Dark Magic was Re: Snape's Psychology

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 187467


> Carol earlier:
> <snip> But, like most of the spells in the books other than Dark curses, it can be abused. <snip>
> 
> Carol again:
> 
> Sorry to be unclear. I meant that most spells can be either used or abused. With Dark magic, it's different. Those spells, with rare exceptions like Snape's evil-seeming but necessary AK, can't be put to good uses. 

Pippin:

I don't think it's that black and white. In ToBtB, Dumbledore writes that  Cruciatus, Imperius and Avada Kedavra were designated as Unforgivable and strictest penalties attached to their use in 1717. At the time that Beedle was writing, he says, cruciatus was not illegal. 

So this is not ancient prohibition. 

That makes anti-Dark measures more like gun control than a religious taboo. I think that's part of what the war is about, with some of the older wizarding families still resenting the loss of that freedom. Meanwhile, people coming from a Muggle background would be more inclined to frame it as we do, as  a moral issue.

I think there still is no broad consensus in the WW about which spells, if any, are too terrible to be used. IMO, that is why Dumbledore was so desperate to keep the existence of horcruxes a secret. I think he feared that many wizards  would consider the murder of  a faceless, nameless Muggle a small price to pay for immortality.

 In any case, I think the point of canon is that no matter what spells you consider dark or what actions you consider unforgivable, it is easier to hate and punish your enemies for doing them than to prove yourself a better person by not doing them yourself.

Pippin