Killing tears the soul apart redux.

[Tammy Rizzo]

No: HPFGUIDX 139482

I (Tammy Rizzo) said:
> > Right there in black and white, very much canonical. *Killing* 
> rips the soul apart. The act of 
> > taking another's life tears your soul apart. Slughorn doesn't say 
> anything about tearing your 
> > soul in half, though, nor does he mention extenuating circumstances 
> to the killing. 


Then CMC said:
> He first says "murder", and it may be interpreted that he is defining 
> as "killing" only those acts which fall under the definition 
> of "murder." The Sixth Biblical Commandment which is often 
> erroneously translated as "Thou shalt not kill" should actually be 
> rendered as "Thou shalt not murder" - the Hebrew verb "tirsah" which 
> is used in the Mosaic commandment is not one of the common verbs 
> associated with killing an enemy on the field of battle, killing a 
> sacrificial animal, or executing a convicted malefactor (all three of 
> these deeds meet with Scriptural approval when properly conducted) - 
> rather, it is associated with the cold-blooded execution of a 
> personal enemy, or killing for personal gain (as opposed to killing 
> to protect the community).

Now I (Tammy Rizzo) say again:
I had already known about the more correct rendering of the sixth commandment as being 
'thou shalt not murder', but I do find it very interesting, the differences in meaning.  I also find it 
VERY interesting that, apparently, Harry doesn't make any distinction between 'kill' and 
'murder'.  He takes the Prophecy to mean that he must either be murdered or become a 
murderer himself.  He has not yet, it seems, learned to make such a distintion between cold-
blooded, pre-meditated murder, and a 'rightous' killing, such as in defence.  It comes across to 
me as if he consideres it all 'murder'.  I wonder if this is JKR's personal view, as well?  For 
myself, though, I can see and accept a difference between killing and murder.  Of course, I can 
also see and accept the worth of execution and/or assassination in general, on the concept of 
removing the cancer before it kills the body, or removing one dangerous and unstable leader or 
criminal before the entire area is destroyed by his or her actions.  However, my feeling is that, 
even in the case of 'rightous' killings, sanctioned by law and belief, the act of taking another's 
life STILL would be extremely wounding to the soul of the person who did it.

So, Slughorn may have meant 'murder' instead of 'killing', recognizing that sometimes it 
becomes necessary, for the greater good, to kill, while it is never necessary, for the greater 
good, to do murder, or he may have been echoing JKR's sentiments (if that is what she 
believes), or he may have been stating bald fact, that killing, whatever the circumstances, does 
great harm to the soul of he who kills.

> To give a hypothetical example: a sniper who shot innocent 
> unsuspecting bystanders to avenge some percieved personal slight 
> would surely be guilty of murder, and would be (in the Potterverse) 
> tearing his soul as well - the police officer who shot and killed the 
> sniper, however, did so to protect his fellow citizens, and so 
> performed a brave and selfless action, one which would not rend his 
> soul (even though both the police officer and the sniper took a human 
> life).

An interesting thought to go along with that, though -- assuming the police officer shoots and 
kills the sniper, even while the sniper is *in the act*, the officer will STILL be required to 
undergo counseling and occupational therapy, to try to help him cope with what he's done.  
Even a 'righteous' killing damages the killer.

> So Harry can "kill" Voldemort, because that is at bottom a selfless 
> act; Voldemort can only "murder" becuase his goals are fundamentally 
> selfish.
> 
>  - CMC

Exactly.  Very succinctly put.  Especially if Harry is ever able to let go his thirst for vengeance 
against Voldemort, and simply remove him for the good of his loved ones instead of for revenge 
for Harry's losses.  The question, to me, is, will Harry ever figure out that distinction, or will 
JKR keep him blindered to the idea?  Hmmm.

***
Tammy Rizzo
ms-tamany at rcn.com

What were you in your pants that was still pining over and went to the
businessman?
          -- 'Atlanta Nights', by Travis Tea (chapter 34)