A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables

[Matt]

No: HPFGUIDX 173373

Lee Kaiwen wrote about the "moral inconsistency" of characters
portrayed as "good" using the unforgiveable curses, beginning with
Snape (and Harry's attempt) at the end of HBP, and continuing through
DH.  I've reproduced a lengthy excerpt from Lee's post at the end of
this message, and I'll respond to individual points after these
general comments:

1) That a morality is not absolutist does not make it inconsistent.  I
can say that "killing is wrong except in self-defense"; the exception
is part of the normative rule, not an inconsistency.  

2) The morality of an adult, operating in the adult world, is
frequently more nuanced than the moral rules that are typically (or
appropriately) taught to children.  Sometimes this is because moral
principles come into conflict; sometimes it is because, even in the
most absolutist normative systems, the morality of particular actions
may depends on the surrounding circumstances.  

How do those points bear on the use of unforgivables in the last two
books?  I would assert that what is disconcerting about the morality
expressed in DH (and to a greater or lesser extent since OP) is that
the characters are faced with more difficult moral choices.  It is
much easier to disagree on the nuances of morality exposed by those
choices than with basic principles expressed in the early books of the
series.  And in many cases, even where the morality is relatively
clear, we see characters making choices that we are intended to
question.  These books (HBP and DH) are telling a war story, not a
more innocent tale about the adventures of eleven-year-olds.  

On to Lee's examples --

A) Snape and Harry in HBP:

Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> writes:
> Then came the end of HP6, when Snape uses the Avadra 
> Kedavra to kill Dumbledore, and Harry attempts to use 
> the same on Snape.  At the time, I explained to my son 
> that Harry, caught up in his grief and his anger, made 
> a mistake, as even good people sometimes do. But for 
> Snape no redemption was possible. Cold, calculated, 
> premeditated, his use of the Curse had put him beyond 
> all possibility of salvation. That is, if 
> "unforgivable" had any meaning at all.

This is a case where the complexities of a situation expose nuances of
morality.  The morality Lee is expressing excuses mistakes of passion,
even if the mistake is attempted murder.  The morality Rowling
expresses excuses classic euthanasia (with the twist of also saving
Draco from the murder / be murdered dilemma).  Neither is inconsistent
with the concept of murder being unforgivable.   It is fair to be
disappointed if Rowling's morality does not coincide with one's own,
but it is not fair to charge her with inconsistency.

Incidentally, I am not so sure that Rowling intends us to read Harry's
actions at the end of HBP as without fault -- I think here, as in his
scene with Bellatrix at the end of OP, we are intended to see and
understand his flaws: when Harry gets really angry, he is a loose cannon.

B) Imperius curses at Gringotts:

Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> writes:
> That the good guys started "liberally" throwing around 
> the Unforgivables is bad enough. But JKR compounds the 
> moral issue here in the way in which they do so – without 
> reluctance or hesitation, without so much as a hint of 
> moral compunction. When Harry Imperiuses the goblins – at 
> Hermione's almost casual suggestion, no less -- he might 
> have been casting a Hot Air Charm for all the reticence 
> he exhibited.

A couple of factual points here.  First, Harry uses the curse not only
on the goblin Bogrod, but also on the wizard, Travers.  Legally, only
the second is proscribed, although I think Rowling would certainly
intend that the same moral strictures apply to the use of the
unforgiveable curses against all intelligent species.  Second, and
more relevant to the message Rowling is conveying, it is *not* the
principled Hermione who urges Harry to use the curse, but rather
Griphook, who is portrayed as having, at best, a non-human moral
compass (personally, I read him as an egocentric utilitarian).  
Hermione does not even know what is going on at first.  Third, Harry
is anything but casual about the situation.  He is in the middle of a
bank robbery, with an armed Death Eater at his side and an imp (if
you'll excuse the metaphor) literally hanging around his neck,
whispering into his ear.  He is portrayed as acting (as he often does)
without thinking, but not as unconscious of the enormity of what he is
doing.  

Is what Harry does right?  I think most people would agree that bank
robbery is not right to begin with, unless some form of "this is war"
or "the end justifies the means" applies.  And even if those excuses
justified violating the security of an institution that is itself
unconnected with the war and with Voldemort, what of the planned
deception of Griphook, the trio's putative ally?  I think Harry's
actions through this entire sequence are morally questionable, and I
don't think we as readers are intended to give him a pass.  Rather,
it's part of a buildup which made me wonder if Harry would ultimately
attempt the killing curse on Voldemort.

C) Cruciatus and Imperius curses in the Ravenclaw common room:

Lee did not directly discuss this scene, which I found the most
disturbing morally.  Here, both Harry and McGonagall employ
unforgivable curses in a situation in which they are not only
unnecessary but hardly even provoked.  All that Harry or McGonagall
needs to do is to disable Amycus.  But Harry is so infuriated by
Carrow's show of disrespect that he blasts off a Cruciatus curse,
while McGonagall follows up with the Imperius just to, what, get the
Carrows close enough to tie up together?  

What is it supposed to tell us when Professor McGonagall, the adult
paragon of upstanding, rule-following morality, resorts to the
unforgivable and *unnecessary*?  Is it a show of solidarity with
Harry?  Is it an affirmation that this is war and anything goes?  

And what has happened to Harry to make him "really mean it," to want
to hurt Amycus so badly that his curse sends the grown man flying
through the air?  The only explanation I can see is that Rowling needs
to show us what the horrors of war can do to good people.  Having seen
friends maimed, tortured and killed, having been on the run for nine
months, driven to larceny and robbery, haunted by dreams of yet more
terrible things, Harry is simply a different, more brutal person than
he was in book 5.  We are intended to understand, perhaps, but not to
think that this is okay.


D) Molly and Bellatrix:

Does it matter whether the curse that kills is a killing curse?  I
didn't think Molly had cast one, although Lee believes so.  Here is
how the text reads:

"Molly's curse soared beneath Bellatrix's outstreched arm 
and hit her squarely in the chest, directly over her heart.
Bellatrix's gloating smile froze, her eyes seemd to bulge: 
For the tiniest space of time she knew what had happened, 
and then she toppled, and the watching crowd roared, and 
Voldemort screamed."

Ordinarily with Avada Kedavra we see a flash of green light and the
victim has no opportunity to react, no knowledge of what has happened.
 I had therefore assumed that, while they were both "fighting to
kill," the curse that finished Bellatrix was some other one.  

I'm not quite sure, however, why it should matter.  Is murder more
acceptable when accomplished by poison than by a gun?  Are soldiers in
hand combat judged by what weapon they use?  

This is clearly a case of situational morality, but from my own
perspective, I found the right and wrong of this scene quite easy to
judge, without reference to the particular curse.  Bellatrix was
attempting to kill Molly's underage daughter, had already killed her
cousin (Tonks), was gloating over the death of her older son and
throwing lethal curses around like a madwoman, all this in the middle
of an epic battle between good and evil.  How could Molly possibly be
criticized for joining that battle under those circumstances and
aiming to kill?

-- Matt

The full discourse:

Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> writes:
> Moral Inconsistency
> ----- -------------
> 
> "But I thought they were bad?"
> 
> My 11-year-old actually asked me this as we read HP7 
> together, and I had no answer except to say I thought 
> JKR was wrong.
> 
> He was referring to the Unforgivable Curses. 
>
> [snip]
> 
> Then came the end of HP6, when Snape uses the Avadra 
> Kedavra to kill Dumbledore, and Harry attempts to use 
> the same on Snape.  At the time, I explained to my son 
> that Harry, caught up in his grief and his anger, made 
> a mistake, as even good people sometimes do. But for 
> Snape no redemption was possible. Cold, calculated, 
> premeditated, his use of the Curse had put him beyond 
> all possibility of salvation. That is, if 
> "unforgivable" had any meaning at all.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> That the good guys started "liberally" throwing around 
> the Unforgivables is bad enough. But JKR compounds the 
> moral issue here in the way in which they do so – without 
> reluctance or hesitation, without so much as a hint of 
> moral compunction. When Harry Imperiuses the goblins – at 
> Hermione's almost casual suggestion, no less -- he might 
> have been casting a Hot Air Charm for all the reticence 
> he exhibited.
> 
> For all intents and purposes, in HP7 JKR just seems to 
> ignore the moral component of at least two of the 
> Unforgivables, and, both in Mrs. Weasley's dispatching 
> of Bellatrix, and the way she attempts to extract Snape 
> from his moral predicament, apparently the Avadra Kedavra 
> as well. 
>
> As you can guess, I do NOT think the fact that Dumbledore 
> arranged the whole thing excuses what remains, to my mind, 
> an act of murder.
>