Unforgivables.

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 172983

Charles:
> I have read multiple posts with people upset that the good guys 
were
> casting unforgivables. Well, let us analyze this just a little bit.
> Who named the unforgivables? The ministry. These are the folks who
> have committed the vast majority of the wrongs in the wizarding 
world
> for many years. Are they nice spells? No. Should there be a 
mandatory
> life sentence for their use? Probably not. I think that anyone who
> thinks that Harry and the folks on his side should stick to 
ministry
> regulations better take a look at what that ministry made possible.
> 
> Anyone complaining about the use of "unforgivables" by the good 
side
> needs to think about the other laws of the wizarding world that the
> good side broke. Hmmm....Hermione existed. Ted Tonks existed. Remus
> Lupin existed. Harry Potter stayed free.
> 
> My point is that legality and morality are two different things. 
The
> unforgivables are called that because of legality, not morality. I
> think JKR must just have been too damn subtle on that point. I got 
it
> clear back in GOF. Hidden in the subtext of GOF is the fact that
> legality and morality are often at odds with each other, and that 
it
> is often difficult to discern which one is which. OOTP showed 
clearly
> that legality must sometimes be tossed completely out the window 
for
> morality's sake. (Hence my refusal to ever forgive Hermione for her
> use of the term "Ministry approved" in HBP.)By the time Harry casts
> the first UC in DH we know that laws are pointless at this point. 
The
> situation is not one where laws and niceties can be observed, it is
> one of survival. Harry doesn't sit and torture people with the
> cruciatus curse, he uses it, rather effectively, to neutralize an
> attacker. Overkill, maybe, but not unforgivable by a longshot. His
> uses of the imperius curse in Gringott's are not for personal gain 
or
> nefarious purposes. Hell, he doesn't want a damn thing but to get 
the
> horcrux so that he can defeat the guy causing so much death and
> destruction in the world. And people are going to attack over a 
goblin
> and a death eater being forced to comply for a few minutes? I'm 
sorry,
> but it seems that those people are the type that believe Rita
> Skeeter's stuff over everything else in the books.


Magpie:
Yeah, people are really silly for thinking that there could be a 
moral implication to Unforgivable spells--especially one that's a 
torture spell--when it's really just illegal. That must be the 
problem people have with the spells--that they're illegal by 
Ministry standards--since torture has no moral implications in 
itself and is very effective for neturalizing enemies in fiction. 
It's like those people who keep complaining about the use of torture 
in real life--as Judge Scalia says, "Are you going to convict Jack 
Bauer?" Besides, in GoF we were being told about the Ministry 
approving of Unforgivables in the past. Now the Ministry doesn't 
approve--so obviously if you're going to break the laws by keeping 
Muggle-borns out of jail you have to also break the laws against 
using Unforgivables. 

-m