Unforgivables.

[Charles Walker Jr]

No: HPFGUIDX 173105

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie"
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
> 
> 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
>
Charles:
Oh, can we bring real life into this? It's more like those people who
want to hold the British government up as an example of morality when
discussing what has not even actually been proven to happen at
Guantanamo Bay. The British Government has been known to use torture
right through the 1980's in the case of suspects believed to be
involved with the IRA. Google Gerry Conlon if you want to know about
just one story.

Other spells can be used for torture in the books besides cruciatus,
yet that is the one called unforgivable. Why? Because that is the one
that the ministry decided earned you a life sentence in Azkaban. More
below, from one who wasn't just trying (and failing) to make me look
foolish. 

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> Charles Walker Jr blessed us with this gem On 26/07/2007 19:11:
> 
> > My point is that legality and morality are two different things. The
> > unforgivables are called that because of legality, not morality. 
> 
> CJ:
> I, for one, couldn't disagree more. We're talking about the KILLING 
> CURSE here, not jaywalking, as if murder were being outlawed just for 
> convenience.
Charles:
Actually, what I was talking about is the fact that the name
unforgivable stems from the law, not from morality. If you are going
to claim that killing is unforgivable from the good guys in any case,
you need to book yourself a nice room with padded walls, because life
is going to drive you crazy.
> 
> > Charles Walker Jr:
> >legality and morality are often at odds with each other, and that it
> > is often difficult to discern which one is which.
> 
> CJ:
> Don't obfuscate, please. "Often" is a long way from "always". The UCs 
> are unforgivable precisely BECAUSE on these there IS absolute moral
clarity.
> 
> Put another way, the absolute legal finality (the "un" in 
> "unforgivable") of the UCs can only be a reflection of their absolute 
> moral finality.
Charles:
So we're to believe that the ministry got it right here? Are we also
to believe that Werewolves are undeniably evil, all non-humans are to
be subjugated, and that muggle-borns steal their magic from purebloods?

> 
> >Charles Walker Jr:
> > By the time Harry casts the first UC in DH we know that laws 
> > are pointless at this point.
> 
> CJ:
> More obfuscation. "Laws are pointless" is a statement of absolute 
> anarchy. What we know is, at most, that SOME laws may have become
pointless.
> 
Charles: 
Which laws would you have us obey? Are we to carry a list into the
heat of battle and check against it before casting? Or should we
consider turning in some muggle-borns? How about order members? Harry
himself? He is "Undesirable No. 1" after all. That should get us
safely back into the realm of legality. Yes it is a statement of
anarchy. Anarchy is the only way to fight against a totalitarian
institution. When that institution has fallen is the time to institute
sensible laws. 

Further, the legality of an action does not directly relate to its
morality. In the US, one can legally smoke tobacco but not marijuana.
Does that mean that there is something morally better about tobacco?
Or something morally corrupt about marijuana? Hardly. Some
intersections have signs saying that no u-turn is allowed. Does that
mean it is morally wrong to make a u-turn there? No. (It may well be
foolish and dangerous, but not morally wrong.)

> >Charles Walker Jr:
> > Harry doesn't sit and torture people with the cruciatus curse, 
> > he uses it, rather effectively, to neutralize an attacker.
> 
> CJ:
> An attacker!? Amycus Carrow was Crucio'd by Harry for the offense of 
> spitting on McGonagall. Unless you're assuming "Amycus spun around" is 
> to be interpreted as threatening (a debatable point). But even that 
> hardly explains why a simple Expelliarmus wouldn't have sufficed.
>
Charles:
It might well have. There was a heat of the moment situation there.
Perhaps I spoke wrongly in calling him an attacker. He was, however an
enemy, and a dangerous one. The enemy was neutralized, effectively,
and with little to no lasting damage. Or are you telling me that
Amycus Carrow, who had been torturing students for
fun all year was no threat?

CJ: 
> And since you've referred to GoF, I think we ought to take a look at
the 
> passage that describes the alleged lifting of the ban on the UCs. On 
> pages 526-7 of the paperback, Sirius describes the situation to
Harry<snip> It was part and parcel with an excessive ruthlessness 
> that left the "good" guys hardly distinguishable from the enemy.
Charles:
And as much as I like Sirius, I think we have to look at the source.
Sirius was a man who was condemned to Azkaban by the person he is
talking about. He also has very little life experience as an adult
able to analyze things from that perspective. He has spent the vast
majority of his adult life under the influence of dementors.

What I may have said badly last night, and am not sure I can get it
across to some at all, is that legality and morality are two different
things. Legality pertains only to actions. Morality pertains to
reasons. Not all killing is murder. Use of the AK in a war situation
is quite a bit different from stepping into the Three Broomsticks and
pointing your wand at someone and green-lighting their soul beyond the
veil. Molly finishing Bellatrix on the battlefield is a hell of a lot
different than Tommy boy finishing Dad, Grandma, and Grandpa for revenge. 

Harry using a short blast of crucio to incapacitate Amycus Carrow is a
hell of a lot different from Bellatrix torturing Frank and Alice
Longbottom to a lifetime stay at St. Mungo's (Note: that one might
have been considered a war situation if LV's power had not already
been broken and the war was considered over). 

Harry using the imperius on Bogrod and Travers is a lot different from
LV,PP and BCjunior using the imperius to keep BCsenior imprisoned.

But what all these have in common is that in each case, according to
the law, the caster has earned a life sentence in Azkaban. I think any
clear minded thinker will see the differences in these situations and
would not want Molly or Harry in Azkaban. Then again, I've been wrong
before. 

Charles, wondering why people are so dependent on legality to know
right from wrong-and hoping it can be cured.