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

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 95180

Ali wrote:
<snip>
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.
<snip>

Neri: 

I also don't think that Harry "blackned his soul forever". Since he 
managed to achieve only a very small part of his intent to hurt 
Bella, this shows that he lost only a very small amount of Power X, 
if at all. This is not like shooting a gun. If you shot somebody just 
out of anger, or even just by pure accident, he is dead all the same. 
But Power X is a moral power, not a mechanical power. It is only the 
combination of full intent and the act itself that makes the 
difference, whether you lose Power X (as when casting a full-intent 
Unforgivable) or when you acquire it (as when saving someone's life). 

However, I do think that when Harry tried to crucio Bella, he had 
dangerously lost connection with his Power X, which made it possible 
for Voldemort to possess him immediately after that. Why hadn't 
Voldemort fully possessed Harry during the months before that? It 
wasn't because of the distance factor or Hogwarts defenses. Snape 
made it clear in the first Occlumency lesson that the mind link 
between Harry and Voldemort negates these factors. Voldemort was able 
to possess Harry only when Harry relented his Power X defense by 
trying to crucio Bella. 

Neri