A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgivables

[Dennis Grant]

No: HPFGUIDX 174209

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <hpfanmatt at ...> wrote:

> 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.  

[... ...]

> 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.

That's my read too. In peacetime, with a just and competent Ministry
in charge, the use of any of the curses results in jail. But in
wartime, the gloves come off and the use of the curses is no longer an
instant lifetime jail sentence.

I imagine that *how* the curses are used though might come into play.

There is a real-world example here: there is an experimental weapon
being tested and deployed that uses finely-tuned, low-power microwaves
to induce the sensation of being burned alive in the target. So far,
there does not seem to be any actual harmful long term effects - while
you are in the area of effect of the beam, you are in excruciating
pain, but once the beam is turned off or aimed elsewhere, you're OK.

The intent is a non-lethal mob dispersal weapon for point defense. Is
your embassy being stormed? Turn these puppies on and watch people
find something else to do in a right hurry.

That might seem cruel, but the alternatives are far worse - like
dispersing the crowd with machine gun fire, which will kill or cripple
anybody struck by it. Even less aggressive methods like fire hoses can
still kill or seriously injure.

The parallel with crucio should be obvious.

Now, strapping somebody to an immovable object and then using the pain
gun on them would be a horrible, immoral act - but using the pain gun
to disperse a mob is an act of mercy.

Similarly, an AK is an instant, painless death. It strikes me that
there is sufficient power in Potterverse magic to kill people in any
number of horrible ways - "accio liver!" - or any form of
transfiguring some vital part into an non functioning bit (not to
mention various forms of asphyxiation, burning, electric shock, or
poisoning) You don't *need* AK to kill when you can (say) stupify them
and then fill their lungs with conjured water. In time of war, the use
of AK seems downright humane by comparison with what *could* be done.

I think in wartime, the "unforgivable" curses - subject to how they
are used - become entirely forgivable, and so it didn't strike me as
odd or jarring that the good guys started using them.

DG