Should Angel and Spike be held accountable for their soulless actions?

[Dagenspear]

So you're basically giving Angel a free pass for what Angelus did, because 'there is NO humanity in Angelus'? Liam went through the same process of siring as William did, hell, as all vamps did. So if Angelus doesn't have a scrap of humanity in him, that's Liam's fault. Something in his character, him lacking something strong enough to cling on. His fault, his to be blamed, because he wasn't good enough, or whatever. Angel cannot be held to a different standard to Spike.

Angelus and him are not two seperate entities, just him without a conscience and a whole lot of innate vampiric bloodlust. Angelus=Liam+vampiric tendency to mayhem+bloodlust+lack of conscience. Angel=Liam+conscience+bloodlust+whole lotta guilt.

Then how did Angelus remember The Beast, when Angel didn't?

 

[arabella]

Then how did Angelus remember The Beast, when Angel didn't?

Magic? Who knows...maybe it will be explained one day. But he seems to remember other things that happened as Angelus and Spike seems to remember his pre-soul self too.

 

[Dagenspear]

It's just a story... and it's Joss's story. Not the fans...we're just fans.

And without us, he'd still be a hack script doctor. Without us the Whedonverse does not exist, it couldn't exist. We make him. Without us, he's nothing. There would be no ANGEL, FIREFLY, SERENITY, DOLLHOUSE, or DR. HORRIBLE without OUR existence. WE make all that possible. We are so much more important than you give us credit for.

---------- Post added at 10:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 AM ----------

Magic? Who knows...maybe it will be explained one day. But he seems to remember other things that happened as Angelus and Spike seems to remember his pre-soul self too.

But yet somehow, Angel doesn't remember it, but Angelus does.

 

[arabella]

And without us, he'd still be a hack script doctor. Without us the Whedonverse does not exist, it couldn't exist. We make him. Without us, he's nothing. There would be no ANGEL, FIREFLY, SERENITY, DOLLHOUSE, or DR. HORRIBLE without OUR existence. WE make all that possible. We are so much more important than you give us credit for.

---------- Post added at 10:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 AM ----------


But yet somehow, Angel doesn't remember it, but Angelus does.

well they do exist and not because we made them...because Joss & Co. did. And the comics have fans too, so I don't get your point. Just because a part of the fandom is unpopular to some fans doesn't make it any less a part of the fandom.

And that just sounds like on of the many plot holes in the show to me since it is inconsistent with how he remembers other things as Angelus. So, his lack of memory for that one thing and memory for others would need a different explanation to me than it being two different entities since it is not a consistent point.

 

[Dagenspear]

well they do exist and not because we made them...because Joss & Co. did. And the comics have fans too, so I don't get your point. Just because a part of the fandom is unpopular to some fans doesn't make it any less a part of the fandom.

I meant us, the fans, as a whole, together. Without us Joss never would've been able to create those shows. Because BUFFY being so popular with us, the fans, Joss simply wouldn't have had the resources or noteriety at his disposal to create those other shows.

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------

And that just sounds like on of the many plot holes in the show to me since it is inconsistent with how he remembers other things as Angelus. So, his lack of memory for that one thing and memory for others would need a different explanation to me than it being two different entities since it is not a consistent point.

Jasmine erased all evidence of The Beast, including memories. Now, if Angel and Angelus were the same entity, then erasing Angel's memory of The Beast would also erase Angelus' memory of him. But, it didn't. Which proves that Angel and Angelus are two seperate minds. How else would that be possible?

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Again, you may believe that the chip had no effect on Spike, but think it had a huge impact on his journey and his decision to get a soul. I never saw any evidence that would imply that Spike would have suggested that Spike would have wanted a soul had it not been for the chip.

I agree. As much as I love Spike and want to believe that he would have somehow "gotten there" without the chip as a catalyst and the underlying humanity which was key to allowing that chip to mean something more than just a handicap, I really don't see any indication that it would have been possible.
If we say that, were the chip never implanted, Spike really could have done good things or had any good inclinations, then the obvious question is "why didn't he do it earlier?" At which point we have to judge Spike unfavorably for not realizing sooner that he could do good, simply because he had inherent inclinations to do so.

So yeah, the chip was a key element. It's not such a wild concept to accept, either. Sometimes, in life, we need some sort of catalyst to get us to realize who we can be, or what we really are. It can take a long time, but people can change for the better, given the right circumstances and a whole heck of a lot of integrity.
That being said, I don't think a chipped Angelus would have made remotely the same kind of progress, due to his lack of underlying humanity.

 

[PassionBecoming]

I haven't yet read anyone's reply, so in a nutshell I will say:

Ensouled Spike and Angel should not be held accountable for the actions Spike and Angelous perform while not having a soul. Basically, Angel and Spike with souls are accountable for their actions with souls; Angelus and Spike without souls are accountable for their actions.

That said, I don't believe that just because one has a soul/doesn't have a soul automatically makes their actions good/bad.

 

[Willow My Love]

No, but that doesn't mean people won't hold their actions against them. It's hard to forgive someone once they've done the things that Angelus and pre-soul Spike did. Giles didn't trust Angel, and Xander didn't trust Spike, and I completely understand why.

When they don't have souls, they're inherently evil. Even if they don't want to be, or don't at as such, they're still evil. Once they get their souls, they're still vampires, but I don't feel they're as evil... Like Buffy and Riley said, there's different levels of evil.

That doesn't mean everyone should just forget what they did when they were soulless, however. There are people with souls that are evil human beings. You never really know how someone's going to be.

To summarize, no, they're not really accountable, but still, be cautious.

 

[Skytteflickan88]

I won't read the entire thread, but if anyone wants to reply to anything I wrote in the Sawn thread, feel free. I'll just answer what was written to me in that thread.

[MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION]

The way that I was taught chemistry half a century ago, elements remain the same, unless transmuted by something like nuclear reaction. Combining those elements in different proportions produce compounds with specific properties, but the base elements themselves remain the same. Hydrogen and oxygen remain hydrogen and oxygen even when combined to create water.

And it has been established in canon that, while Angelus was the typical vampire, incapable of any tender emotion, Spike was perfectly capable of love and a sense of loyalty.

(And, to The Chosen Slayer, please accept my apologies for dragging your thread so far off course. It's a weakness of mine, and I am really trying to do better.)

I guess I didn't explain it well (could be because it wasn't a favourite subject) but yes, you description of the process sounds better. Still works for my metaphor though. Works very well in fact.

Angel is Angel, which is Angelus+a soul. It's a new object, or whatever one should call it, but it's still Angelus in the mix. I just think that you can't say Angel and Angelus the same, since you can't call just oxygen water. If you get what I mean. It's not the best way to describe it.

I guess I'm repeating myself, but I think that if it's not the same "ingredients", so it shouldn't be called the same dish(yes, we moved from the chem lab to the kitchen).

That last paragraph was at the very least tongue in cheek, if not downright sarcastic towards the many detractors of the present entertainment industry, not any sort of personal attack.

I knew it was more of a general comment, I just had to stand up for my beloved popculture.

[MENTION=7924]InsaneMystic[/MENTION]

I hate that so many people get away with rape by saying "I was drunk". I wish we had some law against "willfull intoxication", because then I think that people charged of rape twice will be asked the question "Last time you drank this much you also forced yourself on someone. So why did you drink again?".

But that's another thread.

The "overdramatic" part is a minor aspect. Much more important is that she completely takes Xander's (of all people... he never liked Spike, and has a well known history of hotheaded, gut-level judgmentalness) snap remark and runs with it, without asking Spike's or (we can quite safely assume) Buffy's account of the situation. That's not a mature reaction to me, at all.

While I do agree that maybe making sure would be better, but we don't know if Dawn didn't ask Xander for more questions. I can imagine that Dawn might have mentioned Spike to Buffy during the summer and noticed Buffy feeling ashamed or something. Then she might have read some about Spike's deeds in the past and assumed Xander was right.

But even if you're right, I wouldn't take it as a sign of immaturity. Better safe than sorry. Which probably is because I have very little empathy for serial killers, which Dawn thought he was, not knowing about the soul. Sounds healthy to threaten Spike from time to time, so he keeps in line 🙂

 

[Dagenspear]

it started as a movie, then it's creator moved it to TV, then it's creator moved it to comics...if he decides to move it to novel form next then it is his creation and he dictates it's journey. Whoever creates a concept decides what is relevant to th

Wasn't Buffy older in the movie though? How can that be canon?

And you give Joss entirely too much power.

 

[white avenger]

Wasn't Buffy older in the movie though? How can that be canon?

And you give Joss entirely too much power.

The movie itself, as it was released, is not canon. Joss did write a comic book based on his original screen play, that is canon. It's a 3 part miniseries and is, apparently, no longer available from TFAW,

 

[arabella]

And you give Joss entirely too much power.

It's his fandom, Dag. You're just a fan. So am I. I don't feel self-important as a fan because I made no creative contribution to this or any other fandom. I just gave it my money. We're consumers, not creators. My opinion is just that, an opinion.

 

[Dagenspear]

It's his fandom, Dag. You're just a fan. So am I. I don't feel self-important as a fan because I made no creative contribution to this or any other fandom. I just gave it my money. We're consumers, not creators. My opinion is just that, an opinion.

And therefore means nothing, right? Is that really what you think we, as fans, deserve? To mean nothing to them, but money in their pockets? Don't you think we deserve more respect than that?

 

[arabella]

And therefore means nothing, right? Is that really what you think we, as fans, deserve? To mean nothing to them, but money in their pockets? Don't you think we deserve more respect than that?

I don't think we *deserve* anything...we aren't entitled. I don't feel disrespected in my role as a consumer of media, why would I? If I don't like a product, then I don't buy it (or watch it). This is very off topic though, and I have no intention of continuing it in this thread. If you'd like to discuss it, then open a new thread.

Back to Spike, Angel, and responsibility.

 

[dexeded]

And therefore means nothing, right? Is that really what you think we, as fans, deserve? To mean nothing to them, but money in their pockets? Don't you think we deserve more respect than that?

Just oooone last off-topic post from me to respond to the above quote.

Is your stance that the comics aren't considered canon because as consumers, the people who make the franchise successful, we should be given better material than what's in the comics? Then does that mean that you disregard whatever you detest in the TV show itself as canon? Also, if you go by that logic, fans all have different opinions on what they like or do not like--how would you go about knowing what is canon, and what is not, in that case?

Or is your stance that because S8 is in comic form and not on TV that you can disregard it as canon? In that case, I don't see why the medium matters. Not everyone thinks that comics are a 'fifth rate medium' like you said. What matters is that the story is being continued by the creator of the series, who says that its official. (Again, if you think that you as a fan deserve more than the 'sub-rate' season 8, some fans actually like it, so you wouldn't be able to know what was canon if some accept it and some don't.)

-feels bad for continuing the off-track responses. Then again, I was the OP of the thread itself...-

 

[Kana]

Interestingly enough I created a similar thread here.

And I focused the conversation specifically on how we should judge soulledSpike and Angel here.

To reiterate the main points that I feel are relevent to this thread:

What Does It Mean for Angel and Spike’s Redemption

I’m one of the few people who aren’t bothered by Spike and Angel’s redemption because under either theory it’s at least a little problematic. Under Theory 1 (that the soul is the spirit) it’s virtually totally brainless. If Angel knows the truth, (that the soul and the demon are separate) then he’s an idiotic masochist, either that or he’s simply mistaken and from his perspective he can’t tell the difference.

Even under theory 2(that the soul is a conscience), it’s still a little odd to make up for your misdeeds from when you didn’t have a conscience. It implies you should be blamed for not listening to a conscience you don’t have???????? What the soul gives you, keeping in mind Spike’s apparent guilt without a soul, seems so mysterious that it hardly seems right to judge them morally, or at least not in the same way as one would if they had a soul and if it doesn’t make a difference? Why all the fuss about having one or going out to get one? To me, the concept of redemption under theory 2 doesn’t make much more sense, it’s merely little less senseless.

 

[sisterofmercy]

If an animal is soulless then it lacks a rational capacity and so cannot govern its actions properly. Obviously, in the case of vampires it's a bit different as they have been shown in various vampire films/tv shows that they can reason almost objectively (such as Angelus being so meticulous about Jenny's death) so it's a little more difficult. However, I think the vampiric desire to kill and feed must override any other rational capacity they have so they can't think through their actions (the struggle between desire and reason was quite well illustrated in Spike when he was being controlled by the First), so in that sense I don't think they should be held accountable for their actions.

I wish I could write my dissertation on this, it lends itself rather well to philosophy.

 

[Dagenspear]

Just oooone last off-topic post from me to respond to the above quote.

Is your stance that the comics aren't considered canon because as consumers, the people who make the franchise successful, we should be given better material than what's in the comics? Then does that mean that you disregard whatever you detest in the TV show itself as canon? Also, if you go by that logic, fans all have different opinions on what they like or do not like--how would you go about knowing what is canon, and what is not, in that case?

Or is your stance that because S8 is in comic form and not on TV that you can disregard it as canon? In that case, I don't see why the medium matters. Not everyone thinks that comics are a 'fifth rate medium' like you said. What matters is that the story is being continued by the creator of the series, who says that its official. (Again, if you think that you as a fan deserve more than the 'sub-rate' season 8, some fans actually like it, so you wouldn't be able to know what was canon if some accept it and some don't.)

It's below them medium it was originally presented, so therefore is its own canon, and not apart of the TV series. Much like the movie is its own.

 

[Kana]

If an animal is soulless then it lacks a rational capacity and so cannot govern its actions properly. Obviously, in the case of vampires it's a bit different as they have been shown in various vampire films/tv shows that they can reason almost objectively (such as Angelus being so meticulous about Jenny's death) so it's a little more difficult.

Absolutely, it's difficult to label vampires as 'amoral' in that respect. Vampire indeed do understand morality on an intellectual level, which is why many of them label themselves as evil. It's their emotional response to such actions that differ from humans.

However, I think the vampiric desire to kill and feed must override any other rational capacity they have so they can't think through their actions (the struggle between desire and reason was quite well illustrated in Spike when he was being controlled by the First), so in that sense I don't think they should be held accountable for their actions.

The problem is they can think through their actions. Spike under the First would be a different matter as he had little or indeed no control over his actions. I'd wager it may also affect his sense of self preservation as well. However vampires under their own will can refrain if it suits their purposes, even without a soul, as seen with soulless/chipped Spike and Harmony.

I think it's the emotional reaction to such deeds that really drive the vampire. Both Anne and Penn noted that they no longer find such acts as being cruel or killing to be repugnant. I think this psychological change and the observence of vampire behaviour is enough for me to be wary of judging them by the same rules as soulled humans. The soul clearly has a profound effect when making what we would describe as a moral decision.

The problem also becomes if we argue that the soul isn't as much of a big deal when we have Buffy killing a bunch of sentient beings who may be capable of being reformed. The way I look at it, you can't have it both ways.

At the very least the nature of the soul is so opaque that I cannot blame Spike or Angel for their soulless deeds without fully understanding what soul provides them in terms of making moral decisions. In turn, I can't even fully praise Spike for soulless 'good' deeds and that includes getting a soul. It has to work both ways!

I wish I could write my dissertation on this, it lends itself rather well to philosophy.[/QUOTE]

 

[SlayerFest]

Er, Angel was a good person? He wasn't an evil person, per se, but I wouldn't say he was good, what with the whoring around and drunkenness. Still, that's just nit-picking, so...

Whoring around and being a drunk does not make one a bad person, it makes one an irresponsible person. That's like telling a teenager who skips class and gets drunk every weekend instead of studying that they're bad person. Making good choices, doesn't make one a good person. A sociopath who uses everyone in their life to better themselves can hold a steady job, have a wife and kids, be witty and charismatic, etc. but if their intentions are bad, well, then they are bad...in my opinion.

Angel/Liam made some bad choices but he was by no means a bad person. He was just irresponsible, but he cared about his family and he really only wanted his father's approval...but he felt that nothing he ever was good enough, so maybe that led to the drinking/whoring around.