Instinct

In my opinion it has to do more with instinct. Person A wants to hurt someone then he should use the dark arts, they were made for hurting your opponent. It is not the magic that is addicting but in fact the rush or feeling someone gets when proving their dominance over someone else.

 

Eh, I think most of the stigma that the Dark Arts are addictive and destructive comes from which kind of person is seen using Dark Magic, especially the Unforgivables. It takes a certain kinds of mindset to cast those curses, being them willingnes to subjugate one's free will, willingness and desire to torture and finally willingness and desire to kill. Seriously, most of people don't want this kind of fellow near them, and then you get to see the trigger happy cases like Voldemort and Bellatrix so it's easy to conclude that the Dark Arts mess your head up. Unfortunately, it's pure speculation since there is no concrete answer in the books.

I don't know if Harry is a good example for the non-addictiveness of the Dark Arts since he is remarkably strong-willed and has deep-set morals. If anything, his use of the Imperius was for a greater good (well, the can of worms is open).

 

Very interesting discussion. I hadn't previously thought about the idea but could it be surround the issue of causing hard onto others? Blackening your soul through harmful deeds?

 

In my interpretation of Dark Arts, the inherent magic itself is no more habit forming than any other (although I believe that magic in general may well be psychologically addictive) but that to get the most power from Dark magic, you need to fuel the spells with negative emotions. When people end up using Dark magic often, they are channeling negative emotions like anger/rage, envy/avarice, lust/desire for dominion etc much more than the average person. Because they wallow in these emotions, and get positive reinforcement when using them (defeating their enemy, achieving ambition etc) the negative emotions are much easier to call on and start to become more dominant parts of their personality. This is why Dark Arts seem to be addictive, and have such a bad reputation, along with the fact that people who naturally have more negative emotions, or stronger ones, are naturally adept at Dark magic and its often used for malicious reasons. In my "version" of canon, Dark magic has many beneficial uses too, but they often get overshadowed by the destructive aspects. I think that there are powerful Dark shields, wards that are powered by fear, whereas "Light" shields would be powered by protective instinct. Just as I believe there are combat spells equal to their Dark equivalent that are powered by positive emotions. Which type you end up using is based on personality, education and ethics. I'm certain that Mad Eye could use some powerful Dark magic even though he ostensibly is a Light wizard, just like Lucius could probably use Light magic because of his love for his son.

That's how I see it, would be interested to know if anyone agrees.

 

I think the true dark arts like the unforgivables are like the patronus you need emotion to use them like bellatrix said in OotP.

So if you view it from a psychological point of view a person would have to gather up their hatred and willingess to hurt people, everytime they cast some dark spells so ergo they would find it much easier to feel hatred and willingness to hurt since they brought these emotions to the surface so much to fuel their magic.
And since they would feel much more hatred and need to inflict pain than a normal person they would stumble into more situations where they fell the need to cast dark magic to hurt someone and that leads to making their hatred an even easier to acces emotion, which would make it into a cycle each step feeding into another.


Also I dont think the dark arts cause physical degradation since that would make a lot of points in the book moot for example lucius malfoy probably cast a lot of dark magic as a death eater and he wasnt described as some freaky dark magic mutant, he didnt even have sith eyes.So its much more likely that voldemort body was simply a result of that particluar ritual.

 

I think at least some of the dark wizards are just jaded. At first they think blood boiling curses are horrifying but every time they cast it they get a little more used to it, until finally they think "Cook someone alive with their own blood? Meh, why not?"

 

I kinda liked Mira mirths take on dark magic in "On the way to Greatness" as the sorta addictive short-cut, and the idea that what makes magic dark is often the purpose and intent of the spell. Tough in hindsight I guess that's almost too close to Dark Side of the Force logic...

 

One of the fics (cannot for the life of me remember which) explained it in an interesting way:
- The first time you cast an unforgivable, you have to hate the target
- The more you cast them, the more accessible the emotion becomes
- Eventually, the "nerve" is just raw, so you can just hate the world, and not necessarily the target, to cast because it just comes so easily

 

I hate to quote Voldemort but...

Harry has used both the Cruciatus curse and the Imperius curse and his souls seems in working order.

 

Harry still isn't exactly the poster child for stability though. For example, if you go by the theory that the dark arts are addicting, or even make the user more susceptible to using them, Harry never showed any hesitation after using the Crucio. Also, it's difficult to believe his soul wasn't damaged in some way by having Voldemorts leech of it for 16/17 years.

 

Not to mention that he eventually goes for fizzling the Cruciatus to making it work. Which isn't a ringing endorsement of his mental health given that, according the Bellatrix, you have to be a sadist who gets off on causing pain to successfully cast the spell.

 

On the other hand, he just watched a hated Death Eater treat McGonagall, who is the closest thing to a mentor at Hogwarts he has since Dumbledore died (and another symbol of stability and concern, both of which he lacked until arriving at Hogwarts), with extreme disrespect.

I'd venture that most people would find it within themselves in the moment to do something similar.

 

I think you raise a pretty valid point. but I still think it says something about Harry's character that he goes with the sadistic torture spell as his first response.

I'm not saying it makes him a bad person; like you said, Harry's been through a lot of emotional turmoil and is probably acting in the heat of the moment. But it probably isn't a good sign for his overall emotional stability. No shock, the teenage boy who's basically been a child soldier with the fate of the world hanging on his shoulders could use a little therapy.

 

I also wonder if the repeated effects of having it used on him have desensitized him to it. He's lost some of his moral compass in regards to that spell.

 

On the other hand, also remember he's just seen what the Death Eater has done to Neville and Seamus, who he's basically grown up with, and also the rest of his classmates. This, of course, is a while after hearing Hermione get tortured and realizing Death Eaters have imprisoned another good friend of theirs in Luna.

Yeah, as much as I'd like to think different, at 17 years old, there's a very good chance after all of that, that I'd have reacted the same way; emotional problems or not.

Also, think about Minerva's reaction. Sure, there was the original shock, but at Harry's explanation, she somewhat gushed before catching herself and helping him. That's not the reaction an adult gives a teenager when they do something unredeemable, which begs the question, just how was the Cruciatus Curse seen by the average person? We know the Ministry considers it an Unforgivable. We know Neville hates it. But we also know by this point, much of Hogwarts has been desensitized to it by its repeated use for punishment.

I'd argue then, that the same desensitization happened to Harry towards using the curse. And, right along with that, is Hermione's use of another Unforgivable - and she is most definitely not emotionally unhinged.

 

Headcanon, heavily influenced by On the Way to Greatness and HPa the Boy Who Lived:

Dark magic has the inherent intent of causing damage, as opposed to just being mostly used in order to cause damage. Directly from OtWtG, a dark fire curse is cast with the intent to burn something whereas Incendio has the intent to start a fire. They can both be used in a duel to burn the opponent.

However, the fire conjured by the curse is magical in itself and loaded with the "dark" intent; by direct consequence, the damage the dark curse will cause is also magical in nature; as opposed to the merely physical damage caused by Incendio. Lifting a curse, and this one's from HPatBwL; merely stops the curse from doing any further damage. The damage has to be treated separately and will require specialised potions or spells, possibly leave scarring: Sectumsempra is a short term curse that ends itself shortly but the damage done is far more severe than a cut with any physical instrument. The only curse I remember that requires further explanation is Avada Kedavra; it prevents resuscitation. I personally favour the interpretation of it where it stops all electric current in the nerves; limiting its possible targets to any being with a nervous system and causing no visible physical damage, not even a burst vein in the brain. Which in turn makes me ponder what one would observe if you used a defibrillator on an AK victim, but that digresses into fanon.

I will speculate that depending on the strength of the intent and how the spell achieves its purpose (magical theory beyond intent (ie anything scientifically measurable or philosophically explainable) is not given at all in canon and I have yet to see any fanfiction that dived too deep return from the abyss with anything acceptable) it may also influence its reaction to preventative magic, though I heavily dislike the rock-paper-scissors duelling approach with 30 different shields et cetera.

By the same logic; you may make a 3-point distinction with Dark magic that is inherently damaging, neutral magic that achieves a physical change in the environment, and Light magic that is inherently healing/protecting. Would this explain the reason that most adults can't cast Protego? (I go with the explanation Applied Cultural Anthropology gave, where most adults have never been in a situation which made them feel what is described as a "bone-deep" intent to protect, which remains compatible with this.) I simply won't conclude as one side sounds way too sappy for my taste and the other... well, the Patronus. What shouldn't be done is to separate magic into Light and Dark; Wingardium Leviosa is not charged by love or any emotion, just the will to make something float. Also, most jinxes and some hexes don't fall into this categorisation of the Dark Arts. These are also jinxes and hexes that are taught at Hogwarts and often cast by the protagonists. I have a feeling the definition accepted in class does not in fact cover what is actually Dark Magic with capital letters, as I heavily doubt Dark Lord Grindelwald would consider Tarantellegra as part of his art even though they appear at first glance to fit the definition.

My headfanon (if you will) on this subject is that jinxes are spells cast with mischievous intent that affect the human body as if they were a charm, can be Finite-d, can probably be blocked by any experienced magic users, and do not cause permanent damage. The fanon part is that I prefer splitting most of the hexes department between curses and jinxes; what remains are Stupefy, Confundo, Legilimens, etc; which affect the mind directly. Does not respond to Finite, can be blocked by Occlumency (the magicalness of which I contest) or a well-organised mind that is expecting it. This gives us the third department of curses which include the Unforgiveables and Sectumsempra as well as such spells as Densaugeo. Densaugeo required medical intervention even if it did not leave permanent scarring thereafter(it caused a permanent change), and I would assume Draco would have received detention if there were any responsible adults in the vicinity. So, most curses are not illegal. In short: a Jinx is a charm or transfiguration that non-permanently affects the human body without the target's consent as if it were an object via mischievous intent. A Hex is its own class and it affects the mind of the target. A Curse is any of the 3 spell categories (TF, charm, hexes) we accepted so far, however it applies itself permanently by virtue of the strong intent it is cast with. The intent manifests in the spell's physical consequence.

As for addiction or "blackening of the soul", I disagree. Honestly, that just cheapens the story for me. The only instance where I would consider the idea of using dark magic directly causing someone to want to use more dark magic is the Curious Case of Lord Voldemort; he split and excised what can be considered as his conceptual essence as a human being and therefore was more inclined to intend to cause damage as he lacked inhibition or empathy. The rest has 2 causes:
1. Sadism, psychopathy, the satisfaction derived from domination.
2. Learning to associate the intent to hurt or otherwise damage (as opposed to just the act) with pleasure as the intent is used by means of the dark triad I listed above to give pleasure to the target.
It's not the usage of dark magic that causes pleasure, it's that you can USE dark magic in ways that grants some form of base and animalistic pleasure. It's all in the psyche.

 

Can we please stop calling Harry a "Child Soldier"? It's a bit insulting to actual child soldiers. Harry had a pretty easy time of it compared to other people. And, considering that his kill count is exactly one person...

But onto the actual topic: There's never been any actual proof that the Dark Arts do anything to your soul. The only Dark Arts I know of which effects your soul in any way are Horcruxes. And I know I may be straying into Fanon territory here, but what exactly differentiates the Dark Arts fron normal magic.

I don't believehowever that the Dark Arts themselves are addicting, at least not like how one may be addicted to Drugs or Alcohol. I think the addiction is more due to the power you receive from it, similar to how one may be addicted to being a Dictator.

When you have spells like Avada Kedavra which kills instantly and Imperio which lets you control other people, other spells such as Wingardium Leviosa seems pretty tame in comparison.

 

Yeah, if we go by canon it seems like the Unforgivables don't really cause any sort of corruption in the user. If anything, the reverse is true. According to Bellatrix the Unforgivables don't work unless you believe you have the right to use them.

That said, it seems like the Ministry's ban on them is really more along the lines of standard law enforcement thing. Using the Killing Curse on another human being earns the caster a life sentence in Azkaban not because of the spell they used, but because they just murdered someone. It would also explain the eased reaction to good guys using Unforgivables in Deathly Hallows: the ban on Unforgivables was a peacetime restriction, and now the wizarding world's at war.

 

Or (and along the line of what you wrote), by using an unforgivable, there's no question of intent. So by virtue of using it, you've already proven premeditation (even momentarily premeditation). On the other side, Harry's cutting curse against Malfoy, if he actually killed Malfoy, wouldn't immediately prove he was trying to do so.