Unforgivables - from a different angle

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 174357

Mike:
Some of this will piggyback on what was already posted by both CJ and 
Matt in this thread. So please forgive some of the repetitiveness.

I have never bought into the commonly held precept that the 
unforgivables are morally wrong. These 3 curses are simply tools, 
they can be used for good or evil depending on the circumstances, and 
the intent of the caster. Murder is unforgivable, not the Avada 
Kedavra. Torture is unforgivable, not the Crutiatus Curse. Mind 
enslavement is unforgivable, not the Imperious Curse. 

And I have always believed that JKR wanted us to understand 
that "Unforgivable" was a legal construct placed on these 3 by the 
law-giving arm of the WW (the Ministry? I'm still not sure who makes 
the laws in the WW). Which is why the Ministry could remove the 
mandatory life sentences for their usage. I have *never* thought that 
we were suppose to attach a moral prohibition to their use. The moral 
prohibition should attach to the reason and/or the outcome of their 
usage. [If one is interested, Red Hen has formulated an idea for 
original devolopment of these curses without intended malice - 
http://www.redhen-publications.com/HistoryofMagic.html  Sect. III]

Who introduced us to the unforgivables? A Death Eater in disguise. As 
part of the introduction he tells us that the use of them on another 
human being earns one a life sentence in Azkaban. Nowhere is the 
morality of using them brought up in canon. But then later on, he 
*uses them on human beings* in class, supposedly with Dumbledore's 
approval. Was this usage immoral? I contend teaching kids how to 
resist the Imperious is the opposite of immoral. But Hermione 
complains that it's still illegal.

Imprisonment would be administered by the Ministry, a legal 
punishment for breaking a legal prohibition. And when has the 
Ministry been shown as the paragon of morality? It seems obvious to 
me that JKR wanted us to see "unforgivable" as a legal construct, 
administered by a, shall we say, less than pristine enforcement arm. 
It's not the curse, it's how and why one uses them that determines 
morality, imo.

As an aside - I have said before and say again, the idea that killing 
someone is punished the same as administering a few minutes (or 
seconds) of pain, no matter how excrutiating, seems ludicrous to me. 
Just another reason for me to see the inequity of assigning a moral 
equivalence to a Ministry proscribed illegality.


I'll let CJ lead me for the rest of this post.

> CJ
> Some have argued that, as the ban on the curses was lifted during 
> Voldemort's first war, they were either lifted again, or the first 
> lifting was still implicitly in effect during the second war. But I 
> see too many problems with this theory:
> 
> First, there is no indication in DH that the ban was lifted. A 
> single sentence from JKR would have sufficed to inform us, but
> there is none.
> 
> Second, if the ban had been lifted (or the original lifting 
> reinstated) we really should have seen a lot MORE of them from the
> good guys.

Mike:
Both of these two points argue for the Unforgivables being Legally 
prohibited as opposed to Morally prohibited.


> CJ
> Third, this theory is tantemount, to my ears, to saying murder can 
> become acceptable simply by repealing the laws against it. But, in 
> fact, murder is not wrong because it's illegal; it's illegal 
> because it's wrong. Making it legal doesn't make it OK.

Mike:
If you accept my explanation of legal prohibition of the UCs, then 
enactment/repeal of prohibitions have nothing to do with the morality 
of the usage. As you say "murder is wrong" and is so regardless of 
what is used to perpetrate it.


> CJ
> Fourth, even if the Unforgivables had been made extraordinarily 
> acceptable, one would still expect at least a bit of moral distaste 
> from people who had been raised all their lives to believe the UCs 
> were wrong. Yet when Harry begins throwing the UCs around, he shows 
> not the slightest moral compunction about it. 
> <snip goblin and DE Imperiused at Gringotts>
> It really seems a case of the whole moral component of the UCs 
> having simply evaporated into the ether somewhere around the
> latter half of HBP.

Mike:
Throw out the artificial moral construct attached to the UCs, would 
you still have a problem with how and why Harry uses Imperious here? 
If one realizes that the UCs don't have a moral component, I suggest 
that the distaste evaporates into ether.

The cynic would say that Harry uses Imperious to rob a bank. But the 
moralist would say that Harry uses Imperius not for personal gain, 
nor to harm his victims, but to retrieve one of LV's Horcruxes. My 
opinion, of course.


> CJ
> Fifth, fast forward to the climactic battle: there's Harry, 
> standing mano a mano with the greatest and most evil wizard of all 
> time, with the fate (and the eyes) of the entire wizarding world 
> squarely on him. What more compelling case could ever be made for 
> the extraordinary use of the killing curse? And what does this boy, 
> Harry, who has already demonstrated no moral compunctions over two
> of three UCs, choose? 
> Expelliarmus. Makes no sense.

Mike:
Actually, makes perfect sense to me. First, JKR loves to reuse 
themes, and here she repeats the spells cast in the graveyard scene 
in Harry's most dramatic defeat of LV until now. 

Second, Harry has just explained to us the whole Elder Wand 
acknowledging it's owner paradigm. What better way to prove he is 
correct than by attempting to liberate said wand from LV and thereby 
prove his analysis was correct.

Third, if he is correct in his analysis, it matters not what spell he 
uses as long as he casts it to collide with the expected AK coming 
from LV. The Elder wand will not attack it's owner and will instead 
rebound the curse onto the person Harry, it's owner, is fighting. Of 
course, the rebounding AK brings us full circle to GH, another repeat.


> CJ
> Sixth, the Ministry of Magic had fallen to Voldemort. Absolutely 
> the first act of the new Ministry, assuming the ban had been 
> lifted, would have been to reinstate it. 'Nuff said.

Mike:
Who cares what the Voldemort controlled Ministry reinstated? 
Certainly not Harry or any of the opposition. Besides, with all the 
DEs and LV himself still using the UCs, monitoring for their usage 
would be problematic, if that's where you were going with this.


> CJ
> Finally, this theory still doesn't save Snape. He used the Avadra 
> Kedavra not against the enemy, not in self-defense, but against an 
> already-disarmed Dumbledore.

Mike:
This has been discussed elsewhere and I have nothing significant to 
add to those ruminations.

Further on the use of the UCs; I have postulated that magical power 
comes from within the witch/wizard and that the same spell can have 
different results depending on the casters intent and magical 
abilities. 

Above, I have explained my position on a moral use of the Imperious 
Curse. Many have pointed out that the AK may be a very humane method 
for killing, when killing is necessary. I will also add that Crucio 
seems to be an efficient and effective way to stun.

Notice the different results between Snape's AK of Dumbledore and 
Wormtail's AK of Cedric, or Tom's of his relatives. Many thought that 
Snape didn't cast a true AK because DD was launched over the parapet. 
Also, contrast Harry's Crucio of Carrow versus the Crucios against 
Harry in Gof & HBP and Neville in OotP. Again, Hary's Crucio blasted 
Carrow into the air, instead of causing him to writhe in pain on the 
floor.

Why the disparity with Snape's AK and Harry's Crucio if not to hint 
that both of them had no sinister intent? (A little speculation, I 
think JKR has left the door open for a lot of that.<g>) Just because 
Bellatrix used the Cruciatus Curse to drive the Longbottoms insane, 
doesn't mean everyone else has the same intent.


> CJ
> Killing in war is a tragic necessity. But permitting the 
> Unforgivables, even in time of war, strikes me (sorry to bring 
> politics into this) as a lot closer to the current US 
> administration's attempts to justify torture against "enemy 
> combatants" in the name of peace. Torture -- and the UCs -- lie 
> outside the pale of any civil society and it's use carries the 
> ultimate penalty: loss of the right to call oneself civilized.

Mike:
I too am sorry you brought politics into this. I find the parroting 
of the opposition party line against the "current US administration" 
to be most unuseful. Unless you have specific evidence of "torture" 
that the rest of world has yet to produce, I respectfully suggest you 
refrain from making accusations. And in any case, please keep such 
conversations off this list.

Torture is indeed outside the pale. But the UCs are neither the only 
method of torture, nor does using them necessarily mean you are 
torturing.

Mike