A Sense of Betrayal

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 172660

Debi blessed us with this gem On 25/07/2007 09:06:

>  > "But I thought they were bad?"
>  >
>  > He was referring to the Unforgivable Curses. From Wikipedia:
> 
> In our reality, murder is bad, yet we have wars were many die and are killed
> and we honor or veterans who have murdered many.

Except that killing in wartime isn't considered murder; certainly we 
don't put soldiers on trial for killing, within the acceptable bounds 
for war.

Debi:
> I belive its the same in the WW, Unforgivable Curses are very very bad, but
> in extreme circumstances acceptable, as in the war against Voldemort.

Some have argued that, as the ban on the curses was lifted during 
Voldemort's first war, they were either lifted again, or the first 
lifting was still implicitly in effect during the second war. But I see 
too many problems with this theory:

First, there is no indication in DH that the ban was lifted. A single 
sentence from JKR would have sufficed to inform us, but there is none.

Second, if the ban had been lifted (or the original lifting reinstated) 
we really should have seen a lot MORE of them from the good guys.

Third, this theory is tantemount, to my ears, to saying murder can 
become acceptable simply by repealing the laws against it. But, in fact, 
murder is not wrong because it's illegal; it's illegal because it's 
wrong. Making it legal doesn't make it OK.

Fourth, even if the Unforgivables had been made extraordinarily 
acceptable, one would still expect at least a bit of moral distaste from 
people who had been raised all their lives to believe the UCs were 
wrong. Yet when Harry begins throwing the UCs around, he shows not the 
slightest moral compunction about it. When Hermione at Gringott's urges 
Harry to Imperius the goblins, she might at least have paid lip service 
to the moral component by prefixing her suggestion with, "I know it's 
wrong Harry, but we don't have a choice." It really seems a case of the 
whole moral component of the UCs having simply evaporated into the ether 
somewhere around the latter half of HBP.

Fifth, fast forward to the climactic battle: there's Harry, standing 
mano a mano with the greatest and most evil wizard of all time, with the 
fate (and the eyes) of the entire wizarding world squarely on him. What 
more compelling case could ever be made for the extraordinary use of the 
killing curse? And what does this boy, Harry, who has already 
demonstrated no moral compunctions over two of three UCs, choose? 
Expelliarmus. Makes no sense.

Sixth, the Ministry of Magic had fallen to Voldemort. Absolutely the 
first act of the new Ministry, assuming the ban had ben lifted, would 
have been to reinstate it. 'Nuff said.

Finally, this theory still doesn't save Snape. He used the Avadra 
Kedavra not against the enemy, not in self-defense, but against an 
already-disarmed Dumbledore.

Debi:
> Sadly, we could never win a war without killing, How can we expect the WW
> to be any different?

Killing in war is a tragic necessity. But permitting the Unforgivables, 
even in time of war, strikes me (sorry to bring politics into this) as a 
lot closer to the current US administration's attempts to justify 
torture against "enemy combatants" in the name of peace. Torture -- and 
the UCs -- lie outside the pale of any civil society and it's use 
carries the ultimate penalty: loss of the right to call oneself civilized.

At least, that's what I got from descriptions of the UCs in books 1 - 5.

CJE Culver, Taiwan