Spike, Angel, Souls, and Responsibility

[zobothehobo]

Something that has bothered me a lot since entering this fandom is there seems to be two options for viewing Spike and Angel and their responsibility for soulless and soulful actions. I reject this dichotomy, and never understood why it has to be there.

The two options as presented by the fandom are either you hold Spike and Angel equally responsible for everything done soulless and not, or you hold Spike and Angel equally not responsible for everything done soulless, and equally responsible soulful. If you do not do one of these two things, you are considered (and called in very rude ways) a hypocrite. But I think this is missing something. If you choose to hold Spike and Angel responsible for their soulless actions, you must still also take into account that they are soulless (or rather I guess you *can* still take it into account... you can do whatever you want). Their lack of soul gives them a distinct disadvantage to making morally good decisions. They cannot be judged on the exact same plane as their soulful counterparts because the moral worth of a soulless being is diferent of that of a soulful being. It is not properly defined in the text of the show as to what that means, but there is a clear difference. However, noting that there's a difference doesn't mean you have to throw out everything that happened or everything that character did. If we did that, the only Spike we would have would be the final season of both shows. That's not fair. Spike's character meant something in the previous seasons.

For me, I think a better way to look at it is that soulless beings being morally good means more than soulless beings being morally bad. I would personally go as far to say soulless beings being morally good means more than soulful beings being morally good.

I guess I'm just resentful and confused because I've been called a hypocrite and my thoughts, opinions, and feelings have been completely thrown out by almost everybody because it doesn't fit into this dichotomy that I view as false. It's no secret Spike is my favorite character (of all time). And it's also no secret I hold him more responsible for the good things he does while soulless than the bad. People seem to overlook though that I do hold him responsible for the bad. (NOTE: I'm using people to be a general fandom people, not people on this board..) My arguments and discussions get thrown out as me being a "little Spike fangirl" who idolizes her favorite character and ignores all negative things about him. But that's not even remotely true. If Angel had done good things without his soul, I'd give him credit for those too. I'm not hypocritical. I see a difference between doing things with a soul and doing things without one. Good things without a soul mean more than good things with a soul, and they mean more than bad things without one. Because your natural tendency and makeup without a soul is not inclined to be able to make 'good' decisions. So the 'good' actions of a character without a soul are more important. If Angel had done them too, I'd treat him that way.

The way I see it both vampires are responsible for everything they did while soulless, but they are (much) less responsible for the bad things, since they lack a soul. Doing good without a soul goes against the very nature of everything, and therefore it means more. As I'm working my way back into the fandom due to a rewatch with my best friend, I find myself more and more frustrated with why this kind of logic is so not accepted by the fandom, that it's never even brought up. Do we have to be so black and white about this topic? I just really feel the nature of the topic requires us to see in the grey.

 

[Blaze]

I very much see your point. I'm not one of those person that chooses either vampire over the other either. I just about equally like Spike and Angel. And I do believe that Spike's good actions while being soulless meant something. Even Joss said Spike was different because he could still feel love (or a reminiscent of what love is) as a vampire.

I think the really big problem is actually a mistake the writers made by having Spike attempt to rape Buffy, which negates pretty much any good deed he tried to accomplish earlier. Had Spike never attempted to rape Buffy, I guaranty more people would probably be on your side.

Because of Spike's actions in Seeing Red and Angel's actions in s2, I'm part of the group that believes a vampire without a soul is not responsible for their actions and they become a different man entirely when they regain their soul. I also believe that Angel and Spike should be judge on the same ground (this mostly comes from the fact that some people really are biased in their opinions of Angel or Spike)

That being said, again, I also kind of believe that a vampire that is able to do good while not having a soul is certainly special. I would include a few vampires in that category actually; Spike, Harmony (s5 of Angel), and that guy that Buffy fought in s7 that gave her advice. All those vampires had something special that didn't quite make them the monsters all the other vampires were. They most certainly were still monsters, but just maybe to a lesser extent.

 

[Robb Stark]

I see what you mean, it's a case I've seen a few times before, and there are aspects of it I agree with and aspects of it I don't.

To start with, I hold neither vampire truly accountable for what they did without souls. I know not everyone thinks that way, but I find that otherwise, we're rooting for serial killers and rapists, and a viewer, I get a little uncomfortable with that. The question I normally ask myself on the topic is would the souled versions of Angel and Spike commit the acts that their soulless counterparts did? Unequivocally, the answer is no, they wouldn't. Why? Because both of them are good people. They're both heroes. They didn't choose to become vampires, and it was the demon who did what they did. Now obviously, there is some grey there (Spike's personality remaining relatively similar with and without a soul), but for the most part, I like my theory a lot and it works for me.

I hear what you're saying about Spike, but I disagree with the notion that he should get more credit for the good he did without a soul. It's a paradox scenario. If Spike does good because it's good without a soul, then he knows the difference between right and wrong and should therefore not do bad things. The other way of looking at it is that Spike does good things not because it's the right thing to do, but because of ulterior motives, namely Buffy. Now clearly, there are instances where Spike without a soul does altruistic things without the immediate possibility of sex with Buffy and yeah, that should be taken into account as well. But for the vast majority of his time without a soul he does good because he wants to impress Buffy or out of other self-interest (staying away from The Initiative). There's nothing noble or special about that. He does things as a means to an end, just as he did to impress Drusilla.

He acts decently by staying in Sunnydale after Buffy's death and protecting Dawn, and there's no real way to look at that as anything but nobility. However, as soon as Buffy is resurrected he reverts right back to his horrendous ways. He is absolutely heinous to Buffy in S6, and for a guy who is supposedly "going against his nature", I really don't see a lot of that.

This isn't meant to knock Spike. I like Spike. He and Angel are my favorite characters in the Buffyverse. But I do think that, at times, some fans get a little blind to his clear faults without a soul, and really tend to romanticize him and look at his situation with rose-tinted glasses. After S6 though, you'll never hear my say Spike isn't a hero. He's one of the best. Before that though, he was a monster. A complicated one for certain, but a monster all the same.

 

[brinkster130]

I've always felt like the show set up the whole soul/soulless debate to be a fairly black and white issue; although what the writers did with a couple of the characters has really opened the door for a grey area.

My biggest concerns with the grey area are: If a soulless vampire has the ability to actively choose to be good, then wouldn't that make their decision to be bad much worse? And, why would so many (vamps, humans, slayers, watcher etc.) believe that vampires do not have this capability? Also, if vampires do have the ability to choose to be good without a soul, wouldn't that make Buffy (as well as all the slayers and watchers) morally wrong with their kill all vampires no questions asked policy?

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=10582]brinkster130[/MENTION]

Also, if vampires do have the ability to choose to be good without a soul, wouldn't that make Buffy (as well as all the slayers and watchers) morally wrong with their kill all vampires no questions asked policy?

No. Slayers hunt vampires because they are vampires. Whether they can commit good or evil acts, whether they have a soul or remain soulless is irrelevant. Those who died deserve to rest, it's the natural order of things, there's nothing morally wrong about upholding it.

Imagine that vampires are not evil and/or that nobody hunts them. How long will the humanity survive? Live forever, never get sick, never get old - who wouldn't want to become a vampire? It takes some time, maybe even centuries but in the end all that's left on the planet are vampires and pigs. The human race is annihilated.

 

[Blaze]

Also, if vampires do have the ability to choose to be good without a soul, wouldn't that make Buffy (as well as all the slayers and watchers) morally wrong with their kill all vampires no questions asked policy?

This made me think of my anthropology classes. For example, why is it morally right to murder cow and pig for food. The easy answer is that it is embedded in our culture. Why is it that we can eat cow and not our family dog. Again. simply because in our culture (speaking about my own here but it's the same principle for any culture), the pet is considered family and it would be morally wrong to kill it. In some cultures, it's even acceptable to eat members of different cultures, and it's not considered cannibalism because those other cultures are not "part of the human race". It's the same with vampires, whether they have a soul or not. Bottom line is, killing something good doesn't make it morally wrong, the culture is what enforces things to be accepted as right or wrong. So in this case, if vampires were still considered "bad" even if they could do good, Buffy would not be morally wrong for killing them.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I dont see the two as the same. With Angel you have two very different characters, one is evil, one is good there is a huge difference between the two. Even with the huge difference between the two he holds himself responsible for the acts of Angelus, there's always the arguments that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions because they didn't have a soul, but the entire point of accountability is Angels mission.

The idea of forgiving the character for their actions, only really applies to Spike, and is used to excuse Spikes actions. It's all well and good to say you'd praise Angelus for the good things he'd do, but that doesn't matter because he doesn't do good things and wouldn't.

Spike is conditioned from bad to good, Angel has a separation between him and Angelus, Spike doesn't, so it should be if he can be praised for good things, he should be held accountable for the bad, why should the two be separate when his character grew to be a good guy and was never separate. It's not even really the early season 4/5 stuff he gets held accountable for, it's the season 6 stuff when he's at the height of his "growth".

I would personally go as far to say soulless beings being morally good means more than soulful beings being morally good.

I agree with that, but that doesn't apply to Spike.
Firstly he was conditioned, he didn't choose to be good. He was implanted with a chip that hurt him when he did bad. Thats a conditioning procedure, same as a dog barking collar that zaps the dog when it barks. It's not natural evolution, inspired by love or a choice, it's behavioral modification.
Secondly he wasn't morally good, he starting doing good so that he could get food, shelter and money, he later did good to win points with Buffy and then to get in her pants. The first thing he does that wasn't about Buffy was sacrifice himself in Chosen, the early season 7 Spike, would have taken off the amulet after Buffy said I love you that would have been everything to him, he had saved the day and gotten the girl but (IN MY OPINION) he knew she was just saying it to reward him, and he stayed to actually save the world, not just to save Buffy. He then goes on to do a lot more good in Angel, that wasn't because of Buffy (inspired maybe, but it wasn't to win her over)

The only person that that statement applies to is Harmony, she chose to be good in a way Angelus and Spike never would have and was somewhat successful, but unlike Spike she didn't have a chip to keep her in place so she slipped.

 

[Blaze]

The idea of forgiving the character for their actions, only really applies to Spike, and is used to excuse Spikes actions. It's all well and good to say you'd praise Angelus for the good things he'd do, but that doesn't matter because he doesn't do good things and wouldn't.

I'm going to disagree with this. A lot of people on this board, including me, and including the characters in BtVS forgive Angel for his actions. I think it definitely applies to Angel too. Yes Angel holds himself accountable and there's the whole redemption storyline, but the others still forgive Angel, and people from the fandom forgives him.

Spike is conditioned from bad to good, Angel has a separation between him and Angelus, Spike doesn't, so it should be if he can be praised for good things, he should be held accountable for the bad, why should the two be separate when his character grew to be a good guy and was never separate. It's not even really the early season 4/5 stuff he gets held accountable for, it's the season 6 stuff when he's at the height of his "growth".

Also, I agree that Spike was conditioned, but conditioning doesn't remove the evilness in Spike, it simply removes to a certain extent the behaviour. To me, that's just another reason to not hold spike responsible for is actions as Spike soulless, as the evilness in him was still there, he simply learnt to control it, it doesn't mean that it won't come out at a certain point. Just like a dog can go without barking for years and then realise that he can in fact still bark. I wouldn't blame my dog if it tried to bark again, it's in his nature, but I would encourage good behaviour. Spike might have been conditioned but the good in him is still good, and it's still a positive feature, that being said just like I would with my dog, I still don't hold him accountable for wanting to bark, or in this case for Spike wanting to bite.

Also, to me the conditioning of Spike was only to a certain extent. The Spike we see in the s6 premiere is more than just some vamp that was conditioned, he shows emotions and feelings that could not possibly be caused by the chip. And on top he has no ulterior motives because Buffy is dead, therefore he's definitely not trying to get with her.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I'm going to disagree with this. A lot of people on this board, including me, and including the characters in BtVS forgive Angel for his actions. I think it definitely applies to Angel too. Yes Angel holds himself accountable and there's the whole redemption storyline, but the others still forgive Angel, and people from the fandom forgives him.

Yeah but I'd think a large part of that is because he doesn't forgive himself, whereas Spike had no problem waving off killing Woods mom just cuz he was a vampire.

Also, I agree that Spike was conditioned, but conditioning doesn't remove the evilness in Spike, it simply removes to a certain extent the behaviour. To me, that's just another reason to not hold spike responsible for is actions as Spike soulless, as the evilness in him was still there, he simply learnt to control it, it doesn't mean that it won't come out at a certain point. Just like a dog can go without barking for years and then realise that he can in fact still bark. I wouldn't blame my dog if it tried to bark again, it's in his nature, but I would encourage good behaviour. Spike might have been conditioned but the good in him is still good, and it's still a positive feature, that being said just like I would with my dog, I still don't hold him accountable for wanting to bark, or in this case for Spike wanting to bite.

Also, to me the conditioning of Spike was only to a certain extent. The Spike we see in the s6 premiere is more than just some vamp that was conditioned, he shows emotions and feelings that could not possibly be caused by the chip. And on top he has no ulterior motives because Buffy is dead, therefore he's definitely not trying to get with her.

I agree that all of his good wasn't down to conditioning, just that he conditioning started his good progression, not him wanting to be good. The fact he evolved to be able to be good makes all the bad he did while "good" much worse, if it was just conditioning he wouldn't be responsible.

Yeah but again in season 6 he was protecting Dawn because its what Buffy would have wanted, not because he wanted to do good. He stays in with Dawn when the demons attack, he doesn't go out and try and stop the demons, swap Buffy into that scenario and there's no way she'd have stayed inside.

 

[white avenger]

I have always said that whatever rule we apply to one vampire should apply to both. Either Angel is responsible for everything that Angelus did, and should answer for those crimes, or the Spike who tried to rape Buffy in Season 6 is not the same vampire who we saw in Season 7, and shouldn't be judged by hie presoul actions. You can't have one set of rules for Angel and another for Spike. Either Angel murdered Jenny Calendar and should answer for it, or the Spike who returned to Sunnydale with a soul in Season 7 is NOT the same vampire who tried to rape Buffy the season before, and shouldn't be judged for it.

 

[Blaze]

Yeah but I'd think a large part of that is because he doesn't forgive himself, whereas Spike had no problem waving off killing Woods mom just cuz he was a vampire.

I agree that all of his good wasn't down to conditioning, just that he conditioning started his good progression, not him wanting to be good. The fact he evolved to be able to be good makes all the bad he did while "good" much worse, if it was just conditioning he wouldn't be responsible.

Very good points. I agree that him being able to do good does make his bad actions somewhat worst because he is shown to be able to restrain himself from doing said bad actions. And to be fair, the only awful action he committed while "being good" is attempting to rape Buffy. Now obviously I think it's awful (in fact worst then the killings either him or Angel did) but at that point the relationship was so poisoned and abusive (on both side I must add) that in Spike's head, as a vampire, he didn't understand why the relationship was bad. Him and Buffy had played that little "beat me up before sex game" for so long that he couldn't understand that what he was doing was bad. It's almost as if in that specific case, he was conditioned to do bad, into thinking sex was synonym of love in their relationship and therefore tried to make her feel it again (not blaming Buffy at all here, the victim should never be blamed). Obviously, any human would understand how wrong that is, but his lack of soul definitely plays a part here. Because of that, and the fact that he was still a vampire, I still can't hold him responsible for his actions.

I also believe, which regards to Spike not feeling responsible for his killings soulless, that it would have been nice if they would have shown him having at least some type of remorse like Angel did. But again, because I don't entitle his actions soulless to his self with a soul, I don't think he had to have remorse to show his evolution as a character. It worked well for Angel but Spike's path was also acceptable.

 

[white avenger]

I also believe, which regards to Spike not feeling responsible for his killings soulless, that it would have been nice if they would have shown him having at least some type of remorse like Angel did. But again, because I don't entitle his actions soulless to his self with a soul, I don't think he had to have remorse to show his evolution as a character. It worked well for Angel but Spike's path was also acceptable.

Quite possibly, the very reason that Spike didn't grieve, mope, and brood as much as Angel was that the writers and Joss wanted him to NOT be a smaller, blond edition of Angel. What Spike did presoul was wrong, and he accepts that. His statement to Wood about his mother, "She was a Slayer, I was a vampire. That's the way the game's played," illustrates that quite well. Maybe referring to what he did in the bad old days as a game was something of a stretch, but the Slayer vs vampire dynamic WAS like that, until Buffy changed it with Angel and later with Spike himself.

Angel chose to brood and belabor himself for the actions of his evil counterpart, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Spike, on the other hand, chose to get on with the business at hand, with one very significant exception. Undoubtedly, he still felt regret for his attempted rape of Buffy. And, once more, there's nothing really wrong with that/

Two vampires, distinctly different, handle a similar situation in two distinctly different ways, which, to me at least, makes perfect sense.

 

[Robb Stark]

I have always said that whatever rule we apply to one vampire should apply to both. Either Angel is responsible for everything that Angelus did, and should answer for those crimes, or the Spike who tried to rape Buffy in Season 6 is not the same vampire who we saw in Season 7, and shouldn't be judged by hie presoul actions. You can't have one set of rules for Angel and another for Spike. Either Angel murdered Jenny Calendar and should answer for it, or the Spike who returned to Sunnydale with a soul in Season 7 is NOT the same vampire who tried to rape Buffy the season before, and shouldn't be judged for it.

Completely agreed. However, if you go with the theory that they're two separate entities with and without a soul, then why does Spike routinely get praised by some fans for the good he does without a soul (when it's abundantly clear he's acting out of pure self-interest most of the time), and by the same fans not held to account for the bad he does? Many people brush off the stuff he does in S6. If Spike and Spike-us are different as Angel and Angelus are different (and I believe they are), then why the love fest?

Two vampires, distinctly different, handle a similar situation in two distinctly different ways, which, to me at least, makes perfect sense.

Me too. Very well said.

 

[TotallySpiked]

The way I see it, and how I mentioned it in another post, Spike and Angel are very different vampires and they deal with situations very differently- and so they should. Just because they're both vampires doesn't mean they will react the same way to the same situations.
When Angel got his soul back, he chose to feel guilty about the things he did Angelus because he felt responsible for it- the demon was in his body; using his body to do those things- if he hadn't of been a vampire, then none of those heinous acts would have occurred.
Spike on the other hand acknowledges that his body was the one who carried out those acts, but he does not accept responsibility for them because he didn't do it. Spike with a soul did not do those things. He differentiates himself from soulless Spike.

Angel and Spike see things differently and who's to say which one is right. We all have our own views and opinions.
I have my own way of seeing the difference between them, just like they see it differently themselves.
I don't discount any of the things either of them did without a soul, but do I hold them responsible for it when they get their souls back? No. Why? Because neither of them would have done those things if they had the choice. I also choose to see the good in people and would rather focus on those things as opposed to all the negative.

Question for you all; if you were a vampire; you had no soul, you had no conscience and in turn, had no morals, would you hold yourself responsible for it all if you got your soul back?

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I have always said that whatever rule we apply to one vampire should apply to both. Either Angel is responsible for everything that Angelus did, and should answer for those crimes, or the Spike who tried to rape Buffy in Season 6 is not the same vampire who we saw in Season 7, and shouldn't be judged by hie presoul actions. You can't have one set of rules for Angel and another for Spike. Either Angel murdered Jenny Calendar and should answer for it, or the Spike who returned to Sunnydale with a soul in Season 7 is NOT the same vampire who tried to rape Buffy the season before, and shouldn't be judged for it.

If that we're the case and this was a discussion of love, then the argument would be "Oh Spike was a different vampire, he was special and capable of love, Joss has said it" - so why if thats the case when it comes to good, when it's bad it's "you have to treat Angel the same way", no you don't, Spike was different, if you want to use the Spike is different point, that incorporates the bad.

Question for you all; if you were a vampire; you had no soul, you had no conscience and in turn, had no morals, would you hold yourself responsible for it all if you got your soul back?

Yes, Vampires are part of the person they take over, they aren't a completely foreign thing put into the person, if they were, Angelus wouldn't have wanted to kill Liams family so much and Vampire Willow wouldn't have been gay. They are still a part of the person, everything they do the souled versions remembers doing with their own hands. It should at least be difficult to get over that.

We as viewers know that Vampires and Slayers fight, and thats just how it goes, but for spike to say that to the son of the person who he murdered is kinda horrific, if it had been another character it would have been a much bigger deal. He couldn't even show empathy to another character cuz him being "good" has never been about being good, its about Buffy.

 

[white avenger]

If that we're the case and this was a discussion of love, then the argument would be "Oh Spike was a different vampire, he was special and capable of love, Joss has said it" - so why if thats the case when it comes to good, when it's bad it's "you have to treat Angel the same way", no you don't, Spike was different, if you want to use the Spike is different point, that incorporates the bad.



He couldn't even show empathy to another character cuz him being "good" has never been about being good, its about Buffy.

Whether or not one man is capable of love and the other isn't really doesn't have any bearing in how the two men are judged in general. Either hold both vampires responsible for what they did without souls, or say that having souls means that neither man can be penalized for what they did before getting their souls. Just measure both by the same standard.

And as for Spike's cared less about doing good than about impressing Buffy, well, just how much of a champion was Angel before Whistler recruited him? He saved some sailors in a submarine, but only because he was given no choice by the Initiative. And he helped the girl in the hotel mostly to just get her out of his hair, then left her and all of the other hotel residents, the girl included, locked in the hotel to be tortured by a demon.

Face it, everything that we could judge as being good was because of Buffy. If that somehow belittles what Spike did to help in Sunnydale, then the same thing should apply to Angel. Neithervampire, as far as we know, ever went out of their way to help anyone until after meeting her.

 

[zobothehobo]

I The idea of forgiving the character for their actions, only really applies to Spike, and is used to excuse Spikes actions. It's all well and good to say you'd praise Angelus for the good things he'd do, but that doesn't matter because he doesn't do good things and wouldn't.

I'm not sure that's fair. I know Angelus wouldn't do something morally good. But my point is I'd treat his good deeds if he ever were to do them the same way I treat Spike's. Just because Angelus wouldn't do that doesn't mean I am automatically a hypocrite. Nor does it mean decisions in judging either one of them should be made separately. Because yes, they are very different... however, they are very similar. Their circumstances are similar and, therefore, you cannot create criteria to judge one and not hold the other to the same standards.

I mean, I wouldn't murder somebody. Does that mean there should not be any sort of rule for "if I do"? My circumstances are similar to people who might murder others... and, therefore, there has to be a rule for all of us. The law isn't going to say that we can't murder unless we wouldn't and then we can do it if we want, but we wouldn't because we wouldn't. It's going to say "You cannot murder anyone."

Spike is conditioned from bad to good, Angel has a separation between him and Angelus, Spike doesn't, so it should be if he can be praised for good things, he should be held accountable for the bad, why should the two be separate when his character grew to be a good guy and was never separate. It's not even really the early season 4/5 stuff he gets held accountable for, it's the season 6 stuff when he's at the height of his "growth".

I agree with that, but that doesn't apply to Spike.
Firstly he was conditioned, he didn't choose to be good. He was implanted with a chip that hurt him when he did bad. Thats a conditioning procedure, same as a dog barking collar that zaps the dog when it barks. It's not natural evolution, inspired by love or a choice, it's behavioral modification.

He is soulless. Morally good behavior goes against his very nature. Of course it has to be conditioned! And there reached a point where he did choose to be good. May I remind you, he chose his soul. He did not have it cursed upon him. And you can spout about why, but bottom line is he chose to do it. That was a morally good act, BEYOND morally good... beyond the moral 'goodness' of any vampire who has ever come before him. And he chose it. Also... did he not choose to help Buffy, at the end of season 2? Again, you cay say "JUST FOR DRU" but 1. Spike says "Yes, Dru. Also... I don't hate the world." (beautiful baby) and 2. who cares? Some of Spike's moral goodness comes from choice. Some of it comes from conditioning. All together, it is still soulless moral goodness. Where that behavior comes from isn't important... I mean it is, but for other reasons. The fact that he was able to be good at all. Imagine Angelus with a chip in his head. Would he have become morally good? It's not all the chip that created Spike's moral goodness. It's him.

Secondly he wasn't morally good, he starting doing good so that he could get food, shelter and money, he later did good to win points with Buffy and then to get in her pants.

First of all, "he was doing good" = morally good behavior. Morally good behavior =/= Morally good in nature, worth, etc. However, it does lend to the questioning of the traditional black and white view of morality.

The first thing he does that wasn't about Buffy was sacrifice himself in Chosen, the early season 7 Spike, would have taken off the amulet after Buffy said I love you that would have been everything to him, he had saved the day and gotten the girl but (IN MY OPINION) he knew she was just saying it to reward him, and he stayed to actually save the world, not just to save Buffy. He then goes on to do a lot more good in Angel, that wasn't because of Buffy (inspired maybe, but it wasn't to win her over)

First of all, I think you're totally wrong in your assessment of early season 7 Spike who wouldn't have even felt 'good' enough to put on the amulet in the first place.

Second, why does the reasons behind and intent of morally good actions dictate their morality? Can't those reasons dictate a being's morality? But the morality of the action is still in tact? For example, if I jump into traffic to push someone else out of the way, is that morally good action forever tainted and no longer morally good if the reason I did it is because I saw a $100 in the road? Would saving that person now have no moral worth? Is the action itself worth nothing? I don't see how the intent of the IS it's moral worth. I feel like the two are intertwined, this act of me jumping in front of a car is now less morally good than if I did it because I wanted to save her, but it's not morally worthless, or even bad. It's not not morally good. I can see how the thought process behind actions define that person's moral worth... but that's not what we're talking about here.

The only person that that statement applies to is Harmony, she chose to be good in a way Angelus and Spike never would have and was somewhat successful, but unlike Spike she didn't have a chip to keep her in place so she slipped.

Harmony certainly has more moral worth than either of them in their soulless forms, yes. We are not discussing moral worth though. We're discussing morally good actions.

 

[Robb Stark]

[MENTION=10363]zobothehobo[/MENTION],

"Doing good" is only the right thing to do if it is done for the right reasons. Can you possibly call Spike in S4 "good"? He fights for Buffy's side against demons, sure, but not to help others or because it's right. He fights because he's getting paid and because the chip won't permit violence against others. I'm certainly not of the belief that Spike didn't have his moments without a soul, he did (end of S2 being the big standout for me), but to think that everything Spike did from S4 on was out of this tremendous form of miraculous self-growth is just romanticizing him. It isn't supported by the way he acts.

And while I do find it impressive, to a degree, that he was capable of loving at all and was able to alter his behavior to a way Buffy deemed at least acceptable, that's not reflective of "good". it's reflective of willpower. I don't think many would dispute that Spike has always had incredible will. Going and getting his soul took a remarkable amount of will, but the fact that he's doing it to get Buffy to forgive him (and we can argue back and forth until kingdom come about whether or not he did it for that, or because he truly felt bad, but that's always been the way I see it. Why would he talk about Buffy the way he did in that cave if he truly felt remorse?), and not because he feels awful for everything he's done up until that point mitigates the value of the act. It means he's tough, it means strong, it means he has guts and willpower, but it doesn't mean he's good or "changed".

And really, if the innate goodness of Spike is shining through in S6, if he really has changed, why does he act the way he does? Why does he manipulate the woman he loves, who is so damaged she can't even think straight, into "coming into the dark with him"? Why does he pull her away from her friends and family? Why is he "The Doctor" selling powerful demon eggs? What kind of "changed" person does that? He does some great things, sure, but that doesn't wash out the hideousness of how he acts in S6.

 

[Blaze]

[MENTION=10363]zobothehobo[/MENTION],

"Doing good" is only the right thing to do if it is done for the right reasons. Can you possibly call Spike in S4 "good"? He fights for Buffy's side against demons, sure, but not to help others or because it's right. He fights because he's getting paid and because the chip won't permit violence against others. I'm certainly not of the belief that Spike didn't have his moments without a soul, he did (end of S2 being the big standout for me), but to think that everything Spike did from S4 on was out of this tremendous form of miraculous self-growth is just romanticizing him. It isn't supported by the way he acts.

And while I do find it impressive, to a degree, that he was capable of loving at all and was able to alter his behavior to a way Buffy deemed at least acceptable, that's not reflective of "good". it's reflective of willpower. I don't think many would dispute that Spike has always had incredible will. Going and getting his soul took a remarkable amount of will, but the fact that he's doing it to get Buffy to forgive him (and we can argue back and forth until kingdom come about whether or not he did it for that, or because he truly felt bad, but that's always been the way I see it. Why would he talk about Buffy the way he did in that cave if he truly felt remorse?), and not because he feels awful for everything he's done up until that point mitigates the value of the act. It means he's tough, it means strong, it means he has guts and willpower, but it doesn't mean he's good or "changed".

And really, if the innate goodness of Spike is shining through in S6, if he really has changed, why does he act the way he does? Why does he manipulate the woman he loves, who is so damaged she can't even think straight, into "coming into the dark with him"? Why does he pull her away from her friends and family? Why is he "The Doctor" selling powerful demon eggs? What kind of "changed" person does that? He does some great things, sure, but that doesn't wash out the hideousness of how he acts in S6.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this post. Pre soul Spike is and will always be a monster. A reformed monster, but a monster nonetheless.

I still give some credits to Spike for his good deed because like you said it did take some willpower from him. He was still better than most vampires, but better doesn't equate to him being good. Being better than other vampires doesn't mean his story should be romanticise. Most of what he did s4-6 was not the actions of a good man at all. And I think he was certainly feeling "more" than other vampires. But nonetheless he is still not human, and still not capable of understanding right and wrong. I do believe his emotions for Buffy were sincere (as they continued onto s7 in a healthier way), but that doesn't change the fact that he was still a vampire, and he was still a bad man.

I think there are a few occasions in which he shows true goodness, for no ulterior motives, but those moments were few and far in between. Again, that makes him better than most vampires, but it doesn't make him good. To see that you only have to compare s4-6 Spike to s7 Spike, he is not the same man. Sure, he is a lot closer to his older self than Angel with Angelus, but he still isn't the same man.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Whether or not one man is capable of love and the other isn't really doesn't have any bearing in how the two men are judged in general. Either hold both vampires responsible for what they did without souls, or say that having souls means that neither man can be penalized for what they did before getting their souls. Just measure both by the same standard.

But they aren't of the same standard, they have a similarity in that they at one time didn't have souls and now they do, but how they got them is completely different. Different enough that that rule of pre-soul/post-soul doesn't apply to Spike. It doesn't apply to Spike because he chose to get his soul, he developed to a point were he wanted it, he wanted it because he though it would force Buffy to have to admit she wants him, but he had developed to a point of wanting a soul, there is no pre/post soul Spike there is a evolved character that develops between season 4 - 6, then in season 7 theres the same character except he hadn't actually thought the soul through, he thought he'd get it and Buffy would want him and everything would be hunky dory, he hadn't realized he would feel bad (even if it was for all of 5 seconds).

The reason the two are held accountable differently is because he is different.

And as for Spike's cared less about doing good than about impressing Buffy, well, just how much of a champion was Angel before Whistler recruited him? He saved some sailors in a submarine, but only because he was given no choice by the Initiative. And he helped the girl in the hotel mostly to just get her out of his hair, then left her and all of the other hotel residents, the girl included, locked in the hotel to be tortured by a demon.

No one said Angel didn't start his fight to help Buffy.

Although Angel helped without getting involved with her, and slowly developed a relationship, Spike did it to sleep with her after stalking her.

Face it, everything that we could judge as being good was because of Buffy. If that somehow belittles what Spike did to help in Sunnydale, then the same thing should apply to Angel. Neithervampire, as far as we know, ever went out of their way to help anyone until after meeting her.

Agreed, they both started because of Buffy. Even at that though, Whistler said to Angel that he could atone for what he did by helping her, not to sleep with her. It was still about atoning for what he'd done.

Spike continued because of Buffy, Angel moved on.

I'm not sure that's fair. I know Angelus wouldn't do something morally good. But my point is I'd treat his good deeds if he ever were to do them the same way I treat Spike's. Just because Angelus wouldn't do that doesn't mean I am automatically a hypocrite. Nor does it mean decisions in judging either one of them should be made separately. Because yes, they are very different... however, they are very similar. Their circumstances are similar and, therefore, you cannot create criteria to judge one and not hold the other to the same standards.

No one said your a hypocrite, but your basing your opinion on a complete hypothetical that isn't possible, the reason you say you'd forgive Angel is because you forgive Spike. But it doesn't matter as this would never happen to Angelus, the only reason it happened to spike is because he's the special vampire, so with that he gets the benefits and the negatives of being special.

I mean, I wouldn't murder somebody. Does that mean there should not be any sort of rule for "if I do"? My circumstances are similar to people who might murder others... and, therefore, there has to be a rule for all of us. The law isn't going to say that we can't murder unless we wouldn't and then we can do it if we want, but we wouldn't because we wouldn't. It's going to say "You cannot murder anyone."

I'm not mad on directly comparing it to a real life rule, as it isn't cmparable. But in the world of BtVS, there is a rule, the rule is there is a difference between souled and unsouled - this rules doesn't apply to Spike, and Spike alone, so if this rule doesn't apply to Spike the circumstances that apply to Angel who is in line with the rule aren't relevant to Spike.

He is soulless. Morally good behavior goes against his very nature. Of course it has to be conditioned! And there reached a point where he did choose to be good. May I remind you, he chose his soul. He did not have it cursed upon him. And you can spout about why, but bottom line is he chose to do it.

Yep "bitch is gonna get whats coming to her sounds super moral.

That was a morally good act, BEYOND morally good... beyond the moral 'goodness' of any vampire who has ever come before him. And he chose it.

I'm not sure it's all that moral to get a soul to force the person you think loves you to come round to your way of seeing it.

Also... did he not choose to help Buffy, at the end of season 2? Again, you cay say "JUST FOR DRU" but 1. Spike says "Yes, Dru. Also... I don't hate the world." (beautiful baby) and 2. who cares?

Yeah it was morally great of him to save the world so he could keep killing the walking happy meals, he definitely deserves the moral medal for this.

Some of Spike's moral goodness comes from choice. Some of it comes from conditioning. All together, it is still soulless moral goodness. Where that behavior comes from isn't important... I mean it is, but for other reasons. The fact that he was able to be good at all. Imagine Angelus with a chip in his head. Would he have become morally good? It's not all the chip that created Spike's moral goodness. It's him.

EXACTLY - it's him, not just the chip, him, and if he gets credit for being moral in season 6, he gets blamed for attempted rape.

First of all, I think you're totally wrong in your assessment of early season 7 Spike who wouldn't have even felt 'good' enough to put on the amulet in the first place.

By mid season 5 of angel he thought he'd done enough to rewarded human. He'd have been fine.

Second, why does the reasons behind and intent of morally good actions dictate their morality? Can't those reasons dictate a being's morality? But the morality of the action is still in tact? For example, if I jump into traffic to push someone else out of the way, is that morally good action forever tainted and no longer morally good if the reason I did it is because I saw a $100 in the road? Would saving that person now have no moral worth? Is the action itself worth nothing? I don't see how the intent of the IS it's moral worth. I feel like the two are intertwined, this act of me jumping in front of a car is now less morally good than if I did it because I wanted to save her, but it's not morally worthless, or even bad. It's not not morally good. I can see how the thought process behind actions define that person's moral worth... but that's not what we're talking about here.

If something is moral it has to be good, if your intent was to save the person that was a moral decision, if it was to get the $100 and in the process saved someone, that isn't moral, as your intent was self gain. So the intent is the deciding factor in a moral decision. Morality is ethics so it's all about the decision process not the outcome. If you saved someone you'd be branded a hero by newspapers if you admitted it was for $100 you'd be branded an ass.