What scene would you like to add to DH? Why? - Page 2

^^I'm all for flawed characters; I don't mind them at all. I think flaws are what really make a character interesting.

Good that you mentioned it. Or else, I would have considered you to be a part of those groups of people as well, who can only view their favorites/heroes as purely white like the snow; and their loathed one to be utterly black like the night sky on a stormy day. Even a single spot of ash doesn't sit well with them, even if it is what makes the character believable.

Maybe that is the reason why I am so much drawn to this saga ? due to it's realistic characters, whom I can relate with myself and the people I observe around.

What I don't like is when characters don't have a sense of morality. That's what bugs me the most.

How do you define 'sense of morality'?

Morality is a complex branch of study, with each individual having his own definitions and features regarding it. It is not a universal subject that can be approved by everyone alike. While some will find a specific act to be immoral, others will not. Good examples would be abortion, euthanasia or same sex relationship/marriage. Lots of debates are going around these few topics for the past few centuries/decades, without people coming into a conclusion. While country laws and even religious laws are universal, and is ought to be followed by everyone equally (no matter the person is approving it or not), morality isn't. While you might find a particular character to be lacking a sense of morality, I might as well see him/her as a normal person with flaws.

However, there are few things that are still considered as 'moral' or 'immoral' by everyone alike, or at least by the majority, hence I would like to first hear your definition of 'lacking a sense of morality' before getting onto with this conversation.

It doesn't bother me that Harry used the Unforgivables (I would've pulled my hair out had he used the disarming charm one more time), baring Crucio because it merely causes pain for the pleasure of the castor[-er?].

I am not quiet getting on what you are trying to say here. How many other Unforgivable Curse there is than Crucio that is less painful and causes less harm than it? Without a hesitation, I am gonna exclude the killing curse; what remains is the imperius curse. Though imperius curse might seem less painful at the first glance, I believe it causes even more distress to the person, owing to the fact that after a few minutes (or hours) you can get out of the pain caused by the Crucio curse, but unless the one using the imperius curse wills to, the victim would not have a single moment to exercise his own free will, and would remain a slave to the person forever, and that is, I believe, way worse than causing physical pain to someone. So I don't get your reasoning for stating the term 'baring'.

And apologies if I have gotten you totally wrong.

What bothers me more is that he uses them so casually and without feeling the slightest bit of remorse.

We don't really know what went within his soul as he performed that curse. Just because the saga is narrated through Harry's perspective doesn't necessarily makes us see, feel and know every single emotion going through him. Also, when people gets really angry, they loose their [what you'd call] 'sense of morality'. Anger makes people do a lot of things they wouldn't have done under normal circumstance. Several instances in the books point us to the fact that how Harry respected professor McGonagall, and considered her to be the second best to professor Dumbledore. If someone sees a person they love and respect so much from the core of his heart being insulted and badly treated, it is natural for the person's blood to boil down and do something in an instant without a second thought as to what he is doing and why and what are the consequences of that action. As a common saying goes, 'anger makes a person blind'. And not to forget Harry was totally short-tempered. And who knows, maybe later, Harry did feel bad for him? The situation Harry was in ? inside Hogwarts when the war is about to start, Voldemort coming his way to the castle, and the sickening pain in his forehead, it is very much likely for one to commit an immoral (according to his own morality) act.

I understand that it is war - I really do. But even the event being a "war" doesn't excuse the flippancy with which Harry using the Unforgivables was dealt.

War is again another complicated issue to deal with. A lot of act that would have been considered unlawful in normal sense becomes lawful there. Forget about the war of Hogwarts or Harry Potter; think of a war in real life. Let's say two countries, A and B fighting for overpowering the other. Let's assume country A (the majority of its population) is innocent, while country B (the majority of the population) is the tyrant one, trying to seize everything from country A. Now in order for country A to stop country B from killing their (country A's) innocent people, it (country A) needs to fight or fight back (or at least defend) itself ? though in a humane way (if it wants to maintain its starting position). However, due to circumstances, country A might need to do many inhuman acts (intentionally or unintentionally) in order to defend his own country. Innocent blood is bound to be spilt from country B by country A, if it wants to stop its own country (A) from shedding its blood.

Yes, Amycus was horrible and bad but he is still a human being.

Yep, second you on that.

It shouldn't be easy to torture another human being without feeling remorse.

I am gonna repeat what I have just stated before:

"We don't really know what went within his soul as he performed that curse. Just because the saga is narrated through Harry's perspective doesn't necessarily makes us see, feel and know every single emotion going through him. Also, when people gets really angry, they loose their [what you'd call] 'sense of morality'. Anger makes people do a lot of things they wouldn't have done under normal circumstance. Several instances in the books point us to the fact that how Harry respected professor McGonagall, and considered her to be the second best to professor Dumbledore. If someone sees a person they love and respect so much from the core of his heart being insulted and badly treated, it is natural for the person's blood to boil down and do something in an instant without a second thought as to what he is doing and why and what are the consequences of that action. As a common saying goes, 'anger makes a person blind'. And not to forget Harry was totally short-tempered. And who knows, maybe later, Harry did feel bad for him? The situation Harry was in ? inside Hogwarts when the war is about to start, Voldemort coming his way to the castle, and the sickening pain in his forehead, it is very much likely for one to commit an immoral (according to his own morality) act."

It shouldn't be easy to kill another human being without feeling the slightest remorse.

Not directly related to the given topic; however, I would like to talk about it. I am in neither side for this (still seeking for the true answer). I'm against capital punishments due to various reasons, the main one being I find it really brutal for a human being to take the life of another one (unless it becomes impossible, like self-defense or a war-ground). However, millions of polices are hanging the criminals (murderer, rapists, etc) on daily basis. Now if the polices start feeling guilt for their actions, then they wouldn't be able to keep up with their work. As a result, there won't be any one to take care of the criminals, and that is, even more dangerous to the society.

Even if you abolish capital punishment, you at least need to keep the criminals in jail/prison for a specific period, so that he/she can't threaten the society anymore with his acts, and more importantly (to me) so that he/she can redeem himself (yep, redemption, if possible, is the best punishment [and reward] a person can ever have). Since keeping humans in jail is a form of torture, following your logic, society should feel guilt/remorse for these prisoners. And again, as a result, this might lead to the prisoners being freed (since everyone would feel pity on them and want them to come out into the world again) even if they happens to be extremely heinous criminals, who hadn't redeemed himself yet, or is beyond redemption (i.e. Voldemort).

Though I'm highly confused regarding this matter. Still searching for the truth.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the good side typically represents what is morally superior.What is morally superior in Harry when he doesn't consider the repercussions of his actions?

Again, I need to ask you what you mean by 'morally superior', before I can start with my answer to it.

To draw a parallel or rather contrast, Seeley Booth (from the show "Bones") was a sniper. Trained to kill, I suppose you could say. He faught in a war and yet, he felt remorse over taking the life of a General who led numerous genocides. He feels awful when he kills another human being. That's what makes him morally superior than the people he kills. Even though they both kill numerous people, He realizes that he hasn't just killed a "bad guy", but killed a husband, a brother, a father, a son for the 'greater good'. Not just that, he works with the FBI to "tip the cosmic balance" in his favour as he wants to put as many criminals in jail as the people whose life he took away, regardless of how well deserved it was; his humanity is what really gives him the edge in morality over the bad guys.

Totally unaware of the character and the show (excuse my ignorance); however sounds to be a fairly interesting creation. Having sympathy for human beings, even if he/she turns out to be the most hideous criminal ever (as long as you can keep it up to a certain limit) is not a bad sign. I believe that people's love for others life is what is going to solve the world's problem rather than considering another living soul to be a monster.

It sounds interesting to me that having a profession where taking the life of another individual is utmost important, the character can sympathize with the person he had killed, and at the same time can go on with his profession.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Harry. The introspection was needed to really show how Harry (and the rest of the good guys) was any better than Bellatrix or the other bad guys.

I find it utterly ridiculous and to some extent, downright disgusting to generalize ones entire character just for a single action. Let's say Harry had done a horrible act by using the Crucio curse at Amycus; now, would it mean that for a single bad deed he had committed all his good deeds are gonna be removed? I would suggest you to count the number of times Harry felt remorse at having to harm people (even if they turn out to be his enemy) along with the number of times he actually harmed his enemy. Calculate it, and see which one scores more. A single action a person commits in his lifetime does not equate to how he is in every day life. Who knows, Harry might actually feel remorse for what he had done later? Is it so impossible that Harry was under a trance during that time when he had done it, so he didn't realize the consequences or impact of the act? Maybe he would not do such an act again in his lifetime?

I certainly don't believe that the Amycus experience falls into the self-defence category. Harry was under the Cloak and wasn't in line of direct harm from Carrow.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I only stated the 'self-defense' argument to draw a parallel b/w the actions done by Bella and the one done by Harry, implying that two individual acts might have/produce the same result/effect/consequences, but judging by the motive of the act, and the intention of the actor, we need to decide whether both the act can be considered the same and equal at a moral/ethical level.

But yet it is likely (and that is what Harry would mostly expect) that Amycus was coming forward to harm McGonagall. Given McGonagall's temper, it is not impossible for her to do something grave to Amycus. And in return, Amycus might take revenge. Since Harry had no way of knowing to what extent this 'revenge' might go, he had to act quickly and do something in order to stop that.

Even if he does kill or torture (again, don't see how torture is supposed to be morally better),

Temporary torturing someone is not the same as permanently damaging or taking another's life. Now don't tell me that Bella also tortured Neville's parents (not saying you will, but this might come up here) and hence both can be considered as equal?Bella's torture had an everlasting effect on Neville's parents and his family, whereas what Harry did to Amycus is bound to drive away after a few moments.

being the good guy, he should feel remorse for his actions. I don't think that he shouldn't have used the Unforgivables sans Crucio - rather, I think that he should have felt remorse over his actions. He is just so off-handed about it.

Explained above in several instances. Refer to those comments.

And he [Amycus] spat in her [McGonnagall's] face.

Harry pulled the Cloak off himself, raised his wand, and said "You shouldn't have done that."

The Death Eater was lifted off his feet. He writhed through the air like a drowning man, thrashing and howling in pain, and then with a cruch and a shattering of glass, he smashed into the front of a bookcase and crumpled, insensible, to the floor.

"I see what Bellatrix meant," said Harry, the blood thundering through his brain, "you need to really mean it."

(DH, 593)

"The blood thundering through his brain"? it is an effective way for J. K Rowling to show Harry's state of mind. When blood rushes up to someone's brain, the person even forget his own name. Like I said above, anger makes people do a lot of tings without having the need to feel the slightest amount of guilt/remorse for the action. However, as soon as people get rid of that anger, they again go back to the normal person they were before.

Bella killed Sirius, Harry's godfather. When Harry tried to punish Bella for it (now please don't tell me again he did a wrong thing by trying to punish Bella with Crucio curse; if I was in Harry's place, I would have done the same) he failed, and Bella taunted him in saying he can't do it because saying the spell is not enough; what is more important is that whether you mean it from inside your heart. By stating Bella's name Harry was rather remembering that day's incidence in the ministry than trying to follow Bella's actions.

Whew, sorry you had to read through all that. I should better try to keep my mouth shut. I had to write these down in a hurry (as I'll have to leave for coaching right away) so there might be many mistakes and half-edged explanations, so sorry 'bout that.

Just an FYI: I'm no freakish obsessed Harry fan, but I'd to support him (NOT his action) in this instance.

Labib

And torture was COMPLETELY avoidable. Especially, Harry torturing Amycus.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses

Thank you for your kind words and Please don't apologize ;) I sincerely doubt anyone here was offended.

I disagree. For instance, if a totally perfect, the most honorable, noble 'good' guy abuses (sexually or otherwise) his wife for one night, would you be willing to overlook that single instance and say that the person is good? Existence precedes essence: we are, therefore we act, and it is solely through our actions that we learn who we are. If we commit a morally repugnant act, then that act and the fact that we *chose* to act as such will be a major factor in defining who we are.

But for what reason did that guy abuse his wife? For pleasure (as in the case of Death Eaters) or to defend someone else (as in the case with Amycus and McGonagall)? Don't get me wrong. I am totally against someone abusing their wife, but your example does not fit into what we're talking about. I think a better example would be if someone came upon a dangerous criminal, and tortured them. And there never will be a totally perfect, honorable, noble "good" guy. I do not believe in perfect people, because they do not exist, especially in this day and age, and if a "perfect" person really did exist, they would be "perfect", so therefore will not abuse his wife. Get what I mean? A "perfect" person would be 100% pure minded, because he's perfect, and abusing or torturing someone would not be something he could do.

On the same note, I'd like to point out that the act of killing in and of itself isn't morally wrong if done in self-defense or done as in the case of Voldemort. What is morally wrong is if one never feels the consequences of taking someone away. To draw a contrast from Hindu mythology, Arjun too killed people yet he felt remorse over his actions. That makes him a lot better than Harry because he realized that it wasn't just some evil villain he was killing; he realized that the people he killed were someone's father, son and such. Arjun was humanized by his conscience.

Again, how do we know Harry did not feel remorse? I mean, there's a 19 year old gap between the end and the epilogue. Just like it's not "written" that Harry felt remorse, it's also not "written" that he did not. Maybe at the moment, due to his feelings of anger, he did not, but then things happened one after the other in that same chapter. Did he even have time to feel remorse or...anything? Death Eaters started coming into the castle, fighting had started, people were dying left and right, and there was still one more Horcrux to find. JK Rowling does not tell us what happened after Voldemort died, and leaves a 19 year old gap between it and the epilogue. Knowing Harry's character, I'm pretty sure he felt some kind of remorse to what he had done. Just because it's not written does not mean it did not happen, because though the story is somewhat centered on his character, it's not in his POV, so we do not know about all the feelings coursing through his veins. We only get glimpses. We cannot also forget that he saved Malfoy and Goyle from the fire Crabbe had started. If he was really as bad as the Death Eaters, and enjoyed seeing others' pain, why in the world would be save the life of his worst enemy (excluding Voldemort)? I'm pretty sure that the Death Eaters would not save somone from Dumbledore's Army if they had been trapped in a fire.

I'll take your word on the Raj Dharma. You stated that "if a person threatens... a society by his her 'evil' acts, and shows no retribution or regret for his vile acts, that person should be killed". Accepted. This can apply to Harry as well, however, as he "shows no retribution or regret for his vile acts". Again, it's not written that he did not regret. Like I explained above, there's a 19 year old gap between the ending and the epilogue. Just because he did not immediately feel regret does not mean he did not later. Voldemort, we know for sure did not feel any regret ever. Admittedly, he's not a threat to the society (arguable; if he's willing to use the Cruciatus because of momentary humiliation, who's to say he's mentally stable?) but he doesn't feel sorrow over his actions. Therein lies my major issue with the book. Harry does not display any regret whatsoever for his actions. Not for using the Cruciatus curse on Carrow, not for using the Imperius curse on the goblin. His lack of conscience marginally lowers his character in my eyes. Refer to the above explanation once again.

Minor note: Harry didn't actually kill LV. LV's curse killed him. He'd appreciate the irony. Agree with you there.😆

Never said it made him evil. It does make him cold blooded though. I understand that the 'good' side needs to kill as well. However, they aren't any better than the other side. Why not? Once again, the goals of a person come into consideration just as much as their actions. The goals of the Death Eaters was for Muggleborns to be erased from the Magical Community and Wizards to rule over the Muggle Community. The goals of Dumbledore's Army and the OOtP was to stop Voldemort's goal from becoming real and spread equality once again through the Wizarding World. Which one is a more righteous goal? Hence, they should not be revered (Harry as hero)for their actions because hey, if they are implementing the same tactics as the 'bad side', then what is it that makes them better than the other side of the spectrum?

Disagreed. LV's side DID fight for a cause. To say that they didn't is rather absurd. One could argue that they 'liked killing' but I don't think canon can back it up as we are almost never privy to the thoughts of the DEs.

Also, LV's side is "evil" because they killed for no reason and they liked killing but Harry isn't wrong because he tortured another human being for no reason and liked torturing him? Who said it was for no reason? Once again, you have to remember what Amycus did and was about to do to McGonagall. Also, don't you feel that you're taking it a bit too far with Harry 'liking torturing'? It never said anywhere in the book that Harry "liked" torturing. When Bellatrix said that one had to "mean" the Cruciatus Curse, she was not referring to pleasure, but the anger. Yes, even Death Eaters felt anger at the people who they tortured: anger because of who they were. They were angry at the Muggleborns because they were not pure bloods and they were angry at the Pure bloods who defended Muggleborns.

Harry was angry at Amycus because of the disgusting things he did. That's why his Cruciatus Curse worked, but no where did it say that 'pleasure coursed through his body' when he had used the curse. Pleasure was not the incentive for the Cruciatus Curse, but anger. Not enough anger was put through the curse Harry aimed at Bellatrix in OOtP, because he had never used the Cruciatus Curse before, and he was also in too much shock over Sirius's death to feel too much anger. The anger came later. But when he was cursing Amycus, he felt truly angry because he was sick and tired of the innocent lives the Death Eaters were taking, and torturing innocent children.

Okay. See here's what I don't understand. Amycus should be punsihed for using the Cruciatus curse but Harry should not? Why these double standards? Because Harry is allegedly "good"? The use of the *UNFORGIVABLE* curses should NOT be condoned. Whether it's the 'good' side that uses it, or the 'bad' side, it is JUST as morally repugnant. The whole purpose of the scene in GoF was to emphasize that UCs are truly, in every which way, unforgivable. Here, I think it depends on opinion. I feel that the Unforgiveables are only "unforgiveable" if used for no reason or for pleasure, as in the case of the Death Eaters, but some in Dumbledore's side (most of whom never used the unforgiveables) used them because there was no way to defeat the Dark side without using the same curses on them. I mean, can you seriously see them winning using curses like Petrificus Totalus? The Dark Side always ridculed the Light Side for being "softies" or not having it in them for using the Unforvieables. Well, it was about time that they tasted the bitter taste of their own medicine. You seem to know Hindu Mythology (sorry, I don't know if you're Hindu or not), but in Hinduism, it's called Karma, or 'what goes around comes around'. It was about time that the Death Eaters felt the torture they put others through. I strongly believe in Karma, so it was only a matter of time before the Death Eaters suffered their bad Karma.

Amycus' life shouldn't be valued because he didn't value the life of others but Harry's should? That Harry felt no remorse over his actions is a testament to how little he values human life. So by your theory, why should Harry's life be valued? Because he's part of the Elect? Again, please refer to my explanation written above, where I said we never know if Harry felt no remorse. And there's a great difference between what Amycus did and what Harry did. Harry did the Cruciatus curse two times, the first one not really coming into consideration, compared to the many times Amycus did. Harry crucio'd Amycus to punish him for torturing innocent children and ruining some of the best years of their lives. He did what Fudge and Scrimgeour should have done but failed. I believe that in order for peace to reign in society, evil-doers such as murderers and those who torture others should be tortured and then killed, because it's the fruit of the bad Karma. Also, Harry did suffer for the Bad Karma he also did. Didn't he see many of his loved ones die? Didn't he have to witness those close to him get murdered? His life wasn't taken, because despite what you are saying, Harry is not and never was as bad as any of the Death Eaters.

So if the good guys use them - as defence, as a method of trying to ferret information, as a punishment - how does that make them any better than the others who use them? Because they're doing it for Dharma to be upheld. They're doing it so that there's peace in the future and society will once more believe in equality. The "other side" does it for the exact opposite. There's a lot of difference if you analyze it that way. That reeks of double standard in morality: one for the white knights, and one for the non-Gryffindors. The book suggests the following: one can adopt tactics that are used predominantly by the bad guys, but as long as one is a part of the Elect and uses those tactics against the 'bad guys', the behaviour is totally justified and carries no further serious moral or ethical consequence. When the Death Eaters do it, they get a trip to Azkaban and people go "They are SO evil". But if you're on the 'good side', no worries, carry on with it. Yeah, that's totally not hypocritical. Once again, the "good side" never does it with the same intentions as the bad side. They do not do it for pleasure or because they're simply "better" than others. The Death Eaters do it for selfish immoral reasons, which is why they're sent to Azkaban and the Light Side isn't.

And torture was COMPLETELY avoidable. Especially, Harry torturing Amycus. That may or may not be. After all, you really have to be in his position to determine that. Right now, it's very easy for us to say what Harry should or should not have done, but if we actually expecienced everything he had gone through from his 17 year old self, we don't know what we would have felt. I honestly can say that I would not know, as I have never experienced the horror of war and how it changes people.

Part in brown: Your reasoning sounds a lot like the "greater good". The "greater good" reasoning does not excuse actions that are morally questionable. I'm sorry if I came off speaking for the "greater good", as my intentions were not that, but I agree with Labib that "morally questionable" is itself questionable. People have different opinons on issues such as abortion, capital punishment, torturing criminals, etc. Your opinon about "morally questionable" differs from what I feel about "morally questionable", so we may not be able to come to a standpoint about that.

Like I said earlier - that's conjecture. If it isn't in the books - which are written in Harry's POV - it didn't happen. As it stands, Harry did not feel the slightest bit of repentance for his actions. I'm sorry, but you cannot say that, as I've already explained that there are 19 years gap in which Rowling doesn't write about what happened in between. And with the events of the Final Battle happening right after another, Harry didn't have time to think anything, what with finding the final Horcrux, witnessing so many deaths, giving himself to Voldemort, etc.

I'm against torture in all of its forms. Whether it is Strappado, or the Cruciatus curse, I firmly believe that torture should not be used or condoned. Referring to HP, Cruciatus is causing pain for the enjoyment of the castor. I can not bring myself to sympathise with people whose actions fall within the doctrine of Schadenfreude. I don't care how vile someone may be - stooping to their level is even MORE disgusting. Our opinions differ here, because I believe in torture when it pertains to the punishment of criminals (not all criminals, but criminals such as murders, terrorists, etc).

Don't see how Harry's history factors into this. Why can't you compare Harry and Bellatrix? They have both done the same actions. Admittedly, Harry's action didn't have as bad a consequence as Bellatrix's did but that they both caused someone torture - fully meaning every minute of the pain the victim suffered - and enjoyed it, is grounds for comparison. Please cite the page where it says Harry enjoyed cruciating Amycus. He felt anger, but not pleasure. Bellatrix enjoyed cruciating, but not Harry.

Applying an alternative universe scenario: The OOTP is no saint either (The books are a testament of that). They too have been ruthless in their quest for ostensibly 'the greater good' and destroyed numerous homes, no doubt. As such, it is highly possible a new Death Eater (whose home the OOTP destroyed) would feel anger at the OOTP for taking so much away from him or her. If that DE was to use a UC, it would land him or her a ticket to Azkaban. Her or she wouldn't be revered for his or her actions. Not only that, he or she would be deemed immoral because he or she did not take into account the reprecussions of their actions. That is exactly what Harry does: he uses the UCs without acknowledging the consequences. So, why is Harry treated any differently? Because he's apparently a "good guy"? Refer to double standard morality point above.

Given the restrictive narration of the book, it is impossible to say whether or not the 'good deeds' were done by DEs. One mustn't forget that being in Harry's narration, the books are obviously biased. The OOtP never went around to random famlies and tortured and killed people for fun, or because of their blood status. If someone's family was torn apart because of the OOtP, it had to be because their family belonged to the Death Eaters, and because of that family member, an innocent person(s) was/were killed. Brining Hindu mythology into this, we can compare it with how Lord Ram and the Vanar Sena killed Ravan and the Rakshasas. Ravan's family was impaced, wasn't it? Mandodari, Dhanyamalini, Vajramala, and Sulochana among many other women became widows and their sons were killed, but Shri Ram had killed Ravan and the Rakshas Sena because Ravan was an Adharmi and evil had to be rooted out.

The OOtP did not kill meaninglessly like the Death Eaters, so they were definitely more "Saint-like" than the Death Eaters.

Sorry, I would explain more and write more clearly, but my sister is angry at me for hogging the computer.😆😳 I have to log off now.

Ok I admit that I have yet to read all these long and highy enlightening and ntertaining posts in it's entireity (I will return to them when I have a bit more time), but from the bits and pieces I did read I have to point something out. Sorry if it was covered already and I just haven't read it as yet.

Originally posted by: shellytt

Ok I admit that I have yet to read all these long and highy enlightening and ntertaining posts in it's entireity (I will return to them when I have a bit more time), but from the bits and pieces I did read I have to point something out. Sorry if it was covered already and I just haven't read it as yet.

The question about whether Harry would have felt remorse or not after he killed Voldermort. My view on that issue mimicks Lalitha's, in that there is a nineteen year gap between the end of the war and the last scene in the novel. I stronly believe that Harry experienced remorse for his actions, especially in regard to how his actions caused the lives of many to be lost. I think he would have always lived with knowledge that because of him many lives were lost.

I don't base my statement however on a mere feeling. Referring to when Harry finds out that he is destined to kill or be killed by Voldermort, he seemed to be afraid (for lack of a better word) for that day to come. Can this fear be attributed to Harry not wanting to die or can it be because he dreaded that he was to be the downfall of a life, evil as it was. I think it had more to do with the fact that he was expected to kill someone that had him a bit off balance. This shows Harry's sense of moratility to an extent. His beliefs and values find the act of killing (even the killing of Voldermort) to be ereprehensible, however he quickly realises that this must be done. It is a necessary evil in his eyes.

I also agree that Harry had no time for reflection or remorse during the hours following Voldermort's downfall. During the heat of the battle, he obviously didn't have the luxury of sitting and thinking," I did really need to use that Unforgivable Curse?" However, I believe that even that night, while we all hope that Harry had a good night's sleep, he probably had a restless night, with nightmares ravaging his subconcious ans the gravity of all that occured and his part in it plagued him. I think that he puposely put dealing with his actions off on his mind, until he felt he would have been able to deal with them, but when his guard was let down while he slept, he would begin to experience the first feelings of guilt, as has been shown many times throughout the books. (Think when Cedric died)

As for his use of Cruico, in defending Prof. McGon., I think at that point he was driven by his outrage at the disrespect shown to her, added to that the adrenaline of the situation and his recently acquired knowledge of the tortures that the Carrows were inflicting on children! I am are not saying that it is excusable for him to stoop to the level of DE in using UC, however it is understandable, and personally given the situation, I don't think that I would have felt much regret myself in using the curse. Harry also used the curse as a means of defense (and don't we all agree that doing something evil as a means of defense is understandable.It may not have been self defense but it was still in defense).

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

Nice reply.👏 I especially agree with the highlighted parts. Harry felt guilt throughout the books for things he did not do. Would he really not feel guilt for torturing Amycus, even if it was for about 5 seconds, and also killing Voldemort?