[HPforGrownups] Murder = splitting the soul?

[Sherry Gomes]

No: HPFGUIDX 135063

From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Morgan Adams
I am interested by this take on murder in the books. I have a couple
questions:

1. Does this count all murders? Even those done for a righteous reason? If
so, Dumbledore and most of the members of the Order would have torn souls.
Though, of course, the difference is that they did not create a horcrux to
save it in.

2. Does self-defense count?

--Morgan




Sherry now:

We don't actually know that anyone in the order has committed murder, do we?
Even Dumbledore may not have.  Doesn't his chocolate frog card say that he
"defeated" grindewald?  That could mean something different than murder.  We
are even told that in the last war, though the ministry authorized the use
of the unforgivable curses, Moody never killed anyone.  Or was that never
used them if he could bring them in without it?

However, I would say murder is murder, and there is no right cause for
murder.  Soldiers have to kill the enemy, and i think that lets them off the
hook.  Self-defense is also one that would let you off the hook, i think.  I
doubt that Harry is going to have to do something as mundane as actually
kill Voldemort by a curse of some sort, though I have absolutely no theory
of what he might do.  Even if I begged my best friend to shoot me, and my
friend did so, that person would go on trial for murder.  i guess that's why
I get stuck on the good Snape idea.  I can't conceive of *any* reason for
Snape to murder Dumbledore that could make it right in my eyes.  and what
kind of message would that send to children?

sherry