I believe in the "this is war, in war you don't pull yuour punches" thing. however, I don't think you should give your strongest strike ever chance you get by overusing and abusing the curses.

I just don't think they'll be sitting around the campfire in a remote mountainside saying "well, Voldemort got away, now millions of muggles will die with no knowledge of the true cause and millions of witches/wizards will die by no fault of their own. But at least we didn't use an unforgivable curse!"

It is unreasonable to think that just because dark wizards use them for the wrong reasons that there are no right reasons to use them.

I feel that the Imperious curse shouldn't be unforgivable.
This spell has a legitimate use against the enemy by the forces of good.
McGonagall use of it on Amycus Carrow is a perfect example.
Through it's use Amycus hands over his and his sister wands and meekly allowed them to be bound.
They took no part in the Battle that followed and survived to go to prison, this could have very well preserved their lives.
Even the killing curse has a use in war, the quick and immediate death of a enemy during battle prevents that enemy from killing your comrades.
The Torture curse has no legitimate use, it's only use is to make your enemy suffer.
It's to be hoped that it was that piece of Voldemort that resided in Harry that caused him to use it on Amycus, who BTW certainly deserved a taste of his own medicine though it doesn't reflect well on Harry.

I think that Bob has it right. Although, McGonagall's use of it probably wasn't necessary. There were other means available. But Harry's use in Gringott's was necessary.

Well, I agree with your point about the AK and Crucio, but the Imperius Curse is, IMO, a very dangerous form of magic on so many levels. Think back to the first scene in which we see the curse in action - Croody's first lesson with Harry. Yes, Croody does make the spider do amusing things, but he then starts to list all the terrible things he could make it do. The idea of complete control over someone is arguably the Darkest form of magic (especially considering the lesson Jo was trying to teach us via DD about death and physical pain not being the worst thing that you can inflict on someone).

It's not so much the physical repercussions to the curse (although they are undoubtedly drastic), but the moral and ethical implications it holds when used in the wrong way. Think back to the way that Barty Crouch Senior imprisoned his own son with the curse, and the ways in which the DEs controlled their innocent victims to do their bidding. Remember, there is no way to forensically determine what a certain person forced another to do with the curse other than to interrogate the culprit, and interrogations aren't always reliable.

In the case of the Imperious curse, it's the intent of the caster not the spell itself that's the crime.
When a deatheater uses the Imperious curse to compel their victim to commit murder, they are guilty of the crime of murder through use of the Imperious curse.
But if an Auror uses it to compel a criminal to surrender theres no crime committed.
Obviously it's not a spell to be used lightly even by the proper authorities.
Only in extreme circumstances such as war or a life and death struggle with the forces of darkness should it and the killing curse be permitted.
In the US if a Police Officer has to use his firearm he has to later justify that use with internal affairs, the same should apply in the wizarding world to prevent misuse of these dangerous spells

BTW. The 3 curses are only unforgivable because the MOM declared them as such and prescribed a life sentence for their use on a fellow human being.

I agree with all of these views, however, my question is more or less, are they morally justied when used by any member of the anti-Voldemort movement? Not legally.

in other words, is it morally justifyable to control, torture, or kill someone without any way to prevent it by the other party if done for the correct reasons.

Well I don't think that the good guys used Avada kedavra. I don't know for sure but come on it was a war. Why don't they use the unforgivable curses against the DE? I think that in that particular war everything was allowed because Voldemort didn't have any limits. He used everyone and everything to win, and because of DD death I think that they should have used unfogivable curses. I don't know how exactly to say what I think but I can only say that I agree with all of that that the members of the OotP did.

We're told that when a person is accepted as an Auror they under go an additional 3 years of training.
Now I would assume that part of that training is advanced offensive and defensive magic well beyond what's taught at Hogwarts in DADA. So I would assume they'd learn curses to take out the bad guys.
As for the 3 unforgivables, I consider the torture curse worse then the killing curse, using AK on somebody is no different then shooting them, if done properly the victim is killed. But torture is outlawed in civilized society by international treaties (Geneva Convention).

Bold mine: agreed; that's why I'm saying it's reasonable to classify the Imperius curse as an Unforgiveable: the vast majority of those who use the curse use it in a bad way. There's also the issue that it's too hard to keep tabs on the use of the curse, so rather than allowing for exceptional circumstances in the written law, it's banned altogether in the hope that people will just abstain from using it altogether, saving the Wizengamot a lot of headaches with trials for justified use of the curse.

By this reasoning, they should put Harry on trial for for the Imperius Curse he used on Travers (and Bogrod). Somehow I don't think this would be appropriate. And I don't think that McGonagall should be put on trial for her Imperius Curse on Carrow, although I will admit she certainly had other options and I was disappointed with this one.

I also agree that it was morally wrong for Harry to use the Cruciatus Curse on Carrow. Understandable, but wrong. But, as Jo said, Harry is no Saint.

While avada kedavra causes instant death it wasn't the only way for wizards to kill one another.
Dolohov specialized in the curse that produce blue lightning and caused severe internal injuries.
McGonagall could have summoned the Carrow's wands and bound them without resorting to the imperious curse.

Great comments by everyone, especialy bob. Now, when do you all think an Unforgivable is justified when used by a good witch/wizard? I mean to say, in what situation would you consider each curse justified. I will set up a formula for this part of the discussion if no one minds:

AK:A made-up justifyable situation.

Crucio:another made-up justifyable situation.

Imperio:third made-up justifyable situation.

Now, you may comment on the original post, I always appreciate your opinions.

I think the AK and Imperius are both fully justifiable in a war situation, as long as they're not abused. If an enemy is willing to kill you or torture you, then I think its acceptable to kill them. Although I think the Cruciatus shouldn't be used at all. The AK and Imperius are both very useful in defeating an enemy, whereas the Cruciatus isn't necessary to defeat an enemy, only to cause them pain.

As Cooncatbob said, there must be much more advanced offensive magic than stunning, disarming, impedimenta etc which we see from Harry and the rest. We know Moody never used unforgivables in his job as an Auror. But its hard to argue in favour of these as we see so little of it. The only examples I can think of is Dumbledore's magic against Voldemort in OOTP and MacGonagall and Flitwick against Snape. These seemed to involve some very advanced transfiguration and charms, which I reckon would have been far too difficult for many wizards, including Harry. Whereas the unforgivables seem much easier. Harry has no problem with the Imperius, all he does is say the incantation and it works perfectly. He can also use the Cruciatus, although not as effectively as the likes of Voldemort or Bella who have the natural cruel, sadistic streak that is also needed. The AK we dont fully know about, although according to MoodyCrouch it needs more than just the words.

Basically I think its morally totally acceptable to use them. To leave an enemy merely stunned or frozen is kind of irresponsible, because they can be revived by their comrades to rejoin the battle and potentially kill your comrades. I think in a war/battle situation a witch/wizard on the side of good should be looking to take their enemy out permanently, if possible not using an unforgivable curse, but if that's what it takes then by all means use the AK or Imperius.

Hold on to your hats folks while we take a ride over to the Obscurus Books forum!! Please continue your discussions about this fascinating topic!

*Mobillithreadus*

Happy posting

Lirene
LL Moderator

The imperius curse is very useful in such situation like those in DH, it was needed to defeat Voldemort. And one person having no control over what they do for a while, at the hands of someone trying to do good, is nothing in comparison to thousands being killed for unjustifiable reasons. I also believe that the imperius can be used for good when someone will not listen to reason... for example say a person was a drug addict and they were on a downwards spiral and refused to get help, would it be okay to imperius them so that they got help and sorted there life out.

The cruciatus curse, as cruel as it is, has a very powerful intimidating affect. When most people use it is wrong. But if you saw someone torturing a person or about to kill a person, would you sit there and watch it, personally i wouldn't and i'd do the first thing i could think of, and if that happened to be the cruciatus curse, as bad as it may be to use it, i would do it, to save the life of someone innocent. If Harry can use this in special, rare circumstances then as long as the circumstances are valid i think that almost everyone (bar evil people) should be able to.

The avada kedavra curse,. The first point i want to make about this is that to kill a person this curse doesnt have to be used. For example Harry manages to kill Voldemort without using the curse but the effects are still the same, so arent both means as bad as eachother? In this case i would say no, i think by not using an AK Harry kept his dignity and pride, whilst still being able to get the job done. Yet when Bellatrix kills Dobby ( ) she doesn't use an AK, but if she had then i would have been just as bad. I do not think that the AK is unforgivable, when Molly used it i found it powerful and meaningful it showed her dedication to her family, and so i sympathise and appreciate her bravery, so ultimately when it is used in extreme circumstances, as much as i do not like the AK, it can be necessary. Sometimes things are for the greater good, loose one evil person save a thousand good, innocent people.

While it's never says that Molly AKed Bellatrix, it does say "the floor around the witches feet became hot and cracked; both women were fighting to kill."
It was a life and death struggle and the fate of the battle and in fact the war was coming to a climax.
If Molly AKed her or used some other strong curse which hit her right in the heart I shed no tears for Bellatrix, there was no mercy in the woman.
Harry and Voldemort situation was unique, there was so much intertwining magic between them, the mother's charm, Voldemort using Harry's blood to remake his body, the shared cores of the wands, Harry being the Horcrux Voldemort never intended to make and Harry being the true master of the Elder Wand.
Voldemort ignorance and pride killed him, he could have strangled baby Harry, he could have stabbed Harry when he was bound in the Graveyard, he could have had any of his deatheaters kill Harry.
But he couldn't avada kedavra him.

QUOTE(phoenix call @ Jun 17 2008, 04:48 PM)

The avada kedavra curse,. The first point i want to make about this is that to kill a person this curse doesnt have to be used. For example Harry manages to kill Voldemort without using the curse but the effects are still the same, so arent both means as bad as eachother? In this case i would say no, i think by not using an AK Harry kept his dignity and pride, whilst still being able to get the job done.

Bold mine: The circumstances with Harry in the Great Hall and the AK cast by Voldemort were very different than we see with other wizards, as cooncatbob has pointed out. The AK rebounded on Voldemort not only because Harry was master of the Elder Wand; but because of Lily's protection. This wouldn't have worked with any other wizard, so the effects wouldn't be the same as we see with Harry. And in PS/SS; an infant Harry without anything else going for him survived an AK; so the love protection by Lily was very powerful.

However, I do agree that there probably are other means of killing a wizard; and not just by AK alone. Maybe several powerful, and direct stunning spells to the heart for example could cause a fatal arrhythmia and death. But the AK is unique in that it is the only curse that causes instantaneous death without any external traces. So, since this is curse is so effective; maybe wizards for the most part don't bother with other means.

The Killing Curse isn't really as bad as it sounds. It's much more humane to the victim than other methods.
The Imperius curse is only as bad as it's intended to be.
The Cruciatus curse sounds and is inhumane, at times. It's effective when you need to take down a person without physically harming them too much.Besides, sometimes it takes a little bit more than stupefy.

I just realized...Harry was using shielding charms to protect Kingsley and the others from Voldemort's curses at the end of DH...How? Voldemort only uses Avada Kedavra when he fights, which is unblockable.

Which brings me to another interesting question(I know, I'm full of them recently, aren't I? )...Is it ethically sound to use a curse that can't be blocked?(see how I made the above paragraph off-topic and kinda fused it into an on-topic question? I'm like a jedi )

There is a reasonable argument that the Unforgivable Curses are labeled unforgivable for that very reason: they can not be blocked. Other than Cruciatus, there doesn't seem to be any other reason. Other spells accomplish similar things, but aren't unforgivable (love potion, anyone). So, it seems the Ministry believes that it is unethical to use a curse that can't be blocked.

The Killing Curse: Is this justifiable? This conjures up the Muggle discussion of Capitol Punishment. While the AK may be more (for want of a better word) 'kind' than any other methods of killing, is it right? I suppose, as has been said, that it depends on the situation in which the spell is cast. I now think of the saying:
"An eye for an eye will only succeed in making the whole world blind"
This is true in the sense that if someone is a murderer then murdering them makes you as bad as them. I also believe that there are exceptions, some of which you have put forward (e.g. Molly Weasleys duel with Bellatrix in Deathly Hallows) but even then it is hard to say whether it is just. I believe that in these cases, while it may be forgivable, it is still not just. For someone like Voldemort, who fears nothing more than death, death is the worst thing. However for those who still have some shred of goodness inside of them, however tiny, could be put through more torture than any spell could do, just by being trapped in an inescapable prison with the rest of their lives to mull over what they have done. For Voldemort, someone who I believe was born evil this would have no point. As well as this, Voldemort would have been powerful enough to escape this prison anyway (even if it was inescapable).

Crucio: Once again, there are things worse than pain and death. I don't believe that there are very many situations where this would even have a mark (emotionally/mentally) on 'the bad guys'. One of the exceptions to this is when Harry chased after Bellatrix in Order of the Phoenix. Harry wanted Bellatrix to feel the immense, indescribable pain that he felt at having the closest thing to a family member he had ever had wrenched away from him, before he could say goodbye. I refer once more to the phrase:
"An eye for an eye will only succeed in making the whole world blind"
Doing what they do makes you just as bad as them.

Imperio: This spell, while not as inhumane as the other two unforgivable curses, robs the victim of what makes them unique- their free will. Yet again I refer to the phrase:
"An eye for an eye will only succeed in making the whole world blind"
And yet again I say, committing these crimes makes you as bad as 'them'. I do not see the Imperio curse to be as cruel (at least physically) as the other two unforgivable curses, though it is unforgivable for a reason. I believe that this is because, it robs the victim of their free will, as I said before.

All in all, I believe that the Unforgivable Curses are unforgivable for a reason, though as said be me and other members, there are justifiable situations in with it is 'forgivable' to use them.

So, in your opinion, the murder of a serial killer makes he/she who murdered them as bad as the serial killer? What I mean is, killing 1 person who has killed and will kill many makes you just as bad as that person?

AK:I think it is justified if U are using it against someone who doesn't mind pain as a punishment(nulling crucio)but fears death or if the other will not stop killing and may easily break out of prison.

crucio:Justifiable if used against someone who fears nothing but pain as a means of punishment(nothing except pain brings them misery).

Imperio: When truely used "for the greater good".

As I said, there are situations where it is justified. I do believe that it would be a more effective punishment to lock them up for the rest of their life, let them realise what they have done.

which doesn't work for someone as twisted as Voldemort who realizes what he's done and laughs.

I also said this in my (big) post. What Voldemort fears the most is death, so this would probably be the best option for punishment in his case.

my basic point through all of this, is that murder and torchure, can be justified if that is what the situation calls for. In the case of torture, if you need information from a culprit who is immune from veritaserum for the time being and are trapped until the information is recieved, torchure is a neccessary and justified means of getting it.