Can something really BE evil if it IS evil?

A

Andalogen

Townie
Joined
Apr 16, 2003
Messages
13
I was thinking about this earlier. The First IS what evil is, so how can it be judged as something that is evil?

It's like saying a shark that by it's nature eats happy people and fish is evil when in actuality it's just doing what is in it's nature to do to fuel it's body so it can survive like the rest of us.

So if Evil is doing by nature what it is, how can anyone judge it as really being something bad as if it were good?

And why is Caleb looked upon so badly when many of the scoobie character were no less 'evil' for a time?

They all had their time of evil, and yet were allowed time to redeem themselves.

So why would the scooby team judge other beings for their evil when many of them had their own evil time too?

Just because they are friends?

So how can they have this judgement attitude of destroying evil and judging evil characters?

Imagine if no one knew of hte scoobies and they were their own little slayer clan and they encountered willow during her evil witch time. They would just judge her as that and kill her and everyone would feel quite happily morally justified in doing so. And yet, switching back to the buffy slayer clan and willow's perspective, she doesn't view herself as utterly evil but as temporarily evil.. But they still judge everything else that appears evil for awhile as they are exposed to it as utter evil and instead of trying to save and redeem, they just judge and kill.

Anyone get what I'm saying?
 
Killing Caleb was more about self-denfense than punishing evil. The guy was trying to kill them and they killed him back. It's a moral grey area... if such a thing can be said to exist. Generally though, Slayers don't kill humans or people (things) with souls. The soul is the key. Without a soul a creature becomes pure evil. They are aware that what they do is wrong, but do it anyway and enjoy it. They do not have the ability to truely be 'good'. Slaying is supposed to be directed towards these characters, since they have no 'moral grey area', just a whole lot of black.

Yes the Scoobies have all done stuff that's pretty evil, but they still had souls, they had the chance to change. Demons don't have that chance (with two vampire exceptions obviously) and will never change, hence they get Slain.

In short, it sucks to be a demon.
 
It seems like you are pushing into the realm of philosophy with this question. THe first thing you should ask is whether there is an empirical definition of evil in the first place, and then ask who defined that, the human race in general, or is it a fundamental facet of reality?

An amusing anecdote: My brother, who holds a philosophy degree, among other, more practical degrees, was once asked by a potential employer if it was wrong to kill. He answered "Well, by asking that question, you have betrayed something about yourself, that you believe it is either right or wrong to kill, which implies that you believe there is an empirical standard". This always made me laugh to think on it. As always, our discussion of these matters is limited by our paradigms.

Which do you believe? Do you believe there is such a thing as 'evil', or do you believe it's just a label applied by society as an act of self-preservation? I don't think there is really a wrong answer..
 
Originally posted by Khaych
It seems like you are pushing into the realm of philosophy with this question. THe first thing you should ask is whether there is an empirical definition of evil in the first place, and then ask who defined that, the human race in general, or is it a fundamental facet of reality?

An amusing anecdote: My brother, who holds a philosophy degree, among other, more practical degrees, was once asked by a potential employer if it was wrong to kill. He answered "Well, by asking that question, you have betrayed something about yourself, that you believe it is either right or wrong to kill, which implies that you believe there is an empirical standard". This always made me laugh to think on it. As always, our discussion of these matters is limited by our paradigms.

Which do you believe? Do you believe there is such a thing as 'evil', or do you believe it's just a label applied by society as an act of self-preservation? I don't think there is really a wrong answer..
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that it applies to our world, not Joss'. In the Buffyverse there is Evil, with a capital 'E'. It exists. The soul exists as well, there is no theological debate to be had there, we've seen examples of people with and without souls. We've seen them channeled and manifest in a state which can be visibly seen. Without a soul there is no choice, there is no good, or grey area, there is simply Evil. Is killing Evil in the Buffyverse? Not really, it depends on the situation. Slaying is killing and it isn't concidered Evil because the 'victims' have no souls. In BtVS there are absolutes.

We have realms of 'lower beings', and demon dimensions, and the 'First Evil', an actual physical manifestation of Evil. In BtVS there are 'people' who are simply born evil, born without souls. There are entities which embody the very idea of evil. In the Buffyverse there is a wrong answer as to whether or not 'evil' exists. We've seen proof of it's existance on a weekly basis. You can debate about what is or isn't evil in the Buffyverse, but you can't deny it's existance.
 
Originally posted by Happy
Slaying is supposed to be directed towards these characters, since they have no 'moral grey area', just a whole lot of black.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's totally true. Demons are still in a grey moral zone, no way is it all black. Examples: Clem isn't known to have a soul, but he's nowhere near that black zone. Also, Dru and (especially) Spike were always more grey... remember the Judge said they "stink of humanity." Even without a soul, Spike was never in the black.
 
'Humanity' and 'Good' are two different things. Spike and Dru were never 'good'. They had feelings, but were still totally evil. There was no grey in either one of them, just emotion, which the Judge viewed as a human trait, not a good trait (he burned the humanity out of people, not the goodness... just watched the episode last night). Demons are capable of doing things and feeling things that aren't evil, but are not capable of doing or feeling this that are inherently 'good'. Even Spike's love for Buffy was horribly tainted. He stalked her, he tried to rape her, he betrayed her on a few occations (selling demon eggs on the black market for instance). These are all very human things, but not good ones. Nothing a souless creature does is without taint.

Does Clem have a soul? Does Lorne? Probably, if they don't then they must possess less 'taint' than a vampire does. The soul is the key to being 'good', without it, good is impossible. This is Joss' canon. He has stated on many occations that the lack of a soul is the reason that vampires are inherently evil and that it is okay to slay them. Therefore if Clem doesn't have a soul his actions, all of them, would have to be tainted to some degree. He could never be truely good (he was kind of a coward, perhaps he simply didn't want to get slain so he didn't act all that evil... the guy certainly wasn't a saint though, he did play 'kitty-poker' after all, but that wouldn't disqualify him from having a soul). 'Less evil' demons are a part of the Buffyverse. According to canon these demons must have souls, or are simply a lesser dgree of evil (though still evil, just to a different degree). The only real question is whether there are degrees of evil among demons or whether some have souls. Evil is still a definite thing in the Buffyverse.

Personally I think that these demons must have souls. This would fit in with canon a little better (muddy the waters a little less). It has never been stated that every demon cannot be anything but evil, this is just the case with vampires as far as what we've avtually been told in the show. Vampires are also the only demons we know that don't have souls. However, Joss has stated in many interviews that the soul is the important part which allows a choice between good and evil, so if a demon is actually able to do anything truely 'good', without any taint of evil, it must have a soul. Spike and Angel have been said to be unique among vampire kind because they have souls, I don't recall them ever being referred to as unique among demon kind for the same reason.



A brief correction :

"Yes the Scoobies have all done stuff that's pretty evil, but they still had souls, they had the chance to change. Demons don't have that chance (with two vampire exceptions obviously) and will never change, hence they get Slain."

I posted the above statement earlier. That was a little too broad I think. Obviously there are more than two exceptions, Clem and Lorne are among them.
 
Originally posted by Happy
The soul is the key to being 'good', without it, good is impossible. This is Joss' canon. He has stated on many occations that the lack of a soul is the reason that vampires are inherently evil and that it is okay to slay them.
Click to expand...

Well, on that note, I have seen an interview with Joss where he states that soulless creatures tend towards evil, while souled or ensouled creatures tend towards good, but there are exceptions within both categories. There's a pretty large number of exceptions on both sides, and there are a number of demons who were potrayed as good on Angel or BtVS, primarily on Angel. Lorne and Clem are obvious examples, but also we have the demon from AtS S2 Ep9 'The Trial' (A champion no less), Whistler and a few others.. It actually seems a good deal more ambiguous on Angel than it seems on BtVS for the most part, but BtVS still has a few exceptions, even using the death of a demon at Faith's hands to show her gradual fall to the dark side of the force.

A very good point about Evil being an absolute concept in the Buffyverse though, I wasn't thinking along those lines, but you are absolutely correct. So if Evil is an absolute concept, then perception and perspective doesn't matter, which would imply that a pure evil, a being that is the sum total of all evil, is certainly still evil, regardless of it's own perception. So I guess you've more or less answered the question right there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom