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

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 95185

Neri:"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."

I don't believe there is a connection between Harry's abortive attempt
to Crucio Bella and Voldemort's ability to possess him, however
briefly.  The MoM battle was the first time opportunity offered for
Voldemort to attempt possession since the graveyard scene, when
Voldemort's agenda was very different.

The best description of Black Magic that I ever saw was that it was a
"... matter of symbolism and intent."  Therefore, the state of mind
when making the curse was what was important.  Harry, in the heat of
battle, overcome with grief, tried something he wouldn't have done
before and probably won't again unless the circumstances repeat
themselves.

The morality of fighting evil is not so easy.  If Harry had to kill a
Death Eater to save one of his friends, what would the moral choice
be?  To me, it would be actively immoral not to do what it took to
save your comrade.  I wouldn't allow any harm to come to Neville, say,
in exchange for the lives of every single Death Eater.  Harry or one
of the others on the Good Side will have to make that choice some
time, almost for sure.

Jim Ferer