Is not the Force life? If I recall correctly what Yoda said in ESB at least.

So the Force isn't really as indifferent to life as water is, because the Force is a manifestation of life.

 

While we're on the subject of the Force...

I agree with you that the Force is life - insofar as the Living Force is concerned.* However, note that I said that " the will of the Force is ultimately indifferent to sentient interests." That is, while particular manifestations of the Force may or may not seem to favor sentient interests (probably due to a confluence of sentient factors**), the general trend is itself indifferent. This would seem to explain why Jedi are so prone to fall to the dark side, since their fall is itself the "will of the Force." If you ask me, the Jedi delude themselves by committing themselves to the will of the Force above all, rather than putting life above all. It is the latter that ought to be paramount, not the former - since very often, the "will of the Force" doesn't really favor life.

I mean - consider - apparently, part of the will of the Force was the so-called Prophecy by which Anakin Skywalker would bring "balance" to the force. This so-called "balance" happened to involve Skywalker falling to the dark side, slaughtering Jedi across the galaxy, and bringing the galaxy under the crushing grip of the Empire. So much for the "will of the Force!"

*The Unifying Force is supposed to be more encompassing than the Living Force, and it might be the basis for the Living Force, rather than the other way around. So, it may be doubted whether life is the basis of the Force, or just a particular area of interest.

**By this, I simply mean interactions between sentient beings. For instance, a confluence of sentient beings who hate one another might give rise to a dark side manifestation. Or the heavy bustle and hustle of places like Nar Shaddaa might give off a Force manifestation of energy and power. That type of thing.

 

You are quite right--I myself have posted here linking to an article that talked about that, you may be remembering that, I don't know.

As a Calvinist myself, I'm not entirely a neutral party here, but I have to say that like the author of that article says, that's not how Calvinism is supposed to work. The fact that people are predestined to salvation makes them make good choices eventually, it's not that people are predestined no matter what they do--God makes provision of means as well as ends.

However, like the author also says, Rowling is pretty much a cultural Christians, meaning she remembers some bits and pieces she heard in sermons and joins them together to make a half-assed worldview. Many people do think that is how Calvinism works (that is a misconception we have to battle a lot). What we end up with here is that problem itself--Harry is predestined by the sorting hat for salvation (Griffyndor) and as such can do no wrong.

Dumbledore's bit about choices is actually very telling. He doesn't say our choices determine what we become, he says they show who we are. This is very deterministic. John Calvin would applaud.

The bit about Crouch is very telling--that he did so was presented as an example of how power mad he was becoming during the times, and Dumbledore (aka JKR) expressed disapproval (tm). Notice that there was a civil war going on, and allowing the auror (in effect soldiers) on your side to actually try to kill the enemy is presented as morally reprehensible! On what was pretty much a just war! And then no one is actually sentenced to death for treason, though apparently there are no moral qualms about letting people rot in an unsanitary prison with madness inducing soul-sucking fiends. As long as no one is killed, everything is a-ok!

 

It is? I don't recall anything being said about nerve stimulation.

Personally, I take the same approach to the Cruciatus as I do to the Killing Curse. It's the torture curse, not the nerve stimulation curse. It doesn't make you feel pain via any physical mechanism, but rather imposes a magical, not physical, effect - that of pain.

 

Nociceptors do not constitute "all nerve endings." Stimulating all the of the nociceptors of someone is not going to bring them back from the brink of death, etc. Also, pain pathways are separate, albeit related, from sensory pathways. So it would not help someone feel again.

In other words, science + magic = BS. Don't bother trying to mix them.

 

I think the 'gray area' justification of the Crucio were mainly just fanon attempts to bring it off the far end of bad. That's pretty much squashed in OoTP in the Ministry when Harry ends up tickling Bella with it, and we get the first real look at intent driving spells.

I do not think a respectable healer who had the right mindset could ever use the Unforgivables in a 'light' way. Intent drives them. Overwhelming hate for the Crucio, the need and justification to command for the Imperio, and well, I can think of a few for the Avada, but with no references to it being used with mercy as the intent, I won't speculate. My opinion (Yeah, I used the "O" word) is that it would fail without the true intent and desire to kill.

A healer trying to be merciful wants to nurture life and well-being. The Avada, any 'Unforgivable' is anathemic by nature to those ideals.

Again, more opinions.

 

Something to think about, if there is 'dark' magic and it makes you more corrupt, wouldn't 'light' magic make you more pure? Something that might be fun to explore, someone being too 'good' because they cast a lot of white magic.

 

While we're more-or-less necro-ing a finished discussion, I'll just add this:

Coleam, by this statement, you're saying it would be evil for *you* to cast the Killing Curse on a spider, but not necessarily for anyone else to. Which sort of makes any of your positions on morality moot, since you only think it applies to you.

Also... if you actually believe this, whether you apply it to others or not, you'd better fucking be a vegetarian, man. And I do find it a bit hard to believe that you actually try not ever to kill an animal. Never? Really?

If you *actually* never kill animals then that says several things to me about your lifestyle.

1) You've never lived in a shitty apartment infested with pests. Personally, I kill every goddamned roach I see.

2) Or gone camping near a body of water. I spend a lot of time outdoors, with hippies who love nature and the wilderness. Any of them gets bit by a horsefly or mosquito, they're going to kill the fucker, and not feel bad about it at all.

And that's just what pops into my head.

 

You're right, this branch of the discussion was basically finished. But I'll respond anyways.

As I said, morality is highly subjective. I don't expect anyone else to follow my own personal code because everyone will have a different take on certain situations. That doesn't mean that I don't think that it's wrong if someone else kills. I just don't expect the other guy to share that opinion.

No, I'm not a vegetarian. However, I don't eat meat very often and I don't kill my own food. Yes, it is a bit of a contradiction. I don't particularly care though. I grew up eating meat and I like to eat it every once in a while.

No, I haven't.

I have been camping by many bodies of water. Horseflies I avoid; they're big and slow. Mosquitoes I generally flick off my arm rather than squishing. I also prefer to wear long sleeves/pants when camping, which makes bugs pretty much a non-issue.

Also note that, as I said to Taure, I'm still trying to work out my moral code. It ain't gonna be perfect.