Again, my view is colored as a soldier’s wife. But I wonder, did they have an alternative? They are in battle, Death Eaters are shooting killing curses, and there are all these kids (yes they’re mostly “of age” but still pretty young–and a few younger kids, like Ginny, slipped through the cracks) around fighting with them, so the kids have to be protected, too.

Is there a way other than Avada Kedavra to kill someone? Or is that the only spell? Though it’s not explicit, it is obvious “our side” killed a fair number of Death Eaters. Capturing them would have been pointless, since the Ministry was overrun by Voldemort. Following the point made earlier of “killing is wrong but allowing Evil to take hold is more wrong and you might have to kill to stop Evil,” I don’t see that they had any choice but to use the spells that would otherwise have been Unforgiveable. It was that or be killed themselves. And if they’d allowed themselves to be killed, Evil would have won the day.

Yes, Harry’s purely vindictive use of them in one situation is absolutely wrong. But that situation highlighted both his youth and his anger. I agree with the others that his use of the simple “expelliarmus” in the final battle indicates he had risen above using them vindictively and was a beautiful, poignant and full-circle kind of way for Good to win the final battle.

But the use of the Curses in other contexts–Mrs. Weasley taking out Bellatrix, for instance (though I don’t think it’s explicit on the point, she must have used Avada Kedavra), I think in the context of war and not letting Evil win, and protecting those around them, that the Order members had little choice.

1) Certainly, you can’t accuse Mrs. Weasley (or Rowling) of slander. If ever someone deserved to be called a “bitch”, it’s Bellatrix. I suppose the word could be considered out of place and unnecessary, but I think it worked as a war-cry accompaniment to Molly’s heretofore unseen dueling skills.

Here’s something else no one has mentioned yet: Molly’s proclamation that Bellatrix would “never touch our family again”. Who’d Bellatrix touch? Ginny? Perhaps. Fred? Certainly the loss of her son to other Death Eaters fueled Molly’s rage towards Bellatrix, but Bellatrix didn’t kill him. No- she’s talking about Harry, who she loved like her own son and who she believed was dead. Bellatrix rather loudly laughed at Harry’s death just a few minutes before this, remember. Hell, with all that was going on, I’d call Bellatrix a lot more than “bitch” if I were in Mollywobbles’ shoes.

3) I’m doing the “assisted suicide” topic next because it’s shorter and easier than the unforgivable curse controversy. Very simply- of course it’s an assisted suicide, and of course it’s justified.

At that moment, on top of the highest tower, 4 things were happening:
1) Dumbledore was sick, weak, and seemingly unable to defend himself.
2) Draco was in grave danger of losing his soul.
3) Snape had to not only fulfill his vow, but maintain his cover as a spy.
4) And THIS is something not many people have pointed out- Harry was in very real danger. There were two brooms up on that tower, and at least a few Death Eaters knew Harry had an invisibility cloak. As Scrimgeour said later about the incident, he could “add two and two together”… and so could Voldemort’s “B-Team”.

It’s easy to understand the silent (or perhaps legilimency-inspired) communication between Snape and Dumbledore: “Harry’s here. Get it over with, then get out before they find him”.

Though it’s not a perfect analogy, I also see a similarity between Dumbledore and how Cato is presented in Dante’s Purgatorio. Not only was Cato, a pagan, given the distinct honor of making it to Purgatory (which means he’ll most certainly obtain Heaven at some point), but Cato had also committed suicide. Dante justified Cato’s action, and his placement in Purgatory, by calling it an “honorable suicide”. Cato killed himself, much like Saul, specifically to avoid falling to the hands of his enemies after losing a battle.

Dumbledore had the same thought- a long, protected, messy death at the hands of Fenrir or the Carrows not only would have been a horrible way to bring about the immediately inevitable, but it would have destroyed morale even more than did his death at Snape’s hands. AND he saved Draco’s soul to boot.

Now, on to #2, the Unforgivable Curse controversy.
I agree with previous posters that in war, what was once unforgivable becomes sadly necessary. During a war, especially a war against something or someone that’s clearly evil, you have to compromise your own values to obtain an ultimate good.

I reject moral equivalency (and I think it’s obvious that JKR does as well). There is a very clear difference between the allies bombing Dresden and Hitler bombing London. There is a difference between Harry imperiousing the goblin from Gringotts and Yaxley imperiousing Thicknese. The allies and Harry used an evil tactic to bring about an ultimate good in an imperfect world. Hitler and Voldemort used the same tactic to advance evil and terror in a world they helped make imperfect. It’s not really about the curse- it’s about your intentions.

As for Harry using “crucio” on Carrow- I chalk that up to anger and vengeance. Harry’s not perfect. He’ll make mistakes and lose his temper. What’s important is that while Harry did get have a moment of perverse pleasure from using the curse, he did NOT continue using the curse and enter a realm that could be considered “sadistic” or “Bellatrix-esque”. The bad guys use “crucio” for perverse pleasure or torture. The good guys use it because they momentarily lose control of their emotions. There’s a very key difference.

This brings me to something I’ve been considering ever since JKR revealed in a post-DH interview that Remus Lupin was killed by Antonin Dolohov. If you remember, this is the same Dolohov who killed Ron’s uncles (Molly’s brothers), the Prewetts. It’s also the same guy who damn near killed Hermione in the Dept. of Mysteries. And here we find him at the mercy of our three heroes in that crappy little cafe off Tottenham Court Road early in DH. Remember? He and Rowle tracked down Harry & Co. after Harry said “Voldemort”, which has just become jinxed. They fought, and Harry and Co. subdued the two Death Eaters. But then they couldn’t decide what to do with them.

Now, call me a cold-hearted bastard, but I’d have started warming up my Avadra Kedavra. Sorry, but this IS a war, remember? Furthermore, Ron and Hermione are looking at a man who had a profoundly negative impact on both their lives. But in the end, the three wuss out and merely wipe away Dolohov’s memory. They don’t even take his wand, for goodness’ sake!

What was the result of this show of mercy and compassion? Dolohov killed Lupin, the very man who wisely warned Harry that “the time for disarming is past”. It’s all about intentions. Would murdering Dolohov have been evil? Do ALL murders tear people’s souls? What about self-defense murders? Voldemort murdered Cedric Diggory… because. But our trio would have killed Dolohov in an effort to bring about an end to a war and save lives. Isn’t there a difference?

Killing Dolohov might have saved Lupin’s life down the road. Does that make it justifiable, and, more pointedly- did they make an immoral decision by NOT killing or even incapacitating him?

I’m interested to hear what other people have to say about my feelings on the Dolohov situation. I hope my post wasn’t too long and boring.

Re the Cruciatis curse. Both Robert Heinlein (Starship Troopers) and Gene Wolfe (The Book of the New Sun (trilogy)) have a different take on the infliction of pain as a punishment than is the first reaction in our culture.

August 8th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Are the Unforgivables such because the Ministry declared them so, or has the Ministry so decreed them because they are inherently evil?

…I think that Crucio and Imperio are malum in prohibendum; they are Unforgivable because the government has decreed them so.
_________________________

I think you’re right on this point, especially as regards Imperio. The best I can say about Harry’s use of Crucio is that it was in angry response to a wrong done to someone else, McGonagall, rather than an offense against himself, and he didn’t maintain the curse in force for any length of time, as had been done by Bellatrix when she drove the Longbottoms mad, for example. This doesn’t make it all right, but I think it does offer a little bit of mitigation. He could have avoided the use of magic altogether and achieved almost exactly the same effect with a kick to the groin. Not commendable, not something you want held up as an example, but it was one swift, angry response, not a sustained infliction of pain for the extraction of information or the delectation of the inflicter.

On the other hand, I find a lot to commend in Harry’s and McGonagall’s uses of Imperio. He could have Stupefied his “victim” in the tunnels of Gringotts, but instead he Imperio’d him– and sent him off to hide, thereby removing the danger to himself and putting his opponent into a place of safety as well. It is actually much more merciful than most of the alternatives he had available. Likewise, McGonagall used the spell to take the Carrows into custody, just as an Auror might, with no danger or injury either to herself (and by the way she clutches her chest, she may not be fully recovered from those Stunners she took to the chest in OOTP) or to the Carrows themselves. In the Muggle world, after all, it’s an offense worthy of a life sentence in some jurisdictions to kidnap someone– and kidnapping is also an affront to personal will and freedom– but it’s not an offense when a policeman puts the handcuffs on.

There are other ways of killing by magic than AK; one could use Sectumsempra, or one could use Wingardium Leviosa to drive a knife into someone.

There are other ways of torturing besides Cruciatus. One could use Aguamenti to waterboard someone, for example.

There are other ways of coercing someone besides Imperio. Confundus, for example. So why those three?

I think that Crucio and Imperio are malum in prohibendum; they are Unforgivable because the government has decreed them so. Not that they are necessarily right or good, or that it is OK to use them, but they are not as inherently wrong as Avanda Kevadra.

The clue is in the language. The first two curses are in Latin, the language of law; the last is either Hebrew or Aramaic, the languages of the Bible, and thus of Faith. Man’s law vs. God’s Law.

scatty – I, too, picked up on the “effing” term used liberally throughout the book. Kind of distracted me, since I don’t remember it being used before Book 7. True, it’s reality these days (I have a 17 year old daughter), but I still cringe when I hear it come out of her mouth!

#2 – Didn’t mind the two Unforgivables being used. Was relieved, though, that the good guys didn’t resort to AK.

#3 – I believe that JKR went to great lengths to make DD’s planned death “acceptable”. Remember, DD was on his last leg after drinking the cave potion and probably wouldn’t have lasted much longer any way. She didn’t finish him off while still powerful and whole. His arranged death with Snape served a greater purpose than simply having him avoid a painful death ala Fenrir or Bella.

BTW – I don’t recall who first pointed this out, but it was very astute whoever notice that the AK that Snape cast upon DD did not seem to result in the same “death appearance” as other characters in the previous books. Other characters died with their eyes open, looks of surprises on their faces. Not so with DD. Congrats to whoever picked up on that one!

Regarding the Unforgiveable Curses and the murder of Dumbledore, I think that one of the best things that Rowling offers us is material that leads us to reflect on our own humanity. There are not easy or clear answers to any of these questions and I think Rowling is at her best when Harry’s inner monologue reflects on these issues (although this reflection is sadly lacking around the use of Unforgiveable Curses).

All of the characters – though most often Harry – have to struggle to figure out what is right and wrong, and to have the strength to do what is right once they know it. We see human ambiguity in nearly all characters, even those Harry wants to revere. For example, Godric Gryffindor is accused of have stolen the famous sword. Dumbledore may have once been an advocate of wizard dominance.

How can we draw neat lines between those who are good and those who are bad? We are forced to ask ourselves how far one can go in doing what is generally considered evil, with the intention to bring about what is good? When do we become what we hate?

It is no surprise that Rowling doesn’t always answer these questions for us. The questions are more important.