The Unforgivable Curses

[kiricat2001]

No: HPFGUIDX 95049


> 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.) 

Marianne:

I have just one tiny quibble here. I believe what we were told about 
the Aurors being given permission to use the Unforgivables was as a 
way to defeat or capture the DEs to bring them to justice, not to 
inflict punishment.  In a time of war, this could have had great 
appeal to the public at large in the sense that the "good guys" could 
now use the same powerful weapons that the "bad guys" used with 
impunity.  

But, I agree there is a whole moral component to this that has not 
been fully discussed.  Giving the Aurors permission to use these 
spells doesn't seem to have sit well with Mad-Eye.  Of course, he may 
have simply been such a superb Auror that he could get his job done 
most of the time without having to use an Unforgivable.  But, what 
about an Auror who is not so talented or experienced? Certainly there 
is the risk of a "shoot first, ask questions later" scenario where an 
Auror, by killing a DE with AK, loses any potentially important 
information that person may have been willing (under Crucio duress?) 
to reveal.  There is also the horrible possibility of innocent people 
being killed by an Auror mistakenly thinking they were DEs.


Carol again:
> > 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?

Marianne: 

Unforgivable may not (or perhaps should not) be synonymous with 
illegal, but that's exactly what it is in the WW.  Whether JKR wants 
to use these curses and the naming of them and the punishment meted 
out for using them to illustrate a certain morality is, I think, 
somehwat muddled at this point. She has shown a simple cause/effect 
for the use of these curses - use an unforgivable and earn yourself a 
trip to Azkaban.  That automatic punishment of instant jail puts 
those curses on a higher level of wrong-doing.

But, JKR has been mute about the moral underpinnings of this.  God 
and religion? Not terribly evident other than mentions of Christmas 
and the hints about an afterlife.  Were the uses of Unforgivables in 
previous wars eons ago so horrific that society as a whole decreed 
that not only must they be illegal, but they should be deemed 
Unforgivable?  That sounds pretty energetic compared to current 
wizard society where the vast majority seem happy to swallow any bull 
the Ministry chooses to spew out through the Daily Prophet.  

snippage of interesting chat between Nora and Carol

> 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.

Marianne:

This gets back to the muddle I was talking about above. You mentioned 
yourself about physical harm.  People have all sorts of things happen 
to them that must cause pain, but then are healed quite rapidly in 
the WW.  Lockhart made the bones in Harry's arm disappear.  No 
problem, we'll just grow them back overnight.  Not a big to-do.  
People express horror that Sirius broke Ron's leg in PoA.  Well, this 
is the wizard world.  Sure it hurts at the time, but presto-chango! 
it'll be fixed by morning.  Not to worry.

Does WW society de-value physical pain or injury because, in many 
cases, it can be fixed quickly? And,if so, where is the line beyond 
which the injury done by one person to another becomes less a matter 
of curing the physical ills than imposing punishment on the injurer?
Is everything allowable up until one chooses to use an Unforgivable?

Memory Charms seem somewhat questionable in my book.  I can see the 
possiblilty of abuse there, too.  But, I don't think there is any 
punishment meted out for their use, is there? Wouldn't it be just as 
unforgivable to molest a child and then wipe his/her memory clean of 
the molestation, only to do it again?

As far as the use of Unforgiveables causing harm to the person who 
uses them...that's an interesting thought.  Does that mean that the 
Aurors allowed to use them were pretty inept at first?  Somehow I 
doubt that.  I think they'd have to learn the curses as part of their 
training, just as cops are trained in the use of force up to and 
including shooting their guns. In a perfect world, the Aurors, and 
the cops, would not use extreme force execpt in dire situations.  I 
do believe that one is more adept at perfecting the use of 
Unforgivables if one is of a certain nature, like Bellatrix.  

Marianne, getting herself muddled way too early on a Saturday