I see this all the time, and quite frankly, agree with it. However, I can't stand to read this when authors clearly don't know what this means.

This argument says that nothing besides an action itself is good or evil, and this is entirely dependent on the situation. Even the killing curse. The curse which cannot possibly do anything but cause death, can be used against Voldemort or others to prevent more death. In essence, the end justifies the means.

Any author who uses and agrees with this line, in my opinion, should:

1. be for capital punishment, in some way or another. How else can the killing curse be arguably justified on a human? (Killing curse)

2. be against gun control. Obviously, the tool is not the evil, it is entirely up to the intent of the caster. Guns fall into the same category. Arguably, atomic bombs could also be included in this. (All dark magic)

3. at the very least, not be against torture, if only to get information from POWs or something similar. (Cruciatus)

There are several others; these are just from the top of my head. Again, I agree with these, but I hate reading fanfics by authors that obviously DON'T agree, and still think there is no distinction between light and dark magic. At least show consistency, people!

Please discuss, and feel free to rip into this argument so much that I'm too scared to ever show my n00bish face around here again.

 

I'm pretty sure you are a troll, but in the case you are not, allow me to refute.

Stories - HP fanfics in particular - are works of fiction. The author's own political stances are not relevant, and a character may act in ways that the author would not necessarily advocate. So, I'm not really sure what you're getting at, except as trying to sucker punch the more liberal members of this site by claiming they can't be really be against gun control/death penalty/torture because they like/read/write dark!Harry fiction.

Now, that being said, I disagree with you about magic in the HP realms. While we do not know the details of the Killing Curse, it strikes me that the 'looks of terror' that are on all its victims (even those who don't know what the words mean, and thus could justify terror on wizard faces) and the unforgiveable nature of it lead me to believe it's not just an instant death with nothing else involved as so many grey!Harry stories try to portray it.

The Cruciatus Curse is evil. It requires the caster to desire to inflict the pain upon the victim. It strikes me to be a rather defining characteistic of a sadist - not something I consider a stellar quality that 'anyone' could use in the right circumstance.

The rest of 'dark magic' is way too vague in canon for any real discussion. If, however, we don't follow the cliche 'dark is the magic called that by the ministry so we don't overthrow them' then one must assume that there is a genuine corruption of humanity as one casts these spells.

Edit: Also, what Sesc said. Say what you will, but if there is one thing those Germans do well, it's illustrating just why we like reading about evil.

 

What about Angels of Death? Surely they'd be for AK even if they were against capital punishment. Or people wanting to commit suicide cleanly and without pain - the curse seems ideal.

Also, guns are different to wands in that, in Rowling's society, wands are necessary for every day living for the average person, whereas guns aren't. And they do control wands to some extent, requiring the OWLs be sat and the wielder to be seventeen before they are allowed full control.

As for the cruciatus, I've read the argument that it could be used in medicine for nerve simulation, a fact which as a non-doctor, I have no idea about, but which sounds plausible.

Think a little harder before posting arguments everyone has seen.

Also: In before Taure!

 

The 'cruciatus nerve treatment' idea relies on the assumption that the curse does actually stimulate nerves instead of merely creating pain directly in the section of the brain that deals with it, or, you know, just making the person feel pain through magic. Magic =/= Science. People need to realise that.

 

Er... yes. I must humbly retract much of that, for most of my experience in Dark!Harry is the 'gray' or 'not evil' Harrys. My rant was fired up after one to many Eutopic fics used this line, the kind of fic that I eventually learn to drop, and you've likely learned not to touch.

I don't have a problem with dark or evil fics written by authors who don't agree with what is being done, and frankly they can be some of the best out there.

Unfortunately, this is often not the case. All too often, in all kinds of literature, the author throws in a solution to a problem, usually with 'this is perfect - why didn't Muggles think of that?' It is these works that need to keep consistent views, and not go advocating something they don't understand, especially if it actually contradicts the rest of the propoganda.

I believe I clarified that that the author has to agree with the line for my 'must' list to apply (and 'must' is probably too strong of a word). If not, I will go back and add that.

Sorry to anyone who took offence.

I guess I agree with the AK instant-kill cliche. I don't remember 'looks of terror' in canon (at least, not on anyone who wouldn't know what it means) but if someone said something wierd, and a green ball of light shot straight at me, I doubt I'd be laughing my ass off. Well ... not sober, at least. >_>

Suicide? If a little pain is all it takes to keep you alive, I'd rather keep you around.

And with gun control, I wasn't refering to wands, I was refering to dark magic.

I wasn't aware that this has come up before, but now that I think about it, it probably has. I was impatient, and failed to search properly before posting.

 

Quickly! Backpedal faster! We're almost back to the starting line!

 

I don't care about the philosophy and way of thinking of the author. Unless it's too stupid to believe or preachy, it doesn't really matter.

Also, I think you should keep in mind that reading about an opposite way of thinking is often more interesting as it may lead to ideas you never thought of before.

 

I actually agree, to a point, that it would be much more logical if effect was important more than action.

It's easy to kill with variety of charms, but in case of defending from a DE who's skill is far greater than yours the only known curse to ignore shields might be the only chance of survival.

On the topic of DA being addictive, if that is the case I'd rather have legislation similar to muggle alcohol one: use as much as you want, but any crimes under influence will be punished harsher.

 

If, as you say, someone said some strange words and a green bolt came flying at me, you'd think your expression would turn to confusion or surprise rather than terror.

If the Dark Arts are indeed addictive, they'd more likely be perceived as a wizarding drug than alcohol.

 

I think it is that fine line between public safety and morality.
Turn away from gun laws, and look at "sex trade" laws might be a better take on a "complex problem"

But I could be wrong

 

You guys are ...



...doing it wrong.

 

To me, Dark Magic works best when you want to cause unjust harm.
Basically based on how the Cruciatus Curse works.

 

Not even going to respond second half of the OP's post. I mean, when an author is preachy enough, I can see the possibility, but most authors on this site at least, are pretty good at keeping their political/social biases out of their characters. Actually the worst I've seen on FF net is an author occasionally having their character love some band like Linkin Park or something. Oh well, there are those stories where Harry becomes a gun nut and war-lover, but I digress.

Woo congratulations on saying nothing so eloquently. An action itself is good or evil? Dependent on the situation? Wow those are some pretty hefty clauses there.

So you're saying that an action itself by nature is good or evil? But then it's dependent on the situation upon which it's being carried out... How can something which defines itself be dependent on some other condition? Hmm...

I think I know what you're trying to say, but I think you should meditate on this longer.

 

Considering that, going off what Bellatrix said in OotP, you have to be rather sadistic in order to properly cast the Cruciatus Curse I have a hard time seeing how it's not an evil spell. The idea it has some sort of medical use doesn't really mesh with the idea that the caster has to get off on causing other people pain to use the spell properly.

As for the other unforgivables, they both do things that are, in general, fundamentally wrong. While one can make a case for situations where using them is appropriate or even near-obligatory, almost all of those situations involve words like "necessary evil" or "for the greater good."

 

I'm going to have to say Voldemort's quote on this, but only part of it. "There is no good and evil". In my opinion, good nor evil does not exist. It is the persons perspective on how things work effects their way of life and/or thinking. Magic isn't about good or evil, it's the intent of how you want to use it. You're either helping people (this includes just yourself, perhaps), or hurting people.

What the OP is saying, is that some (or a lot), try to add in their own ways of thinking how the world of HP should work, or how "they" want it to work. Their "Dark!ButLightSidedHarry" thing is just their bullshit excuse saying that he's using darker magic, but he's not out to hurt people, which in turn, is a damn contradiction. You can't be a dark character without hurting people on purpose. It just doesn't work that way. So the authors give this stupid statement so that he's on the light side, just using darker magic, or some such.