The Unforgivable Curses

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 94986

I (Carol) wrote:
> <snip> I think, as Del does (in a different post), that these spells 
> corrupt the soul. Crouch Sr. did himself and the aurors a great 
> disservice by making them legal as a punishment for DEs. Just 
> possibly he has endangered their immortal souls. JKR is a 
> Christian, after all. (Crouch Jr., of course, was corrupted long 
> before he taught at Hogwarts, with an Imperio'd Moody in his trunk 
> and an Imperio'd father at home, not to mention his role in 
> torturing the Longbottoms.) 
> 
> To me, Unforgiveable is *not* synonymous with illegal. It relates 
> not to law but to religion or morality. So my question is, *who*   
> cannot forgive the use of these curses? Is it God, who is generally
> outside the picture in the WW except for the evidence here and there
> of an afterlife? Is it the WW as a whole? Suggestions or           
> explanations, anyone?
> 
Nora responded:
> That's a fascinating question, Carol--I'm glad you asked it straight 
> out.  
> My own thought is that it's an Unforgiveable offense towards the 
> sovereignty of another human being, and, as such, is Unforgiveable
by anyone who holds that conception of human rights (which is not 
> dependent upon the existence of any divinity, but can accomodate 
> it).

Carol:
I think that's JKR's view, her reason for considering them
Unforgiveable, especially given her emphasis on choice. But as far as
I can see, the WW as a whole (including the wholly evil Barty Jr.)
uses the term "Unforgiveable Curses," yet who have we seen besides
Dumbledore (and maybe McGonagall or Lupin) who holds that view of
human rights? Umbridge certainly doesn't, nor Barty Sr., nor Filch, if
a Squib counts. (I won't bring in Snape because his views may not be
what they seem.) The trials or hearings we've seen so far and the
treatment of house-elves and the use of corporal punishment before DD
became headmaster all seem to indicate that this conception of human
rights is not widely held in the WW.

Nora wrote:
The WW has formalized it, but given their generally very weak 
formulations of ethics (that's another post, but they strike me as 
being remarkably weak in both moral and political philosophy as 
something that's valued in culture), I doubt many people have thought 
it through like that. To the general populace they're just extremely 
bad things, without (I suspect) a more subtle understanding of their 
kinship.

Carol:
I agree with you about the weak moral and political philosophy (see
above). But do you think that "Unforgiveable Curses" is just a name
they're given to distinguish them from less cruel and dangerous curses
(it's legal and presumabley "ethical" to send your brother to St.
Mungo's with an arm sprouting out of his head)? You could be right,
but I'd like to think that someone with a sense of ethics gave them
that name and that "Unforgiveable" means more than "extremely bad." I
think it isn't just what you do to others by using them; it's what you
have to do to *yourself* in order to perform them successfully that
makes them really sinister.

Consider Bellatrix. Was there ever a seed of good in her, as there was
in her cousin Regulus, who also joined the DEs and found it not to his
taste? We can't know when she became capable of casting a Crucio, but
it seems she had to work to attain that level of cold malice. LV's
star pupil, in her own view. Not a path that I want Harry to follow,
whether or not it literally corrupts the soul.

Carol