What is 'Dark Magic'?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 96230

Potioncat wrote:
I wonder if wizards always agree on what is dark and what isn't. We 
know from canon that DADA includes fighting off creatures like 
Boggarts and imps (demons?) and in repelling certain curses. Arthur 
says that the diary is obviously full of dark arts, but it's 
uncertain if that's because he knows (after the fact) who made it
or because of something else about it.

Jo Ann responded: 
I suspect that "Dark Magic" has the same nebulous qualities in the WW 
as "art" or "obscenity" have in RL: "I may not be able to define it, 
but I know it when I see it!"
 
My best guess is that the term "Dark Arts" can encompass bits and 
pieces of what several people have been saying: ill intent, 
inherently corrupting spells, pacts with malevolent forces, crossing 
the line between life and death...the mix might be quite different 
for each Dark Magus, and the point at which the crucial line is 
crossed--the point of no return?--would also differ.
 
If I had to pick one factor as *most* important, I'd have to say it's 
the ill intent, which can lead to nearly anything being used for evil 
purposes.  But that doesn't preclude spells, artifacts, etc. that are 
evil by their very nature.
 
Carol:
I think the term is probably less nebulous than you suggest, given the
pre-modern nature of much of the WW, just as "art" and "obscenity"
were easier to define before relativism and postmodernism made us
doubt our own standards. Also, I'm not convinced that "ill intent"
makes a spell or artifact Dark. Petrificus Totalis can be cast with
evil intent, but it's a spell that any eleven-year-old wizard can
cast. I think that lasting harm may have something to do with what is
classified as Dark, as could the intended use of an object (e.g. the
Hand of Glory) to commit an evil deed or coerce someone else to do so
(e.g., Tom Riddle's diary). The enchanted (or cursed) Muggle objects
that Arthur Weasley routinely deals with may be another example. So
would crossing a chicken with a dragon or whatever (the fire-breathing
chicken in the elevator at the MoM).

Anyway, I think that the Dark Arts are in some way definable and that
any witch or wizard would recognize them as such without applying the
subjective judgment that postmodern Muggles use to determine what (to
them as individuals) constitutes art or obscenity. Sirius says that
Severus Snape came to school at eleven already "up to his ears" in the
Dark Arts. Was Sirius, who had grown up surrounded by the Dark magic
that permeates 12 Grimmauld Place, merely applying his own standards?
And was he basing his judgment on the eleven-year-old Severus's "ill
intent"? I really don't think so. I think he was aware of Severus's
interest in certain kinds of potions, spells (curses), and objects
that any witch or wizard would classify as Dark regardless of the
intent of the user. (BTW, Severus's *interest* in the Dark Arts while
he was at Hogwaarts doesn't mean that he was *using* them then, except
possibly in self-defense when he slashed James's face with a hex or
curse. His brief career as a DE is another matter.)

Also, the Dark Arts are taught at Durmstrang (how to conjure a
boggart, maybe?), so there must be a definable curriculum (though
admittedly we haven't seen anything of the sort for DADA at Hogwarts,
where the content appears to depend on the teacher).

I *do* think evil intent is necessary to cast the Unforgiveable
Curses, but they appear to be a special case. They're illegal as well
as unforgiveable, as the Dark Arts in general are not. Also Knockturn
Alley seems to consist of shops selling potions and artifacts related
to the Dark Arts, items not available in the more respectable shops in
Diagon Alley, and the WW has no difficulty determining which items
would be sold in which shops. IMO, Lucius Malfoy was risking his
respectability (and Draco's) by being seen in a Knockturn Alley shop
because the objects bought and sold there were unquestionably related
to the Dark Arts in and of themselves without considering the
intention of the user or buyer. The poisons, etc., that he was hiding
in his manor would also qualify as Dark objects, and his possession of
them would be suspicious, regardless of his intentions (which we can
safely presume are evil). If Dumbledore for some reason had those
objects in his office, they would still be Dark objects, as they would
be if the aurors confiscated them, even though the possessor had no
"ill" intentions.

Carol, who still can't precisely define "Dark magic" or "the Dark
Arts," but is pretty sure that Snape or Dumbledore could