Moral dilemmas in the Buffyverse

[Icarium]

I am opening a new topic because we went way off-topic in the believability thread, I hope that's all right with the moderators. So I will reply to InsaneMystic's post here.

Base for S2 arc: A boyfriend going bad after sex (emotional drama).

And what makes it emotional drama? After all, if morality is of no importance and vampires are merely being "human" then it should be okay for Angel to kill people, right? Why is Buffy struggling? Because she thinks she has to kill Angel. And why is that? Because she feels responsible for the deaths he is causing. If that's not caused by her conscience then I don't know what is, really. It's a classic moral dilemma - personal happiness against duty.

As for S5, the argument about killing Dawn is such a blatantly obvious moral dilemma that I won't even bother explaining why that is so. And of course, the most obvious dilemma of all is right there in the premise of the show - is Buffy morally obliged to use her superpowers to help people? Is it okay for her to do nothing? Is she justified in her vigilante actions?

That denial of yours, indeed, is the root of the problem with moralism in general. I am human, so of course I would enjoy the rush of power physical aggression provides. Unlike you, I don't see the need to delude myself into being "morally better" than I am.

You don't know me. You can only speak for yourself. Many people do not enjoy violence. If you think that everyone does, the burden of proof is on you, so I am all ears.

Lots of things... the will to survive at any cost, secrecy, betrayal of trust by a long-lost friend. It all boils down to drama. None of it do I feel the need to see through a moralist lense.

The will to survive at any cost is presented as a moral dilemma. The ends justify the means and all that. You are free to say it's all claptrap but it's right there in the episode nevertheless. For instance I see the dilemma in Graduation Day as very silly and contrived - Faith is superpowered and and can't go to jail unless she wants to, so Buffy doesn't really have a choice but to try to kill her, IMO, but I don't deny that this is presented as a line that Buffy better not cross.

Actually, when you boil it down to what makes an ep good IYO, it all just gets lame to me. I don't give a damn about whether anyone's reasons are "morally right or wrong"; not any human's place to make a final judgement on that, anyway. It's more important if they are in character, and written well enough to provide interesting dramatic situations (optimally, with ample chances for insertion of quippy humorous lines, too).

Isn't that rather contradictory? You don't think morality is a part of the foundation of the show, yet you want the characters to stay in character. Their morals are a very big part of their personalities and that's what drives their actions in many, if not most, decisive situations.

 

[BuffyElevated]

There are moral dilemmas on every show on TV these days. At some point, even in the goofiest comedies, the characters are going to have to make decisions based off their morals. The thing about morality is that a lot of people have very different morals and beliefs, so no show is going to have a big moment where some of the fans aren't going to question whether or not it was the right choice.
Basically, the direction a show is going to go in depends on the creator and their beliefs. No matter what the fans want, it's ultimately going to be up to the creator of the show and the writers how things are played out. So the way I see it is if you don't like how something went down, blame the writers/creator-- not the character.

 

[InsaneMystic]

And what makes it emotional drama? After all, if morality is of no importance and vampires are merely being "human" then it should be okay for Angel to kill people, right? Why is Buffy struggling? Because she thinks she has to kill Angel. And why is that? Because she feels responsible for the deaths he is causing. If that's not caused by her conscience then I don't know what is, really. It's a classic moral dilemma - personal happiness against duty.

No, that's not where the drama comes from. It comes from her romantic liaison turning from supportive to antagonistic. The question of "should she kill him" is a tangent, not the base of the arc.

As for S5, the argument about killing Dawn is such a blatantly obvious moral dilemma that I won't even bother explaining why that is so.

Again, a tangent. The season would either be much, much shorter, or considerably more boring if that were the base of the arc. How often does that "moral dilemma" actually drive the plot? I basically can only think of the very end of the season.

And of course, the most obvious dilemma of all is right there in the premise of the show - is Buffy morally obliged to use her superpowers to help people? Is it okay for her to do nothing? Is she justified in her vigilante actions?

Thankfully, that is a pretty minor aspect too. If that had stood more in the foreground - instead of basically being reduced to a stuffy middle-aged British librarian (lets face it, until the mid of S2 Giles was a bit of a joke) talking of sacred duties - the show would be considerably less enjoyable. There are moments when this comes up (Prophecy Girl, What's My Line, Lies My Parents Told Me), but that hardly is the core of the show.

You don't know me. You can only speak for yourself. Many people do not enjoy violence. If you think that everyone does, the burden of proof is on you, so I am all ears.

Stanford, Milgram, sound familiar? Push the right buttons, and you, too, will enjoy killing "for the right reason". That's what makes you human. Basically, with you being a moralist, one of these buttons may very easily be "this is an evil person, we must do away with him for the Greater Good".

I will, on principle, not believe anyone who calls himself one of the "good guys", and I will never side with those "good guys", either. I'm really not into hypocrisy.

The will to survive at any cost is presented as a moral dilemma. The ends justify the means and all that. You are free to say it's all claptrap but it's right there in the episode nevertheless.

You may find it if you go looking for it. It's not what the episode is about. Once again, it's about lies, betrayal, and desperation - these are emotional motivations, not moral once.

For instance I see the dilemma in Graduation Day as very silly and contrived - Faith is superpowered and and can't go to jail unless she wants to, so Buffy doesn't really have a choice but to try to kill her, IMO, but I don't deny that this is presented as a line that Buffy better not cross.

Of course she has a choice. Lots of choices, in fact. ("Do nothing" tops the list, as usual.) See below for more on GD.

Isn't that rather contradictory? You don't think morality is a part of the foundation of the show, yet you want the characters to stay in character. Their morals are a very big part of their personalities and that's what drives their actions in many, if not most, decisive situations.

I disagree. In fact, the further along the show, the less prominent morality as a driving factor becomes, and that's what makes it interesting to me. Buffy quitting the CoW can actually be seen as antimoralist; personal empowerment against authority always runs counter to questions of morality. (Morality, in essence, always boils down to "obey your superiors, they know best.") It's a very important turning point, making it only logical that one season later we'll get an ever growing involvement of Spike. And as you've cited Graduation Day before - the very dilemma there is Buffy (the "morality Scooby") going against her morality, driven by passion.

Buffy, as a character, has a strong moral streak, quite considerably stronger than any of the other main characters (enough moments of "because it's wrong"; one of the reasons why she's not my favorite of the Core Four). Xander is passionate about friendship (not a moral motivation), Willow is on a constant journey of trying to cope with self-consciousness issues (again, no morality there). Giles becomes interesting as a character the moment he stops being a caricature of "the moral authority" (Halloween/Dark Age); Riley stays locked in it, remaining the boring Captain Cardboard until getting written out. Tara is all about natural balance, and actually gets an episode of her own where she defies the morality she got brought up on (Family).

Of course, then we also have the Bad Hair Dude... who is a hypocrite who talks about moral issues, but keeps doing the opposite, and spends most of his time moping around wallowing in his past sins (if there's a caricaturesque poster child for why morality is claptrap, it may well be him).

How you are trying to consider morality as the driving factor in the happenings of those characters' lives is beyond me. A stronger stance could be made about the show being about outgrowing morality, in fact.

 

[Buffy Summers]

I just want to post a reminder here for ALL parties to please leave the personal comments out - if you need to take a break before replying to someone then please do it.

🙂

 

[arabella]

I don't think that it is true that everyone's moral compass can be boiled down to "obey authority. They know best." A moral dilemma is a situation in which what you want or need to do is in contrast with what you feel you should do. From working with delinquents, I can attest that their morals were deeply entrenched in a value system that I found backwards. However, they faced moral dilemmas that were very much unrelated to authority since they valued themselves as the only and ultimate authority.

I digress. I see, as stated before by others BtVS and most shows as being an exploration of values and morals and how those impact ones decision making. I don't know that a change in ones values and therefore restructuring of ones moral code warrants saying that said person is amoral...he or she just may not respect what you or I consider to be fitting of our moral code.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Icarium]

No, that's not where the drama comes from. It comes from her romantic liaison turning from supportive to antagonistic. The question of "should she kill him" is a tangent, not the base of the arc.

And why are Buffy and Angel antagonistic? I mean, technically Buffy has the choice of throwing her morals to the wind and not try to kill Angel at all. Or even try to become a vampire herself in order to win his affections back. By reducing the storyline to "two characters become enemies" you are losing most of its emotional punch, IMO. Angel kills Jenny? Big whatever if Buffy only cares about him, rather than the people he kills. Xander and Buffy clash regarding whether restoring Angels soul is a good idea. Whatever, it's not as if they give a damn about the people he has killed, it's just about jealousy and love, right?

Again, a tangent. The season would either be much, much shorter, or considerably more boring if that were the base of the arc. How often does that "moral dilemma" actually drive the plot? I basically can only think of the very end of the season.

It drives the plot because if they kill Dawn their problem is solved. That's quite significant, don't you think?

Thankfully, that is a pretty minor aspect too. If that had stood more in the foreground - instead of basically being reduced to a stuffy middle-aged British librarian (lets face it, until the mid of S2 Giles was a bit of a joke) talking of sacred duties - the show would be considerably less enjoyable. There are moments when this comes up (Prophecy Girl, What's My Line, Lies My Parents Told Me), but that hardly is the core of the show.

Minor aspect? I would argue it's the most important element of Buffy's story. Should she feel guilty for the people she fails to save? How about the people who died because she gave too many chances to Spike, Anya, Faith, Angel, etc? This comes up again and again. Buffy puts her life on the line every night because she thinks it's the right thing to do. If that's a minor aspect, I would love to hear what you think is the essence of her story.

Push the right buttons, and you, too, will enjoy killing "for the right reason". That's what makes you human. Basically, with you being a moralist, one of these buttons may very easily be "this is an evil person, we must do away with him for the Greater Good".

There is a world of difference between enjoying violence in extremely specific situations and pretty much living for the thrill of the kill as vampires do. Enjoying violence for the sake of violence is far different than enjoying it for some other reason.

You may find it if you go looking for it. It's not what the episode is about. Once again, it's about lies, betrayal, and desperation - these are emotional motivations, not moral once.

How exactly is Buffy staking Ford not motivated by her morality? She doesn't want him to kill innocent people, so she takes it upon herself to stake him, even when this is causing her a lot of pain and suffering.

I disagree. In fact, the further along the show, the less prominent morality as a driving factor becomes, and that's what makes it interesting to me.

Good for you. And that's a big part why I find the show so terrible in the final seasons. Anya is one of the gang and nobody cares about her thousands of murders becuase...well, just because. It would be one thing if the characters recognized how immoral they had become and just didn't care but they don't. They are all appalled by Faith killing people or Willow killing Warren, yet Anya boasting about her days of evisceration? Nothing but embarrassed silence at most. Xander causing people to burn to death in OMWF? No reaction whatsoever either from him or his friends. This isn't outgrowing morality, it's inconsistent writing, on a level that even an amateur writer should be ashamed of. Some guy on another forum once put it quite beautifully - "For ME evil is a suit you can wear one day and send to the cleaners on the next day.". I don't want black and white characters and morality but I do appreciate consistency. The characters feeling guilty or not depending on what the plot needs is bad writing, pure and simple. It's not a grand statement about how morality is obsolete, especially considering how much Joss loves the concept of redemption.

Morality, in essence, always boils down to "obey your superiors, they know best."

If you say so. Of course, some people would say that obeying orders which contradict your own values is not moral at all and is exactly the thing that made totalitarian regimes and autocratic religions so prone to atrocities.

Giles becomes interesting as a character the moment he stops being a caricature of "the moral authority" (Halloween/Dark Age)

I think he was quite interesting before that and the Ripper thing is a very minor aspect of his character. And it's not as if he ceased having any morals after that point.

Tara is all about natural balance, and actually gets an episode of her own where she defies the morality she got brought up on (Family).

She cast a spell on her friends. She was brought on believing a lie. If anything her sense of morality rebelled against that lie, instead of her rebelling against what you call morality.

Of course, then we also have the Bad Hair Dude... who is a hypocrite who talks about moral issues, but keeps doing the opposite, and spends most of his time moping around wallowing in his past sins (if there's a caricaturesque poster child for why morality is claptrap, it may well be him).

So you picked a character who constantly makes choices for others and is prone to killing sprees and then you proclaim he is a poster child for morality? That's a good one. Maybe Spike is the poster child for emotional maturity then and Anya the symbol of sexual abstinence.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Really, guys, again. Let's take it down a notch please.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Been typing a long post, but seeing as Darla has posted twice now already, I basically guess it'd just get the thread closed. 🙂

So, I'm out of this one, just saying: Every time someone stops bothering about morality, the world gets that little bit nicer to live in. 😛

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Just wanted to say to Insane Mystic and Icarium-- while the argument may have become a little bit heated, I think you both made some really interesting points that I truly enjoyed reading. I always love to look into the many ways in which the same show can affect different people. While I don't want to toss my own hat into the ring just now, I just wanted to say thanks to you guys for doing so!

 

[Doppelgang]

I'll second that point. The arguments of substance were good on both sides. The personal attacks were a bit disquieting, but the argument never degenerated into a shouting match. I couldn't add anything to this debate other than to say that on some topics you have to come to your own conclusions when it reaches that point where its clear your arguments aren't going to convince the other person. It doesn't mean one person's position or arguments are flawed, it just means you're different people who can't find a common ground, so you just have to go your own separate ways.

 

[sisterofmercy]

I think in a show that revolves around death and relationships, morality plays a rather important role. Watching the show you can definitely see where the different philosophical theories come into play (Giles' utilitarian act by killing Ben, Buffy's 'whatever means necessary' Machiavellian streak in S7 and of course Kant's duty bound ethics underpin the entire premise of the show). I think judging from that, you could see an element of moral issues come into play in every episode (or most), because they're always there in everything we do as free moral agents. It doesn't have to be the main issue at hand, but morality is part of our everyday lives, so I don't see why it shouldn't be considered in shows like Buffy, even in the subtext.

Forgive me I'm not sure I've answered the thread properly, it's late and I'm tired.

 

[prophecygrrl]

I think the show addresses morality quite a bit but is ultimately more driven by the characters and the choices they make than about morality itself. If anything, I think it pretty much beats human standards of morality into the ground, lol, since by the end of it every single one of the heroes we're supposed to be cheering for is guilty of murder, rape, torture, and a whole host of horrible things that would normally put them firmly in the 'evil' camp. To me, the show isn't about a group of people doing good, it's about a group of people faced with a mission to do good.

I'm not really sure I answered the topic, but hey. 😛

 

[Goby]

Regarding Season 5.....

I'm I the only one who thinks Buffy is selfish regarding Dawn? Buffy should have just killed her rather than risk 6 BILLION lives. I mean... 6 BILLION... that's quite a few people. And how many humans died why she was trying to save Dawn?

Of course it would have made Season 5 pretty short.... but they could have filed it with more Tillow. 😉

 

[sisterofmercy]

Regarding Season 5.....

I'm I the only one who thinks Buffy is selfish regarding Dawn? Buffy should have just killed her rather than risk 6 BILLION lives. I mean... 6 BILLION... that's quite a few people. And how many humans died why she was trying to save Dawn?

Of course it would have made Season 5 pretty short.... but they could have filed it with more Tillow. 😉

She was, but arguably anyone would have done the same. She'd just lost her mother and Dawn was all the real family she had left, she couldn't bear to let her die too. How can you ask someone to kill their sister? Whatever the reason. Plus it would feel like she'd failed at being a guardian and a slayer by letting her sister of all people die (even though by doing so she'd be saving countless others).

 

[KellGreen]

Regarding Season 5.....

I'm I the only one who thinks Buffy is selfish regarding Dawn? Buffy should have just killed her rather than risk 6 BILLION lives. I mean... 6 BILLION... that's quite a few people. And how many humans died why she was trying to save Dawn?

Of course it would have made Season 5 pretty short.... but they could have filed it with more Tillow. 😉

Well, yes, but one could argue that love in general is selfish. Love is not rational, nor can it be measured against loss of others.

I don't know, really. I like most Spike and Faith because they blur the lines of morality and pull things into that gray area oftimes. I would love for life and even morality, to be truly black and white, but there are so many times and instances in which there are not clear lines between "moral/good" and "immoral/bad."

 

[Gum Gnome33]

I think the show addresses morality quite a bit but is ultimately more driven by the characters and the choices they make than about morality itself. If anything, I think it pretty much beats human standards of morality into the ground, lol, since by the end of it every single one of the heroes we're supposed to be cheering for is guilty of murder, rape, torture, and a whole host of horrible things that would normally put them firmly in the 'evil' camp. To me, the show isn't about a group of people doing good, it's about a group of people faced with a mission to do good.

This is so true. I really think you've summed up what it is that makes this show so great and why we can talk about it over and over again; how 14 years later it keeps earning diehard fans who never get tired of doing so! We react so strongly to what we see onscreen as our individual moral compasses are constantly being put to the test. I think Joss really challenges us to look at ourselves and the people around us as he calls into question a lot of things that we thought we knew to be true--in a world full of shades of grey.

 

[Scarlett Blade]

I feel the way the show portrays morality is quite interesting. I mean, we have this normal human girl, who is thrust into this supernatural world and forced to make decisions that no human should have to make. In fact, all the Scoobies are forced to make these types of decisions. Therefore, they do, in my opinon, "outgrow" morality (as InsaneMystic stated). They all come to the point where they can't be driven by their morals because their morals hold no place in the lives that they live. In the types of situations that they find themselves in, there is no clear right and wrong. The characters are instead driven by emotions, love, and trust, things which still hold value and relevance to them, and which I belive are the best things to motivate one's actions. There are still moral standards that are set in place in the show, but the characters are not always able to stand up to them because of the unrealistic situations they find themselves in. Therefore, some of their actions are percieved as wrong, because of those standards set in place. But does that really make their actions wrong? This is a very interesting topic, and one of the reasons why I find this show so intriguing.