Ok I honestly didn't know I'd get so many replies, but Kana is happy.
I do not think there is a selfish act period- save sacrificing yourself for another, because any act will have consequences and results and there will always be blowback.
Sorry do you mean, that you don't believe there is a selfish or selfless act. Having a bit of trouble understanding based upon the context.
Now you could argue we subconsciously know this, know we will in some way, shape or form get something back and our subconscious influences our conscious to make what would normally be called a selfless act. I think we are too entwined with one another for us not to hear the tree fall in the forest. Sorry if I got off topic.
Well this is it really isn't it. At the very least, we feel good that we are doing something that benefits someone else and the feeling good in itself is a positive consequence for ourselves whether we choose to recognise it or not.
This makes me think of the episode of Friends when Joey tells Phoebe there's no such thing as a selfless good deed, because the good deed doer will always feel good for having done something good.
Are we really living in a world where Joey is right? lol
In extreme cases, like natural disasters or war, I think some - but few - can prove themselves capable of acts done purely to save others. These people are far from the norm, though.
But does this break our rule of something that is at least mutually beneficial. Presumably helping others will make you feel something positive, otherwise why would you do it?
As much as I love BUFFY, I have always viewed Joss Whedon's interpretation of the soul as a load of crap. I don't see having a soul as a sign that an individual is capable of being altruistic. I feel that is nothing more than a myth created by humans to make themselves believe they are superior to other beings. In fact, I don't believe anyone is capable of true altruism, anyway. There is always some form of selfishness behind a good deed.
It's interesting isn't it? I've always tried to analyse the nature of vampires in the Verse. Now I agreed with concept that in the grand scheme of things it's difficult to judge vampires as morally inferior to humans or even to judge vampires at all. The best explanation I could muster is that vampires are different psychologically from humans. That is to say if you take a vampire, he or she would be more likely to kill a human without remorse than another human would. The reasoning behind it is perhaps the one that is flawed and it's possible for vampires to act to benefit a human, so when we destroy the concept of altruism, the concept of the soul begins to elude us.
The only truly altruistic act is one that no-one will ever know about, but since no-one will ever know about it... You see where I'm going with this.
But you as the person who acted will know and it can benefit you by knowing it.
Yep.
Tree falls in the forest... does it make a sound if no one hears it. [Although, if you try really hard you can make the sound of 1 hand clapping, just really softly].
For Buffy, the closest this ever came into being was The Zeppo. Xander's reasons don't really fit the criteria though, per se. That the event passed into the ether with none the wiser is the hazy area.
He was just feeling really useless to the group since no one wanted him around. So if the bomb went off, no big loss to his world. I mean, he even got laid right beforehand.
He was ready to go as that was as good as it was going to get.
I think it definitely benefited Xander in terms of his self esteem.
Many people do things for others, without any regard for personal gain. Afterwards though that is a different story altogether.
And the statement its good for the soul? What is a soul? A bit of religious crap, something to make some religious people feel good about their superiority over the animals.
To be clear, in RL I don't believe in soul but I suppose what I've tried to do is reconcile the idea of the metaphysical make up of the Buffyverse human with that of a RL human and see where it gets us.
As for a vampire with a soul not doing bad things, making out that not having a soul is the reason why bad things are done.
That being so, what is the view of a person with a soul killing something with out a soul?
It's also looking at why it happens. The reason why I focus on vampires is because they are so close to the human species. Culture wise, personal traits etc, so why is it if you take an average human who doesn't harm a fly, turn them into a vampire and they become someone who hunts their former species almost regardless of the sentiment you'd think they feel from the memories they retain?
Giles made a crude comparison between human and demon nature: He posited that when humans kill the reasoning behind it is more complex. It may be religion, personal hatred or rage but for most vampires they don't need a reason, they just need to be hungry.
It can't be that having a soul will stop a person from wanting to kill, did Giles know that Ben did or didn't have a soul when he killed him?
Presumably those of The Knights of Byzantium knew that Buffy had a soul, but it didn't stop them from trying to get her.
Warren tried to kill Buffy and killed Tara.
If a soul stops a person from killing, if a person is going to kill, then surely the soul would have to leave the body before the first thoughts are of killing another. But that concept is flawed as the soul would need to have prior knowledge; or is the soul ok with wanting to kill, just not the act of killing.
Indeed and with the examples you gave it goes beyond simple bloodlust of passion for destruction which some demons thrive on. We've established we are not going to elevate humans morally but can we at least attempt to understand why a human would do something and why a vampire would? And does the concept of altruism exist for either one of them?
I think the point is that the soul makes a person feel guilt. In terms of a buffyverse vamp, the demon is the id, the human is the ego & the soul would be the super-ego. With no super-ego to slap the other two down, the creature is purely driven by the pleasure principle & given the animalistic need to hunt & kill, their actions are entirely understandable.
If I understand correctly, a vamp would comprise of the ego and the id, but it becomes complex when a vampire start having almost religious beliefs about their cause. It seems that although similar to our own vampire culture can parallel or even contradict a lot of human moral culture. The id is like the thing we see in Pylea but the rest of the vampire's psyche but Freudian model is still one of the most popular when describing the psychological disposition because it seems to fit so well.
It's a commonly held theory (from what I know) that everything we do is selfish. We speak so others will listen to and respond to US. We do good deeds for others so WE feel good. I think that's BS, but it is an interesting point, if only to show how subjective the terms are. I think Spike did some selfless things presoul and some selfish things postsoul. Presoul, of course, points at Intervention where he is willing to lay down his life to keep Dawn safe. And he wasn't even going to tell Buffy (from what I can tell), showing he expected nothing in return. If that's not selfless, I don't really know what is.
I think this is possibly the closest thing to my belief although on the surface it may appear to contradict what you're saying. There may be certain actions that work in terms of mutual benefit which is at least adequate when judging an action morally. The very desire that is satisfied by doing a deed that benefits other but so what? The conversation perhaps becomes almost academic however it does place the soul under the microscope. Even if Spike is a rare case it's still possible and even if vampires are unsympathetic to humans, they may not always be with their own species which calls humans' actions into question"¦.hmmmm.
