Mike Conley

[Kana]

I'm not sure if I recall his name but if memory serves didn't Angel ruin a politician named Mike Conley's life. If I remember correctly Angel did a deal with Senator Brucker to make Mike think he was a paedophile. Judging from "Not Fade Away" Angel went ahead with the brainwashing and did nothing to undo this, effectively ruining an innocent man's life.

Don't get me wrong. One of the reasons I love Ats and Angel the character is the moral ambiguity that makes him something of a complex antihero. The irony is that he pretends to adopt a utilitarian attitude towards the end of Season 5 but when you consider the decisions he makes such a risking an innocent child's life, killing a champion and ruining a man's life in one of the worst ways possible, it seems that in his mind, the end did justify the means. Now if his decisions engendered what I'd describe as real utilitarian aspects such as saving millions of lives, one might be able to justify them, but ultimately, Angel's plan was symbolic in it's nature. He basically ruined a man's life and put people at risk...to make a point!

Even if one attempts to justify everything, can we justify what he did to poor Mike?

 

[Kean]

No, I don't think there is any justification in this. I understand his motivation and that he went into this mission believing that he would die and that bringing W&H down was the best thing he could do for the world. But ruining a man's life like that is especially heinous.

If you asked Angel now I don't think he could defend it, or say it was worth it.

 

[white avenger]

I'm not sure if I recall his name but if memory serves didn't Angel ruin a politician named Mike Conley's life. If I remember correctly Angel did a deal with Senator Brucker to make Mike think he was a paedophile. Judging from "Not Fade Away" Angel went ahead with the brainwashing and did nothing to undo this, effectively ruining an innocent man's life.

Don't get me wrong. One of the reasons I love Ats and Angel the character is the moral ambiguity that makes him something of a complex antihero. The irony is that he pretends to adopt a utilitarian attitude towards the end of Season 5 but when you consider the decisions he makes such a risking an innocent child's life, killing a champion and ruining a man's life in one of the worst ways possible, it seems that in his mind, the end did justify the means. Now if his decisions engendered what I'd describe as real utilitarian aspects such as saving millions of lives, one might be able to justify them, but ultimately, Angel's plan was symbolic in it's nature. He basically ruined a man's life and put people at risk...to make a point!

Even if one attempts to justify everything, can we justify what he did to poor Mike?

We can't justify Angel's actions, but I'm sure that, at that moment, he certainly could, simply by saying that it was for the greater good. And, yes, his whole plan was just to figuratively slap the Senior Partners in the face as a gesture of defiance that would most likely wind up with him and his friends being squashed like bugs.

Maybe if Cordy had still been around, she could have talked some sense into him long before "You're Welcome."

 

[Xin Rong]

We can't justify Angel's actions, but I'm sure that, at that moment, he certainly could, simply by saying that it was for the greater good. And, yes, his whole plan was just to figuratively slap the Senior Partners in the face as a gesture of defiance that would most likely wind up with him and his friends being squashed like bugs.

Maybe if Cordy had still been around, she could have talked some sense into him long before "You're Welcome."

It wasn't just a figurative slap though was it, they actually did some serious damage to the W&H and the circle of the black thorn by eliminating some of its most powerful members.

Also, if Angel had not have done these things, wouldn't someone else have been doing them instead, someone with a less benevolent end goal?

At least this way, some good came from it, even if that good was largely 'symbolic'

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Yeah it's hard to justify, but you also have to look at the alternative that Angel doesn't comply, can't infiltrate the Black Thorn, Brucker does it anyway, wins the election and goes on to be President by 2008, which was her plan, so harsh as it is, it's the better of two plans.

Can't say it's right, but when compared with the other option its hard to say it's wrong. It's one of the things that makes Angel a far more interesting character, and the fact that it wasn't for selfish reasons and there was a larger picture at play means there are a number of other factors in play.

 

[Kana]

It wasn't just a figurative slap though was it, they actually did some serious damage to the W&H and the circle of the black thorn by eliminating some of its most powerful members.

But question is, was the cost too high? Angel believed that he and the rest of his team would be destroyed as well and he fully believed the 'machine' would be there after they were gone. Destroying the Circle of the Black does make a difference and thematically, Angel's speech about importance of self determination is crucial to his mission statement, but do the end justify the means? If you include killing a champion to the list, it further complicates matters. Yes, Angel did say that the Circle would have killed them both, but not only was there no guarantee that would happen, it still boils down to another moral transgression for for-fill a plan that finds us struggling to find the utilitarian pay off.

Also, if Angel had not have done these things, wouldn't someone else have been doing them instead, someone with a less benevolent end goal?

Even if someone else were to do these things, it would still mean that Angel wouldn't be complicit in them. However, yes, it doesn't mean that his intentions were ignoble, which is why he is such a fascinating anti-hero.

At least this way, some good came from it, even if that good was largely 'symbolic'

I know your reply is to WA, but let me be clear as well, I don't believe Angel's plan was pointless. It had meaning and merit, even if that merit is protecting the sanctity of human dignity and free will but the question is, was the cost too high?

 

[janas]

I always thought that with the Senator Brucker death's, her election plan had failed. Angel he pretended with her, as he pretended in Time bomb with those demons who wanted to sacrifice the child, then that child was rescued by Spike. After receiving visions from Cordelia, Angel was pretending all the time.

ANGEL: Look, we don't have a lot of time here, so I'm gonna have to make this short. Everything you think you know, everything you've heard, is a lie.
GUNN: Why should we believe you?
ANGEL: Because I'm the one who told it. (to Wes) Read any good books lately?
WESLEY: You sent us the message?

by Power Play

 

[Xin Rong]

But question is, was the cost too high? Angel believed that he and the rest of his team would be destroyed as well and he fully believed the 'machine' would be there after they were gone. Destroying the Circle of the Black does make a difference and thematically, Angel's speech about importance of self determination is crucial to his mission statement, but do the end justify the means? If you include killing a champion to the list, it further complicates matters. Yes, Angel did say that the Circle would have killed them both, but not only was there no guarantee that would happen, it still boils down to another moral transgression for for-fill a plan that finds us struggling to find the utilitarian pay off.



Even if someone else were to do these things, it would still mean that Angel wouldn't be complicit in them. However, yes, it doesn't mean that his intentions were ignoble, which is why he is such a fascinating anti-hero.



I know your reply is to WA, but let me be clear as well, I don't believe Angel's plan was pointless. It had meaning and merit, even if that merit is protecting the sanctity of human dignity and free will but the question is, was the cost too high?

Well then no, I would say the cost was not too high, as the same negative consequences would have occurred without Angel's plan, so from a utilitarian perspective, it was the right decision, as some positive came from the negative.

 

[Kana]

Well then no, I would say the cost was not too high, as the same negative consequences would have occurred without Angel's plan,

But even if the same negative consequences were to occur, the main moral difference is that Angel wouldn't be responsible for it happening, so personally I believe it's a fallacious argument. The question of whether it was OK to ruin a man's life stands independently of whether Brucker would have found someone else to do it.

so from a utilitarian perspective, it was the right decision, as some positive came from the negative.

Aside from killing a demon, and the symbolic nature of what he is doing, what good is being done that couldn't have been done in another way? Angel also believed that the SP's will always be there and the the 'machine' will still be there after they're gone.

I do think that Angel crossed some moral lines. Some of them needlessly, but he keeps fighting with his last figurative breath, because that's who he is. Evil will always exist, but you keep fighting it, and make sure that you don't lose your soul in the battle.

 

[thetopher]

I think Angel's plan was to sacrifice himself, and those who chose to fight as his side, for the greater good. Did that mean more than just physical sacrifice?

Well, Angel killed a friend (and fellow champion), signed away his rights to the Shanshu deal in blood (I'm not sure how binding that was...) and put innocent lives in danger (again we don't know if the politicians life was ruined- with the death of his opponent? Probably not).
But he was willing to do all of these, to make moral sacrifices to damage the plans of the senior partners. To kill off their 'mortal intruments' if you will, the hands with which they make their schemes. To royally piss them off.

Ultimately Angel knew the personal cost to himself, you either think that's morally comprimising or maybe just a willingness to wade into that grey area to sacrifice his 'clean hands'.
I know which way I look at it. Angel the Series was always about making the tough call, but the right call.

 

[Xin Rong]

But even if the same negative consequences were to occur, the main moral difference is that Angel wouldn't be responsible for it happening, so personally I believe it's a fallacious argument.


Aside from killing a demon, and the symbolic nature of what he is doing, what good is being done that couldn't have been done in another way? Angel also believed that the SP's will always be there and the the 'machine' will still be there after they're gone.

I do think that Angel crossed some moral lines. Some of them needlessly, but he keeps fighting with his last figurative breath, because that's who he is. Evil will always exist, but you keep fighting it, and make sure that you don't lose your soul in the battle.

I don't think the argument is 'fallacious' at all, the original question was whether it was the right thing to do, in terms of utilitarianism, and the consequences are obviously better with Angel being the one doing it, as some good comes out of the bad.

The question of whether it was OK to ruin a man's life stands independently of whether Brucker would have found someone else to do it.

That's not the question though, that question has an obvious answer, no it is not... the question is whether Angel should have transgressed that imaginary moral line in order to complete his final attack against the SPs and the circle of the black thorn. That is a completely different question, with a less straightforward answer: but going back to the moral philosophy of utilitarianism, yes it was the right action in my view, we have no idea how much of a dent Angel put into their long term schemes, but we know he did so, which means that he used the bad things that would have happened without him, in order to do some good.

What your talking about seems to be more of a Kantian, or categorical moral philosophy, where there is a clear cut right and wrong, which is not a practical philosophy for someone like Angel to abide by, he would never have gotten anywhere without occasionally transgressing those metaphysical moral lines, he is consistently in the moral grey area, and that's where he does the most good.

Angel knows and accepts this fact, which is why we never see him brooding about Mike etc. too much, he was even willing to use Fred's death for his plan: he is at the end of the day an opportunist.

Also, don't forget Angel did these things based on a vision he received from the show's moral arbitrators, the PTB, which, to me, suggests he did the right thing.

 

[Kana]

I don't think the argument is 'fallacious' at all, the original question was whether it was the right thing to do, in terms of utilitarianism, and the consequences are obviously better with Angel being the one doing it, as some good comes out of the bad.

I see your point. One might think of the Philippa Foot's trolly problem in purely consequential terms. An inaction is worse if the net result is worse than from an potential action, even if that action results in negative consequences. However are the consequences more positive and how do we measure this?

That's not the question though, that question has an obvious answer, no it is not... the question is whether Angel should have transgressed that imaginary moral line in order to complete his final attack against the SPs and the circle of the black thorn.

Again, this is a good point. Perhaps the problem is, that deontology and utilitarianism may present us with a false dichotomy. Utilitarianism is part and parcel with the concept of consequentialism. However it doesn't go into detail of said consequences. We have to not only calculate the positive net result of one's actions but also the negative and see if the "payout" is worth it.

That is a completely different question, with a less straightforward answer: but going back to the moral philosophy of utilitarianism, yes it was the right action in my view, we have no idea how much of a dent Angel put into their long term schemes, but we know he did so, which means that he used the bad things that would have happened without him, in order to do some good.

Hang on! The "how much of a dent" is crucial if we are going to make an accurate "calculation". Also Angel specifically said the "machine" is still going to be there after they are gone. He also said that their actions may only stop their actions for a moment. He also believed they were going to be destroyed, depriving many innocent people of useful champions. So even in terms of utilitarianism, is the payout enough?

What your talking about seems to be more of a Kantian, or categorical moral philosophy, where there is a clear cut right and wrong, which is not a practical philosophy for someone like Angel to abide by,

Is it that practical though? Angel isn't talking about saving the world or even specifically saving lives. Can we honestly calculate how many lives would be or would have been saved based upon Angel's reasoning due to the success of his plan? Having Brucker in the White House is surely a bad thing, but does that mean that they cannot find someone else if she was killed? Or more importantly, couldn't Angel have had her killed without involving Mr Conley? Was this even explored or discussed? Our brooding hero never discussed such issues and these issues are relevant when discussing such moral reasoning.

he would never have gotten anywhere without occasionally transgressing those metaphysical moral lines, he is consistently in the moral grey area, and that's where he does the most good.

Ah, but I'm not saying that one cannot cross such lines. My argument is: is the cost too high and is the moral payout enough? It may be the such measures cannot be calculated but that's what makes Angel and Ats so fascinating! 😀

Angel knows and accepts this fact, which is why we never see him brooding about Mike etc. too much, he was even willing to use Fred's death for his plan: he is at the end of the day an opportunist.

OK, and exploiting the opportunity to do what? Angel admitted this isn't a 'fight the good fight' deal. It's even a departure from his Season 2 days, of giving his life to save his human sire's life (arguably a consequentialist nightmare but it depends on how one regards the consequences ::rolf:🙂 or even a simple act of kindness being enough. However who says Angel cannot change? The wheel keeps turning...

Also, don't forget Angel did these things based on a vision he received from the show's moral arbitrators, the PTB, which, to me, suggests he did the right thing.

I'm extremely skeptical of the PTBs. At least one of them tried to brainwash mankind. So while we may be able to defend Jasmine's actions, we can at least question their moral integrity and for that reason, I never assume anything that PTBs say, or do, is morally right. I'm not arguing that they may not have good intentions, but if they are simply powerful sentient beings, I'll regard their actions (or perhaps more importantly, inactions) with close scrutiny.

 

[Xin Rong]

I see your point. One might think of the Philippa Foot's trolly problem in purely consequential terms. An inaction is worse if the net result is worse than from an potential action, even if that action results in negative consequences. However are the consequences more positive and how do we measure this?



Again, this is a good point. Perhaps the problem is, that deontology and utilitarianism may present us with a false dichotomy. Utilitarianism is part and parcel with the concept of consequentialism. However it doesn't go into detail of said consequences. We have to not only calculate the positive net result of one's actions but also the negative and see if the "payout" is worth it.




Hang on! The "how much of a dent" is crucial if we are going to make an accurate "calculation". Also Angel specifically said the "machine" is still going to be there after they are gone. He also said that their actions may only stop their actions for a moment. He also believed they were going to be destroyed, depriving many innocent people of useful champions. So even in terms of utilitarianism, is the payout enough?



Is it that practical though? Angel isn't talking about saving the world or even specifically saving lives. Can we honestly calculate how many lives would be or would have been saved based upon Angel's reasoning due to the success of his plan? Having Brucker in the White House is surely a bad thing, but does that mean that they cannot find someone else if she was killed? Or more importantly, couldn't Angel have had her killed without involving Mr Conley? Was this even explored or discussed? Our brooding hero never discussed such issues and these issues are relevant when discussing such moral reasoning.



Ah, but I'm not saying that one cannot cross such lines. My argument is: is the cost too high and is the moral payout enough? It may be the such measures cannot be calculated but that's what makes Angel and Ats so fascinating! 😀



OK, and exploiting the opportunity to do what? Angel admitted this isn't a 'fight the good fight' deal. It's even a departure from his Season 2 days, of giving his life to save his human sire's life (arguably a consequentialist nightmare but it depends on how one regards the consequences ::rolf:🙂 or even a simple act of kindness being enough. However who says Angel cannot change? The wheel keeps turning...



I'm extremely skeptical of the PTBs. At least one of them tried to brainwash mankind. So while we may be able to defend Jasmine's actions, we can at least question their moral integrity and for that reason, I never assume anything that PTBs say, or do, is morally right. I'm not arguing that they may not have good intentions, but if they are simply powerful sentient beings, I'll regard their actions (or perhaps more importantly, inactions) with close scrutiny.

How much of a positive result, or dent, isn't actually important from a utilitarian view, if the effect is even marginally more positive than inaction then from a utilitarian perspective, it is still the correct course of action.

Stopping the machine for a minute is obviously significant, everything else that Angel has ever done is made out to be a pebble of a beach type action: the effect he has as a regular champion is largely insignificant if we are to believe the musings of Holland Manners.

Also, I think that perhaps you are making out Angel to be more significant than he actually is, he's not the only champion in the world, especially in a world populated by slayers: he destroys some very powerful pieces on the W&H chess board, who are more important in the grand scheme of things than people like Conley, and who are likely to have committed, and would have gone onto commit more good than Angel would. I would say that this suggests a more positive than negative outcome. Also, Angel did not actually die, and neither did any other champions, so technically they all carried on to do good, and Angel's actions did not deprive the world of champions, if we're looking at consequentialist modes of thinking, this is a pretty significant point.

Regarding the PTB, we do not actually know if Jasmine was definitely a PTB, we only have her word for that, and she's an established liar. One thing we do know about the PTB is that they have some kind of foreknowledge, which enables them to combat evil outcomes: I think this indicates that Angel's action would have had a benefit for the 'greater good', otherwise the PTB wouldn't encourage him to do so.

I agree that the PTB might not do things that are morally right from some perspectives, but that's because there is no such thing as an objective morally right action: especially in the Buffyverse

 

[Kana]

How much of a positive result, or dent, isn't actually important from a utilitarian view, if the effect is even marginally more positive than inaction then from a utilitarian perspective, it is still the correct course of action.

That's exactly what we are trying to determine. If the good outweighs the bad 🙂.

Stopping the machine for a minute is obviously significant, everything else that Angel has ever done is made out to be a pebble of a beach type action: the effect he has as a regular champion is largely insignificant if we are to believe the musings of Holland Manners.

Yes but how do we calculate that significance? If the machine is still going to be there, is it worth ruining a man's life in the long run?

Also, I think that perhaps you are making out Angel to be more significant than he actually is, he's not the only champion in the world, especially in a world populated by slayers: he destroys some very powerful pieces on the W&H chess board, who are more important in the grand scheme of things than people like Conley, and who are likely to have committed, and would have gone onto commit more good than Angel would.

I'm not making Angel out to anything more significant than a being who can potentially save many lives or bring happiness to many lives. If the machine is still going to be there, then the damage is going to get done either way. Perhaps not in the same way but so what? Angel's reasoning was about showing the SPs they don't own them. I'm struggling to see a positive picture in the larger sense...

I would say that this suggests a more positive than negative outcome. Also, Angel did not actually die,

Yet believed it's likely he would. I'm basing the reasoning at the time of the inception of the plan, not simply the outcome, because if Angel didn't think it was likely they would survive, we cannot base his moral reasoning the eventually that he did survive.

and neither did any other champions, so technically they all carried on to do good, and Angel's actions did not deprive the world of champions, if we're looking at consequentialist modes of thinking, this is a pretty significant point.

Again, only if he considered this a likely possibility and there is little evidence he did.

Regarding the PTB, we do not actually know if Jasmine was definitely a PTB, we only have her word for that, and she's an established liar. One thing we do know about the PTB is that they have some kind of foreknowledge, which enables them to combat evil outcomes: I think this indicates that Angel's action would have had a benefit for the 'greater good', otherwise the PTB wouldn't encourage him to do so.

That's true but we don't know that they are the moral arbitrators either. We know they are knowledgeable and powerful, and seem to want to make things right, but we cannot simply accept that they are always right.

I agree that the PTB might not do things that are morally right from some perspectives, but that's because there is no such thing as an objective morally right action: especially in the Buffyverse

Ah, maybe that's the key, but then I suppose it would render this entire debate moot I guess. It depends on whether one considers the stakes too high or not.

I'm kind of on the fence on this one to be honest. I don't think it's all that clear cut as say a thought experiment involving trollies but shows how moral reasoning can be complex and even structures like consequentialism can really depend on how one regards the consequences or if they can be accurately predicted or if we should focus less on the consequences and more on moral character and intentions. Perhaps we should find a balance, but I do believe we should always reason it out.

I agree that there is no objective morality from 'on high' but such things arise from discussion based upon reason and general consensus, if indeed such things are possible at any given time. Most of us agree that making Mike Conley a believe he was a paedophile. It then becomes a matter of reasoning out the rest.

But thank you, I'm certainly more confused than I was and that's the fun😀.

 

[Xin Rong]

That's exactly what we are trying to determine. If the good outweighs the bad 🙂.



Yes but how do we calculate that significance? If the machine is still going to be there, is it worth ruining a man's life in the long run?



I'm not making Angel out to anything more significant than a being who can potentially save many lives or bring happiness to many lives. If the machine is still going to be there, then the damage is going to get done either way. Perhaps not in the same way but so what? Angel's reasoning was about showing the SPs they don't own them. I'm struggling to see a positive picture in the larger sense...



Yet believed it's likely he would. I'm basing the reasoning at the time of the inception of the plan, not simply the outcome, because if Angel didn't think it was likely they would survive, we cannot base his moral reasoning the eventually that he did survive.



Again, only if he considered this a likely possibility and there is little evidence he did.



That's true but we don't know that they are the moral arbitrators either. We know they are knowledgeable and powerful, and seem to want to make things right, but we cannot simply accept that they are always right.






Ah, maybe that's the key, but then I suppose it would render this entire debate moot I guess. It depends on whether one considers the stakes too high or not.

I'm kind of on the fence on this one to be honest. I don't think it's all that clear cut as say a thought experiment involving trollies but shows how moral reasoning can be complex and even structures like consequentialism can really depend on how one regards the consequences or if they can be accurately predicted or if we should focus less on the consequences and more on moral character and intentions. Perhaps we should find a balance, but I do believe we should always reason it out.

I agree that there is no objective morality from 'on high' but such things arise from discussion based upon reason and general consensus, if indeed such things are possible at any given time. Most of us agree that making Mike Conley a believe he was a paedophile. It then becomes a matter of reasoning out the rest.

But thank you, I'm certainly more confused than I was and that's the fun😀.

I would say the good outweighs the bad, the machine has been damaged, and that's a good thing, and worth the cost: which is none-existent really as the consequences for Mike would have likely be the same.

Your welcome, philosophy is always fun: you could really throw a spanner in the works and argue that this conversation becoming moot might have been Joss's intention, he is after all somewhat of an existentialist, so it comes as no surprise that he would create an instance that had people debate about the contingency of meaning 🙂

 

[Kana]

I would say the good outweighs the bad, the machine has been damaged, and that's a good thing, and worth the cost: which is none-existent really as the consequences for Mike would have likely be the same.

Yet we have to judge it based upon what the actor reasonably foresees. Angel believed it was likely that he and his friends were going to be killed, which from a Utilitarian perspective would be terrible. The validity of the arguments has to be based upon the calculation prior to action. Angel expressly stated that their actions were to be symbolic. I'm not saying that his actions are necessarily wrong, but I'm arguing that it doesn't necessarily hold up from a consequentialist perspective.

Your welcome, philosophy is always fun

That it is 🙂.

you could really throw a spanner in the works and argue that this conversation becoming moot might have been Joss's intention, he is after all somewhat of an existentialist, so it comes as no surprise that he would create an instance that had people debate about the contingency of meaning 🙂

Absolutely! That is what makes Angel such a compelling character and Ats such a compelling show.