NECESSITY of killing?

[Geoff Bannister]

No: HPFGUIDX 141860

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:

SSSusan:
> > I know that the other day, I presented this argument
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141611 :
> > 
> > >>>Consider that DD talks openly with Harry about what he  
> > believes to be the NECESSITY (or perhaps inevitability?) for 
> > either Harry to kill Voldy or Voldy to kill Harry. He confirms 
> > this to Harry in OoP, and he **doesn't** later, in HBP, tell 
> > Harry, "Gee, I hate that you 
> > have to do this, because you know it's going to rip your soul!"

> > In *my* mind, I could easily see the reason that DD does not say 
> > such a thing to Harry (even when the topic is right there before 
> > them as they talk about horcruxes!) as that he knows this is WAR, 
> > this is an issue of The Greater Good. And perhaps he knows or
> > suspects that this kind of killing wouldn't rip Harry's soul.

a_svirn:
> I don't know whether the killing of Voldemort would or would not 
> rip Harry's soul, but I `d like to point out that for Voldemort  
> it's also the matter of utmost *necessity* to destroy Harry. One  
> after all can't live if the other survives. Even though Voldemort 
> know the whole text of the Prophesy its first part is quite 
> does not sufficient to make Harry's killing the first priority for 
> him. If *necessary* killings is "permissible" and do not result in 
> soul-ripping, then the killing of the Potters should have leaved 
> Voldemort's soul intact. 

Geoff:
Back in message 141613, on the subject of murder, I wrote:

'I think you are quite right here. My dictionary defines murder 
as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another". And 
that is the crux of the matter. Murder is committed by someone with 
the aim and intent of doing away with someone else. Accidental 
deaths - which under UK law usually count as manslaughter – and 
deaths in battle fall outside this category.'

Thinking over this topic, I felt perhaps I should extend the 
definition as little to be:
"the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another for some 
personle gain."

Murder is usually committed to satisfy some personal need of the 
perpetrator: getting revenge, getting rid of a rival, covering up 
another crime to mention but a few....

My thoughts turned to the plot masterminded by Klaus von Stauffenberg 
and a group of co-conspirators to kill Hitler in July 1944, which 
sadly failed.

This was an attempt at a premeditated killing. But it was not for 
personal gain. These folk believed that if they could carry out their 
plan, there would be a possibility that the war might be brought to 
an end and further loss of life be avoided. If they had succeeded, I 
doubt whether the world outside Germany would have considered them to 
be murderers - and possibly a goodly number of Germans would have 
agreed.

Many dictators - Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and, more recently, Idi 
Amin and Saddam Hussein for example - have been responsible for the 
mass murder of their peoples. They may not have  pulled the trigger 
personally on each killing but it would, to me, fit my extended 
definition of murder because it was for their own gain - extension of 
power, elimination of opposition, strengthening of control etc. 
Again, I think that attempts to remove them for "the greater good" 
would not be seen in the light of murder by observers.

I therefore think that when Harry catches up with Voldemort, although 
he will have some personal issues to settle, he will in essence be 
trying to make the wizarding world a better place by removing this 
tyrant.

As a side issue, this raises an interesting metaphysical and 
spiritual speculation. What determines whether a killing carried out 
by a wizard constitutes a murder? What decides that this is heinous 
enough for the culprit's soul to be split? 

Imagine a scenario where Joe Bloggs kills someone and feels his soul  
being split and cries out "Hang on a minute. This was a killing for 
the greater good. I didn't do it for my own satisfaction or gain." 
And a disembodied voice says "You are right, son. Here's a tube of 
impact adhesive to stick your soul back together."

Seriously though, how are the parameters determined? Is it determined 
by the murderer's own conscience, knowing whether they killed 
deliberately or accidentally or in a war situation? Is it settled by 
how others see it? I would be interested to read the views of other 
contributors about this.