Imperio

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 176724

---  Laura Lynn Walsh <lwalsh at ...> wrote:
>
> Why is Imperio considered an Unforgiveable?  Yes, I 
> know it forces a person to act against his/her will, 
> but there are some circumstances in which that might 
> be the best thing for the person.  ...  Rather than 
> calling it an Unforgiveable, I would call it a
> Be-Prepared-to-Defend-Its-Use-in-Court-able.
> 
> Laura

bboyminn:

Here is the problem, many citizens set themselves 
outside the law. Now, I don't mean that they are
outlaws, quite the contrary, the see themselves as
near perfect law-abiding citizens who also feel that
the law doesn't apply to them.

An example, many many MANY years ago the local town
passed an anti-loitering ordinance. No one could
pause on the main street of town for more than one
minute (or whatever) without being in violation. 

I was explaining to the Mother of a friend of mine
that if she paused too long to browse a shop 
window or paused to talk to a friend on the street,
she could be in violation of the law. "Oh no, they
would never do that to me. That law is for other
people."

How does that little story apply to the question at
hand? It is easy to see the Imperius as OK, when
you apply it to hypothetic scenarios or when it is
a third party controlling a fouth party. But ask 
yourself this, do you want anyone controlling you
under any circumstances? That is any likely and
reasonable circumstance that could occur rather 
than very unlikely hypothetical circumstances?

It is easy to say, well if I'm standing on the train
tracks and a train is coming, I wouldn't mind someone
making me move to safety, but what are the odds that
you will be standing on the train tracks and not 
realize it? And once you do realize it and an also
realize a train is coming, what are the odds you will
continue to stand their? Not that likely.

It is alway easy to rationalize these things when we
apply them to the abstract 'other' while at the same
time, like my friends mother, assume that it can 
ONLY happen to the 'other'. The problem is, to
everyone else WE ARE THE 'OTHER'. 

As to the use of the Unforgivables by the good guys
in the story. Sometime circumstance really are so 
extreme that equally extreme measures are needed.
What would you have Harry do when they entered Gringotts?
Would you have him fail in a task vital to the 
preservation of liberty in the Wizard and Muggle
world? Would you have him say, well better to fail
and set the world under the boot heal of tyranny, than
to do something wrong? 

There seem to be a lot of people who are moral
absolutists or perhaps moral socialists, that see
every action as morally neutral. Why is it OK for the
good guys but not for the bad guys? Well, if you can't 
see that the bad guys are indeed the bad guys then I 
think you need to have your (general) compass adjusted.

I don't really think you can take the evil action of
an evil person out of their moral context just so it
can be presented as 'morally neutral'. Context is 
everything. In the right context, nearly anything
can be justified. In the context of Harry and other
'white hats' using Unforgivables, I think they can
be forgiven. They are still wrong, but they are
understandable and forgivable.

By extension, there is no such thing as a morally 
neutral action. It is by moral context that we 
determine who is good and who is evil, who are the
terrorists and who are the freedom fighters. 

Or at least that's how I see it.

Steve/bboyminn