Why unforgiveable?

[nikkalmati]

No: HPFGUIDX 189030



> Bart:
> There's a current conversation about Harry's use of crucio and other 
> unforgivable curses. Which means that it might be useful looking at the 
> unforgivable curses in general. Here's my take:
> 
> In the Potterverse, there are 3 curses which are considered 
> "unforgivable". Yet, Harry performs two of them, and tries to perform 
> the third.
> 
> Now, of course, there is the bumbling bureaucracy in the Potterverse, 
> and they have certain penalties for the three curses (rather than using 
> the cutesy names, I'll use what the curses do: extreme pain, replacing 
> another's free will with your own, and death). But let's look at the 
> idea that the "unforgivable" came BEFORE the bureaucracy.
> 
>
snip
> Add to this what we know about the unforgivables; they don't work unless 
> you really WANT them to work. You need to really WANT someone to 
> experience pain, to experience death, to impose your will upon theirs.
> 
>
snip
> so, the addiction is permanent; once addicted, always addicted.
> 
> And therein, once again in my opinion, lies the unforgivable nature of 
> unforgivable curses. Because once you have cast them, the fact that you 
> have becomes part of you. You are forever open to the temptation to cast 
> them again, 
snip> 
> 
> Bart
>

Nikkalmati

I rather like your take on the Unforgivables, but I have always held a rather diffferent idea.  I don't see the Unforgivables as morally reprehensible in all cases.  Most if not all spells require that you really want them to work.  There are plenty of very evil spells out there too (what about the evicerating spell?).  I think these three spells are just ones the bureauacracy has decided are worthy of Azkaban.  Maybe they were considered a greater threat to society than others.  Maybe they were associated with Death Eaters.  In any case, I don't think JKR intended them to be the heighth of evil - just very severely punished by the Ministry.

Nikkalmati