I think Bellatrix's insanity came from being in Azkaban for over a decade and nothing to do with the dark arts. Do you see Lucius Malfoy or Snape being insane? Yet they were part of the inner circle too.

 

Translation: Bitches Be Crazy.

 

I would personally suspect that Bellatrix wasn't exactly a paragon of mental stability before Azkaban, but pretty much everything we see in canon indicates that long-term exposure to Dementors causes all kinds of psychological issues. Just look at how much of a mess Sirius Black was in Prisoner of Azkaban—and according to him the Dementors didn't get to him as badly as they did most inmates.

 

Not all Dark Arts are addicting. But a spell that needs a mindset of dominance and malice is also one that will attract continued use of it. The freedom from control and from prior power limits and moral boundaries, is inherently psychological. And once it's tasted in some form, the user would likely start to feel a sense of reactance.

 

Ever hear of psychological dependence? Addiction isn't limited to a physiological reaction. Maybe if you read all of my post this wouldn't have to be explained.

 

Thanks.

Anyone up for actual discussion?

 

Great. I don't see why I can't discuss something similar too. I didn't post to repeat what was already being said and then quietly slink away, just like this topic wasn't made to repeat a point brought up countless times before. It was a post looking for another person to reply and talk about with it.

 

Because you are simply rehashing what's already been discussed.

 

My assumption,(as well as what seems to be the common belief thus far in this thread) is that the Dark Arts aren't inherently corrupting. Unlike the common dark power corrupts the person who wields it I'd say that those who want to do "dark" things are more drawn to those spells. As a result they'd gain proficiency in them. Bellatrix and Voldemort are certainly extreme examples, but we can also note characters like Lucius Malfoy, and Severus Snape who both are quite immersed in the Dark Arts and neither suffer and malignent effects that couldn't easily be attributed to them being jerkasses. The only thing that seems to objectively corrupt is the Horcrux, and it's implied thats more due to the splitting of ones soul than anything else.

The second point to address is what constitutes dark arts? Canon of course discusses the worst of the spells classified as Dark, but that was by the Ministry of Magic. It's more analogous to the US declaring assault rifles illegal because they're dangerous than because of any actual evil associated with them. The curses were even authorized in the war against Voldemort. Lesser spells, Sectusempra and its ilk all seem more situation based. Of course there is some precedent for magic being intent based, the Cruciatus and the Patronus both being an example. So is it as simple as any magic with negative emotional intent can be called dark? But this would rapidly become philosophical so I'll stop.

 

I believe it is just the intent. I don't really mind either way as long as the author gives it some solid backing. A lot of the quotes people recite as fact for their theories don't take into account who was saying it, and that it may be them simplifying it or trying to assert an opinion.

 

well, thespells are evil so they can start breaking down your soul and make you more likely to join voldemrot.

 

I don't think the comparison between Bellatrix and the rest really work. True, Lucius and Snape searched through and actively used the Dark Arts but Bellatrix, by the end of the first war, was known for her Cruciatus Curse. She had created a reputation of actively enjoying torturing people rather than just using it. She enjoyed seeing people suffer. Will it always be corrupting? I don't know. I mean, I think the only reason Snape didn't have complete and total immersion in the same way as Bellatrix or Rodolphus or Dolohov or Voldemort was because of Lily and her aversion to it.

 

I'm split on the issue. I think it's an interesting idea for authors to play with... if done well. The thing is that there is nothing in canon to really support it. Harry was throwing around Unforgivables in the last book and didn't turn into a drooling maniac, so I'd say it's all a power trip. Of course, that could also turn into a 'is Harry special' debate. Personally, I like the idea that they're just spells that are particularly violent and socially unacceptably (mostly). Why? Because they don't need to be. So, why do Dark Lords and their minions use them? Well, I agree that there is the reward a sadist gets to hurting/killing and wielding 'ultimate' power. It also is a way of manipulating followers. Mutual criminal behavior is used to bind and reinforce bonds between people in the real world. Once people participate, they're 'locked in' because they've crossed a huge line and the consequences would be too grave to stop. They also have received acceptance/reinforcement from the group that this behavior is good or required. This is repeated until it's a form of conditioning. The truth behind these mechanisms are far subtler and stranger than certain magics being inherently addictive. Then again, I'm biased. Take Star Wars for an example where the Force does get up to mind bending shenanigans. You never really know how much agency a Force Sensitive character has. I love SW but the black and white philosophy and uncertain puppetry chafes on occasion. Makes for good writing material but if I step back... I start to think Kreia was right.

 

I agree, I think it's stupid to think that dark magic is addicting and cancerous. I also agree that it's based on intent mostly. I feel the real reason is purely mental. Having complete control and power can be intoxicating. As a person use the Dark Arts more and more, they probably start to rely on it more. Why bother with a Stunning spell when you can use a curse that's much harder to block?

However, I do think that some Dark magic are dangerous to the user. Its been implied that the Horcrux ritual, and the act of creating soul pieces, do cause some form of damage.

 

While I can't prove it,i think Dark arts is easier to learn. It is short cut to power.
Immense power.
So I can imagine why those who are hungry after power or those who wants to be something big but lacks talent for it turning to Dark Arts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely in the end.

 

I think the main reasoning behind the Dark Arts is that they're inherently used to cause harm: either to one's self or another.

The definition of the Dark Arts is how to cast violent curses or jinxes, breed and care for dangerous creatures (like a Basilisk), and eventually how to cast Unforgivable Curses and/or create Horcruxes.

All of these things are seen as being unfavorable because you're either trying to maliciously attack a person for some reason, trying to create or handle a destructive creature with no real benefit to Wizarding Society, or how to create something that will irreversibly scar your entire being and prevent you from being able to pass on to the afterlife.

They may even begin to cause unpleasant changes to your body if the descriptions of Grindlewald and Voldemort are any indication.

All of this would suggest that the person who wants to use such a thing would be a rather unpleasant and possibly dangerous individual, who may or may not be seeking power, and once they realize a good portion of Wizarding Society is completly ignorant of how to stop what you could throw at them or may not even be aware of exactly what it is you can throw at them, would cause that person to delve even farther into it until they stumble into something that will either kill them, or change them as a person until they're a souless husk of a being.

Either way it would be something that would be deemed best to be discouraged.

 

People mention Voldemort a lot as an example of the way the Dark Arts can corrupt someone. But I think even if that were the case he'd be the exception not the rule.

I'm with most on this discussion in that it depends on the caster and not the magic itself. However I think there is magic than is inherently evil, the most obvious example being the Horcrux. A soul is supposed to stay intact, and the creation of one requires the ultimate act of evil, that being murder. So yes the magic is evil. Voldemort created seven, and therefore doing that to yourself that many times isn't going to do much for your beauty.

However it goes back to discussions earlier on this thread. Intent. The intent of a Horcrux is already evil since it requires murder. Therefore the caster must also be evil. I recall that Dumbledore quote that stated Voldemort "went beyond ordinary evil" and it rings true in this case.