Dark Magic is not Evil Magic

[persephone_kore]

No: HPFGUIDX 82197

Tom Wall:
> 
> Oooh, another excellent discussion on Dark Magic! Time to chime in 
> with something that I've been trying to work out for a while...
> 
> I've engaged in this debate previously, and although I found it to 
> be an interesting one, the major point that I carried out of it was 
> that, all in all, we know frightfully little about the Dark Arts in 
> the Potterverse. There's lots of conjecture, and very little canon; 
> OoP didn't really help things, either.

PK:

I'm going to begin by noting that I acknowledge your point regarding
limited information and the possibility that we don't know enough to
say definitively that all Dark Arts are evil, that the definition
seems to be rather vague at present and it isn't beyond possibility
that, say, all curses are Dark and the students still use them, that
some poisons are non-Dark, etc. I find, however, that some aspects of
your argument don't quite work for me. 

> So, in sum, we know that the Dark Arts at least involve poisons, 
> potions, and curses. Since the DADA classes primarily focus on 
> creatures, I'll add them to the list, however reluctantly... I 
> especially dislike the easy categorization of creatures who are born 
> a certain way (against their will) as *evil* or *dark,* because in a 
> way, that assessment contradicts the anti-discrimination goals that 
> we see developing in the rest of the series' plot. Anyways...

<snip>

> Therefore, we must conclude that those who know and practice the 
> Dark Arts aren't necessarily 'evil,' because a person always retains
> the ability to make the distinction between right and wrong. Clearly 
> Snape was able to make that distinction at some point.
> 
> So, I'm thinking that it's possible that there's nothing *really* 
> wrong with the magic you use... what's probably far more significant 
> is your intended goal by using it. If you're trying to use Dark 
> Magic to accomplish something worthwhile, then I don't see how you 
> can be evil. If you're trying to use non-Dark magic to accomplish 
> something vile, then I don't see how you can be entirely good.

I think you're conflating some things here. I think that being able to
distinguish between right and wrong doesn't make someone good or evil
in itself; it makes someone capable of being morally responsible for
one's decisions and actions (as distinct from being practically
responsible for the consequences, for which you don't have to have any
concept of good, evil, or for that matter cause and effect; you just
have to have caused something). 

I agree entirely that if you're trying to accomplish something vile,
being entirely good is rather unlikely. But it's actually possible for
very nasty people to have the occasional good goal, and /whatever/
your goal, the means you choose to reach it are likely to have
additional consequences. That's the other thing; you seem to equate
performing some wrong actions with being (apparently) entirely evil --
or at least, that appears to be an assumption involved in presenting
(for instance) "Harry used Cruciatus, but he isn't evil" as support
for the idea that the Dark Arts themselves are not evil. I may be
misreading you, of course, but as structured that looks like the kind
of simplicity you're complimenting JKR for not using. ;) 

So... to sum up, I see your point about having enough gaps in evidence
and odd points (though I'm not sure, for example, that all curses are
necessarily Dark; in fact, if some poisons aren't, I don't see why all
curses should be -- this would actually seem to fall more toward "Not
all destructive magic is Dark" than either "Not all Dark magic is
destructive" or "Not all Dark magic is evil") to consider the
possibility that Dark Arts may not equate to evil. But I think the
arguments relating to those peculiarities of possible uses and so on
are more applicable than those based on the idea that there are
non-evil people who do use them.