[HPforGrownups] Re: Blowing his cover

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 181437

Zara blessed us with this gem On 10/02/2008 09:58:

CJ:
> He's got a track record with respect to all three of the UCs

zgirnius:
> Harry never attempted the AK. I don't think he ever would.

You're right; I stand corrected. I was misremembering the end of HBP 
where Harry was attempting the Cruciatus.

> You may not like the 'war excuse', but it is certainly 
 > true that each time Harry does use the spell, he is
 > experiencing circumstances which could only be present
 > in a war-type situation.

I disagree. Amycus' spitting on McGonagall, while it did occur in a war, 
could as easily not have. And even in a war, I'm not convinced that 
expectorating is justification for torture, even when the target IS your 
favorite teacher.

 > It is also pretty clear that from a legal standpoint, the Wizard
 > culture makes this distinction too - why else would Aurors be
 > permitted to use Unforgivables in the first war?

The MoM presumably had the authority to set aside the legal penalties 
for their use by authorized personnel, but Sirius' speech makes it clear 
the moral proscriptions were a different matter.

> I do think it is supposed to *explain* them and make them
> understandable to readers. 

Perhaps this was JKR's intent. If so, I think it doesn't work, and the 
timing is pretty poor, given the discussion that's been going on the 
past few years wrt justifications for torture.

Particularly wrt Amycus, JKR could have built a much better case. If 
Amycus had been tossing an AK, rather than a mouthfull of saliva, at 
McGonagall, Harry's Crucio would have been much easier to justify AND to 
empathize with.

> people would still act according tpo their better natures, but one in
> which I can *understand* that they do not.

Depends on what you mean by "understand". If you mean "empathize with", 
I agree. If you mean "forgive" or "tolerate" or "overlook", I think I'd 
beg to differ.

> He has a temper, and when it gets the better of him, he makes
> bad choices, is what I walked away with from his use of Crucio.

Again, perhaps this was JKR's intent, but I think it went awry. Eating 
at McDonald's is a bad choice. Calling torture-for-spitting a "bad 
choice" is like calling Abu Ghraib a slight misjudgment. If JKR was just 
trying to show us Harry was human, I think her methodology opened a 
moral can of worms that derailed her argument.

Kemper now:

 > However, "It's war" is an amoral and possibly immoral justification
 > for using the Unforgivables. The MoM allowed it in the first war.
 > "It's war" might not be a morally justifiable excuse to use the
 > Unforgivables, but the excuse is justifiable otherwise.

Yes, certainly wartime can justify some acts that are normally 
proscribed. Of course the Geneva Conventions and war crimes trials make 
clear even war doesn't excuse us from all moral obligations.

As I mentioned above, the MoM lifted the legal penalties for the UCs, 
but only for authorized personnel. And Sirius (whom I take as the 
authorial voice on this) indicates that the permitting of the UCs was 
one of the clearer indicators of the moral degradation of the MoM, its 
legal right to do so notwithstanding.

I agree with you -- if that's what you're saying -- that what JKR 
appears to be trying to do is simply to show that Harry was not perfect. 
I just found the moral implications of the way she chose to do so 
disturbing.

CJ