Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 161558

> >>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? 

Betsy Hp:
I think, by seeing Voldemort's background, we're told pretty clearly 
that young Tom *meant* to go dark.  Even before he learns he's a 
wizard Tom clearly enjoyed having power over others, enjoyed causing 
them pain.  It's not the magic that put Tom on the path of becoming 
Voldemort; Tom chose to go that way all by himself.  Magic merely 
provided a means.  If Tom hadn't been a wizard he may well have 
become a serial killer.

I think power can still be a source of corruption if used 
unchecked.  But I do think with magic power is power and it's the 
way it's *used* that differentiates between good and evil.  For 
example, Lockhart's abilities with memory charms.  The memory charms 
aren't dark.  Lockhart's abilities with them didn't make him a dark 
wizard.  But the *way* he used them was bad.

> >>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?

Betsy Hp:
You know, I wonder if Voldemort didn't employ the "muddled waters" 
to corrupt Quirrell?  We know Quirrell was good at his subject 
(DADA), so I think it's safe to assume he'd have had a good idea of 
what magic is dark and what magic is light as per the MoM (which I'm 
assuming is a key source of the current definitions).  It'd have 
been easy for someone as well-versed and as well-spoken as Voldemort 
to start asking some questions.  "Why is this spell dark and this 
one not?"  "Couldn't that dark spell be a benefit on certain 
occasions, and that light one an ill?"  Talk about devil's advocate!

If the WW has made the MoM's definitions of dark and light magic 
their ethical crutch I can see them being quite susceptible to that 
sort of  manipulation.  And I can see them concluding that there's 
no good or evil, just power.

Which would suggest that designating light and dark magic *harms* 
rather than helps the fight against evil.

Betsy Hp (suspecting Snape may have figured that out, probably 
Dumbledore too)