You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
5x22 Just action, being a hero. Was Angel justified...
- Thread starter WyrdDemonHunter
- Start date
WyrdDemonHunter
Say you're happy now..
Kuznya said:Thats kind of a funny statement considering she used spike to help fight evil in seasons 2, 4, 5, and 6 all of which he was evil during.
Yeah, moral ambiguity sneaks in pretty easily. Buffy would probably try to justify herself by saying, at least of season four, that Spike had a chip in his head so that, while he may have still tried to be evil, he wasn't really harmful. I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just saying that's what I think she might say.
On those couple of occasions before then when she and Spike teamed up, they were "temporary allies in adversity" or something.
Yeah, moral ambiguity sneaks in pretty easily. Buffy would probably try to justify herself by saying, at least of season four, that Spike had a chip in his head so that, while he may have still tried to be evil, he wasn't really harmful. I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just saying that's what I think she might say.
On those couple of occasions before then when she and Spike teamed up, they were "temporary allies in adversity" or something.
So wait wait wait. Your saying she would probably say something along the lines of "the ends justified the means?" 🙂
WyrdDemonHunter
Say you're happy now..
Kuznya said:So wait wait wait. Your saying she would probably say something along the lines of "the ends justified the means?" 🙂
Not precicely. The "ends justifies the means" is trying to say: the means don't matter because the ends are so good. What I'm saying Buffy might say is: the means themselves aren't really that bad on their own, nevermind the ends.
LadyLavinia
Scooby
Kuznya said:Thats kind of a funny statement considering she used spike to help fight evil in seasons 2, 4, 5, and 6 all of which he was evil during.
::huh1:: Buffy was saying that she didn't believe it was right to use EVIL METHODS - murder or harming an innocent, or an evil being in a state of helplessness - to fight evil.
She used Spike to fight Angelus in Season 2. She didn't ask him to murder the guy or anything like that. In fact, she asked him to help save Giles.
In Season 4, Spike forced himself on part of the gang. And it was Giles, and later Willow, who recruited him to help them. Again, they didn't ask him to murder an innocent or someone unable to fight back.
Season 5 - he mainly protected Dawn and helped Buffy fight Glory, who was definately about to kill Dawn.
Season 6 - he mainly helped her patrol. Also, she disapproved of him trying to take down human criminals.
What Buffy was trying to tell Giles in "First Date" was that she was not willing to harm an innocent or someone who was guilty, but unable to fight back (in other words, using evil) to fight evil beings. Giles, on the other hand, was willing to kill Ben (who was an innocent and unable to fight back) to prevent Glory from rising again. Buffy was also expressing her belief that what the Initiative had done to those demons and vampires - including Spike - was evil.
Apparently, Angel has no problems in using evil or less than reputable methods to fight evil. After all, Wesley, who had used a revolver to murder Knox and a knife to stab Gunn; was never turned over to the police.
Now, Buffy could have turned Willow over to the police for Warren Mears' murder. Unfortunately, Willow used supernatural means to kill both Warren and Rack. Which is why she ended up at that witch coven in Devon. Buffy could have turned Andrew over to the police for Jonathan's murder. But . . . Andrew had cleaned the murder weapon. And Robin Wood (while under the First Evil's influence) had hidden the body. The best Buffy could do was keep Andrew nearby.
BillieHunter
~**Hillbilly Hunter**~
Hmmm...I never quite agreed with the quote...maybe because I didn't understand what she meant by that quote, but what LadyLavinia said makes alot of sense to me....
slayerangel
b/a always & forever
Of course it's impossible to justify every decision Angel makes. I believe he does it because he thinks it's right and would be willing to kill an innocent for the cause, i.e Drogyn and Lindsey. He would never kill them for no reason, but he really believed that it would lead to a better outcome. I think Wolfram & Hart might've had something to do with his descisions because he knew that by accepting his new job as CEO, he'd be somewhat corrupted. Before this season, Angel has never killed another person to make sure that the end would be that much better. True, he did go to kill Cordy in S4 to stop Jasmine before she was born, but he would probably sit in regret; brooding for days after he killed her if he was able to, but this season, he didn't brood over Drogyn and Lindsey and just went on with his plan to go down fighting.
When I said that Angel wouldn't kill anyone unless he believed it was for a good cause, I wasn't talking about the cashier in "Orpheus" or the good demon in "Judgement."
When I said that Angel wouldn't kill anyone unless he believed it was for a good cause, I wasn't talking about the cashier in "Orpheus" or the good demon in "Judgement."
Lindseyiswicked
Liaison
I didn't like Lorne shooting Lindsey but it was the right thing to do. My thery is this was a way to show how Angel changed. It showed how in another season Angel would have let Lindsey live but by the end nothing was black and white anymore and he had to make a tough decision. It also showed that although Angel is a hero he is very unlike Buffy. When he drank Drogyn and got Lorne to shoot Lindsey it just proved he wasn't above murder of humans for a reason.
Did that rant make any sense???
Did that rant make any sense???
WyrdDemonHunter
Say you're happy now..
It sort of made sense. I'm still concerned that so many people are willing to say, "well, I guess Angel had no choice..." He didn't even kill Lindsey himself, he had someone else do it. That's not just murder, that's underhanded murder too. And it also makes Lorne culpable as well. It's just a mess.
First off, I'm not sure Lindsey was, uh, "evil" enough to deserve death. Second, I don't see why Angel gets to make that kind of decision. I think Angel having Lorne kill Lindsey was a Bad Thing(tm).
Maybe the message is that behind the scenes probabally all of our heroes have done, or been indirectly responsible for a lot of bad things. Probably we all have ourselves as well--although I know I never ordered someone to shoot someone else.
First off, I'm not sure Lindsey was, uh, "evil" enough to deserve death. Second, I don't see why Angel gets to make that kind of decision. I think Angel having Lorne kill Lindsey was a Bad Thing(tm).
Maybe the message is that behind the scenes probabally all of our heroes have done, or been indirectly responsible for a lot of bad things. Probably we all have ourselves as well--although I know I never ordered someone to shoot someone else.
Lindseyiswicked
Liaison
Yeah I'll never like Lindsey's death and I'll never like Angel drinking Drogyn.
Lindsey wasn't really evil enough to deserve death but the reason they killed him is because he could be. He had a soul and he proved that in Blind Date and Dead End but the thing was Lindsey would never fully lose his lust for power. He would always save himself first and he would always want revenge on Angel. He was a liability
The worst thing Angel did was not kill Lindsey himself. When he got Lorne invovled it ruined the character. When Lorne lost his club you saw his innocence start to harden more when Fred died. Killing Lindsey was the final thing that drove him taking a character and filling him with self hate and regret
Lindsey wasn't really evil enough to deserve death but the reason they killed him is because he could be. He had a soul and he proved that in Blind Date and Dead End but the thing was Lindsey would never fully lose his lust for power. He would always save himself first and he would always want revenge on Angel. He was a liability
The worst thing Angel did was not kill Lindsey himself. When he got Lorne invovled it ruined the character. When Lorne lost his club you saw his innocence start to harden more when Fred died. Killing Lindsey was the final thing that drove him taking a character and filling him with self hate and regret
LadyLavinia
Scooby
Mason said:No, the world wasn't ending at that moment, they were in the middle of the process of The Apocalypse but it would have taken another 1000 years for it to finish as far as I'm aware...he did it to slow down The Apocalypse and to prove to the Senior Partners that evil doesn't own good.
As for whether Angel sent Lorne to shoot Lindsay, yes, I'm quite certain he did.
One thing I hate about this apocalypse surrounding the Circle of the Black Thorn - I get the feeling that Whedon and his writers are trying to say that humanity IS NOT its own worst enemy, but a group of superevil beings who are demons, evil humans, etc. How lame! And this is just one of the reasons why I disliked the finale so much.
And I still consider both Angel and Lorne guilty of Lindsey's murder, despite what future that Lorne may have read from Lindsey. He wasn't an immediate threat . . . and killing someone because he or she MIGHT be a future evil, is not excusable.
WyrdDemonHunter
Say you're happy now..
Well, there is the other part--the part that Lindsey said about how the apocolypse was happening all the time. I agree the bit with the Black Thorne was rather cheesy, but perhaps that's an unfortunate limitation of an action show with a hero that has to be heroic. If it's any consolation, there are a number of occasions where they hit on the idea that regular, everyday people themselves are the cause of all the bad.LadyLavinia said:One thing I hate about this apocalypse surrounding the Circle of the Black Thorn - I get the feeling that Whedon and his writers are trying to say that humanity IS NOT its own worst enemy, but a group of superevil beings who are demons, evil humans, etc. How lame! And this is just one of the reasons why I disliked the finale so much.
There's Reprise (I think) in season two where dead Holland shows up to tell people there's evil in each person's heart. I love that part. ... I'm sure there's more than just that and Lindsey's "you're soaking in it" bit in season five, but the other bits are more subtle, and I'm too hungry and tired right now. 🙂
LadyLavinia
Scooby
WyrdDemonHunter said:Yeah, moral ambiguity sneaks in pretty easily. Buffy would probably try to justify herself by saying, at least of season four, that Spike had a chip in his head so that, while he may have still tried to be evil, he wasn't really harmful. I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just saying that's what I think she might say.
On those couple of occasions before then when she and Spike teamed up, they were "temporary allies in adversity" or something.
Are you saying that Buffy was being hypocritical, because she accepted Spike's help years BEFORE she made that statement? This is interesting, especially since Spike didn't resort to evil when he helped Buffy. Now, if she had asked Spike to commit an evil act in order to fight evil . . . well, I can understand you accusing her of hypocricy.
WyrdDemonHunter
Say you're happy now..
I'm not accusing her of hypocrisy, although someone else might. What I was saying was that teaming up with the baddie, even temporarily, is a morally ambiguous thing to do.
You said that Buffy said "you can't use evil to fight evil". Spike might not have actually done any evil acts while he was helping Buffy stop Angel from destroying the world, but Buffy had to make a deal with Spike in exchange for his help--so she let Spike and Dru, two powerful evil vamps go free. We know for sure that both vampires went on to kill more people, and reak general havoc later on.
I'm also not saying that the world would have been better off if Buffy hadn't made a deal with Spike. Me personally, I think absolutist, simplistic moralities are stupid and unrealistic, but that's a little beside the point though.
The point is that Buffy's teaming up with Spike is a somewhat morally ambiguous thing to do no matter the circumstances, and the way that you can tell that it is, is that automatic response you're going through in your head right now where you're thinking, "but she had no choice, she had to because..." (etc)
-------
Although now that I've had more time to think about it, it really all depends on what sort of morality you're employing. That's one of the many reason I don't like black/white all-or-nothing forms of morality--they break too often because real life doesn't fit into the cookie cutter patterns that, that sort of morality imposes on things.
I think what got me thinking along that (all-or-nothing) path in the first place was the Buffy quote you had about not being able to use evil to fight evil--it's the kind of thing I usually hear from preachers and arch-conservative politicians.
-----
P.S. You know the whole reason I started this thread was because I thought it would be fun to have something to debate/argue over. 🙂 I figured the possible (im)morality of Angel ordering Lorne to kill Lindsey would keep things going for a while.
Well ok, the other reason was that I really didn't agree with Angel's actions there. Now, OTOH, I don't have a problem with Buffy teaming up with Spike back in season two. But only because there probably wasn't any other good way for her to be able to get in and stop Angelus.
But back to Angel 5x22: I still don't agree with what Angel did and I probably never will, but now I'm thinking that the message was something like: this is what happens to you after you try to "fight the good fight" for long enough: it always goes this way.
As an example, I've heard of a cop drama miniseries where the cops are barely distinguishable from the criminals they try to catch. I don't know if that's how it is in reality or not. I hope it isn't, but I can see how it could become that way for some cops after they've been doing it for a long time.
Humanity is very messy.
This may not have been the reply you were expecting. 🙂
You said that Buffy said "you can't use evil to fight evil". Spike might not have actually done any evil acts while he was helping Buffy stop Angel from destroying the world, but Buffy had to make a deal with Spike in exchange for his help--so she let Spike and Dru, two powerful evil vamps go free. We know for sure that both vampires went on to kill more people, and reak general havoc later on.
I'm also not saying that the world would have been better off if Buffy hadn't made a deal with Spike. Me personally, I think absolutist, simplistic moralities are stupid and unrealistic, but that's a little beside the point though.
The point is that Buffy's teaming up with Spike is a somewhat morally ambiguous thing to do no matter the circumstances, and the way that you can tell that it is, is that automatic response you're going through in your head right now where you're thinking, "but she had no choice, she had to because..." (etc)
-------
Although now that I've had more time to think about it, it really all depends on what sort of morality you're employing. That's one of the many reason I don't like black/white all-or-nothing forms of morality--they break too often because real life doesn't fit into the cookie cutter patterns that, that sort of morality imposes on things.
I think what got me thinking along that (all-or-nothing) path in the first place was the Buffy quote you had about not being able to use evil to fight evil--it's the kind of thing I usually hear from preachers and arch-conservative politicians.
-----
P.S. You know the whole reason I started this thread was because I thought it would be fun to have something to debate/argue over. 🙂 I figured the possible (im)morality of Angel ordering Lorne to kill Lindsey would keep things going for a while.
Well ok, the other reason was that I really didn't agree with Angel's actions there. Now, OTOH, I don't have a problem with Buffy teaming up with Spike back in season two. But only because there probably wasn't any other good way for her to be able to get in and stop Angelus.
But back to Angel 5x22: I still don't agree with what Angel did and I probably never will, but now I'm thinking that the message was something like: this is what happens to you after you try to "fight the good fight" for long enough: it always goes this way.
As an example, I've heard of a cop drama miniseries where the cops are barely distinguishable from the criminals they try to catch. I don't know if that's how it is in reality or not. I hope it isn't, but I can see how it could become that way for some cops after they've been doing it for a long time.
Humanity is very messy.
This may not have been the reply you were expecting. 🙂