Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio.

[littleleahstill]

No: HPFGUIDX 174372

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>> Alla:
> 
> Oh my dear God. I just realised something. This is would do as 
> addemdum to my previous post, but may as well stand alone.
> 
> Who said that you should mean them in the first place?  One DE and 
> another DE, no?
> 
> Who said that they were telling the truth. Especially Bella???
> 
> Alla.

Leah
The problem with all of this, Alla, is that the clear message of the 
early books was that the Unforgiveables were just that.  We didn't get 
any presentation of moral or legal ambiguity, we not only got 
CrouchMoody and Bella, we got reinforcement from Sirius, who, as I 
have said could have easily just hinted at another view, we got 
Neville's reaction in CrouchMoody's lesson, we got Gran 
Longbottom, "My son and his wife were tortured into insanity by Death 
Eaters", we got Snape's "No unforgiveables for you, Potter".  

If these curses are suddenly not unforgiveable, if you don't really 
have to want to torture people, or perhaps just torture them a little 
bit, if it was all a setup by the Ministry or the Death Eaters, let's 
see just a little hint of that being set up or reflected on.  This 
isn't just a passing mention like Mark Evans, this is something that 
was a fundamental given of the previous six books.  If it's just that 
it's not ok to crucio decent chaps like Frank Longbottom but perfectly 
ok to let scum like Carrow have it, let's hear McGonagall and Harry 
mention it just once, instead we get a compliment on 'gallantry'.  

Nothing is done to change our view of the Unforgiveables until Harry 
starts Imperioing and Crucioing without a backward glance. It's no 
good everyone sitting on messageboards making up post hoc 
justifications if all we can deduce from the text in which these 
things occur is "It must be ok because these are the really good guys".

Leah