So when is magic considered 'Dark'? Could the Imperious curse ever be useful? What are the equivalents in real life? Would the CIA be allowed to use the Cruciatus curse if lives were at stake? Would Sectumsempra be okay to use to protect yourself? Everyone in the Potterverse can potentially learn and use it, even though it is banned by the Ministry - should it be banned? Are guns banned when they can potentially take lives too?

Hopefully there should be a few things there to start some thoughts off anywho...I guess it'll be interesting to hear some opinions on the gun laws, I know it's a pretty hot topic and it'll be even more interesting to see how the morality of owning a gun or knife or keeping a golf club by your bed compares to HP's use of 'Unforgivables'

I can see a time in which using the Dark Arts to save yourself or others can come into play. I guess it would be a necessary evil, so to speak. Maybe one can relate this to the atomic bombs in World War II. What if they hadn't been dropped, killing hundreds of thousands of people? Would the war still have gone on causing potentially millions of lives instead of hundreds of thousands?

I suppose using the cruciatus cruse would be one of those necessary evils, along with sectumsempra. However, the AK curse and imperious are not. For one, AK kills the person, and I can only see someone good using this if they were being attack by someone trying to kill them or something like a human-eating wolf. The imperious curse manipulates people, I think...is that right? So I can't see any good coming from it...it would be like tampering with evidence.

I suppose my problem with this is that they are termed "unforgivable curses." If I think of a curse as unforgivable, I take that to mean that it is such under any circumstance. I think that it has surprised me that Harry has not taken flack from anyone on that when he's tried to use them. It seems like a double standard to me. However, what else does the ministry have to combat that? It seems that they would be necessary in certain situations, like you've said crsdba. Maybe I wouldn't have the problem if they changed to the name to "unlikable curces." Wow, that was a lame name, but do you get my drift?

I think like Crsdba sort of touched on, it is the cirmunstance that the spell or incantation is used that dictates whether or not it is dark. I mean, under the right circumstances almost any spell could be used for dark purposes. Petrificus Totalus is first year standard book of spells, but if someone goes around petrifying everyone they see then yeah, Petrificus Totalus is being used as dark magic.

I think true dark magic are the spells and curses that no good or wholesome purpose for can be found. Such as creating a horcrux or the Cruciatus curse. I think the cruciatus curse would even be darker than the AK because there may or may not be a circumstance in which the AK is nessesary, but when is torturing someone ever practical, nessesary, or ok?

I agree that any spell, charm, potion used for a dark purpose could be considered Dark Magic, but only arbitrarily when used by a Dark Wizard. The spells, charms, and potions in and of themselves are not symbolic of good/bad magic, as nimbus said. I don't have a problem with these types of spells etc. used as a defense against a Dark Wizard.

I do, however, have a problem with any of the Unforgivable curses being used by either side. When does it become absolutely necessary to use a curse such as the AK? I have issues with Umbridge's willingness to use these Unforgivable curses in OotP, whether she could carry it out or not, and I have a problem with Harry's attempt at using them. Then there are no consequences, no reason to term them Unforgivable if they are allowed by either side.

I am wondering if the definition of what makes magic "Dark" has something to do with attitude.

We have seen that in HP a person's intentions seem to have a lot to do with the effect of the spell being cast (and possibly even how some potions are made?).

We have been told both the AK and the Crucio require some pretty 'black' motives. If the Imperious also requires this level of nastiness, then we have a reason as to why they are unforgivable; in order to cast them you have to want to do 'evil'.

By this definition, you, could not say you have cast the AK in self defense, because you don't want just to be safe, but to murder.

It's like using the golf club beside your bed to hit a burglar, but you hit him seventeen times. At some point you went beyond what was required to defend yourself, and crossed over 'the line' into assault.

A lot of people might say that killing somebody who wants to kill you is self defence, but the intention required to cast an AK needs to be more than just protecting yourself, it needs to be hatred.

If it is all a question of motives required to cast a spell, then the use of Dark Magic can never be condoned as it is always an act of evil.

This was highlighted in the books (to me) by the 'condemming' of Barty for authorising the use of the AK in the last war against Voldy. It signified that the good guys had sunk to as low a level as the bad guys.

This is the differnce between using Dark magic and firing a gun, or even launching a nuclear weapon. The later could be done without evil intent, the former could not.

I am borrowing a lot from Star Wars and the Dark Side here, along with some other magical universes.

A hole in this theory that I can see was the Sectumsempra spell Harry used. He really was defending himself and didn't cast it just to hurt Draco. He didn't even know what the spell would do, so his intentions were not evil - as my theory requires.

Still, JKR has left holes in her universe before. Maybe Harry's successful use of the spell was a fluke? Or maybe it wasn't ruly Dark Magic despite what Snape said? Or maybe Harry's feeling towards Draco helped it work?

Anone else got a theory as to what makes certain magic 'Dark'.

I think bajab said very nicely most of what my feelings on the subject are, but just to highlight upon the Unforgivable Curses for a moment... With AK, I don't really have anything to add. It's the intent that makes it dark. The use of AK required a dark intent to do a dark deed. I don't think there's really much room to say that that's not dark magic. But there is a bit more I'd like to add on the other two.

First with the Cruciatus Curse... Even aside from the idea that dark intentions must be in place to put the curse to much effect, even more justification can be found in naming this "unforgivable." The sole purpose and effect of the curse is to torture another living being. As far as I can think, there's only one use for torture that could be considered "good" and that would be when it is used as a necessary evil in attaining important information. However, in the wizarding world, there would never be any reason to resort to such methods for those reasons. All one would really need is a competent potions master and the truth could be discovered without any overly invasive methods.

Speaking of invasive methods, that brings me to the Imperious Curse. One thing that has not been mentioned in regard to the Imperious Curse is that it takes away free will. And what right does any one person have to take away the will of another and force them to do their bidding. How could that ever be justified? I think Imperious is a prime case in which not just the intent but the nature of the spell itself can in fact make a curse "evil." The act of taking away another person's free will is all together unforgivable. The only rationalization for the use of such a spell could be a sort of "ends justify the means" explanation, and while that much may be up for debate, it doesn't mean that the spell is any better a tool for it.

I think that's all I can think to say about it for now. Bajab already said everything else that entered my mind as I read the topic.

I don't think using the Cruciatus Curse to obtain information is good at all. It would be equivalent to the police torturing people for information...instead they sit people in a room and yell at them and make them repeat what they said to try and trick them into a confession. Its still using a curse to torture someone! The Imperious Curse can also technically be used for good in that sense...making someone go somewhere...I can't think of an example at the moment though.

As for veritaserum: (from jkrowling.com in the FAQ's section)

Ok, here's my thoughts on the three Unforgivable Curses:

AK - Never good, not even in self defence. Unlike in the Muggle world, wizards have many ways of defending themselves without hurting (or, for that matter, killing) the attacker, like Petrificus Totalis, or the Impediment Jinx or whatever. I liked what bajab said about intentions. Avada Kedavra has to be meant. In some way or the other, you must find it in yourself to kill another human for it to work. I guess it doesn't necessarily have to mean hating the person you are performing it on - just general hatred. (I'm thinking of Snape killing Dumbledore while maybe still being loyal to him. Maybe Snape thought of his dad or Voldemort as he fired the curse, but that's for another thread...). My main point here is: there are other ways of defending yourself if you don't mean to kill.

Cruciatus - Never good either. Like it has been said - when does a situation need torture? It's not the middle ages. Hopefully mankind has at least obtained that grain of wisdom that you can't torture someone and say that the 'end justifies the means.'

Imperious - awful. The only thing that makes us human is the fact that we have a consciousness. We do not rely solely upon instinct to guide our decisions. Take freedom of choice away and you take someone's humanity away. Jo had descibed it as comic once, when Moody made Neville do all kinds of silly things, but she pretty soon made it clear that it wasn't funny at all.

In my opinion these three curses are unforgivable because of one thing: they rob you of your humanity and dignity. There is no dignity in pain, death or having no control over your actions.

Now, Dark Magic is much broader than just these three curses. I think any magic fueled by hatred, greed - all things that cannot exist next to love, is Dark Magic. Hmmm, this is a bit condemning. I'll think it over a bit to narrow it down, but the general idea is that evil intentions, however unconscious, is the root of Dark Magic.

The question becomes: what is evil? I'm stumped. How to define it without saying things like 'you have to find it in yourself' or 'society in general decides' is near impossible. You either have to answer it for yourself (something serial killers could also claim), or you must be guided completely by society. In my opinion not the smartest thing to do, seeing as no society has yet stood the test of time. No society has gone unchanged.

The answer to this question has stayed the same though, because humans have not changed in their nature, while society has. The evils of then is acceptable now - gay rights springs to mind. Everone would have gone completely berserk if gay marriage was legalised 50 years ago, but mostly, everyone's fine with it now. So the answer to what evil is can't lie here either. Evil and Dark Magic go hand-in-hand, so if the one can be figured out, the other will also be.

Wow, have I gone a-rambling here! Hope you guys can make sense of it all...

I see something as being 'dark magic' when it causes serious damage to a person- physically or mentally.

The petrificus spell probably isn't labelled as being 'dark' in that it freezes a person and makes them immobile, but they don't stay like that. However the sectumsempre spell kinda cuts them open. The 'unforgiveable' curses cause lasting damage (death seems to be a small problem).

I too have a problem with being termed 'unforgivable' though. While I place importance on the idea of free-will, it should be acknowledged that there are plenty of ways of making someone do something that they wouldn't normally do without placing them under a spell. And why is 'Crucio' unforgivable- aka, immense pain- however Sectumsempre- slashed to bits- isn't?

As far as whether or not they are appropriate to use in times, I think it largely comes down to the circumstances.

WAR- Is war ok? At there times in which 'the greater good' exists? Does mass killing 10 000 people if it stops a war which could kill millions justify their deaths?

The big difference here as opposed to within the HP books, is the sides. If the war is between two countries, the country that is decided to be the 'bad' side is the one that has less universal support. Without targeting or naming countries, but the countries that are considered 'bad' or 'wrong' are the ones that the local medias produce as 'bad' or 'terrorist'. A lot of the time though, when it comes down to it- there are the same practices in both countries.

However in the Harry Potter world, the general reader is on the side of Harry. Harry is against the side of Lord Voldemort. Therefore those on the side of LV are 'bad' and any use of their curses against a 'good' person makes us angry or sad. However if the average Order Member- say, Lupin- used a curse and it was viewed to save his life, we'd probably be shown that there was remorse or regret afterwards and it would be ok. The Death Eaters on the other hand, are all 'evil' and would never be sad for killing someone


Murder- Most people generally consider murder pretty wrong. In that assumption, the AK curse would be wrong.... until we get into the aforementioned discussion of war and the upandcoming discussion of----

EUTHANASIA- Is murder- just sticking to the AK curse- ok if it's for 'the greater good' and the quality of life? This has very much been addressed elsewhere and if people really want to read it and discuss it it can probably be posted elsewhere. So we'll move onto the other unforgiveables.


Crucio and Imperius are unforgiveables. It is wrong to cause people pain (although I could bring up the argument of psychological hurt and throw in a sympathy for Snape there ) and it is wrong to make people do what they wouldn't normally do (not forgetting the aforementioned other ways). However when does it become ok?

Would it be ok if it saved the world from the evil aliens? Would it be ok if it stopped someone from a mass murder? Can it be used to save yourself?

Once again I seem to bring up the idea of sides. Is your life worth more than the life of someone that you are protecting yourself against? Does the justification of using a unforgiveable crucio if it stops someone from AK-ing you make it so?

I'd like to think that it's not. Otherwise people could always use the argument that in the moment it was ok.

But as we know, the world doesn't work like that.

Most people I think would argue that 'self-defence', allows a person to get off in court.

Just to clarify: it's not my position at all that the cruciatus curse or the real-world equivalent of torture is necessarily a good thing under any circumstances. Just that I can see how one would justify it with the argument of "the ends justify the means." I don't think that justifies it at all, just that it is a rationalization that some would use, and whether that rationalization ever came to the point of meeting justification is a matter up for debate.

I don't think see how any of the unforgivable curses could be used in a truly good way. Any one of them hurts, degrades, or even eliminates either the person or what makes a person a person (if that makes sense). And possibly more to the point in terms of justifying such actions, I don't believe a situation exists when there wouldn't be a better way to accomplish the same goals without lowering one's self to the use of dark magic (with the possible exception - proving the rule, I suppose - of Snape maybe killing DD for good, but that's a discussion for another thread, so I won't go there).

Doesn't this boil down to the "end justifying the means"? In my mind, this almost never is the correct course of action, as it usually means that the end result is tainted by the method having been used to obtain it. This made me think of an Ethics course I took years ago. Below are some notes on Kant's Groundings of the Metaphysics of Morals, some very pertinent points there. I'm almost afraid to have actually understood something so convoluted once...

Kant asked the question asked by all philosophers : 'what is good?' ‑ or, on what principle should our lives be founded? He did not answer that all that can be considered good is human happiness, nor did he look outside of man for rules, or spiritual guidance. He said:

There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.

So, when making decisions or acting in the world, Kant believed that the intention to help others, as opposed to indifference or self-seeking intention, was good in itself (apart from whether it accomplished its aim or not).

Kant asserted that the means, as well as the choice of ends, in achieving preservation, welfare and happiness were all a function of human instinct. If reason were to play any part in these, then the only purpose it could serve would be to 'contemplate the happy constitution of [our] nature', which is not greatly practical. Thus, insofar as reason is to be of practical value, Kant said that its function was to 'produce a will which is not merely good as a means to some further end, but is good in itself'; that is, the purpose of reason is to purify our intentions of their self-seeking character in order to have an altruistic regard for others. Kant concluded that such a pure will was the highest good, and the condition by which all our other achievements may be considered good.

Simply put, a hypothetical imperative is a command of instinct based on a hypothesis. For example, my instinctive hypothesis may be that if I execute action A , effect B will result. In other words, I carry out action A because I suppose something I want ( B ) will occur. Another good example of a hypothetical imperative would be if I was to help someone only because I believed there was something in it for me.

In contrast, following the categorical imperative at first appears to be 'doing something for nothing'. An example from ethics would be to help someone and not to expect anything in return. The big question is: Why bother? Kant said we should follow the categorical imperative because in doing so we would also be following what he understood to be the Moral Law. But nonetheless, what would be our motivation? Kant did not put the answer down to conscience or any human sense of compassion, but rather said that we would 'do something for nothing' because our reason told us to. Again, the question is why?

Kant asserted that every human being thinks of his own existence in a subjective way; but that in one way at least, everyone thinks of him or herself in the same way, and it is that

… every other rational being [does] think of his existence on the same rational ground that holds also for me.

In other words, as you think of yourself, desiring respect and happiness and wishing to see your own will fulfilled, others think of themselves also. So although each person has his or her own beliefs, and although these beliefs may be different from each other, we all know what it is to hold a belief and desire respect — and hence we can realise others have the same feelings about their beliefs, even though their beliefs may be different from ours. So, Kant said, 'Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as and end and never simply as a means [to your own ends]', because this is how you would desire to be treated. If, despite our differences, everyone can be assumed to feel this way, this observation can be used as an objective principle, and serve as a practical law for guiding our conduct.

In this, Kant the scientist sought to find an objective, universal principle — an observable, examinable principle that applies at all times and in all places — upon which to base his theory and practice of ethics.

Take now Kant's example:

A ... man finds things going well for himself but sees others (whom he could help) struggling with great hardships, and he thinks: what does it matter to me? Let everybody be as happy as Heaven wills or as he can make himself; I shall take nothing from him nor even envy him; but I have no desire to contribute anything to this well-being or to his assistance when in need .... a will which resolved in this way would contradict itself, inasmuch as cases might often arise in which one would have need of the love and sympathy of others and in which he would deprive himself ... of all hope of the aid he wants for himself.

Thus, if a man wants the love, respect and aid of others, he is bound in return to give them his own love, respect and aid, because it is the moving principle of Kant's ethics that you must be able to wish that the way in which you act towards others, they act also towards you.

Thus, acting by the categorical imperative, to help others, we are perhaps not so much 'doing something for nothing'; rather, we are 'doing unto others as we would have them do unto us'. This principle, for Kant, is not based in compassion or conscience, but in reason. In thinking of how we would like to be treated by others, we must reason that they would like to be treated in this manner also.

Thus, if we desire to follow our own beliefs and to find happiness, and we do not wish to be hindered or harmed by others if their beliefs or desires are different, we should recognize this, and reason that this is how others feel also.

Technically, the categorical imperative is the absolute, unconditional command of the Moral Law, a law given by pure reason (according to Kant), and binding universally on every rational will. The way this is to work is best explained through examples, which Kant provided:

[A] man in need finds himself forced to borrow money. He knows well that he won't be able to repay it, but he sees also that he will not get any loan unless he firmly promises to repay it within a fixed time. He wants to make such a promise, but he still has conscience enough to ask himself whether it is not permissible and is contrary to duty to get out of difficulty in this way. Suppose, however, that he decides to do so.

Kant then goes on to state the maxim of the man's action, which is to say: 'this is the question that the man must ask himself':

... when I believe myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, although I know that I can never do so. Now this principle of self-love or personal advantage may perhaps be quite compatible with one's entire future welfare, but the question is now whether it is right. I then transform the requirement of self-love into a universal law...

By universal law, Kant meant that the man should ask himself whether he could desire that the conduct he was about to display (lying to gain money for his own advantage) should be a permissible way for everyone to behave. If it was permissible for everyone to behave in this way, the chances are that the man from the example could be disadvantaged (lose his money through someone lying to him), and he could not possibly wish for that. Thus, in accordance with the principle 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', and combined with the principle of universal law, the man could not possibly go through with his plan to borrow the money in this way. In addition, said Kant,

For the universality of a law which says that anyone believing himself to be in difficulty could promise whatever he pleases with the intention of not keeping it would make promising itself and the end to be attained thereby quite impossible, inasmuch as no one would believe what was promised him ...

Or, in other words, if people believing they were in difficulty could lie whenever they wished, it would happen so often as to destroy our whole concept of trust. The man could not then agree that anyone wishing to behave as he wished to was behaving rightly; and then for him to behave in such a way is also not right. Such an answer should then indicate to the man that his intentions were not good, that his will was impure, and that under the scrutiny of reason such conduct is unreasonable.

Thus, the categorical imperative — stating your intended action as a 'universal law' — is a method of judging the rightness of such an action and the pureness of your will; it is a 'canon for morally estimating any of our actions'.

However, in conclusion it is interesting to note that the foundation of the categorical imperative is both reason and feeling, as demonstrated by Kant's examples. In this way, reason truly does moderate instinct and modify our behaviour. It is also what is necessary for us to be able to think ourselves into the other person's position to achieve empathy. But to be in empathy with another person requires a knowledge of feeling and selfishness to be successful. So, on the whole, the Categorical Imperative requires both reason and feeling in order to work.





Anyone still awake??





I thought this seemed pertinent to the topic at hand. Certainly, I think that Kant would say that the end result and the means matter little if the intention was good and the result of a good will. Now, wanting to do something for the common good in an altruistic fashion, but using methods which are somewhat less than correct would, in my opinion, seem to take away from the "good" of the action. Thus, the unforgiveable curses should not be used if we are to be truly good, in action as well as in motive.





What say you?

Wow, I'm having flashbacks to college. (Yeah, I'm awake, professor.)

Using this quote:

This is why I've always had trouble with Harry wanting so badly to use an unforgivable curse on someone (even on Bellatrix), was because he'd been through the Crucio. . .he knew what it felt like. He'd been affected by the AV-he knew the dire consequences of the spell. Yes, he was angry and wanted to harm her, but I've always felt that he should have thought better of it having experienced it himself. Ah well. Teenagers.

I'd agree, Omerus. . .I don't think that the ends justify the means with an unforgivable curse. I don't think that they ought to be used by a regular wizard or witch, even with the intentions of doing good; otherwise why would they be unforgivable? They'd be labelled-unforgivable-unless-you're-not-a-dark-wizard curses. It shouldn't matter who uses them, they should remain out-of-bounds.

I'm not even sure I am awake after re-reading that...

Anyway, I think passerby has it right withe the "unforgiveable-unless-you're-not-a-dark-wizard" curses. The way peoiple do things is just as important as what they do. After all, can we really condemn someone's actions if we take similar actions in stopping them?

Omerus Banning --- I just highly appreciate your last post! You do an incredible resume of Kant’s major proposal about ethics. *Start applauding*.

WOW! What a thread! I have heaps of opposing feelings about this.
I am completely against violence. But I can not deny that under some extreme circumstances it looks to be needed; nevertheless violence has to be the last resource.

I think magic must be considering Dark when it harms people physically or psychologically. Frankly under this definition it is not relevant what the intentions are. I mean, Harry do not want to almost murder Draco with the Sectumsempra spell but anyway he harm him really badly so it is a dark magic spell. Sectumsempra can not be an option to protect yourself, there exists advanced defense spells and you can even cast a shield. Obviously after deflect the attack you must proceed to immobilize your attacker, but what for do you want to cut him/her to pieces? If you do so you are not different from him/her.

I do not doubt the Imperius curse is useful. I mean you can make someone else do what you must or want. And it can be a good way to stop a criminal action without hurt the perpetrator. But the thing is that if you consider your right to freedom as highly valuable, as something you must die for you can’t be thinking to take away someone else’s free will.
Jail is a crucial point here because it takes physical freedom away from a person but it follows an utilitarianism principle. If something does a major number of the people involved with it unhappy than the number of people who it does happy then it must be change. That is what jail does in theory: to stop someone from make unhappy an extended number of individuals drawn in the effects of his/her actions.

The question formulated by Michelle about guns makes me remember a conversation I over hear in my college:

Girl: Do you know how to use a gun?
Boy: Yeah, I have shot practice two times a week.
Girl: And what for? I mean, is it not scary?
Boy: Well, I think it is very important to be prepared. You never know what can happen. So it is scarier for me not to be ready to defend myself.

The thing is: prepared for what? Is anyone prepared to murder someone by accident or with full conscience?
Many bad things can happen when you have a gun in handy. It is risky. A kid can found it, a drunks fight can explode and people can go insane and do something they regret the rest of their life.
I can not understand why civilians may want a gun. I fear them with all my strength; I feel scared still, if it is a police man or some military man who is holding it.




I totally agree here. And I think that is exactly what JKR want to teach in the Setumsempra chapter. Harry wants to prove that spell he did not know what its effects were. He was thinking in it trying to find a chance to test it . So it was the first thing he remembered when he face Draco with his curses. As much as he despises Draco, he is not that evil. But when he saw Draco lying on the floor with a pool of blood all around his body he was in shock. Harry definitely wants to harm Draco but not that much. He knew he had done a horrible thing. He knew in that minute that as much as this was not his intention how would he look if he had hurt irremediably another human being? If Snape had not appears he had committed a murder.



You are so right. The way in which we take action even the way we say things it relates a lot in how that things or actions turns out. The effects of what we do or say are totally connected with the means we used to cause them. That is why I consider violence such risky option. Violence is a two knife-edges sword. It can be use as a tool for protection but it unleashes a series of processes which taking it as their root constitute a time bomb, their faith is to produce more violence at some point.

Ok, there are a lot of things going on here, and hopefully I can address them all.



If this is true, then were James and Sirius performing dark magic by cursing people in the hallways because they could, because they were bored? This question has bothered me since book 5. I never really felt that Harry got a sufficient answer to this question. But furthermore, is Harry guilty of the same thing? Didn't he use Snape's curses on people just for fun, just to see what they did? Didn't he use the spells on people he hated, on people he didn't like, just to cause pain? But if this is so, then why was Harry's reaction to the effects of the Sectumsempra spell so violent? Why was his guilt so much for that spell, but not for others? Is the morality of magic based upon the rule "no blood no foul?" Why is Fred and George's joke items such a laugh? When is the line between prank and assault crossed? This is a very difficult question, and one I have always had a problem with. I have dealt with conflicting opinions on pranks since I was a kid. I know what it is like to have people do things to you to embarrass you, to bring about pain in you. If the person isn't in on the joke, is it ok? Or is the root motivation evil?



I think this is key to understanding the AK curse. AK cannot be cast by someone who merely wants to be protected. An AK can only be cast by someone who wants someone killed, not stopped. War without killing may be a foreign concept in our world, but in the magical world, this is the status quo, and is much more feasible than in ours.

However, there is one problem: Voldemort. How do you "stop" Voldemort? You can't stun him indefinitely. You can't lock him up (how would you? who's powerful enough to do that?). The only way to stop him is to kill him. So what do you do?



For this question, I will go a bit farther back than Kant. I will go to Augustine. St. Augustine said that evil is the absence of good. Evil itself is nothing. That is, evil isn't a thing, it's the absence of a thing. What this means is that "evil" can be defined as that action that has no good in it. In this understanding, evil is not like the dark side, because evil doesn't have a quality of its own. You can't have "evil." You can only not have "good." And by that I do not mean that "evil" is not what you have left over when you have taken all the good out, but what you call whatever has no good in it. Let me use a tangible analogy:

You have ten marbles. Five are red. Five are blue. Now, the red marbles are the good marbles. This doesn't mean that the blue marbles are evil. In fact, because of the presence of the red marbles, the blue marbles take on the label of good, making the entire handful of marbles collectively "good." However, if you take out all the red marbles, the effect is "evil." You aren't holding "evil," that is, the blue marbles aren't "evil" manifest. However, the blue marbles are labeled evil, because there is no good (that is, there are no red marbles). Does that make sense?

I do not know if this system works well with harry potter. If the curses are unforgivable, then, by this system, there is no possibility of good coming about from these curses. But is this so? As I demonstrated before, the AK, the most nearly airtight of "evil" actions, can potentially be good, or bring about good. The problem is that the curses themselves become labeled "evil" (that is, "unforgivable"). This system does not allow for circumstances as Augustine's system does. If something is "evil" manifest, then there can be no situations where the action can be good. And I can't help but think that there may be times in which circumstances allow a certain action.

Fish

As a witch (and a Slytherin ), I can be attracted by the Dark Arts because they are knowledge. Knowledge is the primary thirst of human beings. Even Christianism and Hebraism have got an esoteric/mysteric part of their knowledge, that can be considered dangerous for its potential effects.

I want to highlight here briefly the archetype of the Dark Feminine. The Dark Goddesses are loving mothers, who protect your rest and your rebirth. Dark is the womb of the Earth, and Dark also the womb of women in which life begins. The archetype of the dark mistress is in every woman. The priestesses of Isis and Cybele, Inanna and Kore, were very skilled witches, healers and divination experts. They celebrated the Goddess mysteries and kept the secret on their practices.

At the origins of the Dark Magic, there are those ancient Mystery Cults, made of hidden knowledge given just to some, carefully chosen persons; this because its potential harmfulness can be handled only by a few people, who don't necessarily use it.
So, knowing the Dark Arts doesn't mean to use them. Snape knows which herbs can poison, but this doesn't mean he uses them. In the whole HP saga we have seen him performing just ONE unforgivable curse, but we know him as a deep expert of DA. Dumbledore too, I KNOW he knows Dark Magic, but he chooses not to use it.

Things are never white or black. I agree on the fact that the intention can change the sense and meaning of an apparently innocent spell. This fact recalls back that in the Middle Ages, when the witchhunt was about to start, theologists were confused by the fact that many clergymen used the same tools of the witches: herbs, stones, elements, sort of spells. How to condemn these tools if in use by clergymen? so, the INTENTION was the little thing that made an herb "innocent" or "devilish".

About "good" people using unforgivable curses, the point is...that for example I'm not a quarrelsome person, but if I'm in need to defend my offspring I turn out to be a real tiger. So even the best person can be in a situation in which has to use a UC, while a person considered evil, such as Draco for example, knows the curse but just can't use it.
It's sort of hot potato because it leads to the question: what would you do to defend yourself or your family?

Witchmom )O(

I am of the firm view that intent is what chiefly drives any magic, or for that matter all of our actions and whether they turn out good or bad is more or less a relative matter. Like they say, what's good for the goose may not be the same for the gander. A person employing questionable means to achieve something "noble" or cause worthy is not entirely an uncommon phenomenon. It's often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and history is there for all to see, that how true that stands.

Now some have emphasized in their posts that how there's no such thing as dark magic. I find myself agreeing bajab's statement



Then there is this point made by Pixymajik



While this is true to an extent, I also believe that a clear distinction can be easily made between magic that can also be used for "dark" or even evil purposes and the magic that was chiefly designed for such purposes. In many such cases it's the intent as much as the circumstances that determine the relative "darkness" of a spell.

Let's consider Reducto and Diffindo curses for instance. Now these were most likely invented with very different purposes in mind. Reducto is chiefly used to destroy solid objects, a very useful household and field charm to remove unnecessary stuff. Similarly Diffindo the cutting curse is used mainly as a scissoring charm with applications in lot of daily chores. But if one were to aim a Reducto or a Diffindo to a person's skull or for that matter any part of the body, the results would not be very pleasant. In fact Reducto would probably splatter the person's brains all over, while Diffindo would cut them open a la Sectumsempra. Tell me then does this make the former two dark curses? What's evident in these cases is that the former were never designed to instigate bodily harm, but their nature allows them to be used in that manner. However, Sectumsempra was created for the sole purpose of targeting the foes, so would be more aptly be considered a spell of sinister disposition.

This is easily comprehended if you consider a baseball bat. The bat is designed for hitting the balls out of the park, but then can be used as an assault weapon that can inflict potentially lethal blows on a person. A gun on the other hand is designed to physically injure or deter and cannot avoid being labeled dangerous. But both the objects in wrong, misguided and irresponsible hands with an intent to cause mayhem, is a recipe for disaster. "Dark magic" seems to operate on a very similar principle. The photographs that Snape displayed in his classroom on the effects of some of the magical spells clearly showed the danger associated with their use. The knowledge. of such spells in hands of individuals of a anarchist disposition is sure asking for trouble. These spells were designed to mutilate, or maim or kill or inflict pain, they cannot be used for any other purpose. But the circumstances in which they may be used goes a long way in determining how they are viewed. Like others before me have pointed out, use of these weapons by members of law enforcement to eliminate those who do not value human life and perform dastardly acts, can be justified to an extent. But their control in hands of trigger happy officials would be a case of cure being worse than the malaise.

Unforgivables may also be viewed in a similar light. If one may justify the use of Veritaserum or Truth drugs to force a person to spill his/her darkest secrets, justification for the use of Imperio does not lie far behind. Both involve circumventing a person's free will with the exception that with Imperio one may keep the other person's will suppressed and manipulate them to do anything. Cruciatus and Avada Kedavra, more difficult to justify in wizarding terms, but all one can say in their defense is that eliminate your enemies before they eliminate you.

To summarize, I believe that the so-called Dark Magic must be viewed in terms of both the intent behind the use and the circumstances under which they were employed, to get a more holistic view of the matter

Mayfair, you did a very detailed analysis of the various spells and your conclusion, too, goes in the direction of balance and understanding.

But again, I want to underline that the definition of Dark magic is, for me, not necessarily an art that hurts people, but a notion of deeper magic knowledge.
Again, I can label as "Dark" the branches of magic not to be given in the hands of the common wizarding people. Because, you can't really know the use that they can make of it...power and knowledge can seduce more people than we imagine, leading them to an exploitation of dark magic in the wrong direction.
Who knows the Dark Arts? Snape and Dumbledore, I imagine. Tonks, Kingsley just to name two, because they're Aurors; and Remus teaches DADA. You must have a deep knowledge of DA to battle against them. Even this battling isn't properly against the curses, but against the wizard/witch who performs them. As it has been underlined already, it's not the magic, but who perform it that is good or evil.
Has Snape EVER killed or hurt someone from the moment he unofficially ceased to be a DE? Apart from Albus, I don't think so. So, the image of the Dark Wizard, because that's what he is, is not necessarily that of a criminal and assassin.

Enough for now...

Witchmom, looks like we are renewing our old debates here



I agree with you there. Often knowledge that is esoteric and difficult to comprehend or enigmatic is labeled dangerous or unworthy. "Dark magic" is quite an example of this. The magical knowledge labeled "Dark" may be difficult to master or even apply and that's what makes people fear them; as in fear of the unknown. However, if we consider JKRs universe, it is also true that most examples of "Dark magic" that we come across are by their very nature designed to inflict harm or misery on a soul. I am not sure whether this is deliberate on JKRs part or actually the case, but even when Snape spouted off his lines on Darks arts in his class, he described them as dangerous, ever evolving and the pictures he displayed were revolting to say the least. Some may have been fascinated with them, while others may be disgusted, but all would agree that the examples he displayed were all those spells designed to inflict bodily harm. Like I said this could be deliberate on JKRs part, since Snape who would have a more objective view on dark arts than others would be expected to reveal other facets of "Dark magic" that is labeled so not because of it's disposition but because of difficulties in understanding. To many students, this would firmly label "Dark magic" as evil.



That's true, but again how does one expect the people in so-called responsible positions not to be seduced by the power of "Dark magic". Like I mentioned in my previous post, such knowledge with people of anarchist disposition, not matter where they are is dangerous. Be they common folk or people of stature. After all wasn't one of the death eaters Augustus Rockwood, a member of Department of Mysteries, an elite group within the ministry itself? But it's true that an in depth knowledge of dark arts is necessary if you wish to effectively combat them. Like I mentioned in my previous post, the intent behind the use of a spell and the circumstances in which they were used needs to be viewed before condemning some one for using "Dark magic"



Again that's something that we are not aware of. If you recall he re-joined the death eaters (on Dumbeldore's request of course) at the end of fourth book. IN the span of two years, he would have been to numerous death eaters meetings and it is entirely possible that he would have to prove his loyalty to Voldemort. Tom may have required to kill maim and torture to prove to him that he was indeed a loyal death eater. The question is if Snape indeed was required to do this, how would he have felt. If his loyalties were always with Tom, he would feel no remorse. So we are not sure of that, but Snape is labeled a "Dark wizard" for the reason that he's perceived as a "reformed" death eater, who has made his attraction for the so-called "Dark magic" quite clear, something students are aware of as well. Remember what Percy told Harry in the first book? Harry himself was labeled "Dark" for being a parselmouth, so public perceptions are often quite prejudiced.

Right, that's what I think, too. It's like driving a huge transatlantic; most people would be absolutely scared about it, but there's people who do it as a job...



I don't exactly agree here. About JKR's warning to kids, that DA are for harming, this is totally understandable...or adolescent would turn into Death Eaters in five minutes...how imprudent and impulsive youngsters can be...we all know. We have been...or we are now.
Having a precise notion of what a DA spell can do, is good. If gun sellers would show people the results of shooting on a human being, in big photographs... Years ago, here in Italy, a very debated ad about slow and careful driving showed images of crashed cars and injured bodies. It caused a lot of impression, and it has been criticized a lot. But it actually showed what can happen if you drunk drive.

So, Snape's pointing out that DA are not a joke or a game is perfect, is ok, it's necessary. Knives, baseball bats, chimney pokers, razors, scissors....are all objects with a daily use, a normal use, but are all potentially harming weapons.
So, he shows that DA could/can hurt. Be careful with them, kids, he says. But...yeah, there's a but! Snape loves DA. Aurors know and use DA. A powerful wizard can't define himself complete on a magical knowledge level if he ignores DA.



I think that Snape is labeled a Dark Wizard because everybody remembers him at school, studying DA...and for the aura of mystery and power that his attitude suggests.
Of course, people's distorted perceptions are what make them shout "Burn the witch" to a herbalist healer...
No, really, you made a perfect example. Is using parseltongue an evil thing? Why? because evil wizards of the past were parselmouths? Again, it's the knowledge given to a few people that make them potentially dangerous in the collective conscience. But they aren't always dangerous...

I can see Dark Arts like the atomic/nuclear scientific studies. They can bring good and bad things. It depends on how you use them. We can't even say that spells like Petrificus -which is labeled almost everywhere as a Dark spell- or Legilimency, clearly defined a branch of DA, have been purposedly made for harming.
Only the 3 unforgivable curses are.

That's why they are said Unforgivable.

Mayfair~
The magical knowledge labeled "Dark" may be difficult to master or even apply and that's what makes people fear them; as in fear of the unknown.

Yes, but this applies to everything. Everything that requires thought, and a willingness to accept and understand will be feared, by some if not most.
So, anything that is considered 'evil' by the majority just needs a more open mind, an acceptance.
If this is true, then nothing is dark. Nothing is good and nothing is bad, it is all perspective. Yes, some things are harmfull and somethings are purely destructive, but evil is a matter of opinion, a perspective.
In reality, there is no white or black, everything is grey. This makes everything so much harder to understand, and spawns even more fear.

Clara~
Is using parseltongue an evil thing? Why? because evil wizards of the past were parselmouths? Again, it's the knowledge given to a few people that make them potentially dangerous in the collective conscience. But they aren't always dangerous...

Again it comes back to perspective. Yes, a lot of people are judged on what they are capable of, the abilities that they have that others don't understand, Harry was, and so was Severus.
They both have knowledge, Severus more than Harry, and experience in things that people dont and dont wish to understand. For severus, it was a requirement that he understood the things that he was involved in, otherwise he wouldn't have lasted a day.
The fact that he understands, and is willing to understand makes people fear him, and certainly judge him.

so back to the original question, after a very mixed up post... Dark magic is all opinion, what is light and what is dark. The darkness doesn't allow you to see, to understand. But some people welcome that darkness, as a chance to experiance different things, understand them and if needs be, protect against them.

The three unforgivable curses are evil, but as they are more understood, investigated so that they can be defended against, they will cease to be dark, and become plain evil, depending on the circumstances, of course.

So, dark magic is acceptable, if it is used for the right reasons; to protect, to defend, to learn and to understand. In war, but not peace, for neccesity but not for pleasure. Everything that is deemed unacceptable has a but, there are no exceptions, so why should there be here?

Clara}~

My point was that whatever we have come across in the books that is defined as dark magic is something that was intended to kill, destroy or maim and cause grievous bodily or mental harm. I do not believe that those spells represent the entire component of dark arts i.e. not all magic labeled dark arts falls into that category, but all the examples of dark arts that JKR mentions in her books are magical spells designed to cause harm. It's understandable that the students are not taught spells of sinister disposition to prevent them to trying them out in their dorms or free time, but not all stuff labeled dark may be wrong for kids to know



But magic like all disciplines has it's own levels. Some magic is easier to comprehend, while other is most complex. It's possible that many spells labeled dark are difficult to understand and counter, thereby the ministry doesn't want many witches and wizards out there picking up on those skills, which the ministry itself may not have a counter for. We have seen how the ministry is always paranoid about someone standing up against them. They dispatched Umbridge to Hogwarts to ensure that students do not learn defensive magic as they feared some sort of armed rebellion from students "trained in combat". They may have outlawed some magic for the very same reason, to prevent someone else from gaining the knowledge which may prove difficult for the ministry to counter in the years to come.

While perspective is indeed important, there are some things which cannot bewished away so easily. Aurors are allowed to use unforgivables on death eaters, while their intentions may be noble and justified under circumstances, ti doesn't take away from the fact that those spells were designed for evil purposes only. I mean to subdue someone's mind, torture them beyond insanity and kill instantly are not something one would normally condone being done on another human being.



I doubt many students knew of what Snape was like at school. Their perception of Snape comes from watching him in action in school and he has build himself a reputation for someone who has expansive knowledge of dark arts and someone who takes pride in knowing so. He doesn't care whether people call him dark or evil and openly flaunts his image as a wizard with dark arts knowledge. Parseltongue is considered a dark ability by many and Harry is well aware of it. In fact he seems to dislike it so much that he hasn't used it at all after the incident in the chamber. Even in the sixth book, he only heard the language been spoken but never used it himself. Snape on the other hand has never tried to dissociate himself from his abilities or associations. He even refers to Tom as The Dark Lord, something that only death eaters do.



Agree with you there. They all come with a rider and must be used only under exceptional circumstances when faced with little alternatives and the possibilities of their use being beneficial and saving lives. Like witchmom pointed out, Nuclear studies have all uses, even nuclear weapons that are weapons of destruction have served as guardians of peace in several places. The knowledge that the other guy has them is enough to prevent many rash decisions. Dark arts can be seen in a similar perspective. If you have to counter them, then you must knwo what exactly you are up against.

In the Ten Commandments it was stated that you must not murder murder meaning to kill without a reason, but let's say it's a life threatining situation and your going to be killed and the only way out is to kill then it'd be okay because your protecting yourself and perhaps others as well so really "Dark Magic" can sometimes be okay and maybe even neccassery.

Well, sometimes it could be "okay" like when Harry is about to be found breaking into Gringotts and uses the Imperius curse on the goblin and Travers. In that situation, he was using dark magic for the greater good, rather than for the purpose that Voldemort or other Dark Wizards might use. In the same way, Avada Kedavra might be necessary in some situations. That is why when Voldemort was powerful, the Aurors were given authority to use that spell. Although it is a morally gray area, sometimes it is necessary to defend yourself. That was the only way of stopping some of the Death Eaters. Would you say it was wrong for Molly to use it on Bellatrix? It was for the greater good that Bellatrix was killed, so it is not necessarily wrong. As for Crucio, that is a sadistic spell that is wrong in any situation, but not all dark magic is inherently evil. It all depends on the purpose you use it for.

Dark magic is all a matter of circumstance. For example Aurors will not use unforgivable curses with non suvere criminals, but when it's kill or be killed, sometimes you need to mke tough decisions! Just like you wouldn't go to war in the present day with swords, spears and arrows, the H.P. characters cannot expect to win against Death Eaters who put no value in human life using 'Petrificus Totalus' and 'Expelliarmus'! Sometimes you need to do things that would be wrong in a perfect world to make things right in our own. The reason that Aurors have to go through such extensive training i sso that they can assess a situation and figure out the best way to handle it using the least amount of force neccesary.

On another note the laws that ban guns and the laws that ban certain curses are completely different, the main difference being that the curse laws rely on peoples self restraint to be effective. Our gun laws compare better to Voldemorts rule that muggle born's cannot carry wands. However horrible that law was, taking away the wand itself was the only way to really prevent the curses for being used (by those individuals). In the same way gun laws take away the temptation that walking around with a loaded gun would arouse.