Harry uses Crucio because the Carrow man spit in McGonagall's face.
Which is a pathetic reason. He tortures this man for insulting his favourite professor. It also doesn't make sense to me. He unsuccessfully used the curse on Bellatrix when she was taunting him about how she'd just murdered his godfather in front of him - he successfully used it on a stranger who'd spat in his teacher's face. That would be workable - it's wartime, he's older and darker, morality falls away in desperate times - but we didn't see enough progressive darkening, so it seems to come from nowhere.
I also don't buy that he was defending McGonagall. By that point, Carrow was already helpless - and even if he hadn't been, there were other spells available and she was hardly helpless herself. Anger, I suppose - but that doesn't make it okay. It makes it more understandable, possibly, but McGonagall referring to it as 'gallant' rather than disapproving really bothers me.
I agree it shows Harry's ability to ue dark magic effectively, and that he chooses not to use Avada Kedavra when he could have. But I just don't see that as a moral high ground - a Harry willing to use AK on Voldemort but not willing to torture a prisoner would have been more ethical than the one we got.
no subject
Which is a pathetic reason. He tortures this man for insulting his favourite professor. It also doesn't make sense to me. He unsuccessfully used the curse on Bellatrix when she was taunting him about how she'd just murdered his godfather in front of him - he successfully used it on a stranger who'd spat in his teacher's face. That would be workable - it's wartime, he's older and darker, morality falls away in desperate times - but we didn't see enough progressive darkening, so it seems to come from nowhere.
I also don't buy that he was defending McGonagall. By that point, Carrow was already helpless - and even if he hadn't been, there were other spells available and she was hardly helpless herself. Anger, I suppose - but that doesn't make it okay. It makes it more understandable, possibly, but McGonagall referring to it as 'gallant' rather than disapproving really bothers me.
I agree it shows Harry's ability to ue dark magic effectively, and that he chooses not to use Avada Kedavra when he could have. But I just don't see that as a moral high ground - a Harry willing to use AK on Voldemort but not willing to torture a prisoner would have been more ethical than the one we got.