A moral theory of Magic (was Re: A simple-minded question)

[Ali]

No: HPFGUIDX 95137

Neri wrote:

 We have:
 
 1. Lily's sacrifice ("ancient magic").
 2. Life Debt. 
 3. The three Unforgivables.
 
 (did I forget something?) 
 
<<< All seem to be of the same family of magic, magic "at its 
deepest, its most impenetrable". In all of them a wizard does 
something highly moral or highly immoral to another wizard. And the 
result? Lily's sacrifice shows us this: The moral side gains 
something that lends him immunity, especially immunity towards the 
wrong doer. And the immoral side? He seems to lose something that 
makes him vulnerable at some very basic level. Especially vulnerable 
to the one he wronged.
 
 So what is this something that they gain or lose? Power X, 
naturally. The Power That Is Behind The Locked Door. 
 
<snip>

 Now it also makes sense why Harry has such a huge quantity of Power 
 X. It is not only his mother's sacrifice. It is also the fact that 
 Voldemort used an Unforgivable twice, both on Harry's mother and on 
 baby Harry himself (not to mention also killing Harry's father). 
That certainly makes for a powerful combination. 
 
 It is also obvious why the Power X in the DoM is always kept behind 
a locked door. The poor fools who somehow managed to trap it in 
there can't use it for anything. Power X can be exchanged and used 
only through moral and immoral acts.
 
<snip>

DD knows that the battle between Tom and Harry will be decided by 
Power X mechanics, and DD meddling in it is only likely to 
complicate things further.

Ali responds:

I'm fascinated by this approach. IMO it is logical to look at the 
3 "old" forms of magic and to try and find commonality between them. 
Having the "Power X" as the pivotal factor again would fit. In Harry 
of course we see all 3 branches together.

It would explain why Dumbledore so powerful and omniscent in many 
ways, also takes such a laissez-faire approach to his Harry, his 
protegy and in his opinion, the future of the Wizarding World.

JKR has deliberately made the "life debt" issue impossible for us to 
understand fully. In OoP she has left the issue of Harry's cruciatus 
curse for us to ponder.

If you think of the unforgiveables as being a type of crime, then, 
arguably, Harry didn't commit the crime - he was out of his mind at 
the time. He lacked the necessary intent. But, if it not a legal 
approach but something to do with the essence of his magical powers, 
what now? 

We know that he didn't caste the curse with the necessary intent, 
but for the purpose of damaging his innate Power X, did he caste it 
or not? Was his intent sufficient to have blackened his soul? I 
believe that it was not, but I admit that I am perhaps blurring the 
distinction here between legal and moral. 

I know that there was much fandom outrage when Harry used 
the "cruciatus". I of course wished that my beloved Harry hadn't 
done it. But, in terms of showing how stress and grief and 
inhumanity can take control of even the best, I felt it to be 
honest. But, can Harry regain the moral high ground now, or has he 
lost it? IMO he must be able to regain the high ground, or there 
would no point in offering second changes: once an immoral path had 
been stepped upon, there would be no returning. I refuse to believe 
that will be the outcome.

Ali