[HPforGrownups] A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 173502

Matt blessed us with this gem On 28/07/2007 07:29:

> 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.

Firstly, thanks for the comments, Matt.

Since no one has ever described killing as "unforgivable" (I think we 
all recognize it is not), I think the better analogy would be murder, 
rather than killing.


> 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.

Each act must stand or its own merits (or fall on its lack thereof). I 
also agree that the real world (though I had thought we were discussing 
a work of fiction :-) ) is nearly one big mass of grey. Moral principles 
are, in fact, principles; rules intended to guide us in determining a 
course of action. And because the world is largely grey, it means most 
moral decisions are an exercise in balancing moral principles against 
each other.

But not ALL is grey. There ARE a few absolutes. Not all killing is 
wrong; but all murder is. Not all physical assault is wrong; but all 
rape is. Not all war is wrong; but all genocide is. And so forth.

Matt> How do those points bear on the use of unforgivables in the last
Matt> two books? I would assert that what is disconcerting about
Matt> the morality expressed in DH (and to a greater or lesser extent
Matt> since OP) is that the characters are faced with more difficult
Matt> moral choices.

I would counter-assert that, even agreeing to that, the problem is that 
JKR never shows us the struggle. We catch not the slightest hint of any 
moral struggle in Harry before he fires off the Imperius in Gringotts. 
We don't catch the slightest whiff of moral hesitation before he Crucios 
Carrow. If the good guys are making difficult moral choices, you sure 
wouldn't know it from reading the book. The very least JKR is guilty of 
is flawed writing.

Matt> These books (HBP and DH) are telling a war story

Your not the first person to raise the "But it's war!" defense.

The thing is, even wars have rules, and it IS possible for soldiers to 
commit murder during the performance of their duties. Just because war 
necessitates killing does not mean all killing in wartime is justified. 
The My Lai massacre springs to mind (if you're old enough to remember 
Viet Nam), as well as certain recent events in Iraq.

And then there's torture, which is never excusable, even in war 
(arguments from a certain person with a botanical-sounding name to the 
contrary notwithstanding).

LK> I explained to my son that Harry, caught up in his grief and
LK> his anger, made a mistake, as even good people sometimes do.

Matt> The morality Lee is expressing excuses mistakes of passion,

Please re-read my words. What I said was that Harry's grief and passion 
made his mistake understandable, not excusable. In real-world terms, it 
might get the charges reduced to manslaughter (had Harry succeeded, that 
is).

Matt> The morality Rowling expresses excuses classic euthanasia

It's not that simple, however. You are correct in your assumption that 
there is no room for euthanasia in my moral system. However, even making 
allowance for that, there was any number of ways Snape could have 
finished Dumbledore off. But he chose the AK. Even assuming your moral 
code permits euthanasia, euthanasia hardly justifies an Unforgivable 
Curse. My personal guess is that JKR was trying to string along the 
ambiguity of Snape's character, but over-reached herself.

Matt> ...but it is not fair to charge her with inconsistency.

I believe it is, not only for the reason above, but for others (see below).

LK> When Harry Imperiuses the goblins  at Hermione's almost
LK> casual suggestion, no less

Matt> it is *not* the principled Hermione who urges Harry to use
Matt> the curse, but rather Griphook

You are correct. I had misremembered the scene. So Hermione's off the 
(Grip)hook. (Sorry :-) ).

Matt> Third, Harry is anything but casual about the situation.

I did not say Harry was casual about the "situation". I said he was 
apparently casual about throwing around the Imperius. Once again, if 
Harry was wrestling with his moral principles, then it behooves the 
author to show it to us. Certainly it wouldn't have taken more than a 
sentence to do so.

Matt> He is portrayed as acting (as he often does) without thinking,
Matt> but not as unconscious of the enormity of what he is doing.

Here's the relevant passage. I'm having difficulty finding the part that 
shows Harry reflecting on the "enormity of what he is doing".

DH> "Act now, act now", whispered Griphook in Harry's ear, "the
DH> Imperius Curse!" Harry raised the hawthorn wand beneath the
DH> cloak, pointed it at the old goblin, and whispered, for the
DH> first time in his life, "Imperio!" A curious sensation shot
DH> down Harry's arm, a feeling of tingling, warmth that seemed
DH> to flow from his mind, down the sinews and veins connecting
DH> him to the wand and the curse it had just cast. The goblin
DH> took Bellatrix's wand, examined it closely, and then said,
DH> "Ah, you have had a new wand made, Madam Lestrange!"

DH> "What?" said Hermione, "No, no, that's mine--"

DH> "A new wand?" said Travers, approaching the counter again;
DH> still the goblins all around were watching. "But how could
DH> you have done, which wand-maker did you use?"

DH> Harry acted without thinking. Pointing his wand at Travers,
DH> he muttered, "Imperio!" once more.

DH> ...

DH> "They're Imperiused," he added, in response to Hermione and
DH> Ron's confused queries about Travers and Bogrod....

Matt> Cruciatus and Imperius curses in the Ravenclaw common room:

Matt> Lee did not directly discuss this scene

I may not have in the message to which you are replying -- it's 
impossible to keep up with the torrent of posts in this group. However, 
I have discussed it in other posts, in which I made many of the same 
points you did. In short, I agree it is the most disturbing and 
difficult to defend of all the scenes.

It is also the scene which I believe most clearly makes the case for 
JKR's inconsistency. As you've indicated (and as I've said in other 
posts), both Harry's Cruciatus and McGonagall's Imperius were utterly 
unnecessary and excessive. A simply Expelliarmus from Harry would have 
disarmed Carrow quite effectively, and McGonagall could just as easily 
have Leviosa'ed Carrow over to his sister, or simply pointed her wand at 
the disarmed Carrow and said, "Lie there!"

It is difficult even to conceive an excuse for Harry and McGonagall; and 
certainly JKR makes no attempt to show us any. Which is why it is 
difficult to reach any other conclusion than that JKR has by this point 
in the series either deliberately chosen to ignore the moral 
implications of the UCs, or simply forgotten about them. And having 
reached that conclusion here, it's much easier to reach the same 
conclusion elsewhere.

Matt> Molly and Bellatrix:
Matt> Does it matter whether the curse that kills is a killing curse?

It does, but not, I think, for the reasons you're thinking.

First, I would like to point out that I am NOT taking issue with Molly's 
killing of Bellatrix. Yes, it was a battle, and Bellatrix had explicitly 
stated her intent to kill Molly. This was clearly self-defense.

As to the spell itself, I agree my guess is speculative, as the text 
neither names the spell, nor mentions the telltale green flash.

There are but two possibilities: either Molly used the AK, or she 
didn't. If she did, then we're back to arguing over whether battlefield 
situations justify otherwise Unforgivable Curses. If, OTOH, it wasn't 
the Avadra Kedavra, we're faced with a morass of questions which are not 
easily answered.

If the spell Molly used to kill Bellatrix was not the AK, then what we 
have here is proof positive that there are other killing curses (or at 
least, other curses that kill) than just the AK. And that leads us to 
the uncomfortable conclusion that the AK may not be necessary at all.

If there ARE other killing curses than just the AK, then the difficulty 
of making the case for the AK has just been ratcheted up. If other 
killing curses do exist, then what conditions, specifically, would 
require the AK in lieu of them? And what is it about the AK which makes 
it alone among killing curses Unforgivable?

Which brings us full circle back to Snape and Dumbledore at the end of 
book six. Granted that, as we now know, Snape is really performing an 
act of euthanasia. Granted even, for the sake of argument, that 
euthanasia is morally acceptable. Given that Molly has just demonstrated 
that at least one other killing curse (or curse that kills) exists, what 
could possibly justify Snape's use of the AK specifically?

Sorry, but I still think JKR has woven a sorry knot of morality around 
the UCs that simply cannot be untangled.

CJ, Taiwan