"Why the Spike hate?" Continued

[zobothehobo]

This might be me babbling but IMO if you're going to say everything Spike does is selfish because he expects an award then there are very few truly selfless acts in the show by anyone and in the real world. And I've said this several times but if you're going to say that Spike's actions are so selfish, you have to be willing to say anything anyone does "for love" is selfish. My point is you can turn really every act anyone ever does ever and make it selfish. Heck, if you believe in the concept of heaven and hell, you can take EVERY good deed ANYONE EVER does and say "they did it so they would go to heaven."

 

[Taaroko]

Prophecygrrl, my post was more in response to the two posts surrounding yours. Yours actually made sense. The other two seemed to get what I said completely backwards.

Selflessness/selfishness was used as a marker of goodness in that debate. That's what I understood from your posts, at least. 😕 I personally wasn't arguing that humans can't be selfish, or even that selfishness is a human trait. (Well, it is, but that's not really relevant here) I was trying to say that I agree this selfishness exists in a lot of Spike's actions, but that it doesn't necessarily negate other intentions/motives.

You don't really think Angelus killing the Beast is a reasonable comparison, do you? 😉

I was just using the Angelus killing the Beast thing as a clear example of how a good action doesn't have to have pure motives behind it.

And maybe the selflessness/selfishness "with a soul you can do either, without one, you can only be selfish" thing is an oversimplification. I was using selflessness to encompass remorse, guilt, genuine desire to do the right thing, real love (i.e. selfless love--because, yes, love can be selfless), generosity, benevolence, and things like that. Legitimately virtuous stuff. That's what a soul allows.

Selfishness encompasses a lot of stuff, too. Basically, it's seven deadly sins territory. Human vices. Ironically, a lot of those can drive actions that produce good effects. Humans have that, as do vampires. That's what gets left behind when the soul leaves. Humans can get up to all kinds of badness with this, but most of the time, it doesn't go as far as killing just for the heck of it.

Vampires, however, are also demons in addition to having all that "selfish" stuff. Instead of a soul, they have the polar opposite, something that goes beyond mere selfishness to the point of actually being irredeemably evil--abominations reanimating the dead human body. They *do* kill just for the heck of it, and they enjoy it. Which is why a Slayer's sacred duty to slay them isn't a dodgy ethical issue.

And then there are vampires with souls, who are back to being in possession of selfless virtues that they can either exercise for good (or even just lack-of-bad) or ignore in favor of their human vices and demonic tendencies. The memories of everything their demons did in their absence make it pretty hard for them to let themselves succumb to the demonic tendencies (like biting people and killing for the pleasure of it).

 

[The Unspoken]

And, to me, on top of the whole "soulless can't be selfless" thing, the idea that, in the very same episode that he spends half of his screentime shagging a robot, Spike could turn around and actually do something with pure, selfless motives, is completely hilarious.

You do realize that the production of sex dolls is a perfectly viable business, don't you? Does that make a significant segment of the human population irredeemably evil too?

Also, vampires being able to love and have relationships isn't at all a detriment to the fact that they still very much thrive on doing evil and killing people. This is demonstrated very well when Spike gives Drusilla a necklace for Valentine's Day (which he probably stole), but Angelus gets her the heart of a 'quaint little shop girl'. These are both signs of affection, but both are accompanied by acts of evil (the latter obviously in a league of its own). And I think it was established fairly well that Spike was willing to commit immoral acts out of love for Buffy. So I once again fail to see how this contradicts the premise of the show and the Slayer's duty.

 

[Taaroko]

You do realize that the production of sex dolls is a perfectly viable business, don't you? Does that make a significant segment of the human population irredeemably evil too?

No, it just makes them incredibly disturbing. The Buffybot isn't an example of Spike's irredeemable evilness, it's an example of how he fails utterly at selfless love. As he should, being soulless.

Also, vampires being able to love and have relationships isn't at all a detriment to the fact that they still very much thrive on doing evil and killing people. This is demonstrated very well when Spike gives Drusilla a necklace for Valentine's Day (which he probably stole), but Angelus gets her the heart of a 'quaint little shop girl'. These are both signs of affection, but both are accompanied by acts of evil (the latter obviously in a league of its own). And I think it was established fairly well that Spike was willing to commit immoral acts out of love for Buffy. So I once again fail to see how this contradicts the premise of the show and the Slayer's duty.

It doesn't. Vampires can have all the twisted soulless "love" they want. What would contradict the premise of the show would be if a soulless vampire were able to develop any inherent goodness while still soulless.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

No, it just makes them incredibly disturbing.

No! there is nothing at all wrong with that. Oh my. When they make the dolls to look like other people maybe but the dolls in general- nothing wrong with them. Other than their price! Ok, maybe the using real hair bit is kinda odd too. But other than that, nothing. Okay, maybe the eyes that look real. But other than that nothing.

 

[zobothehobo]

What would contradict the premise of the show would be if a soulless vampire were able to develop any inherent goodness while still soulless.

I still don't understand how that could contradict the premise of the show. The premise of the show isn't the premise of a soul. Now if this soulless but good vampire appeared on Ats, I would say it contradicted the premise of the show. However, this soulless but good vampire showing up in BtVS is an anomaly in the vampire world, sure, but not a contradiction of the premise of the show. The premise of the show is good vs evil. Spike fought good vs. evil inside of him. The whole point of his character is showing how difficult that can be sometimes. Fighting the good vs. evil fight inside.

 

[StarSlayer]

Also, vampires being able to love and have relationships isn't at all a detriment to the fact that they still very much thrive on doing evil and killing people. This is demonstrated very well when Spike gives Drusilla a necklace for Valentine's Day (which he probably stole), but Angelus gets her the heart of a 'quaint little shop girl'. These are both signs of affection, but both are accompanied by acts of evil (the latter obviously in a league of its own). And I think it was established fairly well that Spike was willing to commit immoral acts out of love for Buffy. So I once again fail to see how this contradicts the premise of the show and the Slayer's duty.

Oh, crap! I did not mean to disagree with your statement! I wanted to agree with it! I'm sorry for that 🙁

 

[Taaroko]

I still don't understand how that could contradict the premise of the show. The premise of the show isn't the premise of a soul. Now if this soulless but good vampire appeared on Ats, I would say it contradicted the premise of the show. However, this soulless but good vampire showing up in BtVS is an anomaly in the vampire world, sure, but not a contradiction of the premise of the show. The premise of the show is good vs evil. Spike fought good vs. evil inside of him. The whole point of his character is showing how difficult that can be sometimes. Fighting the good vs. evil fight inside.

The premise of BtVS is stated in its title. It's about a girl named Buffy who slays vampires. And the reason she can do that without an ethical issue arising is that all of those vampires, when soulless, are always inherently irredeemably evil. If one of them suddenly isn't, regardless of the circumstances that brought it about, then we can't be sure any of the others really are either, and the justification for slaying vampires all willy-nilly is completely shot.

 

[The Unspoken]

No, it just makes them incredibly disturbing. The Buffybot isn't an example of Spike's irredeemable evilness, it's an example of how he fails utterly at selfless love. As he should, being soulless.

Yeah, but if humans are capable of both selfless love AND playing around with a sex doll, then the Buffybot can't be an argument AGAINST Spike's humanity. Or in favor of his soullessness, if you will.

It doesn't. Vampires can have all the twisted soulless "love" they want. What would contradict the premise of the show would be if a soulless vampire were able to develop any inherent goodness while still soulless.

It's not inherent, that's why he goes to retrieve his soul. Basically, any goodness a vampire develops isn't enough to prevent them from killing people. If they're truly capable of changing, they would go out and get their soul and the problem would solve itself, so to speak.

Also, you're making this more difficult than is necessary. When Buffy typically dusts vamps, it's either because they're trying to kill her her or because she interrupted them trying to kill other people prior. Now if any of these vamps had any goodness in them, it certainly didn't deter them from killing people.

 

[StarSlayer]

It doesn't. Vampires can have all the twisted soulless "love" they want. What would contradict the premise of the show would be if a soulless vampire were able to develop any inherent goodness while still soulless.

I think that's what happened between Buffy and Spike in s6. Buffy knew Spike wasn't inherently good because he didn't have a soul. It was one of the reasons why she said she couldn't love him. However, she had seen time and again that he was capable of being good, despite being soulless. Even Tara saw that too. As such, along with sleeping with him, Buffy developed feelings for Spike ("I have feelings for you, I do"), and that scared her because he was still soulless. For Buffy, having a soul made a difference in a vampire, based on her relationship with Angel. "You don't have a soul. There is nothing good inside." So, when Spike starts to show that he is capable of good, it doesn't mean he's inherently good because that's not true at all. At this point, he's still a demon with his human side putting up a fight. He can't be completely good until he has his soul. Once he does have his soul, he'll be able to control the demon (beat the monster inside) and thus, become a man with a demon inside (cause he's still a vampire). That's how I see it anyways. 🙂

 

[Skanky Vamp]

The premise of BtVS is stated in its title. It's about a girl named Buffy who slays vampires. And the reason she can do that without an ethical issue arising is that all of those vampires, when soulless, are always inherently irredeemably evil. If one of them suddenly isn't, regardless of the circumstances that brought it about, then we can't be sure any of the others really are either, and the justification for slaying vampires all willy-nilly is completely shot.

I agree with what you are saying, Taaroko, in this and the previous post. But did not the writers do that? The premise of the show ceased being Buffy the Vampire Slayer somewhere around season 5 I think. Thats why I was really surprised the last season that she staked Holden (or whatever his name was) and was honestly a bit shocked by it.

 

[Taaroko]

Yeah, but if humans are capable of both selfless love AND playing around with a sex doll, then the Buffybot can't be an argument AGAINST Spike's humanity. Or in favor of his soullessness, if you will.

The Buffybot is evidence against the idea that the "love" Spike claims he feels for Buffy is nothing but obsession and lust. Which fits, because that's about as close to love as he can get while he has no soul.

Also, you're making this more difficult than is necessary. When Buffy typically dusts vamps, it's either because they're trying to kill her her or because she interrupted them trying to kill other people prior. Now if any of these vamps had any goodness in them, it certainly didn't deter them from killing people.

What about all the vampires she kills immediately after they poke their heads out of their graves--one of whom happened to be her former friend, Ford? Those vampires haven't done anything bad yet, but she still slays them.

I agree with what you are saying, Taaroko, in this and the previous post. But did not the writers do that? The premise of the show ceased being Buffy the Vampire Slayer somewhere around season 5 I think. Thats why I was really surprised the last season that she staked Holden (or whatever his name was) and was honestly a bit shocked by it.

I was annoyed she didn't do it sooner. And if the writers really did something that invalidates the premise of more than half of their show, I reserve the right to fanwank around it, but I don't see that they necessarily did.

 

[The Unspoken]

The Buffybot is evidence against the idea that the "love" Spike claims he feels for Buffy is nothing but obsession and lust. Which fits, because that's about as close to love as he can get while he has no soul.

Love has grown out of obsession and lust time and again, such as is the case with Spike.

What about all the vampires she kills immediately after they poke their heads out of their graves--one of whom happened to be her former friend, Ford? Those vampires haven't done anything bad yet, but she still slays them.

Because they would. In 'Lessons', she actually helps one get out of his grave and the first thing he does is threaten to kill her, before proceeding to try to kill Dawn. But I think we should agree to disagree here.

 

[StarSlayer]

Love has grown out of obsession and lust time and again, such as is the case with Spike.

I can't give double rep, but this! A million times this! 🙂 There is no doubt Spike had an obsession with Buffy prior to "Intervention." The Buffybot was a further example of this obsession. But, what he did to protect Buffy and Dawn was real. Real and selfless love for other people and Buffy recognized it. It's one of the reasons why Spike could never really look at the Buffybot again because it not only reminded him of Buffy, but it reminded him that it wasn't real. What he does to help and protect Buffy is real though.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I reserve the right to fanwank around it, but I don't see that they necessarily did.

I reserved the right to distance myself from the series as a result, not just fanwank. Watch it again, you will see it did. Watch from Dracula on.. it is a different series.

 

[zobothehobo]

The premise of BtVS is stated in its title. It's about a girl named Buffy who slays vampires. And the reason she can do that without an ethical issue arising is that all of those vampires, when soulless, are always inherently irredeemably evil. If one of them suddenly isn't, regardless of the circumstances that brought it about, then we can't be sure any of the others really are either, and the justification for slaying vampires all willy-nilly is completely shot.

No. My point is souls aren't a part of the premise of BtVS at all. Good vs. evil is. The way they can slay vampires without ethical issues arising is because all the vampire she slays are a threat to humans and therefore, evil. After Spike was chipped he was not a threat to humans. Then given time because he was no longer a threat to humanity and he couldn't be evil in the way he'd been evil before, also because he wanted to impress Buffy, he became good... or at least better... then fought for his soul and became good.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Okay, where did this idea come from that creatures with souls can't be selfish? I never said that. I'm pretty sure I said the opposite: creatures without souls can't be selfless. Just because humans (and other souled creatures) *can* be selfless doesn't mean they always are. It doesn't even mean they usually are. It's up to each of them individually to choose, and a lot of the time, they're gonna choose to be selfish. There are many ways in which selfishness can manifest positively through actions that are constructive and/or that benefit others. The whole point is that with humans and other souled creatures, there is actually a choice. But *all* soulless vampires are *always* irredeemably evil at their core. Their motives cannot be trusted, even if they do something good. I mean, even Angelus did something that was definitely good--he killed the Beast, but nobody tries to assign pure motives to him, because that would be ridiculous.

And, to me, on top of the whole "soulless can't be selfless" thing, the idea that, in the very same episode that he spends half of his screentime shagging a robot, Spike could turn around and actually do something with pure, selfless motives, is completely hilarious.

Just FYI, read my post more carefully--I did speak to exactly what you were saying. Your argument is that it is not possible to be selfLESS while being soulLESS.
I argue that Spike proves that he can be selfless without a soul.

Likewise, as others here have pointed out, one can be very selfISH, with a soul. It's very human.

 

[Daniel Osbourne]

I'd just like to point out that Spike getting his soul back was not an imitation of the Angel storyline but rather the storyline done in the right way.

Voluntary soul retrieval > Cursed with soul

 

[Zeppo]

I'd just like to point out that Spike getting his soul back was not an imitation of the Angel storyline but rather the storyline done in the right way.

"Done the right way?" I personally feel that Angel's soul being forced on him is a more intriguing storyline than what happened with Spike. Unlike Spike Angel didn't ask for it but got it, conflict of interest he must deal with.

Voluntary soul retrieval > Cursed with soul

I dunno how it's better, unless you mean morally. However, Spike's reasons were for a girl who's last words to him were, "ask me again why I could never love you." Maybe this is romantic or whatever, I dunno. I don't get it.

Main point, though, is that I think what matters more is what is done with said-soul. Angel uses his for redemption by helping victims and never lost sight of that, Spike used it to woo back a girl, saying he didn't "give a piss about atonement."

Not that this is an Angel vs Spike thing.

 

[StarSlayer]

"Done the right way?" I personally feel that Angel's soul being forced on him is a more intriguing storyline than what happened with Spike. Unlike Spike Angel didn't ask for it but got it, conflict of interest he must deal with.

To each their own. Both are good stories. 🙂

I dunno how it's better, unless you mean morally. However, Spike's reasons were for a girl who's last words to him were, "ask me again why I could never love you." Maybe this is romantic or whatever, I dunno. I don't get it.

Main point, though, is that I think what matters more is what is done with said-soul. Angel uses his for redemption by helping victims and never lost sight of that, Spike used it to woo back a girl, saying he didn't "give a piss about atonement."

Not that this is an Angel vs Spike thing.

Do you want to see me get mad, J? 😉

First, I don't think Daniel met any harm with his comment. He was simply stating his opinion that he liked Spike's story of redemption better than Angel's. Second, when Spike came back to Sunnydale, did he immediately go back to Buffy and say, "Hey, look love! I have a soul now! You can love me!" Hell no! He sulked away in a basement because of the guilt he felt. And who found who? Buffy found Spike. He then went back and sulked away in the basement after he tried to help Buffy in "Beneath You." He thought he could be better, feel better, but it didn't work. "Didn't work. Costume. Didn't help. Couldn't hide." I also don't think there's any doubt (at least in my mind) that Spike wanted to atone for his sins in "Beneath You." "And she shall look on him with forgiveness, and everybody will forgive and love. He will be loved."

Spike didn't start to "give a piss about atonement" until Buffy told him to pretty much get over it. She forgave him for what he did, as they discussed in "Never Leave Me." Yet, that still wasn't good enough as shown in "Get It Done." Stop moping and start "showing" that you have a soul. Start doing good rather than try to make up for the past because it's all in the past. And for Spike, I think that was enough for him not to give a piss about atonement because Buffy forgave him.