Imperio

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 176727

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  Laura Lynn Walsh <lwalsh@> 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:

> 
> 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


Prep0strus:

The problem, as I see it, is that JKR has set us up one way, and then
followed through another.  Often, in fiction (and for some also, in
reality) there are moral absolutes.  And I think that's what many of
us were expecting in these books.  Children's literature is often more
clear in these regards.  And while JKR did have some murkiness - we do
see our heroes participating in some less than savory activities, I
was led to believe that some things were beyond ambiguity, beyond
absolution.

Dark Magic. Unforgiveables.  Dementors. Horcruxes.

these didn't seem to have shades of grey in JKR's world.  They were
all terribly horrible, evil things, that by their very nature have
nothing redeeming about them.  It didn't seem to matter that the
definition of dark magic was confusing, or that one might find a good
use for some or all of these things.  They simply came off (to me) as
the epitome of evil.  Ways to identify that something was beyond the pale.

I'm ok with a world of context and wiggle room, but I don't feel that
that was what I was set up for.  I feel I was prepared for a world in
which certain things were simply wrong, and that Good would fight
against evil with one hand tied behind its back and still prevail,
because that is what Good does.

It is having that setup, and then having Harry perform Unforgiveables
(and, in the case of crucio, NEEDLESS unforgiveables, imo), that is so
disconcerting.  I don't feel that the story prepared me for that, or
did an adequate job in either saying - 'Harry did something that was
wrong', or in saying, 'the world isn't the way we view it as children
- there are not moral absolutes'.  It just... happened.  And that's
what I found dissatisfying.  Of course, I think what is all the more
dissatisfying is the mechanics that allow Harry to simply perform
these spells with no training when it takes him a thousand tries to
learn the simplest of spells.  Perhaps if JKR had taken the time to
show us how harry had the ability to do them, she would also have
taken the time to show us how he and the world were morally equipped
for them.

~Adam (Prep0strus)