Unforgivables - from a different angle

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 174454

> Maeg,
> 
> So why does the WW call them the "Unforgivable" Curses? Why not 
> just call them the "Illegal" Curses? JKR chose that word, and I 
> don't think it was chosen lightly. If it was just about the law, 
> then why bring a highly charged, emotional word like  
> "unforgivable" into it?  <snip> 

Mike:
"Illegal" Curses doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. ;) These three 
curses have their own names, then they get this additional name 
tacked on. By who? Who does JKR envision naming these three as UCs? I 
suggested it was the Ministry, not the WW in general. I also 
suggested it was a legal construct, which I think is confirmed when 
Sirius informed the Trio that Crouch Sr authorized their use by his 
aurors.

Crouch!Moody was the one that told us they garnered one an automatic 
life sentence. At the time we all assumed it was coming from Moody 
the Auror. Can we not reassess this statement in light of the fact 
that it was delivered by a convicted DE? Because it certainly doesn't 
seem that they are truly "unforgivable", does it? Crouch Jr said they 
were OK for his aurors. Umbridge, a Ministry official, was prepared 
to use one in front of 12 witnesses. And Dumbledore seemed to think 
it was OK for Snape to use one on himself. 

I am forced to conclude that "Unforgivable" was a Ministry 
manufactured legal construct, that the Ministry could also suspend. 
Please remember, it is the curses themselves that are named 
unforgivable, not murder, torture nor mind control. I am not arguing 
in favor of murder, torture or mind control as acceptable, I am 
arguing against these three curses themselves being what is morally 
unacceptable. More below on this.


> Alla:

> Hmmmm, I had always thought that the concept of Unforgivables is
> immoral as well as illegal, but now I am sitting here and trying
> to figure out what in canon lead me to think that.

> Because surely all the reasons you stated and I snipped ( DE in
> disguise introducing curses, Ministry being the one imposing
> sentence in Azkaban, etc) to me should show their illegality and
> really has nothing to do with morality.

---and---

> 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 Crouch!Moody 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".

Mike:
As I said above, we were distinctly told by Sirius that the Ministry 
itself allowed it's employees to perform Unforgivables. Doesn't that 
argue against this artificial name? How can they be "unforgivable" if 
their use can be forgiven by the people that gave them the name and  
enforce the unforgivableness?

If Bella and company had tortured the Longbottoms by tying them up 
and using Aguamenti for water torture, do you think Gran would be 
less outraged over her son and daughter-in-law's insanity? IOW, isn't 
it the fact that the Longbottoms were **tortured** that matters and 
not what curse was used? Gran didn't even mention the curse.

And in light of Snape's own moral ambiguity, plus the fact that he 
had just used one himself not for sinister design, I now greatly 
discount his words to Harry in HBP. I too thought JKR was giving us a 
clue with Snape's words. Turns out I was wrong, turns out it was 
another red herring. And it turns out TEWW EWWW was Snape's ultimate 
moral compass. Snape's credibility is greatly diminished in my eyes.


> Mike earlier:
> Throw out the artificial moral construct attached to the UCs,
> would you still have a problem with how and why Harry uses 
> Imperious here?

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>

Mike:
Yes Sherry, I agree with you and said so in my previous post and in 
this post above. Murder, torture and mind enslavement are what is 
wrong. But wizards don't think logically they think magically. They 
didn't make torture unforgivable they made the Crutiatus Curse 
unforgivable because it *can* be used to torture. By extension, that 
means water torture with Aguamenti is not prohibited by this law, at 
least it's not unforgivable.

You and I find this absurd, of course torture is wrong under any 
method. That's our morality talking. But I didn't hear anybody from 
the Ministry saying that. Why? I submit it's because they think 
magically, they zero in on spells not on moral constructs. And that's 
why I consider the unforgivables legally prohibited, not morally 
prohibited. 

It should be how and why one uses the curses that determine their 
legality. Likewise, I submit we should look at any spell in context 
to determine the morality, and not assume that simply because the 
ministry labelled them "Unforgivable" their use must automatically be 
considered morally bankrupt.


> Alla:

I would have zero problem with it - it is just I am still struggling
with whether such moral component is artificial or not. <snip>

"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. " - became as ruthless
and cruel as many on the Dark side. What is it if not the
implication that Unforgivables are Immoral despite Crouch making
them legal?

---and---

> Sherry cont.:

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.

Mike:
I spoke to both of your concerns in my previous post. Let me 
elaborate further. 

It is my contention that the spell caster's intent matters in magic 
and that the same spell can be used by different wizards for 
different effects because of their intent. Bella said this in the MoM 
fight about the unforgivables and Harry mimiced her in the Ravenclaw 
common room against Carrow with the same spell. I also purported that 
one's magical strength (Sirius called it being "powerfully magical" 
in GoF) determines not only the strength of the spell but also how 
the spell manifests itself.

Was Harry attempting to *torture* Carrow? Or was he attempting to 
incapacitate Carrow with a spell that also caused pain? The result:

"The Death Eater was lifted off his feet. He writhed through the air 
like a drowning man, thrashing and howling in pain, and then, with a 
crunch and a shattering of glass, he smashed into the front oa a 
bookcase and crumpled, insensible, to the floor." <DH p. 593, US ed.>

We saw LV crucio Wormtail, Avery and Harry in Gof, Bella got Neville 
in OotP and Yaxley did Harry in HBP. None of these caused the victim 
to "writhe through the air". So was Harry trying to torture Carrow, 
or was he using Crucio to incapacitate Carrow with the added benefit 
of causing pain? 

It should be obvious what I think Harry's intent was. I think he was 
going for incapacitation. Voldemort wasn't trying to incapacitate 
with his, he wanted to cause pain and wanted his victims conscious to 
experience that pain. Even if others disagree with intent, I find it 
a stretch to call Harry's Crucio *torture*. It certainly no way 
approaches what Bella and Company did to the Longbottoms.


> Leah: 
<snip>
Crucio is a spell which, properly used, causes extreme pain in the 
victim. There is no purpose in casting Crucio other than in causing 
extreme pain. If you use Crucio you must intend to intend to cause 
them pain. I can't think of a reason for using Crucio other than for 
the intent to cause pain when other spells such as Stupefy etc etc 
exist.

Mike:
After Narcissa lied to Voldemort and said Harry was dead, what did 
Voldemort do? He hit Harry with several Crucios. Harry said LV did it 
to subject his body to humiliation. And though Harry was actually 
alive, he felt little pain. He was also lifted off the ground by 
these Crucios. 

It seems that Voldemort's intent mattered as to how these Crucios 
manifested themselves, similiar to what Harry's intent up in the 
Ravenclaw Tower did to Carrow. Not exact because their intents were 
not the same, but similiar. Would one argue that Voldemort does not 
know how to properly use a Crutiatus Curse? Or is it possible that 
one can use the same curse for different intents, to achieve 
different outcomes?

I would like to respond to more regarding the use of unforgivables. 
But it's getting late and this post is long enough. :)

Mike
PS - Yours was one Magpie, hope to get back to you tomorrow. ;)