Unforgivables - from a different angle

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 174368

> 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). <SNIP>

Alla:

Hmmmm, I had always thought that the concept of Unforgivables is 
immoral as well as illegal, but now I am sitting here and trying to 
figure out what in canon lead me to think that.

Because surely all the reasons you stated and I snipped ( DE in 
disguise introducing curses, Ministry being the one imposing 
sentence in Azkaban, etc) to me should show their illegality and 
really has nothing to do with morality.

Okay, I always attached an importance to what Sirius says about 
their usage by aurors and thought that author's voice about those 
times and especially about Barty Crouch rule in general and him 
allowing aurors to use is not approving.

But now I am rereading this paragraph, it was quoted, but let me 
quote it again for convenience and sort of not sure.


>From GoF "Padfoot returns":

"Well, times like that bring out the best in some people and the 
worst in others. Crouch's principles might've been good in the 
beginning - I wouldn't know.  He rose quickly through the Ministry, 
and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemorts 
supporters.  The Aurors were given new powers - powers to kill 
rather than capture, for instance.  And I wasn't the only one who 
was handed straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought 
violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable 
Curses against suspects.  I would say he became as ruthless and 
cruel as many on the Dark Side.  He had his supporters, mind you - 
plenty of people thought he was going about things the right way, 
and there were a lot of witches and wizards clamoring for him to 
take over as Minister of Magic. When Voldemort disappeared, it 
looked like only a matter of time until Crouch got the top job."

Alla:

Sirius certainly expresses distaste here, but is author with him or 
not? I mean is he speaking for an author here? In light of book 7 I 
am not sure anymore.

Maybe it is indeed the bitterness of the victim of the ministry 
speaking and nothing more? 


Mike: 
> 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.


Alla:

Yes, you certainly did :) and I so vehemently argued that Snape's 
use of AK just must means something. Ooops. Crow is cooking for me.



 
> 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.

Alla:

I would have zero problem with it - it is just I am still struggling 
with whether such moral component is artificial or not. It is that 
sentence from quoted above passage that still buggs at me:


 "Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of 
the Unforgivable Curses against suspects.  I would say he became as 
ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side. " - became as ruthless 
and cruel as many on the Dark side. What is it if not the 
implication that Unforgivables are Immoral despite crouch making 
them legal?

As I mentioned before, I have not had much problem with Harry using 
Unforgivables in the war, I just needed something more extreme than 
spat on Mcgonagall, I am not terribly bothered by it as Harry 
showing his anger, you know?

 
> 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. <SNIP>
>. Of 
> course, the rebounding AK brings us full circle to GH, another 
repeat.


Alla:

Word on that, word. I always thought that Graveyeard may replay 
itself in the end and here we go - beatifully done JKR, beatifully. 
Loved  it :)




 
> Mike:
<SNIP>
>> 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.
> 

Alla:

Yep, yummy crow for me again for difference in Snape AK and wow, I 
did not even realise that Harry's crucio produced a different 
result - still only on first reread of the book  :)

Genuis you :) On the other hand, doesn't Harry say that you have to 
mean them and that is why it works?

Loved your post Mike :)