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

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 95211

Jim Ferer:
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.

Neri:
There are several indications that Voldemort could have, technically, 
try possessing Harry during the months before the DoM. Distance 
shouldn't have been a problem to him. Snape said in the first 
Occlumency lesson that Voldemort can get into Harry's mind from any 
distance because of the mind link. Voldemort didn't have a problem to 
take partial possession of Harry twice, each time for about one 
second, in order to try striking at DD. Distance didn't prevented him 
from doing this. Why didn't he stay in possession?  

You might say that Voldemort wanted to know the full prophecy before 
trying to get rid of Harry. OK, why not possess Harry, make him steal 
someone's broom and fly to London to pick the prophecy from the DoM. 
Much simpler than this complicated plan, which depended on Kreacher 
and other factors. IMO, Voldemort couldn't do it because Harry had 
the Power that protects him all along.

The one case in which Voldemort nearly succeeded in possessing Harry 
happened five minutes after Harry tried to use an Unforgivable. 
Coincidence? Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it.
  
Jim Ferer:
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.

Neri:
The moral dilemma in fighting an enemy is always there, but in the WW 
it is less difficult than in the muggle world. Instead of shooting 
the bad guy or AK him, you can just stun him. This is likely to save 
your friend the same as AK.

As I said, I don't think Harry has "blackened his soul forever" 
because of this abortive attempt, but I think it was an important 
event in the plot. The name "Unforgivable" seems to imply that these 
curses are unforgivable even if you use them to try saving a friend 
(and Harry *wasn't* trying to save a friend when attempting to crucio 
Bella). Why are they unforgivable? Unforgivable by whom? This is what 
I've tried to answer up-thread.

It might be a mistake to try imposing this or that traditional 
description of "Black magic" on JKR. As in many other fields of 
magic, she seems to have her own idea of what she calls the Dark 
Arts, and it is quite a defined and detailed idea. 
 
Neri