DH reread CH 12 -- Cracking a Few Eggs.

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 186454

--- "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> Steve:
> > So, my point is, if the wizard world is OK with it, then why 
> > are we still outraged?
> 
> Magpie:
> Because why would people make moral decisions based on what
> fictional people think? 

bboyminn:

Not sure what this means, a great deal of morality is taught
by fictional characters in myth, fable, legend, other books,
and just plain fiction. I find great moral understanding in
the Harry Potter books as well as the Ender's Game books.

Magpie continues:

>I agree every thing happens in context. I don't think every
> act done in HP is justified by the context. The fact that a
> circumstance is unusual or the person uses restraint when 
> they hit the torture button doesn't necessarily make it 
> admirable or not troubling. Maybe it's forgivable, but that
> doesn't really mean somebody's necessarily going to approve 
> of what was done in the fictional story as a good thing. 

bboyminn:

Oddly, on this we agree, I didn't mean to imply that it was
OK for Harry to do what he did. It was wrong, especially when
he had other choice available to him, but it was also 
understandable, and it occurred under mitigating circumstances.
And I think the Wizard World understands those mitigating
circumstances and forgives the act. But while they forgive it,
they also disapprove of it and condemn it as wrong. They
socially and perhaps morally condemn it as wrong, but in a
practical sense, and in a legal sense, they understand it
and the circumstances, and are willing to let it go.

If, Harry or McGonagall had sustained their action, or been
brutal or cruel, then it would have been a different story.
They both showed restraint relative to what those curses 
could have done. In neither case was any real harm done. In
neither case, was the 'victim' make to suffer beyond what was
clearly necessary. Again, I ask as I've asked before, if it
only last 3 seconds and does no harm, can we really call it
torture? 

I don't think this approaches war crimes or crime against
humanity the way most horrendous acts of war are viewed. 

In war, horrible things are done by everyone. These things are
forgiven in the context of war and in the context of a real
threat to your own life or the lives of others. 

Magpie concludes"

> When you start saying things are "technically unforgivables
> but..." that doesn't sound like a way I want to think about
> them. And that's not because I would never be okay with a 
> character using an unforgivable.  
> 
> -m

bboyminn:

But that is the way life is, there are far more exceptions
than there are rules. War, in and of itself, is an immoral act
by all who participate. But we participate none the less because,
right or wrong, it is sometimes necessary. 

The full statement I made was -

"Yes, these were technically Unforgivables, but they were done
in unusual circumstances and done with great restraint."

Which was the lead in to a discussion of real world law. It
is wrong to kill, but there are many exceptions to the general
moral and legal statement. 

And the whole point of this point was that we don't know how
the wizard's law is written, we don't know if it includes
exception. All we have is Moody's general statement of the
legal nature of the Unforgivables, but that was not a quote 
of the law, it was a general statement of the worst possible 
consequences. 

Now, because we don't know the wizard's law, I can say whether
there are or are not exceptions written into the law. Perhaps 
the unforgivable killing curse is only unforgivable when used 
offensively, yet in the right circumstances allowed when used
defensively? We don't know. But if real world law can serve 
as an example, then likely there are exceptions.

Also, it doesn't seem as if wizard's law is that hard and 
tight. If fact it seems very loose, and able to change to fit
the needs of the moment. I'm not even saying that is right,
but it seems somewhat true. Again, it is very much a seat of
your pants frontier mentality. 

So, I do think Harry was wrong, but that doesn't mean, 
considering the circumstances and context, I can't understand
it and, perhaps not totally forgive, but at least overlook it. 

I think that is very much the way the wizard world approaches
the circumstance. 

So, apparently on this we disagree, I think 'unusual 
circumstances' and 'great restraint' do matter and do qualify
as mitigating circumstances, and you do not. Fair enough.

Steve/bboyminn