[HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 183440

Lynda:
Here's where I need to clarify my idea. I think that the goodness or
evilness in a spell is in the intent of the spellcaster. A spell
cast with the intent to cause harm to another has the potential
of being a dark spell.

CJ:
Perhaps one might draw a parallel with traditional moral philosophy. In 
the Middle Ages, it was widely held that three criteria had to be met 
for an act to be considered gravely evil: grave matter, full knowledge 
and full consent. The second two first.

Full knowledge meant the actor had to be fully aware of and fully intend 
the evil. When Harry cast Sectumsempra, even though he freely chose to 
cast it (full consent; see below) he was unaware of what the spell did. 
We might argue that Harry had a moral responsibility to inform himself 
before casting unknown spells around, but we don't hold him guilty to 
the same degree as someone who fully understood the nature of the spell.

Full consent means I must fully and freely choose to commit the act. If 
Harry, even fully aware of the nature and result of the Sectumsempra, 
casts it because a DE is threatening to AK Hermione, then he is not a 
free moral agent. He is being compelled. In this case we may choose to 
partially or even fully exonerate him. But if, being fully aware of the 
nature of Sectumsempra, Harry freely chooses to use it without external 
compulsion, then he is acting freely and is fully responsible for the 
moral evil he causes.

Grave matter means the act itself must be intrinsically evil. I might be 
fully and unwaveringly convinced that Expelliarmus is the most evil 
spell ever invented, and on the basis of that belief run around 
Expelliarmusing every wizard I run across, but my belief and intent 
alone won't earn me a life sentence in Azkhaban. Though perhaps Mundugo's.

Lynda:
A spell cast with the intent to defend oneself or another has the
potential of not being dark magic. Intention is the key.

CJ:
Intent is one criterion, but it's not a get out of jail free card. 
Self-defense might be sufficient to exonerate me for Cruciating a DE who 
was about to AK me. But I doubt it would it exonerate me from AKing a 
classmate, no matter how hard the kid had threatened to punch me.

It's crucial to note, however, that my intent does *not* change the 
moral nature of the act. Dark Magic remains Dark. The Cruciatus remains 
intrinsically morally evil. The most my intent can do is exonerate me 
(partially or fully) from the guilt of the act.

Lynda:
Not every spell cast by every dark wizard will be dark magic.

CJ:
This would be the grave matter criterion. Expelliarmus won't get you 
convicted of murder no matter how convinced you personally are that it's 
a killing spell.

Lynda:
As you say, a wizard using expelliarmus to rob a bank commits
an evil act.

CJ:
We need to disambiguate here. A wizard who uses Expelliarmus to rob a 
bank gets convicted of robbing the bank, not of using Expelliarmus. An 
wizard using AK to rob a bank would be convicted of *both* robbery *and* 
murder.

Lynda:
A wizard, however, who uses imperio to make someone put down a
handgun and keeps that person from killing someone else
commits an act of good intent.

CJ:
Perhaps, but it's not a given. A jury would still need to deliberate and 
decide whether the intent was sufficient to offset the intrinsic evil of 
the act. It may or may not be.