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

[colebiancardi]

No: HPFGUIDX 174435

 
> Juli: 
> I didn't want to get into the 'Unforgivables' discussion, but here I 
> go...
> 
> Of course Harry used thr unforgivables, he had to. It was all for 
> the 'Greater Good'. If Harry hadn't used the Imperius curse, he would 
> have never retrieved the Goblet Horcrux, Voldemort would have never 
> been killed, the WW would suck. I don't think that Voldie's soul in 
> Harry made him cast those curses, he did it all on his own, and he 
> meant every single one of them. 
> 
>
colebiancardi:

ahhh, the *greater good* argument.  I was waiting for this one to show
up - LOL

Well, there are also those arguments against the *greater good* - such
as "the ends do not justify the means" and "two wrongs don't make a
right".

the Imperius curse.....hmmmmm.  Snape got Dung to do his bidding by
Confunding him.  And that worked fine.  So what is the difference
between the Imperious and Confunding?   Luna got the same results with
her stunning spell on Alecto as Harry's Crucio on Carrow's - but
without the pain.

It goes back to what other posters have stated.  The UC's are twisted
and wrong.  There are other spells that achieve the same result
(expect the AK) without having to twist your moral compass and *mean*
it.  The Crucio - you have to want to be a sadistic SOB to make it
work.  The Imperious - you have to want to be a controlling dicator to
make it stick.  The AK - you have to really really want that person to
be dead and not have any remorse or guilt behind it.

Before DH's release - there were many posts on this board about
Snape's AK on DD.  Many thought that no matter if Snape was DDM and
lived through the second war, he would wind up in Azkaban because of
his use of an UC.  

It is a moral PoV on why the Trio or the Order should not use UC's. 
It is a matter of what the UC's could do to your soul and core of your
being.  

So, IMHO, the *greater good* argument doesn't hold too much sway over
me.  In fact, it leads to the *slippery slope* argument.

I wanted Harry to be above the fray;  to be more resourceful and not
succumb to what Sirius referred to as the Dark Side.  Alla pointed out
this quote before and I do believe it bears repeating:
 
"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 Voldemort's supporters. The
Aurors were given new powers - powers to kill rather than capture, for
instance. And I wasn't the only 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..."
(GoF pg 527 US ed hardback)

Sirius was totally against the Dark Arts, and I do believe that the
Unforgivable Curses were the Dark Arts.  Even Snape, with the
exception of the AK, didn't resort to the UC's in DH.  The only excuse
I can give Snape about him using the AK against DD was that he was in
a room full of Death Eaters and as far as we know, there is no other
spell that kills someone other than the AK.

Quite frankly, I am still not sure Snape *used* an AK - we never got
that question truly answered in this book.  Snape could have just
released DD from the effects of the potion that slowed down DD's
death.  But I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time.

Do I think the Trio or the Order were ultimately harmed by using the
UC's?  I don't know.  We are never privy to the direct aftermath of
the battle - we jump to 19 years later.  


colebiancardi