This has always been an interesting one for me, but I'm going to have to try my best to focus my thoughts.
The first thing we need to look at is the metaphysics. The main issue with any of these discussions is the lack of definition in regards to the soul.
Now the first thing I'd like to contend is that Btvs and Ats are dualist shows. What I mean by that is that there is clearly a distinction between the body and the spirit. The spirit is essential who you are. This the agent who should and will be judged.
Why do I think this? Well, let's look at the evidence. First of all we have ghosts, spirits that exist independently from the body. We also have the example of Who Are You?, where Buffy and Faith swap bodies whilst retaining their sense of personal identity, respectively. There is also Carpe Noctem where Angel swaps bodies with an old man.
So clearly, there is an immaterial you, that exists independently from the body.
So this spirit is the would be the same, what I call,
"numerical individual" despite what's going on with the body.
Now, as I've often said, there are two theories in regards to vampires and both of them depend on what the
soul is.
Under Theory 1, the soul
is the spirit. Now this would mean that Angel for example is the same numerical individual as Liam, but distinct from Angelus. Angelus is the result of Liam dying and demon taking over his body and for some reason, his memories as well. For whatever reason, the soul remembers the actions of the demon as if he did them, but he didn't.
Now why would we think that?
a) This is the first explantion we are given about vampirism and no other theory has been explicitly shown.
"A vampire ...may have the movements, the memories, even the personality of the person that it took over, but it's still a demon at the core"
b) Wesley echoes this in Disharmony.
"That's not your friend. That thing may have your friend's memories, her appearance... But it's just a filthy demon, an unholy monster"
c) Theory 1 rests on the concept of what the soul is. We have references in canon that state the soul is the spirit.
"But her soul ... her essence ... I mean, that could be somewhere else."
In this context the soul has to mean the spirit. I wouldn't make sense to talk about Buffy's conscience being in a hell dimension.
Angel: "He dies, the very instant his soul leaves his body, I'm through this door and I'll kill you both!"
Again, in this context if you replace the word 'soul' with conscience is doesn't make sense.
Now all of these are all well and good but this is the one that really takes the biscuit.
WESLEY
I watched it gut her from the inside out. Everything she was is gone. There is nothing left but a shell.
ANGEL
Then we'll figure out a way to fill it back up.
SPIKE
The thing only took over her body. Just a tip of the theological.
ANGEL
It's the soul that matters.
SPIKE
Trust us. We're kind of experts.
In context of the episode, they are clearly talking about Fred the person, not just her conscience. And Spike, Spike of all people seems to be supporting this. We can't argue that's it's a figure of speech or not coming from the vampire with souls in question nor can we say it's a rationalization. The soul can only mean one thing right? So seen as it's more explicitly used as the spirit, that must be what it is.
Problems, inconsistencies and how to deal with them
a) Ryan Anderson, the boy without a soul: Under this theory it's problematic because he'd be dead or a zombie without a soul, unless he has a vampiric demon animating his body. However it's likely the demon wasn't being literal. He meant that it in the way that someone might call another 'soulless' without believing in the soul. He basically meant the kid was a class A jerk, but he did have a metaphysical soul.
b) Carpe Noctem: For some reason Liam remembers Angelus' acts even though he didn't do them, but when Marcus' soul possesses his body, he doesn't. Although this is never totally explained, it's likely it's to do with the right soul and the right body. Think this is speculation? See Buffy and Faith's body switch. Tara states that if the wrong soul is in the wrong body, it fragments. Liam and William's souls have a natural synergy with their original bodies despite the fact that they are vamped.
Theory 2 is a little more complicated. Under Theory 1, the soul is the spirit, but under Theory 2, it's something other than the spirit. Now I'd routinely call refer to it as the conscience, but even that doesn't seem right somehow, or at the very least it seemed a little simplistic.
In this model, the conscience is not simply a concept, it's a tangible
thing that can be removed and restored.
However the main point of Theory 2 is recognize that Angel and Angelus are the same numerical being. This means the vampire still retains their human spirit, that is to say someone who is numerically the same person can linguistically say I was once 'X' which in this case would be human, but whether human or vampire it's still the same individual.
Why would we think that?
) Spike and Angel's apparent continued consciousness. They more consistently say "I did this" or "I did that".
b) The curse would make no sense. Who are they trying to make suffer? Who are they talking about when they say "He must suffer as all his victims have suffered". Under theory 1 it simply doesn't make sense.
b) In Living Conditions, it wouldn't make sense either. It makes more sense that she'd be stealing her conscience, rather than well, Buffy's entire immaterial being.
c) In Carpe Noctem, under theory 1 why doesn't Marcus have Angel's memories? If they are a physical part of his brain then surely he'd be able to remember, like Liam somehow remembers. It seems more likely that the spirit and the soul are two different things
d) If the Ethros demon is being literal, this is the only theory that make sense.
This distinction is important, because if we adopt Theory 1, Angel and Spike 100% not responsible for the actions of their demon counterparts, simply because the didn't do them. As we've discussed above, the soul is the 'you' independent of your body. So they'd be as responsible for the crimes of soullessSpike and Angelus respectively as human Willow would be for VampireWillow's actions.
It would seem that most are adopting Theory 2, which means that Angel and Spike, however different they are, are at least the same numerical individuals, which means the spirit and the soul are two separate things. The 'spirit' is who you are but the soul i something else.
So what is the soul?
Well some describe it as a conscience, but how does this work? Some say that Angel and Spike are not able to act morally, but is this the case? Riley once described SoullessSpike as amoral but this doesn't seem to fit. For one thing vampires are not creatures who are totally alien to human cultures as they were once human themselves. They still retain the human concepts of morality on an intellectual level. Vampires are no less intelligent or rational than their human counterparts and many simply believe themselves on the other end of the moral scale while some (VampireMarcus) don't believe in an objective morality at all.
Now, a lot of the concepts of altruism and evil when it comes to soulless vampires often comes down to this: defining the soul.
Now if we simply use the conscience as our definition, with Angel at least, this works relatively well. With a soul he's ok guy. He has a pull to do the right thing but can fail, like any human. However without a soul, he has moral understanding but no pull to do the right thing. Again this seems to work relatively well.
Well, then Spike comes along. One of the main complaints against him is that he fails to conform totally to this rule, at least in terms of appearence. The common arguments, I see popping up are:
How can Spike be good without a soul?
If Spike can be good without a soul, why did he go through some much trouble to get
one?
If Spike finally saw that the AR was wrong and felt guilt, again, surely he doesn't need a soul not to feel such things?
Admittedly some of these are fair questions, but it does put into question the concept of moral decisions and how they arise.
Many 'purists' as I call them, try to make it make sense by calling Spike's soulless good deeds selfish, because without a soul he can't be selfless.
This is a problematic circular argument that can be reduced to: Spike's deeds are selfish because he hasn't got a soul, so therefore, because he hasn't got soul, he deeds are selfish. I mean, huh? It's an argument that simply falls back on itself and it doesn't actually say why there are selfish, based upon the motivations and the actions themselves.
All this said, surely don't we need to define the fuction of the soul if were are to judge vampires morally, especially if said soul is the moral faculty.
Or is this simplifying too much? So in which case how can we judge vampires at all when the concept of the soul is so nebulous?
Now I going to use Spike as point of focus, just because he's the one who seems to most ambiguous when it comes to vampires and at the very least he's the one we know the most about in terms of different behaviours, both soulled and unsoulled actions etc.
My argument has always been it's difficult to judge a soulless vampire in the same way morally as a human. This doesn't assume humans are inherently better but simply dealing with a different set of internal impulses.
To me this is self-evident. If you take a reasonable, non-violent human, say a minor poet and turn him into vampire chances are he is going to be a deadly killer, utterly without remorse. Now, I'm not sure if I'm league with the Spike detractors by saying this, but I can't ignore the obvious psychological difference.
Now most vampires seem to adhere to psychological change even if they retain elements of their original personality. Also, amongst the demon and vampire world, someone like Angelus is considered legendary but in the human world, he's for the most part considered a monster. These 'cultural differences' seem to be in large based upon the difference in mental disposition between humans and vampires.
Now, the way I see it, this answers the question: "But are vampires so bad? Humans can be evil as well...". That's fine, I'm not denying that, but it's the drive behind said 'evil' that's important. The majority of humans don't kill on a nightly basis based upon a euphoric feelings driven by bloodlust and often vampires regard the humans they cared about as nummy bites or at least killing partners, regardless of said person's view on killing and morality (Angelus' protege, Penn commented on this shift in perspective).
Spike seems to retain a lot of elements of his original human self, but still changes. Now all vampires have humanity (I don't care what the Judge says) but it's how that humanity drives the vampire which is interesting. Spike's humanity didn't stop him doing the things he did. He even found it funny when homeless person was begging for mercy and Dru was killing them. So is Spike all that different?
I've maintained that there's not enough evidence to suggest he's metaphysically different because all vampire have certan quirks and differences. Angel(us) DID is more curious as Angel can go from well intended (albiet at times misguided) hero who sometimes shows more compassion than many humans to the most sadistic creature to roam this planet.
Even someone as caring as Anne (Williams mother) became cruel and vicious in her vampiric state so it seems difficult to say that Spike is in general just 'better' because even moral chaste humans can be cold hearted killers as vampires.
Now pushing aside the moral absolutes for a second, I found the best well to look at his journey is to look at it from a perspective of finding one's identity. The problem is, that Spike oftens defines himself through others but is rarely given to self-reflection (by his own admission) which means it makes more sense that while he is a fool for love, to say he's actively on the path to redemption before he gets his soul, is a little presumptuous.
We know that he's killed and even helped to destroy the world, (ppssibly to please Dru), so should we assume his moral stance changed because the object of his affections is different from his last belle? This is not necessarily enough evidence of internal moral change especially when he didn't even give evil much thought. How can simply assume he gave being morally good much thought? I'm not ragging on him, just saying that calling him 'kind of good' or 'explicitly evil' isn't a sufficient answer.
From an emotional perspective (which actually more akin to my RL perspective on morality anyway) I actually allow myself to be touched by his 'Buffy friendly' deeds and to be disgusted by his 'misdeeds'. I react, I care, I empathise and then find it hard to empathise when he ties her up and tries to force an admission of love from her (not so different from the AR, because in both cases I don't believe he's treating Buffy like a subject irrespective of not having a soul but that's another matter), so I simply allow myself to feel these things irrespective of his having a soul.
I think my stance would closer to Willow's if soulless Spike were to exist in real life. I'd be less judgemental of Spike and Spuffy for that matter and attempt to understand the emotions involved. Chipless Spike I'd want staked for my own safety though.
I think this more or less applies to how I view soulless vampires in general. I suppose, I'm 'getting out of it' by denying many of the accepted 'rules' as it were, or least the common perception of said rules.
In terms of the soul, maybe if we look at it as a particular internal driving force that informs behaviour. Without this drive, the psychological condition of the individual in question changes and for that reason, it seems more prudent to place their actions under 'question mark' rather than expecting them to conform to human social norms when they clearly deviate profoundly from norms of their former species.
Lots of randomness there, but I pulled some of this from other threads and forums on which I posted.
