A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgivables

[Matt]

No: HPFGUIDX 174196

I think the discussion about RW law has gotten a bit offtopic, so I'm
going to agree to disagree there.  With respect to the unforgivable
curses themselves, remember that your original complaint was that
Rowling had been "inconsistent" by neglecting in DH the *reasons* that
the unforgivable curses are unforgivable:

>>> I had had more than one discussion with my son previously
>>> about what made the Unforgivables unforgivable, and why a 
>>> good person could not use them....
>>> For all intents and purposes, in HP7 JKR just seems to 
>>> ignore the moral component of at least two of the 
>>> Unforgivables ....

That's the sentiment I was responding to when I asked why it should
matter that Snape killed Dumbledore using the Avada Kedavra curse
rather than by, say, blasting him off the top of the tower?

CJ wrote: 

>>> Even assuming your moral code permits euthanasia, 
>>> euthanasia hardly justifies an Unforgivable Curse.

I asked:
 
>> Why should the means of death make any moral difference?

CJ now says:

> [I]t makes all the difference in the world! Even in the 
> US, which still permits capital punishment, the form of 
> death is chosen to be as humane as possible. To say that 
> killing is justified is not at all to say that ANY FORM 
> of killing is justified.

Right, but as your example points out, the only moral criteria usually
applied in this sort of a circumstance are humaneness to the deceased
and no potential danger to others.  The killing curse performed by
Snape would seem to satisfy both of those criteria (indeed, you
concede that it is "quick and painless").
 
> The point is that an immoral (and yes, I do believe the 
> canon establishes that the UCs are immoral, not just 
> illegal) method of killing is unjustifiable even when the 
> killing itself is not.

I guess I just don't get your statement that "canon establishes that
the UCs are immoral."  Aside from the lack of any citation, wasn't
your whole point from the beginning that we should focus on the reason
for the unforgivable curses being unforgivable?  That was why you said
that Harry's attempt to use the same curse on Snape was
"understandable" in a way that you said Snape's killing of Dumbledore
never could be.  Now, you seem to be retreating to labels.  As I wrote
before: 

>> I think that in distinguishing based on the form of 
>> curse used you are putting more weight on the term 
>> "unforgivable" than Rowling ever did.

You ask for me to prove the point -- 

> Could you cite a passage on this? The text, as far as 
> I can see, simply establishes the UCs as (morally) 
> unforgivable. Is there a passage which discusses the 
> exact degree of "unforgivable"? 

-- but it's really up to you, since it's your reliance on the text
that I'm questioning.  Where does the text say "morally unforgivable"?
 Where does the text say "never can be justified"?  

The *only* discussion we get in the books of the sense in which the
curses are unforgivable is the word of an escaped Death Eater that
"the use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough to earn
a life sentence in Azkaban."  (GF, ch. 14).  That is not a moral
statement and it says nothing about extenuating circumstances.  

Sirius later refers to Crouch's authorization of the government's use
of the curses against suspects as evidence of Crouch's ruthlessness
(GF, ch. 27), but he does not explicitly appeal to any universal moral
principle.  His words can easily be understood as personal hostility
toward Crouch and/or a political statement about how the government
ought to act towards the accused.  It is difficult to believe that
Sirius -- a classic rulebreaker who was ready to murder Peter
Pettigrew a year earlier -- is defending some kind of moral absolutism.

More to the point, neither Sirius's statement, nor Crouch's, nor
anything ever said in canon contradicts the quite natural reading --
yours I thought as well as mine -- that the unforgivable curses are
unforgivable *because one person should not treat another that way*
(killing, torture, enslavement).  But if that is true then when
circumstances undermine the premise -- when, that is to say, a
homicide is justifiable -- the conclusion about the curses no longer
holds.

You do not seem to have any response to this, other than once again
retreating to the word "unforgivable":

My question --
>> Is there some reason that the use of Avada Kedavra is 
>> unforgivable above and beyond the immorality of ending 
>> another person's life?

Your response --
> I don't have any idea. JKR never discusses that.... 
> [A]s to WHY the AK is unforgivable, you'll have to wait 
> for JKR to explain. I only know from reading the text 
> that it IS.

I'll tell you what I know: It is impossible to discuss morality
without asking "why".  Ethics is not about labels, it is about
principles.  

You had it right at the beginning when you were talking about "what
made the Unforgivables unforgivable."  Once you walked away from that,
you lost all possible basis for calling Rowling inconsistent.  

> [O]utside of book 7 and the end of book 6 (which are 
> the points of contention) there are no clear examples of 
> a morally justified use of the UCs.

Actually, the first time we are exposed to the curses, in GF, provides
a relatively clear example.  Crouch!Moody, with Dumbledore's approval,
uses practical demonstration to teach the students how to throw off
the Imperius curse.  Once again, the moral basis for putting the curse
off limits does not apply: Crouch is attempting to teach the students,
not to enslave them.  (At least that is what he tells Dumbledore, and
on that basis Dumbledore approves the lesson.)  As it turns out,
Crouch ends up teaching Harry just what he needs to know in the
climactic confrontation.

> [A]ny discussion of the "degree" of unforgivability 
> lies outside the canonical texts; i.e., in the realm 
> of speculation.

I'm not sure how you dismiss a principled discussion of morality as
speculation, but degrees of unforgivability was your idea not mine. 
You said that Harry's attempt on Snape was "understandable" while
Snape's attack on Dumbledore put him "beyond all possibility of
salvation."  All I have said is that some uses of those curses can be
justified, which involves weighing moral principles but is not a
question of degree.

-- Matt