Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance?

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 139477

> houyhnhnm:
> 
> It has been argued by you and others that Dumbledore could not have
> told Snape to sacrifice him if it was the only way to save Harry,
> Draco, and Hogwarts, because Dumbledore would not order Snape to do
> something that would tear his soul.  "Killing tears the soul". I've
> read that over and over on this board.
> 
> Not cold-blooded murder for gain or immortality (Voldemort) or
> hot-blooded killing for revenge (Sirius and Lupin).  Any killing for
> any reason, regardless of motive or circumstances.  A blanket 
statement.
> 
> I'm asking for evidence that this claim has been made anywhere in
the
> books or interviews.  You have not provided it.  You can't, because 
it
> doesn't exist.


Alla:

Well, first of all, I said several times that to me killing in self 
defense is excusable.

Secondly, I did provide the evidence, but you interpret them 
differently. It is your right, but it does not mean that I have not 
provided it. To me everything that had been said in HBP about Tom 
Ruiddle screams that killing is not OK.


Does it mean  that according to Potterverse rules any killing is not 
OK? Yes, it seems very likely to me, not hundred percent likely, but 
very likely.

Why? Because any killing which I had read  about in potterverse so
far 
was not justified yet.

You name it - murder of Potters, Sirius death, death of twelve
muggles 
by Peter, murder of Amelia Bones, Evelyne Vance,etc, etc. 

In fact, if you could provide an evidence of ANY killing in 
Potterverse, which was deemed OK by the narrator, I would be very 
surprised.

Even  the wording used for Dumbledore and Grindelwald says "DD 
defeated Grindelwald", not killed him.


So, I can also argue that there is no evidence in the books that 
killing is OK.


And even though as I said earlier I would consider Harry killing 
Vodelmort to be totally self-defense, I don't think that Harry will 
kill him.


JMO,

Alla.