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

[Angel Lima]

No: HPFGUIDX 174431

Alla:

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???

Angel:

Actually it was Harry - when he himself failed at the Crucio he 
cast at Bella who expounded on why.

When I say fail - I mean in the same sense that Hermione fails or 
'has a problem' with the Patronus charm.

Which come to think of it - is weird, there has never been an 
implication of "unhappiness" in her life, why then she excels 
at all other spells and flounders on Expecto Patronum is worrying 
especially since evil Umbridge cast a corporeal cat that though 
not as bright and warm as Harry's stag still created a barrier 
of warmth and light from the Dementors (even with Voldemort 
close to her heart, so to speak). Because I had earlier assumed 
the Patronus was innately good magic that cannot be tapped into 
by impure entities I am rebuffing the explanation Harry gave of 
Umbridge enthralled with her power (over people) thus able to 
cast a Patronus, but of course things were a bit topsy turvy 
in DH so would accept otherwise!

Perhaps Nietzsche puts this in better light and paraphrasing here: 
'take care he who fights with monsters lest he himself 
becomes a monster' which is the problem with Harry that I am 
glad am not the only one to see. I have never liked Harry (he 
was obnoxious lol) but in DH Rowling "asserted her morals". 
She said so! 

She made Hermione go out of her way, risk their capture to pay 
for groceries they had nicked etc. Harry developed these giant 
leaps of faith, he started to question what he was told, he 
dropped the ego considerably, his compassion grew leaps and 
bounds even if it came out unkind as was in the case with Remus, 
we understood Harry was right. The problem though is, those 
things could have been subjectively judged "right" - they 
needed food to survive, they did not damage property, break 
in or anything, - they took food from a supermarket, a farm or 
other. Much like taking Remus would not have been too hard to 
explain away, but no Harry was in the absolute right then!

Casting a Crucio - torture, Imperio - mind control, (even 
Obliterario - brain wash) could never subjectively be argued 
'right' imo whether they be Latin or Aramaic (Hebrew?) - 
apologies I struggle enough with English <g>. 

Perhaps the AK was the pinnacle of the three, but that would 
still imply Harry had his leg on two rungs of a three rung 
ladder.

Apologies for my verbosity but would just like to add something 
about Moody.

I thought it was a brilliant stroke to have a Death Eater 
impersonate the Auror that would not stoop to the use of 
these Unforgivables. The trio often dreamt up ways of sticking 
it to Draco but the process never passed thought. It was a 
Death Eater who actually dealt Draco his due for reasons then 
unknown to the trio. That demonstration of "good" vs "evil" 
renders my heart in subtlety and beauty.

Then BANG! Harry jests at his successful Crucio!