Unforgivables

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 174576

Matt> remember that your original complaint was that Rowling had
Matt> been "inconsistent" by neglecting in DH the *reasons* that
Matt> the unforgivable curses are unforgivable:

I'm afraid you have misconstrued my original complaint. Here are the 
first words I posted on this subject, from a message entitled "A Sense 
of Betrayal":

LK> Moral Inconsistency
LK> ----- -------------

LK> But I thought they were bad?

LK> My 11-year-old actually asked me this as we read HP7 together,
LK> and I had no answer except to say I thought JKR was wrong.

LK> He was referring to the Unforgivable Curses.

LK> ...

LK> The thing is, I had had more than one discussion with my son
LK> previously about what made the Unforgivables unforgivable....

Note that I opened my discussion with my son's question, which concerns 
itself only with the flip-flop on the moral status of the UCs, not on 
the reasons behind their status.

In fact, I don't recall ever complaining about JKR neglecting the 
reasoning, though I did once note that she never provided any. My entire 
complaint was, and continues to be, that the whole moral arc of the UCs 
is neglected, and finally set aside in DH.

Since many of the points of your message were predicated on a 
misconstrual of my argument, I consider the above sufficient reply to them.

LK> US, which still permits capital punishment, the form of
LK> death is chosen to be as humane as possible.....

Matt> Right, but as your example points out, the only moral criteria
Matt> usually applied in this sort of a circumstance are humaneness
Matt> to the deceased and no potential danger to others.

I'm afraid you're inferring too much here. Three points. First, "no
potential danger to others" were your words (not that I disagree; I'd
just rather stick to things I did say :-) ). Second, I did not say
"only". And third, the example of capital punishment was intended only
to support my assertion that justifying killing does not justify any
FORM of killing. To try to find in it some sort of definitive list of
moral criteria is to burden it with more than it was intended to bear.

Matt> wasn't your whole point from the beginning that we should
Matt> focus on the reason for the unforgivable curses being
Matt> unforgivable?

I'm afraid not. See above.

Matt> That was why you said that Harry's attempt to
Matt> use the same curse on Snape was "understandable" in a way
Matt> that you said Snape's killing of Dumbledore never could be.

I always try to choose my words carefully. I said that Harry's attempt 
at the AK in book six was "understandable", in that I meant it was to 
some degree sympathetic. Please don't mistake "understandable" for 
"forgivable" in any sense.

Matt> Now, you seem to be retreating to labels.

Ah, labels. Labels are very important. Wars have been fought over them. 
Societies have been torn asunder by them. And Harry Potter discussion 
groups have been filled with debates over them.

Here's a label. It's not my label. It's JKR's: Unforgivable.

As I read the word, I take away two essential points. First, forgiveness 
is a moral quality, not legal. The legal equivalent is justification 
(from Latin "iustitia", whence our modern word justice). Second, 
unforgivable has but one meaning: "Cannot be forgiven". If you think I'm 
hiding behind JKR's words, or reading too much into them, then perhaps 
your beef is more with her than it is with me. She is, after all, a 
wordsmith, and should understand the impact of her words.

But I will note that I'm far from the only person to take JKR at her 
labels. Harry Potter discussions all over the Internet are filled with 
this same discussion led by other people who also thought "unforgivable" 
meant it.

I'll address a number of your other points in a separate posting to 
Matt, entitled, "Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables".

Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan