Unforgivables.

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 173129

> > 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. 


> Charles:
> Oh, can we bring real life into this? 
Magpie:
Sorry, we won't bring real life into it--so I'll snip further 
discussion of real life torture.

Which is fine, because I disagree with your stance on the fictional 
level as well. I think that the Unforgivables were presented with 
moral implications in canon and were not just arbitrarily illegal. I 
also don't see any connection between ignoring the Ministry's laws on 
discriminating against Muggle-borns and thinking Crucio is a fine 
thing to do. What I was also mostly disagreeing with was the idea 
that anyone who had a problem with Harry's use of Crucio was doing so 
because they were following Ministry guidelines. It seems to me that 
obviously their concerns are based on their own ethical feelings 
about the curse and Harry's character and not any worry about the 
curses being illegal. That's why it seemed so bizarre to bring in the 
Ministry's laws on Muggle-borns as if it was in any way connected. 


Charles:
> 
> 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. 

Magpie:
Whether or not the Unforgivables get you a lifetime in prison is a 
different issue than the one people brought up about Harry that I 
read. I agree with you that it seems a bit superstitious to just name 
these three spells unforgivable--but I thought your characterization 
of the problem people equally made people look foolish. I just don't 
think the problem with unforgivables ever had to do with the fact 
that the Ministry named them unforgivable. You seemed to be 
dismissing the idea that torture had ethical implications at all 
independent of the Ministry's labelling this one particular spell 
Unforgivable.

And I'm still disagreeing with the way you seem to be (and correct me 
if I'm wrong) first pointing out that the Ministry's views on the law 
can be wrong, and yet also talking about it like the only 
consideration about this stuff is what the Ministry thinks. For 
instance, by saying:


> 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? 

Magpie:
I thought the problem people had with Harry casting Crucio was that 
they figured he carried around his own morality (not a book of laws) 
with him, and that morality was tied to his not wanting to torture. 
They thought, given what the attitude towards this was before in 
canon, that their hero's not wanting that was part of what made him a 
hero. Obviously this was not true for Rowling, but I've yet to see 
anyone who was disturbed by Harry's Crucio being disturbed because he 
broke a Ministry law. (Hell, I've been saying for years that the 
whole "anyone who throws an Unforgivable goes to jail forever because 
they're considered so bad" wasn't true anyway.)

It seems like you're arguing two things here--one is arguing that law 
=/=morality. The other is defending the use of torture. I think 
people have more trouble with the second than the first. People who 
have trouble with Harry's Crucio that I've seen seem to be objecting 
to it on those terms, especially because of the scene in which its 
presented--unlike the use of Imperio (which in itself is a different 
spell with different implications) earlier. 

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

Magpie:
I don't think any of them are. Maybe I'm not following the thread 
clearly, but I don't see anybody making this argument, just your 
arguing against it. People are responding by talking about why they 
think the Unforgivables should be illegal based on morality, but I 
just really don't think anybody is worried about their legality.

-m