legalities, dark magic, and dark wizards

[Tonks]

No: HPFGUIDX 151168

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, stevemac <yahoo at ...> wrote:
>
> stevemac:
> 
>  From reading some of the recent posts about DD and Parseltongue, 
I thought it was interesting that I did not have a clear distinction 
between these categories...
> 
> Although it is easy to get the general 'dark magic = bad'  
> connotations, I'm really curious about what others have to say on  
> where the definitions and dividing lines are. They seem very gray, 
and by some definitions I have read, HP has definitely used full- 
> blown Dark Arts/Magic in the final scene with Snape in HBP - he 
knew that the purpose of the sectumsempra was to cause harm, and 
used it.
> 
> I'm just wondering where the boundries lie between illegal magic,  
> dark magic, and dark wizard.


Tonks:
In the books there are 3 unforgivable curses, as you know. These are 
unforgivable because they 1. Takes away another person right to 
choice or free will.  2. Causes pain for the pleasure of causing 
pain or to gain something for oneself as a result. 3. Deprives the 
other person of the right to live a full natural life.  The 
underlying precept behind all of these is a lack of respect for the 
other and selfishness on ones own part. 

I do not think that JKR has made it explicitly clear what the 
difference is between Dark Magic and Non-Dark Magic.  To some extent 
LV is right when he says that there is no good or evil, only power.  
It has been said in RL that magic is magic and dark or light is a 
matter of how it is used.  

In RL there are some forms of magic that are considered dark because 
of the evil intent of the wizard.  One of these that is considered 
very dark is Necromancy.  This invokes the souls of the departed (or 
another entity) to do ones bidding in the realm between this world 
and the other.   A wizard does it when inside a protective circle 
within another circle.  There are protective symbols between the two 
circles.  That is about all I know about it.  It is very dark magic. 
The closest thing to this in the books would be the inferni in the 
lake in the cave. 

In the HP books, I think that the main difference between Dark Magic 
or Magic used for evil is the basic intent of the Magic.  For 
example the AK is meant to kill.  If we believe that there is never 
any good reason to kill then that spell in and of itself is evil and 
therefore Dark.  Some one who is evil like a DE or LV can use normal 
magic spells for an evil purpose.  This would not make the spell 
evil or dark, but in the hands of a person who has less than pure 
intent it can be used for dark purposes.  Some spells, and some 
potions as well as other types of magic, because of their main 
purpose, would only be considered Dark and therefore we get the 
collective form of them as "the Dark Arts".  So all in all, I guess 
what I am saying it that it is the "intent" behind the act that 
fuels it that makes it Dark and if there can never be a good intent 
behind it to make it work, then it is always Dark.

As to Harry and his use or attempted use of an unforgivable curse. 
This concerns me a great deal. When he went after Bella and 
attempted to use the crucio, I just screamed out-loud NO!! Harry, 
NO!! It was wrong of him, both then and later. He did not get in 
trouble for it because he used it against a DE both times and they 
are not likely to bring charges against him. But it is wrong never 
the less. I am worried about Harry, yes I am.

Tonks_op