Unforgivables.

[littleleahstill]

No: HPFGUIDX 173442

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charles Walker Jr" 
<darksworld at ...> wrote:
>.
(snipped) 
  
>>  
> >> And now you are trying to insert real world legality into the
> discussions of morals in a fictional universe. It doesn't fit. This is
> part and parcel of what I keep asserting and you keep skirting. We're
> talking about morality not legality. I think I'm done with this
> subject. I've made my points, and they keep getting ignored.
> 
> Charles, still proud of Harry.


Leah

Unfortunately for your argument, Rowling makes it clear in GOF that the 
WW there not only is there a legal  prohibition on use of the 
Unforgivables, but that they are morally suspect as well. 

"Well, times like that (ie the first rise of Voldemort) bring out the 
best in some people and the worst in others.  Crouch's principles 
might've been good in the beginning...he started ordering very harsh 
measures against Voldemort's supporters. ...Crouch fought violence with 
violence, and authorised the use of the Unforgiveable Curses against 
suspects.  I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the 
Dark Side"  Sirius in 'Padfoot Returns', GOF (UK) 457.  

The view expressed by Sirius, which given the events of GOF, appears to 
be the authorial view is that use of the Unforgiveables, even when 
legalised by Crouch Senior, is immoral and brings those using them to 
the level of the 'Dark Side'.

Hence the shock of seeing Harry use Crucio in circumstances where 
another curse would have served as well if not better.  What is the 
authorial voice saying now?  When did things changed?  No wonder a ten 
year old is confused, I'm five times as old and I'm wondering.

Leah