[HPforGrownups] Unforgivables - from a different angle // Power of Love

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 174607

Mike blessed us with this gem On 06/08/2007 06:25:

> As Captain Jack Sparrow might say, 'We have an accord, 
 > then.' That's all I've been trying to say. It's not the
 > curse it's the caster.

Guess what Mike -- from a moral philosophical view, I agree with you! A 
moral evaluation of any act must account for at least four things: the 
act committed, and the awareness, intent and willingness of the actor. 
That is, the act itself must be objectively bad, the actor must know the 
act is objectively bad, he must intend evil, and he must perform the act 
willingly.

The problem is that none of this is in the books, and all of your 
arguments are simply attempts to shoehorn it in. You're trying to 
connect dots, but you have way too few dots and way too much line. You 
call the moral component an "artificial construct", yet when I read the 
texts I see morality everywhere. You say the UCs are "unforgivable" 
simply because the MoM made them so, and I just don't find that in the 
canon. When I read the canon, I come away with two things: the UCs are 
immoral and they are Unforgivable, and it doesn't really matter if the 
MoM made up the name or not. Whether they're unforgivable because 
they're immoral, or they're unforgivable because they're illegal because 
they're immoral, they are still unforgivable AND immoral. In short, in 
the Potter universe, it IS the curse. Whether it oughta be is a matter 
for discussion, but that's what Rowling wrote.

Sure, it would have been nice if we'd gotten something a bit more 
nuanced from JKR. It would have been great if we'd seen some wrestlings 
with the morality of the UCs. It would have been wonderful if the author 
had attempted to qualify "unforgivable". I don't mind shades of grey, 
really, even in a children's book. I'm not arguing in favor of a black 
and white morality. But that's what JKR, whether through design or 
defect, gave us, and from the looks of things, I'm far from the only one 
to come away with that impression. Even most of the defenders of Harry's 
actions argue in terms of extenuating circumstances ("It's war!" "He's 
human!") without denying the moral tenor.

Lee Kaiwen, who's STILL trying to exit gracefully from this discussion