[HPforGrownups] Re: Unforgivables - from a different angle

[Sherry Gomes]

No: HPFGUIDX 174377

> 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.



Sherry:

Yes, I would, and I do.  And I am and always have been a Harry supporter,
and he's my favorite character.  I've never argued that the simple
illegality of the Unforgivable Curses is what should prevent people using
them.  Taking away someone's will, basically, a magical form of mind
control, is wrong, morally wrong.  Torturing someone, for *any* reason is
wrong, morally wrong, to me anyway.  It's never acceptable, unlike the way
killing can be acceptable in time of war, or by law enforcement or in
self-defense.  My objection was always based on my view of what the previous
morality of the books had been, not on anything to do with the Ministry and
its supposed laws.  I'm not objecting to anything else the Trio did on the
basis of its ministry approval or lack thereof.  I was deeply disappointed
that Harry could so easily stoop to using the weapons of his enemies.  Mind
control and torture just aren't excusable, to me at least.  I love Harry,
but DH did end up having absolutely no heroes in the end in some ways for
me, and in other ways it was loaded with them, because most of my real life
heroes are people I know well who are deeply flawed individuals.  

Sherry