Morality in the ‘Verse: AKA Harmony Ruins Everything

[Gum Gnome33]

Hi guys. I was wondering if any of you might be able to help me out. I apologize for the length of this thing but there are so many points to be made!

For a while now I’ve been getting frustrated and irritated with some major issues that never seem to be addressed nor considered in the ‘verse. What do I mean, exactly? We have this premise, in which a young girl is chosen to protect the world from evil; specifically demons, vampires, and--as time goes on--any apocalyptic-happy monster who threatens existence as we know it. And all of the episodes up until a certain point fit nicely into that package. Monsters are clearly defined as demons who cannot help but to harm others, and they are either contained during full moons or executed on site. Nobody questions it because there is absolutely no record of any such demon doing anything but evil deeds and desiring nothing more than to murder and destroy.

But eventually, as we all know very well, one particular vampire attempts to make a case for his right to exist among men; incapable of physically harming a living creature and, (for whichever reason you choose), mostly disinterested with the idea of creating trouble, this vampire eventually decides that he must make himself other than evil. Whether you subscribe to the notion that he does it for entirely selfish purposes and does not deserve to be considered noble for this act, or you do indeed believe that this deed makes him a hero, the fact remains that a vampire chose to alter his own composition for the better, without force. Certainly it’s been a long road, and this desire for transformation did not appear out of nowhere. Undeniably he was exposed to different circumstances from any other vampire; he was first made incapable of doing physical harm, shown mercy by the slayer who spared him, and then his existing humanity made it possible for him to feel and exhibit love for a human being. Whether you believe that those circumstances should have been sufficient to propel a soulless being to seek out a drastic change in himself or grant him the insight to realize that the transformation was necessary, at least we can all probably agree that those events can serve as a reason for the discrepancy in behavior among this and all other vampires; in other words, the writers tried to show that a difference in circumstance could inspire a change. We debate it endlessly but the material is there. There is at the very least something at which we can point and say, “there is the motivation. The reason. It is okay that this vampire was spared because the circumstances were different. And there is an argument to be made for his need to get his soul; this vampire can be regarded as different.” And if you do accept that, you can call it a great story and think nothing of Buffy going on to kill more vampires, without having to question the morality of it. Or at least, I believe that you can. Tell me you can’t, and at least I’ll remind you that the writers tried.

But then there’s Clem. And oh heck, lots of other demons who live in LA and are depicted as, for example, darling old couples who merely want to rid their home of pests and are not interested in killing humans. While I am bothered by the obvious moral grey area that their benign existence holds in front of us like a flag, I can generally accept that there are some demons that the scoobies/fang gang kill and some that they spare. Why? Because generally, as soon as they have learned of a particular demon’s existence, that is the moment at which they are made aware of what that demon is doing. The demon is killing when it’s encountered, so it is exterminated. The demon is coming into the office for help with pests, and it is spared until further information is obtained. By all accounts it seems that Clem is harmless. Could be also that Buffy is trusting Spike’s judgment where he is concerned, which could be considered a mistake. But at the very least it’s a strong, emotionally charged reason for which she can convince herself, and maybe us, that not all demons are the same. It’s ok to kill the ones whose evil agenda is clear.

But Harmony? Harmony is the final straw; she’s the one who ruins everything. She tears up this package, which is already starting to pop a few seams around the edges, like a kid on Christmas morning. Her existence is what brings the show from a moral grey area into the Bermuda triangle of morality. She is the reason for which one could call Buffy a murderer. Remember what I said about demons being killed basically as soon as they are discovered to be in the wrong? Well it’s not like that for lots and lots of vampires. Vampires, by contrast, are killed before they’ve even had a chance to kill, themselves. Buffy waits for them to arise out of the ground and she takes them out of the world before she knows a thing about them. And as I said before, this was all okay until a certain point. Spike got us to question this; is there a grey area here, or is he just unique? But Harmony creates the mess. In season 5 of Angel, she is portrayed as having complete control over her vampire blood lust, previously conceived as undeniable. Why? Is she chipped? No. In love? No. Really really in need of a job? Yes, but since when has a vampire had to rely on falling in line at a 9-5 to get by? Sure, she wants attention and fame. But she’s hardly the first vampire to be drawn to that flame; yeah, um, Darla anyone? And now in the comics,

Spoiler

she is leading the way in helping other vampires to fall in line. Now we see that vampires can have as much or as little self control as they desire, whereas before they were so evil that the threat of getting staked wasn’t enough to even slow them down; in other words they lived and died to do bad things. But now it is?
So Harmony who is nothing but an evil vampire who has no true motivation for doing good and/or refraining to do evil, is in the picture. And other vampires are falling in line! They ask permission before biting! It used to be that there were lairs you could enter at your own risk, knowing you would get bit, and hoping it wouldn’t kill you. Now you can count on vampires making sure it’s okay with you first. Slayers need to wonder first whether the vamp they’re killing is truly evil.

If we accept all of the above to be true about vampires, what does that say about slayers who continue to patrol and kill vampires they don’t “know?” Vampires who have just emerged and about whom it hasn’t been decided whether they will fall in line when given the option? I mean heck, the next time a vampire attacks Buffy it can now be argued that he is doing it merely to defend his law abiding brethren from a merciless killing machine.

So I’m wondering: for those of you who take issue with all of this as well, what do you do about it? Have you stopped reading the comics? Does all of this make previous episodes of Buffy hard to watch? And for those of you who are not bothered, will you tell me why? I’d really like to hear your counter arguments where this is concerned so I’m more comfortable with the ‘verse in light of everything that’s been happening!

 

[Icarium]

IMO, the show has been morally bankrupt for years. Xander (unwittingly) summed it up in Selfless: "When our friends go all crazy and start killing people, we help them."🙁

The good demons idea was silly too. First, it was a retcon. Second, the writers wanted to have their cake and eat it too. So demons can be good but still if they threaten humans it's perfectly okay for the protagonists to kill them while it's never okay for them to kill any humans, including serial killers or W&H lawyers responsible for many deaths? Double standard much?

As for the comics and Harmony:

Spoiler

This is one of the most idiotic story lines I have ever seen and I have watched or read a lot of crappy stories. The premise is nonsensical - that humans would just fall in love with vampires. The later development is silly too - many vampires just decided to follow Harmony's rules? Yeah, right. Why is the government which knows perfectly well what vampires hasn't dispelled the myth of them being cuddly? Why haven't the Scoobies tried it either? How come demons are also accepted in society right after a global almost-apocalypse caused by, you guessed it, demons attacking the Earth? The writers can't seem to decide if vampires follow those rules to survive or because many of them genuinely can control their evil impulses so well that they can just become productive members of society if given half a chance. Worst of all, the whole thing just happens and is not the central story line, never mind it's a far bigger game changer than the breaking of the stupid seed. Yet, it seems to be mostly played as a joke.

And yes, the good vampires and demons basically make Buffy and pals a bunch of species-ist serial killers and no writer seems to notice that.

 

[InsaneMystic]

IMO, the show has been morally bankrupt for years.

Without getting into that debate with you for the umpteenth time, the fact that the Scoobies developed farther and farther away from morality was enjoyable development and maturation of the characters for me. To each his own, I guess.

And yes, the good vampires and demons basically make Buffy and pals a bunch of species-ist serial killers and no writer seems to notice that.

That is subtext in every vampire story ever that involves vampire hunters. I can deal with it not getting delved into by the writers (aside from that one "undead American" quip in "When She Was Bad") seeing as doing so would basically kill the premise of the show. Yes, Buffy is a fantastic racist serial killer. That's her job. Just roll with it.

 

[zobothehobo]

Honestly, I thought the concept of having "good" or "harmless" demons was a smart one. It's a messy fact of life... but nothing is black and white. And I generally do not like my supernatural tv shows to portray things as black and white. That's not how it is.

As for her being a racist serial killer... yeah, you could look at it that way. But over time she starts to learn and works on her "racism" a bit. Honestly, that's the best you can ask morally from a vampire hunter story, isn't it?

 

[Gum Gnome33]

As for her being a racist serial killer... yeah, you could look at it that way. But over time she starts to learn and works on her "racism" a bit. Honestly, that's the best you can ask morally from a vampire hunter story, isn't it?

I agree that having Buffy and co question things would make it a plausible vampire hunter story. I think my main problem is that they don't actually deal with it. I would like them to decide, in light of what's going on in the comics with Harmony et al, either that what they're doing is ok, (and why), or that they need to adjust with the new information;

Spoiler

this apparent new reality that all vampires can be good.

It's the lack of acknowledgement that I feel insults the character of our favorite scoobies.

And don't get me wrong, I love when there are grey areas. I hate black and white, message oriented, fiction. Like 99% of my threads on the boards are all about looking for and accepting things that don't fit into a nice neat package. But the introduction of Harmony's ethical code just completely takes this out of the park and I think we've gone beyond grey and into utter chaos, you know?

 

[zobothehobo]

well the whole thing with Harmony in the comics and everyone' perception of vampires in the comics confuses me... so I don't really feel like I can speak to that. I just find the whole thing ridiculous. People aren't THAT stupid, are we?

 

[dexeded]

I personally don't mind good or harmless demons, but my problem with it is that they only introduced that concept later into the show, and went way overboard in the lamentable comics. It also undermines Spike's transformation.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

well the whole thing with Harmony in the comics and everyone' perception of vampires in the comics confuses me... so I don't really feel like I can speak to that. I just find the whole thing ridiculous. People aren't THAT stupid, are we?

I think we can be, and one could argue that the human reaction to vampires depicted in the comics is a form of satire, which I mostly accept. The news that

Spoiler

vampires are essentially neither inherently evil or good since they can all adjust their behavior to survive

makes the notion of staking them as soon as they rise up from the ground shockingly disturbing. At that point, they've literally done nothing wrong and back when it was assumed that they couldn't do anything but kill, the automatic killing on site was not particularly disturbing, (at least to me). But given this new twist, it's sort of awful.

It also undermines Spike's transformation.

Yes, exactly. What was a great story about someone fighting his evil nature in the name of love is now, if you accept the comics, a story of someone who should/could have changed his ways earlier, and is

Spoiler

no longer unique in his ability to do so.

I remember last year, before this stuff came out, I had an argument with [MENTION=8821]Icarium[/MENTION] in which he insisted that Spike couldn't be hailed for his desire to transform since technically he could have done it at any point. I argued that the only reason he could have was that he was indeed unique, for the reasons I listed in my OP up top, and that without them he couldn't have realized that a transformation was possible, least of all desire one. I still argue that because it's true and has been, up until this new nonsense in which they

Spoiler

for no reason at all but to survive, don't need so much as a chip let alone the whole package.

I won't let this ruin my favorite story arc of all time! Seriously someone'd better come along and explain that this is a result of breaking the seed or something, or I can't think of this stuff as cannon. It just makes the 8 other seasons look ridiculous.

 

[orpheusxi]

I'm lost as to what you have an issue with. Is it the notion that there are demons who do good actions?

 

[orpheusxi]

I haven't read the comics so I'm a bit lost in that respect, but I've seen all of BTVS & Angel . IMO from what little I've read & heard the comics aren't that great anyway so I just judge whatever situations happened throughout the Television shows.

 

[Kana]

The problem is, almost from the start vampires are depicted to have some sort of humanity. Even Angelus' evil is at least partially motivated by issues he had when he was human.

Now the issue is, how do we define evil? We know that even some vampires (VampMarcus for example) don't necessarily believe in evil. Good and evil under this idea are values that we assign to acts or choices that people make that affect us, either positively or negatively.

I've often talked about how we should judge soulless vampires and after many pages of debate, I admitted that the subject was more opaque than I originally thought. Vampires, by their very nature are human/demon hybrids where their human side drives their actions. Now the problem is, when we talk about vampires having humanity, we immediately think we're talking about something good. This is the first mistake we make.

I mean take Angelus for example, the vampire who apparently has no humanity or is reported the be the worst vampire ever recorded. This is a vampire who is utterly driven by artistic beauty. What is this if it isn't human? Art is perhaps one of the signs of the soul, of what makes us human and Angelus is not only an appreciator of art but an awesome creator of it.

All this is a round about way of addressing the vampire humanity issue and what drives their behaviour.

Human behaviour can be extremely malleable and while there are similarities and norms it can be greatly influenced by internal and external forces. In the Verse, I believe this to be true of vampires as well. It just means that slightly different internal impulses are driving their behaviour. In other words what makes them want to be 'good' isn't the soul.

So how can one be good without a soul?

Well this is question the 'purist' ask and I can understand their frustration. I've always asked, what is the soul and what significance does it have to morality?

I said one another forum that this question is the problem in the first place. The purists asked the question how can Spike be good without a soul? If it's a journey of moral development, if the soul is a huge part of moral identity then can this journey really begin before we get the soul.

The main issues were what was it, in Spike that made him want to be a better person and more importantly why did he need a soul to do it? soullessSpike, like all vampires, is a rational sentient being. He is able to understand good and evil as concepts as well as any soulled human. So was it a lack of empathy? Well no because we've seen Spike display something that looked like love and empathy before he got a soul. So in short we have a soulless vampire who is able to feel love and empathy, who as a rational being is able to understand the concepts of right and wrong. Who is able to feel guilty for hurting someone. So with all this the soul provides him....No seriously what? The soul acting like some sort of behavioral inhibitor makes it seem like he's getting a chip upgrade rather than embarking of the journey of moral discovery.

And none of this even remotely answers the question of what the soul is. All we have is a soulless vampire who has a part of his humanity driving his behaviour. This part of humanity is seemingly inscrutable. Even if we look at the chip, it's still not good enough. Did the chip make him want to become a better person? Did Spike change or was Spike changed? What exactly did the chip provide?

If these questions can not be answered in a concrete way then I'm not all that bothered by the idea that other vampires with humanity (which I'm arguing is all of them) can change their behaviour. We simply know from Spike's example, that it's possible and maybe a chip or soul isn't necessary. With Spike the soul wasn't necessary, and the purists were stumped. Now we find out the chip may not be necessary....

For me, as soon as the door was opened, it can't necessarily be closed. I'm not attempting to undermine Spike, I'm merely questioning whether he was metaphysically special.

The question was always for me: Is redemption possible for a soulless vampire? Unless the chip made Spike a better person, then it was some part of his humanity that drove him to it. For him the chip may have necessary, for other soulless vampires to change their behaviour, maybe a chip isn't necessary....

 

[Gum Gnome33]

[MENTION=7540]Kana[/MENTION], have you been reading the latest comics?

I agree with what you're saying here but as I've said my issue doesn't lie with Spike's transformation. I accept that he is an exception, and I don't particularly think that his journey automatically suggests that any vampire could better himself given similar circumstances, (though theoretically they could, given identical circumstances which is why I mentioned in my OP that his transformation at the very least should raise some questions for the scoobies).

My issue is with Harmony and these new vampires found in the comics. They take all of this to a new level; highlight the spoilers in my OP, (and below) to see what I'm talking about. In short though, I don't think we're talking about a true redemption for these vamps. It's not like they're noble or anything, or that they have necessarily changed their core ethical codes. But the fact that they can

Spoiler

voluntarily choose not to harm and completely control their bloodlust, even if it's just for the purpose of self preservation, makes slaying them very problematic.

 

[Kana]

[MENTION=7540]Kana[/MENTION], have you been reading the latest comics?

I agree with what you're saying here but as I've said my issue doesn't lie with Spike's transformation. I accept that he is an exception, and I don't particularly think that his journey automatically suggests that any vampire could better himself given similar circumstances, (though theoretically they could, given identical circumstances which is why I mentioned in my OP that his transformation at the very least should raise some questions for the scoobies).

This is just it, I'm not necessarily accepting that there is anything metaphysically different about Spike. If his behaviour can deviate from the norm greatly, then it opens the door for other vampires to be able to change their behaviour. It doesn't make Spike's journey any less special as his reasons, are perhaps different from what other vampires who change their behaviour might be.

My issue is with Harmony and these new vampires found in the comics. They take all of this to a new level; highlight the spoilers in my OP, (and below) to see what I'm talking about. In short though, I don't think we're talking about a true redemption for these vamps. It's not like they're noble or anything, or that they have necessarily changed their core ethical codes. But the fact that they can

Spoiler

volntarily choose not to harm and completely control their bloodlust, even if it's just for the purpose of self preservation, makes slaying them very problematic.

Whether or not it's 'true redemption' is more less covered by my questioning 'evil' 'good' and the nature of what vampire or humans for that matter may believe. With that in mind, I focused more on behavioral differences and whether it's possible for a vampire, which I'd argue is possible seen as vampires are rational beings.

Spoiler

As for whether this puts Buffy or other vampire slayers in a morally complicated position....? I have no issue with that. In fact vampire personhood and rights and whether Buffy can be seen as a murderer is something I questioned long before now

As for reading the comic books? Not so much, but I'm vaguely aware of some of the storylines. It may sound arrogant but from what I've read from the summaries, I don't think it really hurts my line of inquiry.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

With that in mind, I focused more on behavioral differences and whether it's possible for a vampire, which I'd argue is possible seen as vampires are rational beings.

Ah ok so here's where we really differ in opinion. If you believe that vampires are always rational and all have the will to control themselves, then I understand that you would from the very beginning of the series, see the slayer's position as highly problematic. Indeed many vampires are killed before they've actually killed themselves, so if you believe it's possible that said vampire might have on some level had the potential to be good, (even just by rationally coming to the decision that it was in his best interest to do so), then I think you automatically have to be very very opposed to the notion of a vampire slayer, (especially one that patrols and kills new vamps).

For me, it always seemed that the vampires were not portrayed as rational at all; that their bloodlust is so strong and so inherent within them that they literally cannot resist killing and destroying. It's the reason for which a bunch of morally sound people could devote their lives to taking them out one by one. No question that they'll kill, and no question that they can't change. Otherwise, there is a very big problem.
As I've said, I am ok with Spike as the exception; enough circumstances had to transpire to complete his transformation that I can accept that he would be different from the others. But also, I would at the very least expect his situation to raise quite a few eyebrows and I am very disappointed that not a single scooby has wondered since whether it would in fact be possible for any vampire to change, and what that should mean for their mission.

But the fact that Harmony comes along and with absolutely no purpose or motivation can change her actions on a dime and so can all of these new followers, basically retcons what I believe the show was clearly trying to establish in its early seasons, (ie vampires are not rational beings, but demons who cannot help but to kill), and turns it into a completely new reality--one that is in line with I guess more or less how you say you've always perceived the show.

In any case, I think it's a really big problem...

 

[Kana]

Interestingly enough I created a thread on another forum where many of these issues were raised, although perhaps not necessarily answered to a satisfactory degree.

Ah ok so here's where we really differ in opinion. If you believe that vampires are always rational and all have the will to control themselves, then I understand that you would from the very beginning of the series, see the slayer's position as highly problematic.

Well I believe Harmony in Season 5 is example of that. I doubt if she were irrational, that she'd be able to stay off the human blood. In the same way the vampires in the 'bite den' would display a certain degree of rationality. Giles implies that certain vampires don't play by the house rules but that could easily be down the vampire's individual decision, not neccessarily irrational impulse.

The question becomes whether it's likely a vampire would refrain from killing. Historically speaking it seems that the majority of vampires don't see the point in attempting to conform to the moral norms of their of their former species, so they choose not to. If vampires retain the same level of intelligence as their former species (and Angelus implies that the lack of soul doesn't affect the vampires intelligence) then it's possible that vampires can reason that refraining from killing may present some advantages, but it depends on the vampire or group of vampires.

We also see from Doug Sanders that vampires can follow a group mentality, that mirrors that prevalent in human society, so the concept that vampires might follow a path of self control.

Where does this place Buffy? It's funny how you talk about placing the Scoobies in a morally complicated position, because I asked a similar question on thread I created. Unlike most fans I don't mind if it places them in a morally complex situation because that's part of the fun of engaging in a moral inquiry. It also calls into question whether objective moral laws, abound in any situation, hypothetical or not. In any event, I was asking these questions well before the comic book, so this is why it's not a game changer for me.

Indeed many vampires are killed before they've actually killed themselves, so if you believe it's possible that said vampire might have on some level had the potential to be good, (even just by rationally coming to the decision that it was in his best interest to do so), then I think you automatically have to be very very opposed to the notion of a vampire slayer, (especially one that patrols and kills new vamps).

Ok there are a few issues here.

First of all, it's implied that many vampires go through a period of disorietation when they are turned, which may result in them being feral and animalistic, before they get their sense of 'clarity', but even after that I accept that it's likely that vampires won't leave human beings alone even of humans leave them alone. Although, historically their behaviour is predictable be changed, doesn't mean it can't be changed, however from a 'selfish' perspective, the most immediate solution is to kill them rather than reason with them while they kill members of my species. In other words if it came down to a choice between my family and friends dying and someone dusting a vampire if they could, then I choose the latter option, based upon the likelyhood of what vampires might do. However this does not contradict that a vampire might adopt a morality that would conform to human societal norms. We're not arguing likelyhood so far, just possibility and if the possibility is there, then it opens the idea that others can follow.

For me, it always seemed that the vampires were not portrayed as rational at all; that their bloodlust is so strong and so inherent within them that they literally cannot resist killing and destroying

.

But as I've demonstrated above, we know that not to be true. They can resist killing and destroying, because we've seen it, which is why I'm positing that they rationally decide to follow their desires, especially when there is little reason not to.

It's the reason for which a bunch of morally sound people could devote their lives to taking them out one by one. No question that they'll kill, and no question that they can't change. Otherwise, there is a very big problem.

I'm not saying there's an easy answer, but just because there isn't, doesn't mean we automatically assume that the Scoobies are in the wrong. Maybe it's not as simple as that. I believe the Scoobies have positive intentions, but they are not moral philosphers and in the battlefield, sometimes some immediacy is required. For me, that they have such intentions is enough for me, and it certainly doesn't ruin the show for me. In fact it makes it more colourful.

As I've said, I am ok with Spike as the exception; enough circumstances had to transpire to complete his transformation that I can accept that he would be different from the others.

This still doesn't answer the question of how he transformed exactly. Is it just a complicated form of behavioural modification or something more? For me, I don't need Spike to be an 'exception', just that his individuality and circumstances led him down a unique path. This doesn't require him to be metaphysically different from any oher vampire.

Admittedly, I may have to read these comic books, because all I know so far is that

Spoiler

they are refraining from killing[/SPOILERS] which in itself is not the same as Spike's journey anyway. Are these vampires helping others, feeling love for humans? If not then it seems that something else is leading them down this path, whether an alternative form of moral development or simply crowd mentality. I mean, I presume the arc isn't over yet so...

But also, I would at the very least expect his situation to raise quite a few eyebrows and I am very disappointed that not a single scooby has wondered since whether it would in fact be possible for any vampire to change, and what that should mean for their mission.

I'm not disappointed because I just don't think they thought about as deeply as we did. Admittedly when I first watched the show, I didn't think about it too much, so it makes sense the Scoobies didn't either. Or perhaps they didn't want to think of the implications that such questions would raise.

But the fact that Harmony comes along and with absolutely no purpose or motivation can change her actions on a dime and so can all of these new followers, basically retcons what I believe the show was clearly trying to establish in its early seasons, (ie vampires are not rational beings, but demons who cannot help but to kill), and turns it into a completely new reality--one that is in line with I guess more or less how you say you've always perceived the show.

In any case, I think it's a really big problem...

Well I'd like to see how the arc resolves, but it's not raising any major questions, that I wasn't already comtemplating. I mean it goes back as far as what is this bloody soul. If we can't even define that, then it calls all sorts of things into question.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Really good points [MENTION=7540]Kana[/MENTION], and thanks for your input!

Well I believe Harmony in Season 5 is example of that. I doubt if she were irrational, that she'd be able to stay off the human blood.

Exactly, which is my issue with Harmony, (it begins in season 5 of Ats). She is rational, motivated, and doesn't even bite. How is this possible/where does it come from? Certainly she's the first vampire who is portrayed in this way which brings me to my next point:

In the same way the vampires in the 'bite den' would display a certain degree of rationality.

See I would argue that the vamp den vampires don't break the established "all vampires are evil and can't help themselves" rule, nor would I see it as proof of complete rationality. The vamps don't kill the humans at the time, but we can comfortably assume that they kill humans other times. Because there is no reason not to; it hasn't yet been established in the 'verse as of season 5 of Buffy that there is a single vampire alive who, given the choice, would refrain from killing. So while they might be able to control themselves in certain contexts, they are still killers, (because we've been told all vampires are), and the fact that they don't kill under specific circumstances doesn't make them less of a problem.

I agree that there is obviously a degree of rational thinking here: don't kill and receive regular feedings in return. But I think there are plenty of instances in which vampires can play by human rules in order to not get killed; heck even just keeping out of sunlight is a great example. But until Harmony, (and with the exception of Spike and his unique circumstance), any self control is a direct result of immediate survival instinct. So one could say that they are driven by desire to kill and stay alive. But I really don't think it goes beyond that. We are meant to believe that within every vampire the demon wins out against any humanistic thought processes, values, or balance. And for those reasons, I think it is easy to find the actions of a slayer and her posse morally acceptable, though of course the notion of killing things to begin with is already in a grey area. But it's a palatable one, if you accept the above, IMO.

The question becomes whether it's likely a vampire would refrain from killing. Historically speaking it seems that the majority of vampires don't see the point in attempting to conform to the moral norms of their of their former species, so they choose not to.

But whether they see the point or not, if vampires are truly able to decide on the whole that they won't kill, (never mind the instances in which they temporarily abstain; I mean as a way of life) then they are no different from human beings. Buffy and co should be finding a way to capture and imprison them instead of kill them. If you replace every word in the above quote with "human murderer" instead of "vampire," it describes life as we know it. Now I'm not saying what I think is best for us, but as a society the way we deal with people who can choose to be good but instead choose to be bad instead is not to kill them on site but to arrest them. I don't think Buffy would say that she disagrees with that plan; in fact she repeatedly declines to deal with, (read: kill), murderers simply because they are human.

So clearly Buffy sees the distinction between demons and humans, and I am assuming it has to do with the amount of certainty that one will kill, (or the inherent evilness that is not assumed but counted on, within each vampire). If she truly believed that vampires could choose to be good but chose to be evil instead, then what would keep her from killing humans who also could choose to be good but chose evil?

If vampires retain the same level of intelligence as their former species (and Angelus implies that the lack of soul doesn't affect the vampires intelligence) then it's possible that vampires can reason that refraining from killing may present some advantages, but it depends on the vampire or group of vampires.

But the human characteristics that are retained are always portrayed as either cancelled out, or modified by, the new demon inside. For example a vampire who was often scorned as a human might make it his mission to kill all women who look like the woman who wronged him. The intelligence and awareness isn't lost but the morality is.

Unlike most fans I don't mind if it places them in a morally complex situation because that's part of the fun of engaging in a moral inquiry.

Oh don't get me wrong I love it too! I hate when things are black and white but what I need is for the characters to question things. To realize what it is/may be that they're doing, and then base their decisions on that. I take the morality with a grain of salt when it seems clear that they are trying to establish that all vampires are nothing but evil. When that changes, (again, my perception), if there aren't some questions asked, then I have to think less of my favorite characters. I mean all of this insults their intelligence.

from a 'selfish' perspective, the most immediate solution is to kill them rather than reason with them while they kill members of my species. In other words if it came down to a choice between my family and friends dying and someone dusting a vampire if they could, then I choose the latter option, based upon the likelyhood of what vampires might do.

And I'm in total agreement. But 2 things: Certainly based on likelyhood it would make a certain amount of sense, even in season 9, to kill a vampire on site--and certainly most of us would go ahead and kill the thing if it was attacking someone, especially one we cared about.

The other thing is, when someone either neglects to consider whether something is morally sound and is in the position to do so, (ie not currently under attack), or when someone knows for a fact that something is majorly flawed from a moral perspective but acts on it anyway, I consider all of that immorality.

So even if the slayers all got together in light of this vampire reform and decided that it was probably safest for everyone if they took the initiative and killed them anyway, I would have much less of a problem with that than if they didn't question it at all. Or if they decided that though they probably wouldn't be any safer by killing them, they should do it merely because it is their duty, etc. That would also bother me.

we know that not to be true. They can resist killing and destroying, because we've seen it, which is why I'm positing that they rationally decide to follow their desires, especially when there is little reason not to.

But as I said, when have we seen it? With Spike after life changing circumstances and with the help of a chip, and with Harmony, (ie the problem to which I am referring). Before that I think it was clear that they couldn't resist the desire to kill with the exception of an hour or so at a time.

I'm not saying there's an easy answer, but just because there isn't, doesn't mean we automatically assume that the Scoobies are in the wrong.

Again, not saying for sure that they're in the wrong for what they do; they are in the wrong for not considering any of this at all.

they are not moral philosphers

Few of us are yet most of us accept the notion of arresting the suspicious rather than killing them on the spot.

and in the battlefield, sometimes some immediacy is required.

Totally agree, which is why I don't take issue with killing a vampire when one is attacking. Waiting for it to rise up and killing it immediately, now knowing that it could potentially decide not to harm anyone, is where I take issue. Again, it wasn't a problem when vamps, in my opinion, were depicted very differently from today.

This still doesn't answer the question of how he transformed exactly. Is it just a complicated form of behavioural modification or something more? For me, I don't need Spike to be an 'exception', just that his individuality and circumstances led him down a unique path.

But for me if he's not the exception, and any vampire if chipped can eventually be moved to seek out their souls and in doing so transform into good people, then I am not ok with killing vampires.
Harmony's story starting in Ats 5 implies that he might not be the exception, and everything that follows. Ergo major issue for me. 🙂

I mean it goes back as far as what is this bloody soul. If we can't even define that, then it calls all sorts of things into question.

Ha, yeah exactly! It was unclear enough and now all definition has gone out the window. Sigh.

---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

Sorry for the massive post, just wanted to add one thing:

I wanted to say, lest I seem hypocritical considering I spend so much of my time on here defending Spike's actions and arguing that he was truly able to do good even before he got his soul, (the very act of doing so being a prime example). While I do think that he is the exception, I was very much bothered that no one questioned this. I assumed it would happen in season 8 and I actually resisted reading it for a very long time because I was worried that they wouldn't, (and I was right). I'm not saying we need to launch a "vampires are people too" campaign as a result of Spike's journey, but I do think that it needs to be carefully examined and that the person who loves such a vampire yet spends her time killing the rest of them should definitely feel obligated to do so. If merely for the purpose of telling a great love story, I accept Spike's journey as an exception, and because there were lots of other circumstances surrounding his transformation, I embrace it.
But when you (the writers) start telling me that other vampires are falling in line with no chip and no love as a motivation, things start to change.

 

[kittenpoker]

I'm sorry to do this cause it doesn't really add anything, but I'm not sure I have anything to add - except awesome discussion! Really enjoying it!!!

 

[Icarium]

Again, not saying for sure that they're in the wrong for what they do; they are in the wrong for not considering any of this at all.

Yes, that's the biggest problem and that's why I don't accept the claims that this is just the writers creating a gray world. A gray world with gray morality would need the characters to actually acknowledge that. Ignoring it means that it is black and white but written so badly that it's internally contradictory. I mean, I would hate it if they suddenly go all the way and retcon vampires into "undead Americans" but trying to have it both ways seems even worse somehow.

 

[Kana]

Ok request to mods for this post to replace my previous post as my laptop clearly as a mind of it's own. For all others, ignore the above post.

Really good points [MENTION=7540]Kana[/MENTION], and thanks for your input!

No problem. It's a really interesting thread and has certainly made me look up some of my old points on the subject!!!! 🙂.

Exactly, which is my issue with Harmony, (it begins in season 5 of Ats). She is rational, motivated, and doesn't even bite. How is this possible/where does it come from? Certainly she's the first vampire who is portrayed in this way which brings me to my next point:

But keep in mind, we don't actually get much insight into many vampires. The ones we do see certainly don't seem irrational, just that their behaviour is more predictable.

See I would argue that the vamp den vampires don't break the established "all vampires are evil and can't help themselves" rule, nor would I see it as proof of complete rationality. The vamps don't kill the humans at the time, but we can comfortably assume that they kill humans other times.

But if they don't have to kill then it implies rationality does it not? The dialogue in Into the Woods...

Xander: Why don't the vampires just kill 'em?
Anya: Because they get cash, hot and cold running blood, and ... they don't leave any corpses behind so they don't get hunted.
Giles: But still, i-it can be terribly dangerous for humans. I mean, people can end up dying accidentally, or, or meeting a, a vampire who only pretends to play by the house rules.

See I would argue that the vamp den vampires don't break the established "all vampires are evil and can't help themselves" rule, nor would I see it as proof of complete rationality. The vamps don't kill the humans at the time, but we can comfortably assume that they kill humans other times.

This seems to imply rationality, but keep in mind, I've deliberately steered away from the 'evil' label, for reasons, I may explain below.

Because there is no reason not to; it hasn't yet been established in the 'verse as of season 5 of Buffy that there is a single vampire alive who, given the choice, would refrain from killing. So while they might be able to control themselves in certain contexts, they are still killers, (because we've been told all vampires are), and the fact that they don't kill under specific circumstances doesn't make them less of a problem.

Again, we're not talking about likelyhood, only possibility. Vampires being unlikely to refrain from killing doesn't mean they can't help themselves.

I agree that there is obviously a degree of rational thinking here: don't kill and receive regular feedings in return. But I think there are plenty of instances in which vampires can play by human rules in order to not get killed; heck even just keeping out of sunlight is a great example. But until Harmony, (and with the exception of Spike and his unique circumstance), any self control is a direct result of immediate survival instinct. So one could say that they are driven by desire to kill and stay alive. But I really don't think it goes beyond that.

Because it was never explored beyond that. Vampires are social creatures, so it's possible that a group could form that decided not to kill humans. The problem becomes, what is the reason behind this? Admittedly, I'd need to see more of the arc in the comic books to see what the possible reasoning could be. With Spike, the chip stopped him from killing yes, but it make him want to seek a soul? why he needed a soul and how he formed a degree of empathy towards humans, is just as mysterious. Either the chip somehow causes empathy (unlikely imo) or the ability to feel such emotions was inherent within him. Even if Spike is somehow unique, it's still not fully explained, how, if the issue is to do with the metaphysical.

We are meant to believe that within every vampire the demon wins out against any humanistic thought processes, values, or balance.

The two are not mutually exclusive in my eyes. The demon drives the bloodlust, but the behaviour can be influenced by many things. Spike's hedoism and need for validation within the group led him to kill a Slayer. He didn't even drink from the Nikki Wood, from what we saw. The more I analyzed the vampires, the more I believed that they are more complex and more human than perhaps I dared imagine before. If circumstances, perhaps social circumstances, presented themselves in a particular way with particular vampires then it's possible that their behaviour could adjust...

And for those reasons, I think it is easy to find the actions of a slayer and her posse morally acceptable, though of course the notion of killing things to begin with is already in a grey area. But it's a palatable one, if you accept the above, IMO.

If they previously had no reason believe that vampires would refrain from killing then I wouldn't perceive them to be 'morally corrupt'. For me, the intentions of the Scoobies is more important than anything else.

But whether they see the point or not, if vampires are truly able to decide on the whole that they won't kill, (never mind the instances in which they temporarily abstain; I mean as a way of life) then they are no different from human beings.

Ah, you see I'm glad you brought this up, because as I said, in that other forum, I don't believe their internal impulses are the same. In any respect, we still need to define the soul. Presumably the soul makes a difference. The real problem for me, is that the soul was never properly defined.

Because humans, don't generally kill humans on a nightly basis, and soulless vampires do with no guilt shows a difference in their psychological disposition. It does not necessarily mean that an individual vampire's behaviour cannot deviate from the norm of their species. The justification might be the likelyhood. For example, how long would vampires refrain from killing humans? Is it realistic that this behaviour would last? What kind of vampire would conform?

Buffy and co should be finding a way to capture and imprison them instead of kill them. If you replace every word in the above quote with "human murderer" instead of "vampire," it describes life as we know it.

But as I'm saying, having rationality doesn't necessarily make the psychologically the same as humans. The personhood and rights however, is something that has to be assigned anyway, rather than something that is inherent, at least in my eyes. In any respect, because of the amount of human deaths caused by vampires, it can be seen as a war waged by the other side. And even in the case of human on human death, it can be debated whether or not that in itself can be seen as murder when dealing with a war, let alone dealing with creatures who although who don't necessarily lack rationality, have a psychological disposition that greatly differs from human beings, which will affect their behaviour enough to make their way of life, extremely harmful to our way of life.

Now I'm not saying what I think is best for us, but as a society the way we deal with people who can choose to be good but instead choose to be bad instead is not to kill them on site but to arrest them. I don't think Buffy would say that she disagrees with that plan; in fact she repeatedly declines to deal with, (read: kill), murderers simply because they are human.

The problem becomes dealing with the practicality. Also we'd need to look at the sustainability of such a plan and likelyhood of complete reform. I've always found it somewhat disturbing that Buffy kills sentient beings who can clearly, feel pain, love grief, but I don't think Buffy (and audience) thought about it when said vampires were snarling and attacking us without provocation. So this does imply a somewhat emotional reaction to such matters, rather than complete objective morality. I expect as much with someone like Buffy. I don't judge vampires, but accept that killing them is protecting the human way of life. Again, we're not looking at vampires necessarily seeking redemption, just being able to adjust their behaviour. But how sustainable and reliable is this? If the system broke down, how many innocent lives would be taken (say if the vampires escaped etc...)

So clearly Buffy sees the distinction between demons and humans, and I am assuming it has to do with the amount of certainty that one will kill, (or the inherent evilness that is not assumed but counted on, within each vampire). If she truly believed that vampires could choose to be good but chose to be evil instead, then what would keep her from killing humans who also could choose to be good but chose evil?

As I said, above, one could argue it's about the likelyhood. Saying vampires have free will and rationality, is not the same as saying their nature is the same as human nature. For the most part, a soulled humans reason for not killing other humans would be the lack of bloodlust and the soul. Whatever the soul is, it seems to change the nature of such rational beings. The issue becomes, how can we find a method that works for all concerned?

Spoiler

Again, are all vampires not killing now? Or is it a small group?

Because this makes all the difference. If it is the latter, then maybe vampire behaviour was always more malleable than we thought. In which case Buffy and the others may need to change how they regard vampires, if they are to regard themselves as moral beings. Of course this depends on to which moral code subscribe.

But the human characteristics that are retained are always portrayed as either cancelled out, or modified by, the new demon inside. For example a vampire who was often scorned as a human might make it his mission to kill all women who look like the woman who wronged him. The intelligence and awareness isn't lost but the morality is.

I agree with their internal impluses differing from that of humans, but I think it's too simplistic to say they can or can't choose to be evil, because both good and evil have many faces and many causes. The vampires' 'evil' is just, historically more predictable than human evil, but it doesn't make it impossible for them to choose another course of action that may be to their advantage.

Oh don't get me wrong I love it too! I hate when things are black and white but what I need is for the characters to question things.

I do know what you mean, and I do think the writers didn't think about as much as we do. But then I thought about this with the whole soul/no distinction, so it's not that new to me.

To realize what it is/may be that they're doing, and then base their decisions on that. I take the morality with a grain of salt when it seems clear that they are trying to establish that all vampires are nothing but evil. When that changes, (again, my perception), if there aren't some questions asked, then I have to think less of my favorite characters. I mean all of this insults their intelligence.

I must admit, I wish it was addressed more or even at all. I still like analyzing it though, even if the characters don't 🙂.



I honestly don't think the characters are moral philosophers, and I don't totally blame them because it can be argued that history was on their side. Even now, it's not as simple to make such moral decisions as that cut and dry, but then that could apply to real life too.

And I'm in total agreement. But 2 things: Certainly based on likelyhood it would make a certain amount of sense, even in season 9, to kill a vampire on site--and certainly most of us would go ahead and kill the thing if it was attacking someone, especially one we cared about.

The other thing is, when someone either neglects to consider whether something is morally sound and is in the position to do so, (ie not currently under attack), or when someone knows for a fact that something is majorly flawed from a moral perspective but acts on it anyway, I consider all of that immorality.

Well Buffy went from thinking that any soulless vampire was a monster to well, having feelings for one. Even if Spike is the exception, at least, her world was changing slightly. To be honest, yes, I do think such things should be questioned, but I understand that hesitation can lead to death, especially on the part of the Slayer.

So even if the slayers all got together in light of this vampire reform and decided that it was probably safest for everyone if they took the initiative and killed them anyway, I would have much less of a problem with that than if they didn't question it at all. Or if they decided that though they probably wouldn't be any safer by killing them, they should do it merely because it is their duty, etc. That would also bother me.

Well as I said, we'll have to see how this plays out. I can't chastise a bunch of teenagers who had to adjust to the situation of suddenly dealing with the supernatural, especially when they were taught that vampires were nothing but demons. The Verse, so it seems, continues to change, I can't wait to see how and if the Scoobies adjust now...

But as I said, when have we seen it? With Spike after life changing circumstances and with the help of a chip, and with Harmony, (ie the problem to which I am referring). Before that I think it was clear that they couldn't resist the desire to kill with the exception of an hour or so at a time.

Well we don't have a lot of insight into a lot of vampires. My argument is whether it's possible or not, not how likely it is. We simply know that vampires can control themselves. This, however unpaletable, is canon now.

Again, not saying for sure that they're in the wrong for what they do; they are in the wrong for not considering any of this at all.

I understand, and I agree to a certain degree, but I find it forgiveable. Admittedly, when I first watched, I didn't consider all the moral implications and the Scoobies, seem to react to situations rather than create a robust moral framework. They tended to say "killing humans is bad but killing monsters is ok". I don't find it all that unbelievable that they didn't think about as much as we did, especially when we can rewatch episodes, again and again. In short, yes, they can be criticized for their moral decisions or lack regard for creating a more robust moral framework, but it also makes sense that they wouldn't think about as much as we did.

However, from an outside the show perspective, I don't think the writers really thought about it, so in that respect I 100% agree. It just didn't affect my overall enjoyment of the show. For me it's enough that we as an audience can question these things, I don't need the characters to do it as well.

Few of us are yet most of us accept the notion of arresting the suspicious rather than killing them on the spot.

Well, as I said, if this universe is introduced to individuals and they are told that the creatures they are killing aren't human, it makes sense. What I mean, it makes sense in terms of how certain people may react. Most human individuals who are aware such creatures, are demon hunters, demon hunters who are often pushed to it. Gunn's former gang were a great example. It wasn't a case of killing, because they were different (at least not first) it was about killing to survive.

Totally agree, which is why I don't take issue with killing a vampire when one is attacking. Waiting for it to rise up and killing it immediately, now knowing that it could potentially decide not to harm anyone, is where I take issue. Again, it wasn't a problem when vamps, in my opinion, were depicted very differently from today.

I think this can be explained by the fact the often vampires are disoriented when they are first turned. Many of them are feral and 'animalistic' so it makes sense that a vampire hunter would assume they are going to kill, many if not the majority perhaps do.


The problem is, history. Some would say, would it be prudent to wait until someone is attack before killing the vampire? Especially when we've seen vampires killing many humans.

But for me if he's not the exception, and any vampire if chipped can eventually be moved to seek out their souls and in doing so transform into good people, then I am not ok with killing vampires.

I'm not saying he's not unique, just not necessarily metaphysically unique. Also you mentioned that the vampires now weren't necessarily going through a complete transformation, so both circumstances and instances are different. One wouldn't necessarily undermine the other.



Well the situations are different, so they have different reasons for doing or not doing what they did. Spike's circumstances and motivations were simply different from Harmony's so I never saw it as undermining Spike's journey, it just highlighted that vampires are perhaps not a predictable as we previously thought. It still doesn't mean vampire's psychological disposition is the same as their human predecessors though...

Harmony's story starting in Ats 5 implies that he might not be the exception, and everything that follows. Ergo major issue for me

.



I almost bust a gut trying to work out vampire psychology 😕 😀

Sorry for the massive post, just wanted to add one thing:

I wanted to say, lest I seem hypocritical considering I spend so much of my time on here defending Spike's actions and arguing that he was truly able to do good even before he got his soul, (the very act of doing so being a prime example). While I do think that he is the exception, I was very much bothered that no one questioned this.

I've often questioned it. For me, the issue was what having a soul meant. In simplistic terms, without rationality, it made it difficult to define him as 'good'. If he could also feel love and empathy for humans, then it makes me wonder, what does having a soul mean? It's not me ragging on him, just trying sort it out in my head.

I wanted to say, lest I seem hypocritical considering I spend so much of my time on here defending Spike's actions and arguing that he was truly able to do good even before he got his soul, (the very act of doing so being a prime example). While I do think that he is the exception, I was very much bothered that no one questioned this. I assumed it would happen in season 8 and I actually resisted reading it for a very long time because I was worried that they wouldn't, (and I was right).

I've always questioned it because, I questioned what having a soul really signifies. For example if he was good before he got a soul, why did he need a soul? No one, not even Joss has given me a satisfactory answer. I am starting to believe the writer just didn't think about it that much, even back then.

I'm not saying we need to launch a "vampires are people too" campaign as a result of Spike's journey, but I do think that it needs to be carefully examined and that the person who loves such a vampire yet spends her time killing the rest of them should definitely feel obligated to do so.

Yep I've always said this, but I gives more credence to almost an non-cognitivist approach. I honestly don't think Buffy formulated a truly robust framework in the first place.

If merely for the purpose of telling a great love story, I accept Spike's journey as an exception, and because there were lots of other circumstances surrounding his transformation, I embrace it.

Is it ever fully explained how those circumstance help put into effect his transformation? Mostly it's fans who fil in the gaps, but I still remain a little sceptical.

But when you (the writers) start telling me that other vampires are falling in line with no chip and no love as a motivation, things start to change

.

Things change when you present a vampire as feeling love and empathy towards humans, chip or not. Even if Spike is different, if you can't explain metaphysically why or how much the chip factored into it then arguably Spike was the initial problem, not Harmony.

 

[Buffanator]

My take:

It was Spike's love for Buffy that drove him to seek his soul; however, I maintain that he never would have done so had he not been chipped.

Spike's chip prevented him from harming humans. He would never have hung out with the Scoobies or become somewhat part of their inner circle without it. When he found out he could hurt demons, his demeanor changed. Spike always enjoyed THE KILL. (Angel was more about "the pain"). So even if he couldn't kill humans, at least he could kill SOMETHING. So he "switched teams". Had he gotten the chipectomy like he'd wanted, he would have no doubt gone back to eating/killing humans, and most likely would never have fallen in love with Buffy.

Could other vampires have sought their soul & won it? Well, if one vampire could, it serves to follow that others could, but in simple terms, what reason would they have had to do so? After all, human or demon, we all do what we do FOR A REASON. Right? And vampires, by nature, eat/kill humans - so they - UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES - have no reason to befriend a human or show any "goodness" at all.

On the other hand... (there's always another other hand!) - think about the vampires that used humans as their drug source. They didn't drink until they killed a human. The humans shot up, the vampire drank, got them both high, as Wesley said "quite intoxicating for both of them." So a vampire doesn't necessarily have to kill a person. Just as Angel didn't kill Buffy when he drank from her. But the blood is how they live. And SURVIVAL is the name of the game for any species. (remember when the Mayor threatened any of the vamps that worked for him to NOT drink any of the humans during the graduation raid? - they were obviously afraid of him & pretty much adhered to his rules.)

There's so many ins & outs of the whole good/evil soul/soulless thing, it can't really be contained in one discussion because it's never going to be a black & white issue. Waaaayyyyy too much grey area!! 🙂