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

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 139649

 
Kemper wrote:
Here is the evidence that the narrator argues  (though 'suggests' would be a 
better word) that killing is okay. (OoP 844,  US soft)
...Harry asked..."The end of the prophecy... it was something about  
...'neither can live...'"
"'...while the other survives,'" said  Dumbledore.
..."so does that mean that ... that one of us has got to kill the  other 
one... in the end?"
"Yes, " said Dumbledore.
Dumbledore, our  sage, suggests (if not advocates) killing... at least, 
killing  Voldemort.
To add to the discussion... Is taking the life just physical? What  about the 
victim's soul? Is destroying a soul evil? What about part of  it?




Julie says:
A lot of posters have mentioned that Dumbledore wouldn't have 
asked Snape to kill him when he knew it would split Snape's soul. 
But if *any* killing splits the soul, then how could Dumbledore tell
Harry he will have to kill Voldemort, when he knows such an act
will split Harry's soul?

I don't think it will, not in Harry's case, and not in Snape's case 
(I am for the moment presuming DD'sMan!Snape at the Tower). 
If Harry actually kills Voldemort, it will be in self-defense. Harry 
won't strike Voldemort first, but Voldemort has proven he won't
stop until he kills Harry. He will leave Harry no choice. 
 
And when Snape killed Dumbledore, he was taking the BEST 
possible action he could, with Dumbledore's complicity.  Nothing
could save Dumbledore (even if he wasn't already dying--and I 
think he was--losing Snape to the Unbreakable Vow leaves 
Dumbledore dead at the hands of the DEs), but Snape could 
save everyone else involved--Draco, Harry, himself, and perhaps
many students and Order members who were in imminent 
danger from Greyback and the DEs--by taking out Dumbledore. 
 
Though these two killings differ from each other, both have 
something in common. They are necessary killings in that
there is no BETTER option available. Harry can't avoid killing
Voldemort because Voldemort will kill him if he doesn't. Snape
can't save Dumbledore because it's already too late for that, 
he can only choose to die with Dumbledore and perhaps with 
several others to follow, or he can save himself and those others. 
(This also nicely explains Dumbledore's  plea "Severus...please."
DD means "You must complete this horrible task and save 
Draco, Harry, and everyone else in danger at Hogwarts, as 
well as yourself."--Which will save the whole WW, in the  end.
I placed the "yourself" at the end because I really don't think 
Snape cares that much about his own life.)
 
 I seem to recall Dumbledore saying specifically that it was 
*unjustified* killing--which one could call a definition of  Murder--
that stains the soul (and this is probably the same type of
killing that splits the soul, as the two effects sound similar). 
So, if it is justified--self defense (Harry), the best option left, 
or perhaps you could call it the lesser of two evils (Snape)--
then we have canon reason to believe it may not harm the 
soul, at least not irrepairably. 
 
As for killing a soul, it seems to me that killing a body  doesn't
kill the soul. But the Dementors can suck out someone's soul,
which seems to be a more feared fate than mere death. Even
Voldy is busy creating soul horcruxes, because he can't be 
alive without a soul (though he managed for a while without a
body). And, whatever constitutes the "afterlife" in the WW (or
going beyond the veil), I assume it's not available if your soul
is destroyed. Which makes killing a soul seem a lot more evil
than merely killing a body. 
 
Now I'll add a question for debate. If Harry destroys all Voldy's
horcruxes (with or without help), then he ends up killing Voldy
(in self defense of course), where does that leave what's left of
Voldy's soul? Would a soul in such a reduced state be able  to
get beyond the veil, or whatever? Is this what Dumbledore meant
when he told Voldemort that there are worse fates than death? 
 
Julie 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


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