Sociopaths and the Soul...

Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
570
Location
WA
This is something that began to confuse me in Buffy season 6, with Warren. Warren was a human, so I guess that meant he had a soul. A soul equals a conscience (right?). Warren was a sociopath, though. Sociopaths have a skewered sense of right and wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that humans and the ensouled in the Buffyverse did evil things. Why was the philosophy of the soul in the 'verse so black and white then?
 
Kana
Kana
Haven't got time to look into this right now but I know I'm going to love this thread
Joan the Vampire Slayer
Joan the Vampire Slayer
Glad you started this thread! I'll be back later...
I suppose souled means there is potential for good, but no soul means definatly evil, thats minus Spike of course, he had a chip. So unsouled demons need a good being killed.
 
There are a lot of people who have souls, but they never activate it. You may know it in the real world as bad people 😉
 
E
Eleftheria
yeah!people who have a soul and know what's wrong but decide to do the bad thing nevertheless
Yep. In the Buffyverse, a creature without a soul necessarily has no conscience, but it doesn't follow that a creature with a soul necessarily has one.
 
In Reprise Holland Manners tells Angel that one thing that unites humanity is not an innate goodness but an innate evil. I think the difference between having a soul and not having one is choice. Without a soul evil just is. The only purpose of that non-souled individual is to serve and attend to their own wants, needs and desires. Conscequences are, well, inconscequential. With a soul though you are hardwired with a moral sensability and can decipher the difference between right and wrong. Being right or wrong means something to you. However, from what I have seen of people is that just because they have a soul and know what is right and what is wrong it doesn't stop them from making the choice to ignore what is right on a moral level in favour of what is right on a personal and selfish level. Simply having a soul isn't enough.
 
Interesting thread! 🙂

I usually tend to ignore these things because I just find that a lot of time I feel 'they' - writers etc - shot themselves in the foot a little bit. In the earlier seasons, particularly S2 with Angelus, they made it that black and white; souled = Angel = good, unsouled = Angelus = evil and then when the show got more complex they never really resolved the issues and the nature of the soul got really, really blurry.

And in simple ways as well as complex ones. Like, did Clem have a soul? Are all demons soulless? Does that mean Anya lost hers when she returned to being a vengeance demon?

I have no answer for this because basically, as I said, I choose not to think about because it makes my brain hurt but I do think a lot of the issues lie in the fact they had established the 'soul' as being and meaning a certain thing in season two and then walked all over it later in the show with no explanation.
 
B
BillyidolwannaB
[No message]
The philosophy in the verse is very black and white. At least SOME characters’ philosophy(let’s not forget that some characters are very open minded and non judging). The average human life is worth a lot more than any demon, vampire or not, to many people.

: You're about as low as it gets, Knox, but you're a part of humanity. That isn't always pretty, but it's a hell of a lot better than what came before. And if it comes down to a choice between you and him, then yes, I would fight for his life, just like any other human's. Because that's what people do. That's what makes us—

/Shells


Angel didn’t want to kill Knox because he’s human, but he has killed lots of demons who did less evil things than destroying a soul, which Knox did. A lot of demons on the show were just hungry and needed to feed on humans, but they were killed without a second thought by our heroes, while humans who act more like monsters get to live.

Very few of the shows “heroes” would value a demon life as high or higher than a human life, even if the demon isn’t proven to be “evil”( evil as in eating and/or hurting humans).

To get to the point; a soul seems to give the possibility of a conscience, in a way that some demon spirits don’t (some species seems to be generally evil, like vampires), but it’s not a warranty. Maybe some souls work differently, there’s different degrees of soul, some are stronger, some are “clouded” or lay dormant because people learn to think more selfishly(sometimes people have to be victims to feel for other victims, and they get “access” to their conscience, or grows one, whatever).

But maybe Warren’s special brand of evil has nothing to do with his soul, or how strong it is. Maybe it’s a chemical “desease” in his brain, making him that way(assuming that nature didn’t intend for us to be sadistic selfish a-holes of course) and his soul is just a s pure as anyone elses.

So yes, it’s very black and white in the verse. Humans “soulowners” vs non human soulowners. Which sucks, because I bet Warren is more evil than a lot of vamps, and lots of demon kinds are kinder than humans.

I suppose souled means there is potential for good, but no soul means definatly evil, thats minus Spike of course, he had a chip. So unsouled demons need a good being killed.

The chip had nothing to do with Spike evilness. It took away his ability to hurt, but not his need/want to hurt.
 
T
ToShanshuInLA
As much as I understood what Angel was trying to do there I'm sooo glad Wesley did what he did.
IMO the writers made things very black and white early on, but then the stories and characters evolved. They'd sort of painted themselves into a corner with the whole soul thing, so they just ignored that fact. Wesley does talk to Gunn about shades of gray in S3 of Angel when his pals are knocking off random demons. I think the show started out very simplistic and they just didn't think about where things would go, as far as the soul/evil thing is concerned.
 
In Reprise Holland Manners tells Angel that one thing that unites humanity is not an innate goodness but an innate evil. I think the difference between having a soul and not having one is choice. Without a soul evil just is. The only purpose of that non-souled individual is to serve and attend to their own wants, needs and desires. Conscequences are, well, inconscequential. With a soul though you are hardwired with a moral sensability and can decipher the difference between right and wrong. Being right or wrong means something to you. However, from what I have seen of people is that just because they have a soul and know what is right and what is wrong it doesn't stop them from making the choice to ignore what is right on a moral level in favour of what is right on a personal and selfish level.
Ok, I can dig this I think. 🙂

Interesting thread! 🙂

I usually tend to ignore these things because I just find that a lot of time I feel 'they' - writers etc - shot themselves in the foot a little bit. In the earlier seasons, particularly S2 with Angelus, they made it that black and white; souled = Angel = good, unsouled = Angelus = evil and then when the show got more complex they never really resolved the issues and the nature of the soul got really, really blurry.
I feel the same.

And in simple ways as well as complex ones. Like, did Clem have a soul? Are all demons soulless? Does that mean Anya lost hers when she returned to being a vengeance demon?
I like to think that Clem had a soul. 😛
And if Anya lost her soul when she returned to being a demon, "Selfless" doesn't make sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom