[HPforGrownups] Re: Unforgivables.

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 173507

Charles Walker Jr blessed us with this gem On 28/07/2007 19:38:

CJ> Is there any act, or category of acts, so barbarous that it cannot,
CJ> under ANY circumstances, be justified?

> I can only think of one

I can think of nine without breaking a sweat: murder (note: NOT 
killing); rape; torture; genocide; child abuse (including child 
prostitution, molestation, et alia); slavery; terrorism; hostage-taking; 
chemical/biological warfare. It probably wouldn't take more than a 
couple of minutes' reflection to bring the list up to an even dozen, but 
I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment.

But the issue is not HOW MANY unforgivable crimes you can think of. I 
merely wanted to see if you acknowledge the possibility of morally 
unforgivable acts.

CWJ> The UC's were "unforgivable" because of ministry proscription.
CWJ> Whether that stemmed from morality or not is not actually explored
CWJ> in the books.

Would you please provide chapter and verse on this, Charles? As at least 
one other in this discussion has pointed out, while it may be YOUR 
contention that the Unforgivableness of the UCs was purely legal in 
nature, there does not seem to be anything in the texts to support you. 
The UCs stand at the pinnacle of the Dark Arts, and the DAs are clearly 
"dark" in a moral sense. In addition, in a passage I've previously 
cited, the lifting of the ban on UCs during the first Voldemort war was 
clearly associated with moral failings -- a descent into ruthlessness 
and villainy which left the good guys nearly indistinguishable from the 
bad (and NOT in a legal sense). Now, I know you question the source of 
that description, but it's the only canonical discussion of the matter 
we've got so anything else is speculation.

CWJ> The UC's were named UC's because the use of them on a human
CWJ> earned a life sentence in Azkaban.

Again, chapter and verse, please. As far as I see, you've got it 
backward -- the life sentence stemmed from their Unforgivable nature, 
not vice versa. Could you please cite a passage from the texts that 
supports your contention?

> I suspect your ten-year-old, learning from you, is also incapable of
> distinguishing legality and morality.

Ad hominems are uncalled for. It is not simply a matter of 
"distinguishing" the two. It is my (and at least one other's) contention 
that your whole legal argument around the UCs is speculative, and not 
support by the canon.

CJ> Even wars have rules (just read the Geneva Conventions), and the
CJ> only relevant question is whether Carrow presented a clear and
CJ> present danger at the moment Harry ambushed him.

CWJ> And now you are trying to insert real world legality

Not legality -- morality. There's a difference. And yes, I AM trying to 
insert real world morality into a fictional universe. What makes a great 
fictional universe is, after all, precisely what it has to say to us 
about ours.

CWJ> We're talking about morality not legality.

Of course we are!

> I've made my points, and they keep getting ignored.

Not ignored, just disputed. You seem intent, Charles, on trying to drive 
some sort of wedge between legality and morality, as if they exist 
independent of each other, when in fact morality underlies nearly all 
law. Now why, do you think (granting your contention for the moment), 
the MoM would decree the UCs to be Unforgivable, unless it were that 
they were considered wrong in a moral sense?

CJ, Taiwan