Unforgivables - from a different angle

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 174394

> 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".  

Alla:

Yes, I said exactly that  upthread - that in earlier books I used to 
think that Unforgivables were not just illegal but immoral as well.

I quoted passage from Sirius, etc. I also have to clarify - I have no 
investment in that issue one way or another, I do not care much 
whether Unforgivables are illegal and immoral, or only illegal.

I am Okay with Harry using that as someone getting his anger get the 
better of him - as in not doing the right thing.

I am satisfied that Harry would not use killing spell like probably 
ever, etc.

So, I forgive him using the Unforgivables, NOT justify that.

The reason why I started doubting it  is  only one reason. I thought 
Mike made a very good argument, that's all.

Therefore now I am **questioning** that the clear message of the 
early books was that Unforgiveables were immoral, that's all.

I am still on that side of the fence, but waffling.

So, let's go back to earlier books. Bella and Crouch Fake - I cannot 
attach too much to their words, just strike me as possible liars.

Sirius - well, yes, I struggle with that passage.

Gran Longbottom does not said though anything that they were tortured 
by Crucio, does she not?

Torture is immoral, but I am just not sure now that the means of said 
torture are what matters or the result.




Leah: 
> 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".


Alla:


Nothing was done to change our view on Unforgivables? In my wildest 
dreams I could not imagine Dumbledore's casual disposal of Snape's 
worry that using AK will split his soul. What is it if not changing 
our views on Unforgivables? Isn't it an indication that intent is 
what matters the most? IMO it is.


Magpie:
<SNIP>
One thing I object to--not in your post--is this idea that Harry's
behaving like a "real person" in this scene, as if to not use a
torture spell on the guy who spit on McGonagall (and for her to not
use Imperius) would somehow make him unable to identify with. This is
silly. Lots of people get through wars without torturing anybody, and
many of the real people reading the story are shocked when he uses
Crucio (just as they're more disturbed by the results of his
Sectumsempra than Harry is). Harry's reactions may be perfectly IC for
Harry but that doesn't mean they're the only way for a character to
behave and be real or human or not a saint.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Well, yeah, definitely not in my post. I am sure there are plenty 
other spells Harry could have used :)


> 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.  <SNIP>

Alla:

I am snipping the rest, because I totally agree with you - torture is 
wrong, killing is wrong, etc. My only issue is that I am no longer 
sure that the **means** of it matter for the potterverse, if it makes 
sense.

Remember how vehemently I argued that Snape's use of AK is what is 
bad in itself?

Um, ooops. Does not look like that to me anymore.

Alla