AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary!

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 167151

Betsy hp:
> I think this is what Magpie is warning against when she suggests
> readers shouldn't get too wrapped up in the technical side of magic.
> At the risk of completely mis-stating Magpie's case <g>, it's not
> really the actual magical spell that separates the good guys from the
> bad but the whys and whatfors.
<snip>
> 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.

Jen:  JKR *hasn't* explained her theories on dark magic in a comprehensive
way like Star Wars does.  And yet there are sign-posts in the books like
Dumbledore telling Harry 'you have never been seduced by the Dark Arts,'
implying there is an effect on the person who uses the Dark Arts.
I don't see this as a magical seduction so much as a moral one:  the less
restraint a person governs himself with re: magic the more likely he is to
be seduced into using magic to get what he wants without regard for the
well-being of others or their free-will.  That's the symbolism of the
Unforgiveables in my opinion, they are meant to represent the most
extreme form of one person taking away the free-will of another and
therefore run counter to JKR's theme of choice.  Usually I agree that her
mechanics don't mean as much as the outcomes and emotions attached,
but I've read the Unforgiveables as having a meaning beyond simple
mechanics.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167118
Carol:
> But Avada Kedavra is *the* Killing Curse, the only one designed for
> that purpose, and the Aurors were authorized to use it. (It was no
> longer "Unforgiveable" in the sense of resulting in a life sentence to
> Azkaban for the Aurors. It was still illegal for everyone else.) Why,
> then, wouldn't the real Moody, who "didn't kill unless he had to," not
> use the AK to do the killing? We know for sure that he killed Evan
> Rosier. Wilkes, another DE who was part of the "Slytherin Gang," is
> also dead, and if Mad-Eye didn't kill him, another Auror must have
> done so. And what other spell would that Auror have used? The AK is
> quick, efficient, apparently painless, and virtually fool-proof
> (unless your aim is off, like the Big Blond DE's). Why not use it
> rather than, say, conjuring a poisonous snake or a pair of hands to
> strangle the DE or whatever other method you have in mind?

Jen:  Crouch Sr. authorizing the use of Unforgiveables made them
legal but it didn't make their use right.  He convinced others the end was
worth the means and started fighting 'violence with violence', taking
away free-will of suspects to achieve his end.  It's pretty clear the man
lost his moral compass along the way when he started using the Imperius
to control his own son.  Moody may not have 'killed unless he had to'
because he thought it was wrong to do so.  And there's a definite pattern
of JKR stopping her good charcters from using AK's or having inconclusive
evidence they did so off-page while at the same time keeping the connection
between the Unforgiveables and Voldemort & DE's front and center, showing
them not only using the curses but being the only ones to explain their use.  

(I'm not ruling out misdirection with Snape here, that she needed
to associate him with the weapons of Voldemort to make his betrayl appear
absolute and final.)

Jen