AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary!

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 167134

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <SNIP> ...it's not really the actual magical spell that separates 
> > the good guys from the bad but the whys and whatfors.

> >>Alla:
> I do not see it with such certainty. I think whys and whatfors are 
> important, but I also think that killing is the action which is 
> pretty bad in itself in Potterverse, whys and whatfors may mitigate 
> it but not cross it out IMO.

Betsy Hp:
I actually agree that JKR has made sure that killing is a huge deal.  
And I think an AK shares that weight.  But I think it's more that an 
AK kills than that an AK has been labeled "unforgivable" that gives 
it that weight.  An AK certainly demonstrates an *intent* to kill.  
But it doesn't *make* someone a killer.  IOWs, you have to mean it 
before it does anything.  The AK doesn't transfer its meaning or 
intent on to you.

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > Which is *entirely* different from say, Star Wars.  In Star Wars, 
> > Yoda could move an object around with the force and Vader could 
> > move an object around with the force, and despite the fact that   
> > both characters are doing what amounted to the same action, Yoda 
> > by using the Light Side was on a higher moral plane than Vader   
> > using the Dark Side.  

> >>Alla:
> Sure, it is different from Star Wars, JKR grayed it much more IMO. 
> If it was Star Wars, then of course DD assertion that Harry is not 
> tainted by dark magic would have sound quite strange for me.
> But those curses are called Unforgivable IMO for a reason and      
> despite the fact that Ministry moral authority is often            
> questionable, I believe that JKR put some of her own weight behind 
> it, if that makes sense.

Betsy Hp:
I think I understand what you're saying, and until HBP, I'd have 
agreed with you.  Only JKR *doesn't* show Harry as being affected by 
the Crucio he threw.  Harry doesn't have a strange desire to cause 
others pain since using "dark magic".  In fact, he's more calm and in 
control relative to his behavior *before* he used Crucio.  So I think 
JKR actually takes her weight *away* from the idea that there's 
something addictively dark in the three Unforgivables.

So yes, we're left with the fact that the label "Unforgivable" was 
assigned by the MoM.  And the closest thing we've got to a Yoda-type 
character doesn't seem to think Harry's been "tainted".  Which leads 
me to conclude that "dark magic" is a political label, rather than a 
moral one.  (There could be a scientific reason too, but I'm not sure 
we have enough information to make that sort of call.)

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > In Rowling's universe it's all just physics. An AK isn't a tiny   
> > bit of evil.  It's a spell.  No better and no worse than         
> > a "reparo". There's no spiritual or moral energy attached to it.  
> > Any tainting of the soul comes from *within* the wizard.  
> > <SNIP>

> >>Alla:
> It is a personification of evil intent IMO. That is why IMO it 
> becomes worse than other spells. I agree that there is probably no 
> moral energy attached, but just as metaphor, you know?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Okay, I sort of agree with this.  (Though of course I must quickly 
point out that killing isn't always done with evil intent.)  But I do 
think the three spells are about basically bad things: compulsion, 
pain, death.  But the choice to use those spells and the will to make 
them effective comes from the wizard.  The wizard shapes and 
harnesses the spells; the spells do not shape or harness the wizard.

Betsy Hp