Why Doesn't the Order use Avada Kedavra

[Itscoldincanada]

Sorry if this is simlier to another post, i searched but didnt find any.

So as i was saying, why doesnt the order or the "good guys" use avada kedavra??. I know it is an unforgivable spell but it is very useful if you want to stop someone from doing something. Example 1, when voldemort kills harry's partents, couldnt his father used avada kedavra to kill voldemort? I know it is supposed to be really hard spell to complete but if peter pettigrew can do it wht couldnt james potter?. Example 2, when the order comes to harry's rescue in the MOM, they caught the DE by suprise, they could have used it then and killed quite a few of them.

what are your thoughts?

[SSJ_Jup81]

Because it's illegal....that's the only reason you need.

[Daelin]

Why not use a spell which soils and tears a wizard's soul beyond repair?

Gee, I dunno, maybe because no one in the Order is all that keen to become less human?

[Itscoldincanada]

Originally Posted by SSJ_Jup81

Because it's illegal....that's the only reason you need.

The order does plenty of things that are illegal,

1. Harboring a fugitive(sirius black), yes i know he is innocent but the MOM doesnt

2.When fudge tries to arrest DD in OOTP, he attacks them and flees. Attacking 2 aurors, the Minister for magic, and an uder secretary has got to be illegal

3. Harry uses crucio on bettrix

[Padfoots_godson]

Well, it goes against Dumbledore's idea that everyone should get a second chance. And since he is the leader, they probably listen, even if they don't agree.

[Daelin]

Originally Posted by Itscoldincanada

The order does plenty of things that are illegal

I don't know about that, but keep in mind the main point that we must also consider the morality of an act.

1. Harboring a fugitive(sirius black), yes i know he is innocent but the MOM doesnt

2.When fudge tries to arrest DD in OOTP, he attacks them and flees. Attacking 2 aurors, the Minister for magic, and an under secretary has got to be illegal

May I suggest you consider the difference between a technicality and true justice? We know from OOtP, for example, that Umbridge imposes a series of clearly unjust (and often poorly considered) rules and laws on the students and staff at Hogwarts. In one example, a student actually observed that it was illegal for Umbridge to complain about students playing cards in her class, because of her imposed law making it illegal for teachers to talk about anything not directly related to their classwork. The poor guy got detention, but in effect it meant that Umbridge broke her own laws!

We know through the books that Harry was falsely blamed for Dobby's magic in CoS, his actual offense of blowing up Aunt Marge in PoA was smoothed over for expediency, and that his summoning the Patronus in OOtP was in self-defense and completely legal, yet he almost went to prison for it! The clear message sent by JKR, I think, is that there is a very large difference between something which is illegal and something which is unjust.

3. Harry uses crucio on bettrix

I don't count that, because he was unsuccessful. The actual effect and intent of a spell are critical to its virtue or sin, I think.

[snapegirl]

Originally Posted by Itscoldincanada

Example 1, when voldemort kills harry's partents, couldnt his father used avada kedavra to kill voldemort? I know it is supposed to be really hard spell to complete but if peter pettigrew can do it wht couldnt james potter?

I got the feeling that since James and Lily thought they were protected, they were taken by surprise when Voldemort came. Look at it this way, if someone was to walk into a house, draws a gun and shoots, the people inside wouldn't have much time to react.

Another thing is the difference between Death Eaters and the Order. The Death Eaters really don't care who gets cursed. The Order values life and if someone in the Order was dueling with a Death Eater, but the curse missed and it hit another Order member, they would never forgive themselves.

[RinkyDink]

Originally Posted by snapegirl77

Another thing is the difference between Death Eaters and the Order. The Death Eaters really don't care who gets cursed. The Order values life and if someone in the Order was dueling with a Death Eater, but the curse missed and it hit another Order member, they would never forgive themselves.

I agree. The goal of the order is not to go out and murder all the deatheaters. That would make them no better than the deatheaters. Without a leader they are much less dangerous. Dumbledore intents to help Harry get rid of Voldemort. He poses a threat to all, but other people can change and yes need to be given a second chance.

[mystic_22]

Also Dumbledor is the type of person who would value evn Tom Riddle's life..He is fighting against *** choices Voldemort makes and their consequences..
Remember he tells Tom again and again that there are things worse than death.
Killing clearly isn't his idea of punishment.
Since the order symbolizes what Dumbledor believed in and fought for .. they couldnt possibly use Aavada kedavra..
It goies against Dumbledor's ideals..

[toonmili]

i agree. They don't use it becasue it's unforgivable. By the way. So someone said that Snape has killed before. Is this confirmed or are they just speculating. For all we know he could be Voldy's resident Potion Maker. The maker of that awful Green thing DD drank. I don't think the book says that Snape used Avada Kadavra

before

[taupimu]

I just thought that the order was trying to stay within the law. So they didn't use the unforgivable curses.

[Annett]

Dumbledore told Harry once, that he will be grateful at one time that he saved Wormtails life. Harry saved the souls of the two best friends his father had, because their souls are undamaged yet. Life is invaluable, even that of your rivals. I doubt Harry would Avada Kedavra Lord Voldemort, but he will conquer him.

[sum_insana]

i'm reading a book right now which examines the harry potter series from a philosophical point of view, and according to the author, one can't use an unforgivable curse unless he is already corrupt, which would explain why harry couldn't pull it off, and why moody told the dada class that even if all of them pointed their wands at him and shouted "avada kedavra," he doubted he'd "get so much as a nosebleed." i found it interesting, kind of like how you can't make a horcrux until you've murdered -- you can't cast an unforgivable curse unless you're already corrupt and basically deserving an azkaban sentence anyway, since i don't think one can be considered "corrupt" unless they've already done a lot of illegal and immoral stuff anyway . . .

[HPfan77]

I'm pretty sure in GoF Sirius tells Harry that the Ministry okayed the use of unforgivables during the last Voldemort war. If I'm recalling the scene correctly, Sirius goes on to tell Harry that he's always liked and respected Moody because he never killed/used an unforgivable curse (I forget which) if he could avoid it, unlike many other Aurors (I believe there was an implied criticism of Barty Crouch Sr., suggesting he had been a little too willing to 'fight fire with fire').

I may have the particulars wrong, but I'm fairly sure about the underlying point, which is some in the Order have used unforgivable curses.

[sum_insana]

i think that even if they're allowed to use unforgivables, it's kind of the principle that makes them not want to. despite their practicality, they're not honorable; it's kind of like a cop out, i'd say. all of the curses allow one practically complete control over another, and that's just not the style of most of the order members, at least as i've come to view them. there are other ways to deal with things than just to use the easiest, most encompassing spell. sure, it's easy and effective to put criminals in azkaban guarded by dementors, but dumbledore doesn't agree with it.

[snapegirl]

Originally Posted by HPfan77

I'm pretty sure in GoF Sirius tells Harry that the Ministry okayed the use of unforgivables during the last Voldemort war. If I'm recalling the scene correctly, Sirius goes on to tell Harry that he's always liked and respected Moody because he never killed/used an unforgivable curse (I forget which) if he could avoid it, unlike many other Aurors (I believe there was an implied criticism of Barty Crouch Sr., suggesting he had been a little too willing to 'fight fire with fire').

I may have the particulars wrong, but I'm fairly sure about the underlying point, which is some in the Order have used unforgivable curses.

I remember that scene as well. Although the Ministry said it was ok to use unforgivables, not every Auror did. Not every Auror was a part of the Order. I assume that even in Voldemort war one, the Order was still a small group that wasn't a part of the Ministry. So even if Aurors were told they could use the curses, I don't see the ones that did being in the Order. I doubt very much that Dumbledore would approve of using unforgivables even if the Ministry said it was ok.

[Near]

Originally Posted by Itscoldincanada

The order does plenty of things that are illegal,

1. Harboring a fugitive(sirius black), yes i know he is innocent but the MOM doesnt

2.When fudge tries to arrest DD in OOTP, he attacks them and flees. Attacking 2 aurors, the Minister for magic, and an uder secretary has got to be illegal

3. Harry uses crucio on bettrix

None of these points even address your orignal question: why doesn't the Order use the Avada Kedavra. The Avada Kedavra is different from the other Unforgivable Curses because it damages the user's soul. These other instances do no such thing. This may sound Machiavellian, but in the other instances, the end justified the means. With the Avada Kedavra, however, the end can never be justified.

[Yoana]

Because it's murder.

I find it worrying that you can speak about killing "quite a lot of them" with such ease. They are not insects, they are people, and killing them is actually murder, which is illegal, a sin, and horrible. That's why.

[HPfan77]

Originally Posted by snapegirl77

I remember that scene as well. Although the Ministry said it was ok to use unforgivables, not every Auror did. Not every Auror was a part of the Order. I assume that even in Voldemort war one, the Order was still a small group that wasn't a part of the Ministry. So even if Aurors were told they could use the curses, I don't see the ones that did being in the Order. I doubt very much that Dumbledore would approve of using unforgivables even if the Ministry said it was ok.

snapegirl, thanks for adding on. I think you're right, not every Auror, Order member or not, used the unforgivable curses. I also agree that Dumbledore would not want Order members to use such curses. Obviously, in light of the aforementioned Moody example, some Order members have had no choice.

On a philosophical note, I think it is fair to say the wizards & witches that are part of the Order are clearly more inclined to be sort of folk who would not use dark magic. That's not to say that anyone who is not a member of the Order is more inclined to use dark magic. A prime example is Professor Flitwick. As Siriues notes in OotP, the world isn't just divided into good guys and bad guys.

[kimo_5250]

I agree with most the of the previous post. Snape has killed before. He killed Dubledore. Using the Avada Kedavra takes extreme Hatred power it which goes against the whole theme of the book that love is the most powerful type of magic. Dumbledore encourages people to love each other and I don't think he would let anyone be in the order who could perform the worst of the unforgivable curses.