[HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio

[Laura Lynn Walsh]

No: HPFGUIDX 176746


On 2007, Sep 05, , at 09:35, Steve wrote:

> ---  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."

But this can happen with ANY law.  As you point out
above, it happened with a loitering law.  That shouldn't
impact an assessment of the severity of a crime.

> 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?

I didn't say the Imperius was OK, I said it doesn't
seem bad enough to be an Unforgiveable.  An
Unforgiveable implies that there would NEVER
be an instance in which use of that spell would be
acceptable in the eyes of moral citizens.  And
being willing to defend your use of it in court isn't
at all the same as saying that the law doesn't
apply to you.  It is making the judgment that you
can defend its use in court as more acceptable in
moral society than not using the spell would have
been.

> 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.

Likelihood should also not determine the legality
of a law.  Given the laws of chance, even an unlikely
situation is likely to happen if you wait long enough.

> 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'.

I think the rule should apply to everyone.  I understand
the problem of only applying to the other side.

But I still think Imperio is much less of an Unforgiveable
than AK or Crucio.  And, in fact, I think there are reasonable
examples where its use is warranted, something I feel is
much less likely with Crucio and almost impossible with
AK.

> 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?

I would have him use the spell as he did, reasoning
that it was a better alternative than any of the others
he had.

> 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?

Actually, you are arguing my point here.  There are
circumstances under which Imperio is the best choice.
And, in my eyes at least, it is NOT unforgiveable, but is,
rather, necessary.

> 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.

But this is just the point you were making above, only
the other way around.  You seem to think Harry and
the good guys should be above the law.  THEY can
use the Unforgiveables and be forgiven.  What I am
saying is that Imperio shouldn't be an Unforgiveable.
It should be a Be-Prepared-to-Defend-Its-Use-in-Court-able.
If you forgive the good guys for using an Unforgiveable,
then it isn't an Unforgiveable - and your laws aren't fair.

IMO.

Laura
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]