Unforgivables - from a different angle

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 174538

> Magpie:
> I think everyone should have a problem with it. Even if you are
> ultimately okay with the use of Imperius due to the circumstances,
> that doesn't take away moral construct, because it was never
> artificial.
> 
> Mike now:
> This is what I don't get. Most everyone thinks that murder, 
torture, 
> and mind enslavement are the things that are morally wrong. You 
said 
> it yourself just above. But those aren't what's unforgivable, the 
> spells are, and then again they aren't when the Ministry wants to 
use 
> them. 
> 
> Spells don't have morals, spell casters supply that component, good 
> or bad. Just because the DEs told us how they use them, we have to 
> agree that anyone using them has crossed a moral boundary? Because 
a 
> Death Eater would use Imperious to cause bad things to happen, it 
> can't be used to cause good things to happen? Because a Death Eater 
> would use Crucio for torturing via intense pain, it can't be used 
for 
> anything less than torture? Because Voldemort uses Avada Kedavra to 
> murder innocents, good wizards can't use the same spell to kill 
Death 
> Eaters in a time of war?

Magpie:
I think I'm giving a false impression of what my own view actually 
is, because I haven't actually given it, really. I really got into 
the conversation because I thought I understood the view other people 
were putting forth where they thought the Unforgivables had been 
presented as something that good guys didn't do--and certainly didn't 
do casually.

My own thoughts on them is that okay, they were presented in GoF as a 
big deal, I think because they represent these bad impulses in their 
purest form. Presumably forcing people to do things against their 
will in other ways is just as bad--it's just that since these spells 
represent that crime in its essence, they're illegal in themselves. 
In OotP when Harry almost used one and couldn't I thought this was a 
sign that Harry was in danger of being swallowed up by hate--because 
they require you to tap into parts of yourself that are objectively 
bad. This is why I don't think Crucio can be that casual--it is a 
torture spell, imo, because it's done out of the sadistic desire to 
enjoy someone's incredible pain.

However, in HBP I began to see that the UF really weren't as bad as 
fandom seemed to assume. I never thought, for instance, that Draco 
was in big trouble and would be put in jail for using or trying to 
use one. Crucio in particular seemed to be something that teenage 
boys tried to throw when they were angry--it was like throwing your 
pain at another person. However again, I had OotP as a guide that 
however they tried to throw it like that, a true Crucio was actually 
sadistic and came from another place.

In DH I think Rowling did sweep away *a lot* of the stuff that was 
there before by having Harry use it that way. Either she had suddenly 
decided that this was a spell that didn't require you to have an 
inner sadist, or else it was okay for Harry to have one. 

I do think that the UVs have a moral component outside the Ministry--
nobody in fandom cares what the Ministry says or bases their 
judgments on what the Ministry says. They were basing this stuff on 
things like McG talking about DD being too "noble" to use certain 
methods, and Sirius imo very reasonable claim that when Crouch 
authorized their use and started using them a lot he dropped to the 
level of DEs.

The spells all have a moral component, imo, because even though there 
are other ways to do all the things they do, the spells represent 
these acts in their pure state: taking away someone else's will, 
causing torturous pain (we've been on the receiving end of Crucio 
from Harry's pov and to me saying that when Harry uses it it's just a 
quick way of incapacitating someone--which can be done more humanely--
gets into an area I think is already disturbing in the books, where 
the pain of the good guys is just more serious than pain in bad 
guys), and killing someone. I can see situations where the Imperius 
and AK might still get used where I might think it was okay--they 
both have practical uses. Sometimes you really might have to kill 
somebody or force them to do something. I think the moral component 
is still *there*--you're doing something serious when you use them. 
You just might feel it's necessary. Avoiding the smaller wrong might 
lead to a bigger one.

Bizarrely, in the Ravenclaw common room, none of this is true. Harry 
and McGonagall both use these spells for the pure pleasure of them. 
While I completely respect your not considering JKR's interview on 
this as canon, the only reason I would refer to her in this case is 
because I think her answer is reflected in canon. It's defensive and 
not really an answer--Harry's not a saint.

Mike:
> Why do I have to accept the Death Eater explanation of how to use 
> these three spells as the definitive word and therefore assign them 
a 
> moral component, when we *know* that intent is a major component of 
> these spells? Because the Ministry named them "Unforgivable"? Even 
> though the same Ministry can make them "forgivable" if they so 
choose.

Magpie:
I accept it because canon gives me no reason not to accept it and 
plenty of reasons to accept it. Barty and Bellatrix both love these 
spells and it's not OOC for them to want to brag about them and teach 
them. (DEs are also teaching the spells at Hogwarts.) Harry himself, 
once he performs one, iirc, even says Bellatrix was right. Making it 
not true in DH, rather than making Harry's actions make sense, just 
seems to make the whole thing sloppy and inconsistent. So not 
believing the DEs in this case to me just seems to much like not 
liking the way things are presented and re-writing things to get a 
better answer in one isolated scene--at least for me. I consider 
Bellatrix and Barty perfectly credible witnesses for this 
information, there's no scenes where somebody disproves it, iirc 
Harry himself verifies it once he's done a Crucio successfully. So 
why would it be wrong?

 
> > Leah once more:
> > As I and others have said, the very distinct impression given by 
> > Sirius' narrative is that whether the Unforgiveables have been 
made 
> > legal or not by the Ministry, their use has a detrimentally moral 
> > effect on users.
> 
> Mike:
> Sirius will forever be my favorite HP character. But I read his 
> speech in GoF as a condemnation of Crouch Sr more than his aversion 
> to the UCs. In that same talk Sirius evinces the utmost respect for 
> Mad Eye, saying he never killed unless he had to. Which means 
Sirius 
> knew, as do we from a Pensieve scene, that Moody did kill and that 
he 
> most probably used the AK to do it. Yet Sirius doesn't seem to have 
a 
> problem with a justified use of an AK. Sirius takes the same 
position 
> that I'm outlining, the usage and not the spell is what determines 
> whether it is morally detrimental, imo. 

Magpie:
I agree with that view as well-and I don't think Sirius' admiring Mad-
Eye contradicts or weakens what he said about the use of them in 
general. He sees that there are times when killing is necessary (for 
those who believe the spells themselves are bad because of the 
intent, we don't know how Moody killed) and admires Moody because he 
only does it when he had to, like a good policeman or soldier. But 
even he who sees that still sees a danger in using the spells just to 
fight fire with fire. He says that Moody never killed unless he had 
to, perhaps implying that the trouble with Crouch was that he lost 
sight of when he "had to" and just concentrated on satisfying his 
hatred on DEs in the most painful ways possible. (That's kind of what 
it sounds like.) So Harry using the UF doesn't, imo, go against 
Sirius' advice because he's used one at all, but it does go against 
it that he and McG are now using them out of vengeance and not 
because they have to.


> > Carol responds:
> > Why?  <snip> Snape actually says, "No Unforgiveable Curses from
> > you, Potter! You haven't got the nerve or the ability!" 
> > (HBP Am. ed. 602). Having just killed Albus Dumbledore against
> > his will, summoning the "nerve" and the "ability" to "mean" a
> > curse he didn't want to cast, <snip>
> 
> Mike:
> You know I don't like Snape, Carol. ;) But it's the hypocrisy of 
> Snape telling Harry that he can't use a UC when he has just used 
one. 
> Snape has just proved that one can use the worst (imo) UC for a 
noble 
> purpose, yet he's telling Harry he can't do the same. We both 
thought 
> that this was a clue and a final attempt at teaching. It turns out 
it 
> wasn't, so I reassessed my reading of this passage.

Magpie:
Actually, Snape isn't necessarily being hypocritical there at all, 
given his position. He's damned himself and is trying to protect 
Harry; it would make perfect sense for his view to be that he has 
done this bad thing but that Harry shouldn't because Snape's already 
damned, and didn't want to use the UF to begin with, while Harry is 
the one being protected for a different job. Not that I'm saying 
that's what Snape has to be doing, just saying that Snape's whole 
position in canon is that his role is different from Harry's. 

> Mike, who found himself much less impressed with the character of 
> Severus Snape once it was revealed he did it all for the love of 
Lily

-m (who had the same experience as Mike on that one)