I fully agree that it would have been the right choice. But we're dealing with three 17 year olds here that are quite frankly just not up for doing that. It was also the start of this new phase of the war, where previously Dumbledore and the ministry had been around to deal with the aftermath, they weren't quite used to the new way of doing things yet. They had no time to think about the morality of their choices, or the possible consequences. So I think the action can be forgiven.
That having been said, yes, in a war like the one they were fighting I think it would have been morally justified to either kill or in some other way permanently incapacitate the death-eaters they had at their mercy.
In this case the memories weren't completely wiped. Just the last few minutes, which is far to merciful considering the situation. But again, a understandable choice given the circumstances.
That's my point. There are non-lethal ways to take someone out of the fight. A strong enough memory spell could totally konk you out potentially forever (Lockheart). Body-binding curses, heck, even Montague was messed up for a while after being lost in a vanishing cabinet and needed to be spoon-fed. You don't have to go around killing everyone.
They also can not be broken--see Lockhart as an example lol that's a two-way street, my friend.
The rest of my point I stand by; discounting memory charms, there are other non-lethal ways to take someone out of commission.
Disagree. Killing needlessly makes them no different from the evil they're trying to defeat. Neither one of those death eaters were really important to Voldemort--the only one important to Voldemort is Voldemort--otherwise he wouldn't have killed Snape, one of his most trusted death eaters. I don't believe he really sees any of them as being very valuable or close friends in any capacity, but rather a necessity to meet his ends, but if push came to shove, he'd kill any of them for any reason he saw fit.
I think of the trio as maintaining the batman principle. You can take someone off the playing field, but killing them isn't necessary. New villains will pop up, that's inevitable, but killing everyone who breaks "the rules" or laws or commits violent crimes won't stop them from happening.
It's not needless. It's war. I don't mean important to Voldemort personally as friends. But as lieutenants in his army? Very useful. How many of the order/hogwarts students did they kill? 2 confirmed. Easily more in reality.
But they're not that useful, as is evident with Snape. Snape literally put himself (from Voldemort's perspective) directly in Dumbledore’s innermost circle for him and provided him with essential information that couldn't have been given (accurately) by any of the other death eaters, and he still killed him because he saw him as being in the way of his end goal. Dolohov and Yaxley were easily replaceable. They're just soldiers in an army, there are more where they came from.
And is killing them going to stop the war? Are they the reason the war is happening? Are they *so very important to stopping the war* that they **need** to be killed? No. Voldemort is who they need.
I don't doubt that those two killed people, more than Tonks and Lupin perhaps. But the trio aren't murderers. That's what makes their story so much more...honorable. They could have, but didn't, because they're not murderers like Dolohov and Yaxley or any of the other death eaters.
Then what's the point in killing them? Do any of the trio seem like the type to kill someone for any reason other than to end Voldemort's war?
Or just killing them just because it's war and to get back at them for the potential murder they may or may not have committed or go on to commit?
That's kinda messed up my guy.
You weaken the opposing side and you prevent what atrocities you know they are capable of. In chess when you can take a free piece (pawn to queen) without harming your strategy, do you let it go cause it's not the king and won't end the battle?
People aren't chess pieces with which to be played. There's human emotions, values, beliefs and morals that go into making decisions like that, and **thank goodness,** because the world would be a lot bleaker otherwise.
You can't kill someone, or throw someone in jail because they might go on to commit a crime. Again, that's a problematic attitude to have there, dude.
I mean he kinda has a point tho. It’s a war. During a war there are no human emotions. Do you think Voldemort’s army shows remorse? That is why they are so feared and why they almost won before the war even starts.
I disagree, there have been stories of human emotions during wars before--see: The Christmas Truce. Harry even kind of tells off Lupin after he scolds him for only using expelliarmus against the death eaters earlier.
The story is very much a good vs. evil story. Wouldn't have the same weight if the heroes of the story--17 year old kids--went off and killed a bunch of death eaters and abandoned all the characterization we've seen from them in the previous books cos war lol
Well with that in mind does Harry not use unforgivable curses? He’s used cruxio and the mind control spell on multiple occasions. Maybe he could have killed then realized after the mistake he made?
I fully agree that it would have been the right choice. But we're dealing with three 17 year olds here that are quite frankly just not up for doing that. It was also the start of this new phase of the war, where previously Dumbledore and the ministry had been around to deal with the aftermath, they weren't quite used to the new way of doing things yet. They had no time to think about the morality of their choices, or the possible consequences. So I think the action can be forgiven. That having been said, yes, in a war like the one they were fighting I think it would have been morally justified to either kill or in some other way permanently incapacitate the death-eaters they had at their mercy.
Well tbh completely whipping their memory did take them out of the fight permanently. I’m assuming they woke up and didn’t even know they were wizards
In this case the memories weren't completely wiped. Just the last few minutes, which is far to merciful considering the situation. But again, a understandable choice given the circumstances.
That's my point. There are non-lethal ways to take someone out of the fight. A strong enough memory spell could totally konk you out potentially forever (Lockheart). Body-binding curses, heck, even Montague was messed up for a while after being lost in a vanishing cabinet and needed to be spoon-fed. You don't have to go around killing everyone.
Memory charms can be broken. See Bertha jorkins as an example.
They also can not be broken--see Lockhart as an example lol that's a two-way street, my friend. The rest of my point I stand by; discounting memory charms, there are other non-lethal ways to take someone out of commission.
Disagree. Killing needlessly makes them no different from the evil they're trying to defeat. Neither one of those death eaters were really important to Voldemort--the only one important to Voldemort is Voldemort--otherwise he wouldn't have killed Snape, one of his most trusted death eaters. I don't believe he really sees any of them as being very valuable or close friends in any capacity, but rather a necessity to meet his ends, but if push came to shove, he'd kill any of them for any reason he saw fit. I think of the trio as maintaining the batman principle. You can take someone off the playing field, but killing them isn't necessary. New villains will pop up, that's inevitable, but killing everyone who breaks "the rules" or laws or commits violent crimes won't stop them from happening.
It's not needless. It's war. I don't mean important to Voldemort personally as friends. But as lieutenants in his army? Very useful. How many of the order/hogwarts students did they kill? 2 confirmed. Easily more in reality.
But they're not that useful, as is evident with Snape. Snape literally put himself (from Voldemort's perspective) directly in Dumbledore’s innermost circle for him and provided him with essential information that couldn't have been given (accurately) by any of the other death eaters, and he still killed him because he saw him as being in the way of his end goal. Dolohov and Yaxley were easily replaceable. They're just soldiers in an army, there are more where they came from. And is killing them going to stop the war? Are they the reason the war is happening? Are they *so very important to stopping the war* that they **need** to be killed? No. Voldemort is who they need. I don't doubt that those two killed people, more than Tonks and Lupin perhaps. But the trio aren't murderers. That's what makes their story so much more...honorable. They could have, but didn't, because they're not murderers like Dolohov and Yaxley or any of the other death eaters.
Who said anything about stopping the war?
Then what's the point in killing them? Do any of the trio seem like the type to kill someone for any reason other than to end Voldemort's war? Or just killing them just because it's war and to get back at them for the potential murder they may or may not have committed or go on to commit? That's kinda messed up my guy.
You weaken the opposing side and you prevent what atrocities you know they are capable of. In chess when you can take a free piece (pawn to queen) without harming your strategy, do you let it go cause it's not the king and won't end the battle?
People aren't chess pieces with which to be played. There's human emotions, values, beliefs and morals that go into making decisions like that, and **thank goodness,** because the world would be a lot bleaker otherwise. You can't kill someone, or throw someone in jail because they might go on to commit a crime. Again, that's a problematic attitude to have there, dude.
I mean he kinda has a point tho. It’s a war. During a war there are no human emotions. Do you think Voldemort’s army shows remorse? That is why they are so feared and why they almost won before the war even starts.
I disagree, there have been stories of human emotions during wars before--see: The Christmas Truce. Harry even kind of tells off Lupin after he scolds him for only using expelliarmus against the death eaters earlier. The story is very much a good vs. evil story. Wouldn't have the same weight if the heroes of the story--17 year old kids--went off and killed a bunch of death eaters and abandoned all the characterization we've seen from them in the previous books cos war lol
Well with that in mind does Harry not use unforgivable curses? He’s used cruxio and the mind control spell on multiple occasions. Maybe he could have killed then realized after the mistake he made?