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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 139706

>   Kemper now:
>  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.


Alla:

Oh, but doesn't it relate to self-defense more or less?  I mean, even 
if Harry kills Voldemort in his sleep, which I don't think Harry
would 
do, in fact I don't think Harry would kill him at all , woudn't you 
consider it self-defense?

I think I would. But having said that, I still think that even though 
killing in self-defense could be excusable, it still damages one's 
soul ( that is why i don't think Harry would do it)

I had been reading posts arguing that soldiers, policemen in the line 
of duty certainly won't have their soul damaged,since they are under 
orders, or simply defend us, etc.

Well, I am simply talking about rules of Potterverse ( and no, I am 
not considering my self to be an expert of them :-), it is just my 
reading).

Is it too simplified  in comparison to RL? Yes, of course, but as far 
as I can see, I think that in "potterverse" killing is not OK, some 
very limited kind of killings can be excused, but it still leaves a 
sign on your soul, IMO.

Oh, and about  the mechanics how soul-splitting works. IMO, and this 
is of course just speculation, I don't think that JKR ever intended
to 
develop the mechanics of soul-splitting.

I think ( and sorry for talking like a parrot) that she intended to 
portray soul-splitting in the very broad philosophical, metaphorical 
sense, as an action which is influenced by killing, that is all.


JMO,

Alla