considered as completely evil in some intrinsic way. We don't know 
exactly in what way, but since Crouch permitted their use in some 
cases, I don't think the evilness is due to a corrupting influence on 
the user. I also don't think that it is exactly a matter of their 
influence on the victim. Take Imperio for instance. If it's about 
harm, why is it unforgivable then, when curses that cause worse 
damage, and may kill a person, are not? I think that their intrinsic 
evilness is more "intrinsic" than that.I think that the Unforgivables 
are considered intrinsically evil because what they do is considered 
intrinsically evil - untimely death, unnecessary pain and total 
mental subjugation. (I'm not arguing that these are indeed the three 
ultimate evils, just that that's the case for the WW.) But, you ask, 
there are other curses that can kill and cause pain, so why are only 
these three considered unforgivable? Intuitively, it feels right that 
they should be, but why? Well, say you want to kill someone. You pick 
a heavy rock and you bash his head in. Your immediate act, what you 
actually did, was to make a big hole in his head. It is the damage 
caused by the hole that kills him. And so on - if you give somone 
poison, it is the damage caused by the poison that makes the person 
die. The same is true if you use magic to kill - death potions, 
blasting spells, running hot lead into the bones, whatever. The 
killing is always mediated. But in Avada Kedavra the killing is 
immediate. Death is created, rather than caused. The same is true for 
Crucio. It makes pain, rather than causes pain.

>From this, I think, we can learn what might be considered 
intrinsically good magic in the WW. It should parallel the 
intrinsically evil, i.e., it should bring about something that is 
intrinsically good without mediation. For instance, if happiness were 
considered intrinsically good, then Felicio would be intrinsically 
good magic. 
The things is, I doubt that JKR holds that a spell that makes you 
feel happy with no reason is really a very good thing. It rather 
resembles drugs, doesn't it? The same goes for other good feelings, 
like pleasure or well-being. A hint of that we can see in that 
Imperio actually causes a sense of well-being, and it is definitely 
seen as highly dangerous and bad.
Well then, what about a charm that makes people good (morally good, I 
mean)? What could be better than a spell by which Voldemort can be 
made good? But that won't wash, of course, because for JKR freedom of 
will and choice are crucial to morality ("it is our choices, 
Harry ..."). 
So, how about magic that confers Life? A spell that brings life to 
the dead, or immortal life to the living? But ... we know that the 
first spell doesn't exist (according to Dumbledore), and the 
second ... well, we've seen what JKR thinks of the second. 
Health might work, though. (Although, perfect, everlasting health is 
akin to immortal life, which is a big no no for JKR.) The thing is, 
from what we see of Madam Pomfrey's work, there simply doesn't exist 
a Health spell - a spell that makes you healthy no matter what is 
wrong with you. It seems that for each type of injury or disease you 
must use different spells, charms, potions. 

The only thing left that I can think of, is magic that averts evil. I 
think that magic that *without mediation* averts one of the 
Unforgivables should be defined as intrinsically good. 
Only one spell of this type comes to mind - the magic that Lily 
invoked when she died to save Harry. It didn't protect Harry by 
making him disappear from the house or becoming invisible, or by 
harming Voldemort. It made him *intrinsically* immune to Voldemort's 
Avada Kedavra. 

So, after this long ramble, I have to agree with Amanda that Lily's 
sacrifice (or, rather, the magic the sacrifice invoked) is 
intrinsically good in the WW.




Naama