But it can be true simply because Jim says so.  It doesn't need to be internally consistent. 

We might have to agree to disagree on this particular point. It could be true if Jim says so, in the sense that he means for it to be that way in the story, but even if he meant it that way it still makes the story worse because at that point it wont make any sense...even if Jim thinks otherwise. However I doubt any of that was his intention.

I am fine with it being possible that violations of the laws have other harms associated with them. I just dont think their is a invariable magical corruption at play.

Harry is proof that that isn't true, however he is also proof that it can be a slippery slope.  I think the point you are missing is what corrupts isn't the magic itself but how easily and unfairly a wizard can kill or enthrall using his magic.  This gives the wizard wielding such power a rush or I should say could, if this leads to them thinking they can take other liberties simply because they can, as in snuffing out life, forcing others to their will..  So while it doesn't always happen that way, it can, and often does in extreme cases, that is why the Seven Laws are nearly a zero tolerance policy..

Not sure how Harry is proof of this. I dont recall him doing anything particularly bad. The worst thing he has done so far is rescue Thomas from the Svartalves without actual evidence that Thomas was innocent. But he was forced to do that by Mab.

In any case, if the corruption is not "due to the magic itself" than there is no corruption. At that point it is just like anything else, subject to the self-control of the user, and there is no reason for these things to be illegal in this way. Its also unclear to me how you would distinguish between the "rush" a user might feel from killing with magic and the rush they might get if they kill without magic.

I don't deny that there are persons in the books that identify what they think is a taint from black magic. My point is that these characters, depending on which one we are referring to, are almost certainly either lying or subject to confirmation bias. If we stop to consider the conceptual problems with the very idea of black magic, or how such a thing could be known to exist, the proposition becomes very dubious indeed.

The issue, to reiterate, is that the idea of "evil magic" or the idea that "doing it turns you evil" independent of the purpose to which the magic is being put, or the mind of the user, is fundamentally incoherent. Which means it cannot be the case, even in a fantasy setting.

I know some will object with "its fantasy anything can be the case because the story says so!" But this simply is not the case. You can have elements of a fantasy story that are logically valid but don't exist in the real world. The problem is when you have things in a story which are logically impossible.

The problem with posing any sort of backlash is that is that if cannot be falsified because it cannot be distinguished from normal human tendencies.

-I shoot someone with a gun. Maybe next time its easier etc. But we have the ability to control our actions and it would be absurd to claim that one killing, especially if it was justified, inevitably leads to a person becoming evil.

-I shoot someone with some fire magic. It appears that it gets easier for me and I do it more and more often. Yet because this could have happened with any kind of human act, with or without magic.

See the problem? Its impossible to even propose, from a logical and epistemological standpoint, that doing bad things with magic causes a taint. The fact that the White Council is telling everyone that there is black magic is inherently suspicious because there would seem to be no rational manner in which a person would make this claim.


There is also the obvious problem that if, as Harry tells us, black magic corrupts because people have to believe in their evil desires to do black magic (which is true of doing things without magic but whatever...) why are there not more laws agaisnt obviously bad things?

For example, if doing evil with magic caused people to go insane, than the very tendency of humans to err should be causing every Wizard to go insane fairly regularly. The White Council should literally be up to its eyeballs in Warlocks who have all gone insane, in particular since the vast majority of evil acts humans can do are not regulated by the laws. Where is the law agaisnt rape via magic? Surely if murder causes wizard to go insane because they have invoked the "forces of creation" via their willing a person do die, than surely using magic to force someone to have sex would do the same?

There is no such thing as black magic in the Dresden files, and it is going to be a major plot point later.

Specifically, when I say there is no black magic, I mean that violating the laws of magic does not turn the user evil.

I am sure many of you reading this are thinking I am crazy because so many times in the DF we are told that black magic does this, that the Blackstaff is what keeps McCoy from going insane, that we have seen Harry deal with Warlocks that have gone insane, and that Harry and others can sense the taint of black magic.

Hear me out.

We get our information in the story from Harry, who in turn has gotten his perspective on black magic from the WC, McCoy, etc. But Harry believes two contradictory things about magic.

-He knows that in order to do magic, you have to believe in what you are doing. You have to have conviction in what you are doing with the magic.

-He also believes that people who violate the laws of magic turn evil over time because of it.

The problem with this is that if a person must believe in their magic to do it, than they were already as evil as whatever actions they took with it, by definition. Therefore, it is not black magic that turns a person evil. A person must be evil do do black magic. Therefore magic is as good or evil as any other tool, its being black or not depends entirely upon the use to which it is put.

-We dont really know what the blackstaff does, and we dont critically consider what we are told about it because confirmation bias makes us see what we want. We already think black magic corrupts, so the explanation seems plausible.

-We dont really know that warlocks were driven mad by their black magic. The state of mind of the warlocks is no different from, and entirely consistent with, a person doing evil in general. Its not uncommon for a bad person to get worse over time.

-This is true of every assumed example of black magic corruption in the books. There are no cases of evidence that can not be explained by normal human behavior.

Another thing to consider is that since the behavior of persons violating the laws can be entirely explained by normal human evil doing and psychology, than how could the White Council possibly know its corrupting anyone beyond their own self-corruption.

Epistemologically speaking, they couldn't. And that means they are claiming to know something they could possibly know, because they have no epistemically valid means of knowing it.

Several evidences other indications that black magic does not corrupt the user:

"As for violating the laws of magic themselves turning you good or evil, well.    There’s something to be said on either side of the argument, in the strictest sense, though one side of the argument is definitely less incorrect than the other.  But it’s going to take me several more books to lay it out, so there’s no sense in ruining the fun. "

Jim

Jim would have no reason to have to "lay it out" if the default assumption that Harry tells us from book one, that black magic corrupts, is true.

"I had to consider the possibility that she’d been trying to do the right thing: using her power to help someone in dire need. The thought made me uncomfortable as hell. I knew that the necromancers I’d met were deadly dangerous, and that if I wanted to survive a conflict with them, I would have to be ready to hit them fast and hard and without any doubts. That’s easy when the enemy is a frothing, psychotic monster. But Kumori’s apparently humanitarian act changed things. It made her a person, and people are a hell of a lot harder for me to think about killing. Even worse, if she’d been acting altruistically, it would mean that the dark energy the necromancers seemed to favor might not be something wholly, inherently evil. It had been used to preserve life, just as the magic I knew could be used either to protect or to destroy. I’d always considered the line between black magic and white to be sharp and clear. But if that dark power could be employed in whatever fashion its wielder chose, that made it no different from my own. Dammit. Investigation was supposed to make me certain of what needed to be done. It was not supposed to confuse me even more. When I opened my eyes, thick clouds had covered the sun and painted the whole world in shades of grey."

Jim Butcher. Dead Beat (Kindle Locations 3162-3172). Orbit. Kindle Edition.

I think this entire part of Dead Beat is clear foreshadowing that Harry's view on black magic isn't correct. He is clearly uncomfortable about the idea, and its a weird thing to put in the series if there isnt something to it.

-We know Luccio tells Dresden the laws are really about constraining the power of wizards.

"Note also the killing law only applies to Humans.You can kill as many faeries as you want with magic."


"Bingo.  It hardly seems fair, does it?The Laws of Magic don't necessarily match up to the actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as "magic" behaves. The consequences for breaking the Laws of Magic don't all come from people wearing grey cloaks. And none of it necessarily has anything to do with what is Right or Wrong. Which exist.  It's finding where they start or stop existing that's the hard part."

Jim



Broadly speaking, I think the WC lies about this deliberately because it is easier to get people to follow the laws if they convince everyone that breaking them will mind fuck them into becoming evil, and because it gives the black magic an "icky" component, and many humans are motivated by disgust based morality. Additionally there is the aspect discussed by Harry about Kumori in Dead Beat. It dehumanizes perceived black mages and makes it easier to enforce the laws. The black staff is just a prop in the lie. They do this because the white council wants to control wizards, and keep the power to do certain things to itself.

Originally, I think this went back to the time of the original Merlin. I think that as far as the story goes this is all going to link together back to when Mab was Human and knew the Merlin. I think that the laws became a thing to try to limit the political influence of wizards after the original Merlin's dealings with King Arthur, and the mess that came from that. I think that whatever happened back then was so bad that the draconian laws of magic were put in place to make sure it never happened again, and that led to the current state of affairs where killing with magic to defend yourself as barely a defense, and things like necromancy go unexplored even though they may have valuable uses.

Furthermore, while I am not sure how this will all add up, I think the fact that Harry's mother was opposed to the laws of magic and that the details of her life are still a mystery is a big indicator that this is going to be a major plot point later. Its one of the only things we know about her, which is that she disagreed with the laws. I don't think information like that was put in the story idly.

But to sum it up I think the laws of magic are a lie and that this is going to be a central feature of the main plot of the series when it gets revealed.

Shift8, the ends justifying the means is a very dangerous philosophy. As is utilitarianism. They are not to be treated lightly. Many leaders who thought their actions were right embraced these ideas and often became the worst dictators and monsters. Which isn't to say those philosophical ideas are entirely devoid of merit either, it's just that they must be balanced with other ideas.

Any moral philosophy can be bad if incorrectly applied. Ontology gets abused as much as the other two, more so quite frankly. I have met more people in my life whose rigid belief that lying is always unethical regardless of the circumstances (almost like a certain character in the Dresden files...) is more dangerous than most utilitarians I have met.

Anyhow. This is a fairly cut and dry case, from the perspective I was laying out. If it really is the case that the White God gaining more followers may lead to it becoming powerful enough to let the outsiders in, than ANY necessary means is justified. We dont know that what the Denarians are doing is necessary. But it could end up being the case that their approach is the only practical one. It isnt that hard to imagine circumstances that would justify extremely Machiavellian actions to prevent a literal hell on earth via the outsiders.

It is entirely possible, probable even, that the Denarians are what the seem. A bunch of evil lunatics. I just think its extremely interesting from a narrative point of view that we havent been told precisely what made the Fallen in the DV rebel. And I dont think its past Jim to do something like this. The time we have spent with Harry as the Winter Knight has made it much less clear that Mab is evil for example.

The Denarians, of course, torture people into being their slaves. We saw this in the very first interaction, when Harry soul-gazed one of their slaves. We saw them being evil when Shiro sacrificed himself to save Harry from them - the guy wanted to start a pandemic. We saw them try to torture Marcone and Ivy into being their slave/ally, and shoot Michael, arguably the best good guy on the field.

Only once, when Marcone stabbed Ethniu, did a Denarian do something directly useful without being a backstabby git about it.

So: no. The Denarians are not misunderstood. They're Evil. Maybe not world-destroying Evil, only lives-destroying Evil, but still Evil.

So yeah, all of this is pretty evil at face value. And I generally assumed they were the bad guys. But IF they are trying to stop hell on earth than really anything is justifiable. Just think about the horror of that situation for a moment. The way the outsiders are described, if they breached into reality in force it would be literal hell. Imagine for a moment that this would mean something as horrifying as the hell mythology of Christianity.

Literally any means, if necessary, would be legitimate to stop it. Anything bad you did to anyone in order to stop it from happening would be better than what would happen to them if the outsiders got in. And if you deigned not to do dastardly deeds to stop it from happening, both you and your victims would be in a unfathomable worse predicament anyhow. Its an absurdly horrifying set of stakes, but it is what it is.

Your mention of the pandemic got me thinking. What if their goal is to do horrifying things that will make people lose their faith in the WG due to the problem of evil and therefore reduce his power and take away his ability to bring about the apocalypse?