[HPforGrownups] Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs)

[Kemper]

No: HPFGUIDX 141160

Kemper responding to Lupinlore's snipped post below:
Intention. We have:
1. The intention of the Spell designed.
2. The intention of the Caster of a spell.
So the AK. The intention of this spell is inherently Dark. It was created to
kill.
The Petrificus Totalus (PT). The intention is not-Dark and not-Light. But if
the intention of the Caster of the spell is to use it and then toss the
hexed out the window, then the Casters intention is Dark. Either way killing
would likely lead to a life term in Azkaban not because a particular curse
was used but because someone was murdered.
 AK is to Sniper Riffle as PT is to cement.
 Not sure if its true or not but Modern Myth suggests gangsters/mobsters
have used cement to harden around someone's feet then drop this someone into
water that is at least higher than the victim's nose. Again, using either to
kill someone would probably have the same sentences.
 Why is the AK Unforgivable? Because the Wizarding society thinks so. Why
not Obliverate as Unforgivable? Because the Wizarding World uses it on
Muggles who observe them and thus don't want considerate Unforgivable... or
Dark. Though on another thread it is suggested that it is Dark, and I tend
to agree.
 As far as Hate not being needed to AK, I agree with Lupinlore. But I do
think it is the desire to kill (the intention to kill) that is needed.
 Let's look at Harry's Crucio against Bella. It didn't work because Harry
lacked the true intention of the spell. He wanted Bella to hurt, true, but I
suspect he wanted her to hurt like he was hurting at that moment: he wanted
her to suffer emotional pain rather than physical. He intended her to hurt
emotionally, but hadn't the proper spell. If he had cast curse that caused
emotional trauma, Emoto Sufferum, then I'm sure Bella would be an emotional
wreck. This is all speculation of course...
 -Kemper

> Jen responded to Kemper's analogy:
> This is a good analogy. Well, Harry has smoked several
cigarettes
> now, or at least tried to, throwing his nonverbal spells at Snapey.
> Thank goodness Snape cares enough about Harry's soul enough to try to
> stop him! ;) Cause I agree dark magic is what tarnishes a soul, and
> why Dumbeldore goes on about Harry's soul--Harry's never been tempted
> to follow that path. Yet. He needs to shape up though, and shake that
> desire to hurt or kill Snape. Intention counts in magic, after all.
>



Does it? Does intention count in magic? If it does, HOW does it matter? I
think that is a very important question to which we have no really clear
answer.

...snip...
This of course leads very quickly to the whole question of the
Unforgiveables. Who makes them Unforgiveable? Is it because of the extreme
intention to harm? Is it because they require hatred to cast?
Or is it just because they tend to cause deep and lasting harm to another
person, whether one defines this as violation of subjectivity a la nrenka or
some other way?

I don't think they can require hatred. I'd be hard-pressed to argue that
Wormtail hated Cedric Diggory, for instance, or that Bellatrix hated the
rabbit she AK'd (if it was, indeed, an AK she used). But they might very
well require intent. I think it is quite clear that Wormtail intended to
kill Diggory and Bellatrix intended to kill the rabbit.

If intent is indeed the essence of unforgiveability, I suppose Harry might
have something to worry about -- although DD's curious serenity on the
question makes me doubt it. Besides, if intent is the essence, then Snape is
in even worse trouble than Harry, as his intent to kill DD succeeded (and I
don't buy for one minute any kind of contrived scenario about an AK that
wasn't really an AK.) But if intent is the road to darkness, then why is an
AK any worse than petrifying someone
and dropping them out a window?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]