Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 161554

a_svirn:
> That's sort of what I think myself. But that's a kind of explanation
> that prompts further questions. Like what if there are other
creatures, persons and charms that were labelled dark unjustly? Even
more ominous:
> what if there are charms or potions that *should* have been 
proclaimed
> dark, but weren't for some opportunistic reason? In short, what if
Dark Magic is what the Ministry says it is? If so, we can safely
dismiss the notion.
>
Carol:
But what if it isn't?

a_svirn:
I would be glad to be proved wrong. 

Carol:
What if "Unforgiveable" means something more
than a lifetime sentence to Azkaban (which would hardly serve as a
deterrent after a person has cast one Unforgiveable).

a_svirn:
Actually, it would. You'd be hard put to find a better deterrent. 

Carol:
Bellatrix says
that you have to *mean* the Unforgiveable Curses, and surely it's
important that she's such an expert at casting the Cruciatus Curse and
Harry failed to cast one effectively. 

a_svirn:
Yes, of course it's important. It shows that Harry isn't a malicious 
person. The thing is that you have to *mean* any magic you perform 
for it to work. Harry had to *mean* the Summoning charm, and he 
concentrated pretty hard to get the meaning across. Neville had to 
*mean* the Ridicculus charm, Pettigrew had to *mean* the Fidelius 
(only he didn't) etc. As far as I can see all magic is *intentional*, 
so to speak, except for the times when it isn't. In those cases it's 
called Accidental Magic. Which lives us with a kind of circular 
definition: Dark Magic is magic performed with dark intentions. Not 
exactly helpful. 

Carol:
Maybe Dark magic has the potential to corrupt the user, to turn him
evil or to lead him into an obsession with some unnatural goal, such
as immortality or control over others' minds.

a_svirn:
Maybe. But it seems to me that this hypothesis it at odds with your 
earlier statement about the importance of intent. Is Voldemort dark 
because he *means* to be dark, or has he just sort of tumbled into it 
without really meaning to? 

Pippin:
But we can't, because that would be saying that there is no good and
evil, only power and those too weak to use it. The fact that their
ability to distinguish between good and evil is subject to error
does not release wizards from trying to make the distinction. The
perfect must not be allowed to become the enemy of the good.

a_svirn:
For once I am in complete sympathy with you, Pippin. The notions of 
Good and Evil cannot be and shouldn't be simply dismissed. But why 
not leave it at that? Why should we multiply essences beyond 
necessity and muddle waters with this Dark Arts thing? If I am a 
wicked person and did some evil deed, shouldn't I be judged and 
condemned for a crime I committed rather than for the means I 
employed to achieve my ends?