[HPforGrownups] Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 174036

Matt blessed us with this gem On 31/07/2007 08:00:

> The act of murder (i.e., intentional homicide), if done in
> self-defense, is viewed as justifiable 

I chose the term murder specifically because murder is defined as 
unjustifiable or inexcusable killing. Not all killing is unjustified; 
all murder is.

> the circumstances rendered the proscribed act morally
> or legally acceptable.

In which case it is not called murder.

>> Just because war necessitates killing does not mean all
>> killing in wartime is justified.

> But by the same dint, the circumstances that make killing a war crime
> are not defined in terms of absolutes, but in terms of competing
> principles and surrounding circumstances.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you mean that in order to 
distinguish justifiable killing from unjustifiable (i.e., murder) we 
must look at the circumstances surrounding the act, I agree. But that 
does not affect my basic assertion that "Murder is unjustifiable" is an 
absolute.


> Is there any weapon of war in the real world that is viewed as 
 > immoral because of its efficiency in killing a single enemy
 > combatant?

There are certainly weapons of war whose use is, in all cases without 
exception, viewed as immoral and hence illegal. Two that spring to mind 
are chemical and biological weapons, whose use under any circumstances 
is proscribed by international treaty (specfically, the Geneva Protocol 
of 1925).

 > And while you say that torture is never excusable, that is not true
 > at least in a legal sense (necessity would be a defense)

Torture is yet another "tool" who use is, under any and all 
circumstances, proscribed under international treaty. Help me here, but 
I can't imagine any circumstances which necessitate torture.

Now, it may well be true that there are legal wranglings over the 
definition of torture (the Bush administration has been doing a lot of 
that lately), but arguing over exactly what constitutes torture is not 
the same as arguing over the absolute principle that torture is 
unjustifiable.

> Whether we call what Harry did "understandable" (your words) or
> "excusable" (my mischaracterization )

Yes, pardon me, but that is a mischaracterization. Again, I chose my 
terms specifically. "Understandable" does not mean "excusable". And such 
extenuating circumstances do often reduce the severity of the crime (in 
the US, say, from "murder" to "manslaughter"), but they do not excuse it.

>> Even assuming your moral code permits euthanasia, euthanasia
>> hardly justifies an Unforgivable Curse.

> Why should the means of death make any moral difference?

But it makes all the difference in the world! Even in the US, which 
still permits capital punishment, the form of death is chosen to be as 
humane as possible. To say that killing is justified is not at all to 
say that ANY FORM of killing is justified.

Note that I am not making an argument about the humaneness of the AK. 
 From all accounts in the canon the AK seems to be quick and painless. 
The point is that an immoral (and yes, I do believe the canon 
establishes that the UCs are immoral, not just illegal) method of 
killing is unjustifiable even when the killing itself is not.

Since, in the wizarding world, the AK is unforgivable, even if one 
argues that the killing of Dumbledore was justifiable, the method Snape 
chose was not, particularly in light of the fact that other methods were 
equally available to Snape.

> I think that in distinguishing based on the form of curse used you are
> putting more weight on the term "unforgivable" than Rowling ever did.

Could you cite a passage on this? The text, as far as I can see, simply 
establishes the UCs as (morally) unforgivable. Is there a passage which 
discusses the exact degree of "unforgivable"? Outside of the incidents 
we're discussing, JKR never shows us a justifiable use of the UCs. Even 
when the MoM authorized their use in the first Voldemort war, the 
authorial point of view seems to be that the use degraded the moral 
standing of the good guys (they were associated with ruthlessness and 
cruelty which was disapproved of in the end).

> Is there some reason that the use of Avada Kedavra is unforgivable 
 > above and beyond the immorality of ending another person's life?

I don't have any idea. JKR never discusses that. There is, apparently, 
at least one other "killing curse", demonstrated by Molly against 
Bellatrix, which is not "unforgivable". So as to WHY the AK is 
unforgivable, you'll have to wait for JKR to explain. I only know from 
reading the text that it IS.

> Aside from the different types of moral distinctions we are making, I
> don't think we disagree terribly much.

I'd venture that the whole issue boils down to the definition of 
"unforgivable". As far as I can tell from a reading of the text: a) it 
most certainly is a moral, not just legal, issue; b) outside of book 7 
and the end of book 6 (which are the points of contention) there are no 
clear examples of a morally justified use of the UCs; and c) any 
discussion of the "degree" of unforgivability lies outside the canonical 
texts; i.e., in the realm of speculation.

Which means, to me, that "unforgivable" must mean "unforgivable" until 
proven (i.e., from the canon) otherwise; and on that basis the good 
guys' use of them cannot be justified.

> people frequently do terrible and unjustified things in the name 
 > of war. Rowling clearly has one authorial eye on that fact

I think she has also tried to make that point in several of her 
interviews. She has specifically discussed Harry's use of the Cruciatus 
in the Ravenclaw commons room in terms of wanting to show that Harry was 
no saint. I'll accept that much, while arguing that I think she botched 
the job. In order to show that Harry is no saint, she has to show him 
performing a morally reprehensible act. But she doesn't make clear that 
his use of the Cruciatus in that case WAS reprehensible. Certainly, the 
reaction of McGonagall (calling it "gallant" of all things, immediately 
followed by an equally casual UC of her own!) doesn't help. And some 
reflection after the fact on the vileness (even if justified) of the act 
would have also gone a long way toward making her point. After all, as 
you've said, even good people do terrible things in war. But good people 
also agonize over it afterward. To my mind, the casualness with which 
the UCs are tossed about by the good guys works against the point JKR is 
trying to make.

And, as you have said, saying "in war, good guys do terrible things" 
cannot be used as a defense of those "terrible things".

CJ