Unforgivables - from a different angle // Power of Love

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 174615

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> 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.

<SNIP>


Alla:

It seems to me that you are making the similar type of argument  
what you claim Mike is 
doing.

You wrote that when you read the text, you see morality everywhere 
and my question is **where exactly** you see it. In short, could you 
provide canon page, please!  One sentence from Sirius is the only 
place where I can 
argue immorality of unforgivables, everything else to me screams 
illegality more and more and not immorality.

Mike in my view provided plenty of canon on the illegality of 
Unforgivables.

And I tend to place ** a lot** of emphasis on what Sirius is saying, 
so by and large I am not really convinced by what Mike is saying yet.

But his argument is canon based through and through as far as I am 
concerned.

Ministry called those curses unforgivables, Ministry is the one who 
allowed Aurors to use it. Are they not immoral anymore in the time 
of need, because Ministry said so?

We also see Dumbledore not seeming to worry much about Snape's soul 
being ripped apart because of AK. We also see that AK is being used 
with benign intent, are we not?

Is it somehow **forgivable** now because Dumbledore **wanted** Snape 
to use it?

Certainly seems to me that the book is saying so.


Mike is also analogised the different results of AK that we saw 
before in the books and what Snape used on DD AND different Crucios 
results.

Oh how I **disliked** the different results of AK argument before 
book 7 - seems I was sooooo wrong.


Lee Kaiwen:
> 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.

Alla:

And I most definitely see those shades of grey that JKR gave us in 
the qualifications of Unforgivables.

Aurors were using them with the blessing of the Ministry AND Snape 
used AK to help Dumbledore to move on the next adventure ( if you 
read my arguments before book 7, you would realise that I am typing 
it with gritting teeth, but all of that seems to be canon to me now)


Lee Kaiwen:
 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.


Alla:

Nope, becoming more and more convinced by Mike's argument that such 
moral component does not exist. But Mike, 
dear, sorry I do not find your explanation about Sirius' words to be 
entirely satisfactory yet ;)

Become as dark and cruel as those on the Dark side seems to me to be 
author speaking and making moral judgment, not Sirius' misguided and 
bitter view :)

Could you try again? ;)

 
JMO,

Alla