BSV Forum - General - The Bloodshedpub

Nature vs. Nurture: Soul = guilt?

Jul 12 2007 07:37 pm   #1ZoeGrace

In another thread we've gotten into a soul discussion so I'd like to continue it here if anyone is interested.  Sorry this is long, but when have I ever been known for brevity?

From my perspective, nature and nurture both play a huge role in how one turns out.  Even in the buffyverse we see a "soul" doesn't always equal "good" and "no soul" doesn't always equal bad.  

In the buffyverse humans have souls and demons don't.  While Spike is controversial, how about Clem?  I think firstly the major issue with the soul comes from the writers and a few judeo-christian assumptions (not trying to get into theology here and this tangent will be very brief, so please don't anyone think I'm insulting religion, I'm SO not going there. I also understand some Christians believe literally in demons and some do not.  But if I use the word "mythology" someone will freak out on me.)

But within this belief system is a belief by many that humans can get to heaven if forgiven, but a demon, no matter what, cannot go to heaven.  So there has to be a quantitative difference in demon and human, so soul would be a logical thought.  This carries over into the buffyverse.

It seems (and correct me if I'm wrong please) that the major issue of a soul for Spike is that it would provide him with a conscience i.e. guilt. (we can debate this point if anyone wants to question my assumption that conscience equals guilt because I'm open to new interpretation if anyone can separate guilt from it as a major component of what we refer to as a conscience.)

But I believe that Nurture, often as much as, if not moreso, affects one's "conscience" more than Nature.  I can give two examples. 

People who are raised in a very strict religious environments, often develop guilt over a LOT of things (not all of them necessarily "wrong")  This is due, not to a 'soul' or even a 'conscience' but due to social conditioning.

Even Buffy exhibits this behavior.  She has extreme guilt over a lot of things that have nothing to do with good/evil (like how she likes her sex and with whom) but little or no guilt revolving around her mistreatment of Spike.  So where was her soul then?  If the soul is the moral compass.  If Buffy, champion of the people can't get it right, just by virtue of a shiny soul, then what difference does the soul really make?

For that matter, no matter how much people might want an absolute morality, morals like ethics are almost always situational.  Even with killing we have to distinguish between murder and self defense.  And then what about a mother who goes after her daughter's rapist after the fact and kills him?  How much blame are we allotting her?   Sometimes it gets a bit too primal to wax philosophical about how two wrongs don't make a right.

2. If you observe two 5 year olds.  One has been taught certain things are wrong (and I'm not talking like murder here), and another child who hasn't been taught those things.  Child two will have no problem committing the wrong act (say stealing another child's crayons for his own personal use).  He won't feel guilty, he won't care.  It's the law of the jungle.  Sort of a "Faith" philosophy of life.  Want. Take. Have.

Also, when defining the soul as what makes one "good" or makes one have the potential for longterm or extended goodness, how do we define "good?"  My contention is that "good" is determined as "what is good for me or my group."

Morality is defined along human standards for the most part.  i.e. If a cat kills a mouse, even if he toys with it first, we don't consider that evil, that's just nature.  But if a human gets killed by another human, that's evil (except for when it isn't.)  If a lion kills a human, that's nature.  In the buffyverse, demons and humans aren't the same species, even though vampires LOOK human, it's explicitly shown that they are not.

So I don't personally believe it's empirically "evil" for a vampire to kill a human, even if he plays with his food first like a cat might.  Because it's just the food chain.  Just like Buffy killing vampires is just protection.  If it's empirically evil for a vampire to kill a human, based on the fact that humans don't like being killed, then it also has to be evil at least from a demon perspective for Buffy to kill their kind.  Especially since she hunts them and makes no real attempt to distinguish between harmful and nonharmful species. (Oh, and she plays with her food too.  Not as morbidly, but still.  Buffy plays cat and mouse.)

I think the problem for Spike isn't a soul vs no soul, but identification with a species besides his own.  In the demon/vampire world it is evil to kill your own kind.  Spike, according to his own species is evil. (There are several places where this taboo is pointed out by other demons)  He has sided with the enemy, at first out of necessity, later out of preference because of an identification with what was formerly his food. (the reason a lot of people become vegetarians)

So this is another reason why I think the soul doesn't solve the problem.  Because morality is determined by the species it's in reference to.  Spike will always be evil either by human or demon standards.  He can no longer completely identify with the demons, and he'll never fully identify with the humans, soul or no soul.  (and when speaking of evil by demon standards I mean demon standards i.e. "what's bad for demons.")

This is already too long. Comments?

Jul 12 2007 09:07 pm   #2Caro Mio

If the soul were only conscience, then yes, it's not enough for consistently doing "good". But if we look at both Spike and Angel (on his show) post soul, then it's much more than that. They're not just 'identifying with the food', but having a genuine sense of what is wrong and why from a caring sense it *is* wrong. True empathy for the masses, not just the people they encounter that made a positive impact. They've gained added humanity, since they have human souls.

As far as nature vs. nurture - Humans are born with a conscience, except for those who cannot understand right and wrong because of a physical handicap. As children get older and naturally begin to care beyond their self needs, they start caring about right and wrong things beyond consequences for them. Again, empathy. Now, the list size of what a person considers "right" depends on what we're taught - very true. But, it's the moral core of a person that *keeps* them on that "right" path when removed from the situation that encourages goodness.

For example: Many people brought up in a religion, provided they like it there, follow the teachings quite well when they are in that group and the teachings are reinforced frequently. But, when you take that person and drop them in a corrupt situation, few can stand by their original principles without failing. That's not just about the new input - the new "nurture" - but their own fortitude that they were born with to remain on a set path. i.e. There are many Christians in the past who thought they had enough faith, but when faced with the choice of faith or death, they chose survival out of fear. The person whose inner fortitude cannot be shaken does not fear death. I believe that's something people are born with, rather than learn.

I think an unchipped, pre-soul Spike (before the guilt of the AR) would fall to temptation if he was far removed from Buffy's influence. (We're assuming that he doesn't want to rush back to her for the sake of argument.)  It would be easy to stop caring about anonymous happy meals when he only has his own morality to listen to. Pluck him out of any point in season 6 and put him in a city, and even a city he likes, with no chip and no promise to Buffy? He's going to seek out human blood. It's still going to smell good, taste good, and there's no extra bit of internal guilt or empathy to keep him from giving in. <i>And no warden.</i>

See, as long as he's in Sunnydale, even if Buffy is dead, he still will run into the Scoobies, and with the chip, he's vulnerable if they feel the need to stake him, so this is incentive not to incur righteous wrath. A demon that doesn't care about right and wrong *has* to have convincing incentive to choose the human version of right. Is he too likely to end up dead? Is there payment? Will I gain more power? Spike's vulnerability is that he is no longer anonymous in Sunnydale. Put him in New York with no chip and no Buffy, and the whole situation changes. It might take some time, but he's going to give in unless he receives a new external compass.

As much as I love Spike, one of his flaws is that he is desperate to belong to  someone, or a group.  It started as William, and he molded himself to please Dru as a vampire. Once chipped, he tried to join the only group possibly open to him, the Scoobies.  Without a soul, he's too easily swayed by the group's beliefs that he wants to be a part of.  Spike didn't start truly doing things because HE wanted to until AtS. He mentions this clearly. He knows it about himself that he had just been a follower before. I believe he didn't want to acknowledge/face this while he was unsouled, and that's why he was led around like he was. Souled Spike is self-aware, and with his years of experience, it's made him into a mature, admirable man.

What If I'm Not the Slayer? now updated with chapters 22 and 23.
Jul 12 2007 09:50 pm   #3ZoeGrace

In large part my problem with Spike having a human soul is it says; "being human is better than being a vampire, even a good vampire."  That "human" is the ideal.  So he always falls short, and is always lesser based on the fact that he IS a vampire, playing at being human.  

I think that vampires and demons already have a genuine sense of what is wrong, else how could they as a rule always choose wrong? If they knew no distinction in good and evil then they would just perform various random acts and some would be good and some would be evil but they constantly seek out evil.  So they have to know the difference.

And I think even with a soul, all the soul does is make him identify more with the food.  Because he's not human and never will be.  To me the soul is just trying to make him something else because what he was wasn't "good enough."  (Even Angel with the soul is at times tempted.)

When you say humans are born with a "conscience" is this a scientific fact and can you provide proof, or is it just a personal belief?  Because I'm not sure I agree with it.  I DO agree that all people will follow their internal code of what they think is 'right and wrong' but  I'm not sure how much the "right and wrong" motif is ingrained in culture.  Considering the fact that moral codes can vary so widely I'm not sure how I feel about this as an absolute.

Also, from a purely evolutionary argument, all species will behave in the nature that is most beneficial for their continued survival as a species, so this goes back to "right" being "what is good for humans" and 'wrong" being "what is bad for humans" rather than some absolute morality.

I also don't believe the fortitude you speak of is something you are born with.  Life situations can affect how one deals with things.  People become stronger or weaker over time based in part on their life circumstances.  You can't remove nurture from the equation of any given act of human behavior IMO.

I think it's like this...If Spike went to a new city, I think he would find another group of humans to hang on with.  He prefers human company, even when he was totally totally evil, he spends more time conversing with Dalton than any other minion, Dalton arguably has more humanity than some of the others.  Now that Spike's had human company I don't think he'll go back to hanging out with other demons.  I just don't see it.  Because he was too "human" to begin with and only fit in with other demons through a carefully crafted persona.  I think the memory of Buffy would keep him going long enough to form other attachments.

And yes blood is still all yummy to him, but he could pick a middle road.  He's suave and hot, I'm sure he could have his own harem of willing donors.  Other vampires have had these types of setups.  Even in the buffyverse we have the "vamp whorehouse" scenario.  Clearly these are soulless demons choosing not to kill.  

He wouldn't even have to do it with them paying him.  He could provide for them if he didn't want to be the one that looked like the whore.  How he would get his money is another thing.  He could kill vampires and steal their money.  Or kill thugs and steal theres.  Or get a job in security. 

It's shown in canon they can feed without killing.  Or he could kill rapists and killers.  Either way he has options besides picking off small children.  He can have his blood and drink it too so to speak.

The large difference in you and I in this is that in the grand scheme, you believe his nature will win out, and I believe his nurture will.  Because I know how hard it is to break social conditioning and I believe he's been conditioned enough that he will choose the path of least resistance, which I truly believe is NOT bathing in the blood of the innocents.

As for the "he'll give in if he doesn't have a new external compass."  Eventually, yes.  Eventually almost anyone will cave under the social pressures of any given situation.  Any individual human being could go evil given the right string of bad choices and influences.  I'm not seeing here anything that doesn't hold true soul or no soul.

Jul 12 2007 10:40 pm   #4Guest

I don't have an article to cite, but psychologists/psychiatrists do believe we are born with an innate conscience, except in those whose brains developed differently. It's linked to studies on the physiology of serial killers vs. regular people.

I wouldn't say that Spike is entirely not human, just not completely human. His body has different urges and physical abilities, but the reasoning part of the brain for a vampire is the same. We could make more distinction if vampires were pure demons, vs. half-breeds. His upper brain structure is still the same, with the same memories and the same ability to speak. William evolved, but he's still William. :D

Well, if he's going to live in a human world, then yeah, human morality is better than a vampires. To be a "good" vampire, he has to at least mimic what we do! Otherwise, he should forsake us and go live in a demon society with different morals.

It seems to me, at least for fiction, that you prefer demons to humans to begin with, as a class of being, so if the humans aren't more valuable to you, then I don't think we're going to agree on much about the soul. (Not that in RL, I always love my own species.)

Caro Mio

Jul 12 2007 11:05 pm   #5ZoeGrace

Okay on the conscience thing being innate, but I think "right and wrong" are labels we've later attached to it.  I think it's more of an evolutionary survival thing since humans are pack animals and cannot thrive in an environment of total chaos.

I'm not saying I "prefer" demons to humans, so much as I see them as mirrors of each other and can see no empirical reason to call one "better" than the other unless we use one of them as the yardstick to judge the other as bad.  Though when it comes to Spike I prefer him without a soul (but I think we established that lol)

If Spike is part human, then IMO he's even more susceptible to nurture than most demon breeds would be. 

In some cultures people eat dogs.  Here, we freak out about that, even though there is no real moral reason for it.  It's because we think of dogs as companion pets, not food.  I think with Spike's exposure to humans he would feel the same way toward humans in general and it would alter his feeding choices if he moved to a different city (not saying he wouldn't still occasionally drink live human blood, but I think his attitude about it would be different as would his methods.)

I think he would be like a domesticated cat, eating the "bagged food" but still hunting in some manner.  Whether he chose to hunt demons and have some live blood in a consensual situation, or chose to hunt "bad" humans (which he wouldn't feel a "cute puppy" affection for).

I think we highly underestimate soulless Spike if the Scoobies can inspire him to not want to kill.  Think of how he'd be if he were surrounded with morally admirable people?  I can't believe the restraint he has to have to be inspired not to eat Buffy (in the dinner way.)

I mean *I'm* not entirely inspired not to eat Buffy (in the dinner way.) :P

I also think he doesn't like an easy kill.  He prefers to kill demons cause there is a fight.  It's why he sought out slayers.  So there are alternatives for him to have all of his needs met in ways that together are overall more satisfactory than his former ways with Dru.

And yes, if not for Buffy or the Scoobies, to me the whole point is mostly moot.  I believe he would choose to integrate with other humans first and foremost, but I see no real problem with him reverting back to his vampire ways if he's not wanting to be in a relationship with Buffy.  Because by vampire standards (his own species) he's not "evil" 

Given the proper cognition, cows might believe I'm evil for being a beef-eater.  But I'm not about to give up my "evil" beef eating ways to leave my fellow humans behind and join forces with cows.

So for those reasons I don't see a problem with Spike being a vampire, with him being with Buffy without a soul, or with him leaving Buffy altogether and choosing to go back to being "evil."  I just don't find eating what is below you on the food chain to be an "evil" act.

It's only evil to the thing that's being eaten.

Jul 13 2007 01:44 am   #6Scarlet Ibis

Spike pre-soul wouldn't hurt Joyce or Dawn because of his feelings for Buffy...

Now, that wasn't mentioned in any of the above posts, but in the other, way long thread from Caro Mio.

Spike likes Joyce before he ever likes Buffy.  Recall "Lover's Walk" and his little speech to Xander when he brings flowers when Joyce dies.  He genuinely cared about her.

Spike: Care? Joyce was the only one of the lot of you that I could stand.
Xander: And she's the only one with a daughter you wanted to shag. I'm touched.
Spike: I liked the lady. Understand, monkey boy? She was decent. (Xander and Willow exchange a look) She didn't put on airs. She always had a nice cuppa for me.

Willow looks sympathetic.

Spike: And she never treated me like a freak.

He also genuinely cares for Dawn- he specifically tells her *not* to tell Buffy about him helping her get the Ghora eggs to resurrect her mom.

The whole thing that's incredibly hypocritical about the soul thing is this- they show repeatedly how a soul doesn't make you any better than the soulless.  Spike was chock full of humanity, and reasoning, and he was more about the fight then torture and pain (like Angelus).

How can any of us who enjoy the Buffy or Angel verses put so much emphasis on a soul when we see characters like Faith, who killed without remorse, and also took pleasure in torturing human beings (s1 on Angel when she kidnaps Wes).  Yes, she eventually found redemption, but even Spike wouldn't take the time to go through the several processes of torture as she did (I know two of them were hot and cold- I don't remember the rest).  Then we the Mayor, who was initially human, but chose to be "evil," and become a demon, etc.  Then there's Maggie Walsh, who not only wanted some form of world domination, she tries to have Buffy killed.

And then we see vampires like Harmony- who didn't need a soul *or* a chip to control her bloodlust.  She visits Cordelia, and doesn't even attempt to eat her.  Yes, she's tempted, but she wants to be good, and to be apart of the team.  She made a choice.  If I had to choose between hanging out with her or s3-s4 Faith, I'd sure as hell choose Harmony.

Then there's Holtz- who blows Buffy's little theory about all newbie vamps being driven solely by bloodlust, and yet, he's able to strike up a long, in depth conversation with her.  He most certainly had potential.

And let us not forget the ever soulful Willow and Warren.  Cause attempting to beat people to death, ripping off people's skin, and shooting people when they smash your magical balls is *way* good.  Yup- souls really separate the "good" from the "evil."

Spike didn't need a soul- Spike just needed actual love from an actual good woman.  This is why I can read a good, well written Spara, Spawn or Spangel (and yes, I'm aware that Angel is a guy... but I thought I should mention that too :D )

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 13 2007 01:52 am   #7Scarlet Ibis

Oh- just thought I should add that not only did he like, respect and care about Joyce, he did all that *before* he was in love with Buffy, so saying that he identified with humans only because his love for Buffy is grossly inaccurate.  And he liked/cared for Giles too.  When Rayne turns him into a demon, that made Giles fair game to Spike.  He could have fought and/or killed him if he so pleased.  Sure, he swindles money from him, but he *helped* when he didn't have to.  Giles couldn't speak English- no one would have known.  Also, they hung out during the summer between s4 and s5, which suggests to me that they were friends of some degree.  This is also before he realizes he's in love with Buffy.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 13 2007 03:20 am   #8ZoeGrace

Great points, Scarlet.  Maybe instead of going so philosophical/theoretical I should have made points like that.  Lots of soulful evil going on in the buffyverse, lots of soulless good.  It seems a conscience happens when you exercise it, soul or no soul.  As Spike continued to make better choices, it became easier to know which choices to make.  

To me it all boils down to the fact that he was willing to take torture to seek out his soul...to me proves he didn't need it. 

Would Willow have done such a thing if she didn't have a soul? Would Xander?  Don't get me started on Buffy?  Doubtful though.

And I agree about harmony.  She's no good at being evil.  She just wants to be in a clique again and doesn't want to be an outcast.  Though she did try to betray Cordy and the AI gang in that episode to the vampires in the motivational pyramid scheme.

From what we know Clem as a demon doesn't have a soul.  What about that demon way back in season three that Faith killed to get that book from for the Mayor?  He didn't seem all that evil to me either.

Further, with Vampires it seems the human personality informs the demon.  Harmony was an airhead as a human, airhead as a demon.  Angel was a bastard as a  human, bastard as a demon.  Spike was a poet and fool for love as a human, same as a demon.

Just because Angel has a soul, doesn't mean suddenly it's a good idea to slap one on everyone on the "no-stake" list.

Jul 13 2007 05:39 am   #9Maggie2

Hi Zoe,

I put off reading this thread all day because I knew it was going to be involved!! I think it would be too hard to debate this issue at this level because people bring in very different religious/philosophical beliefs into the discussion.  But it is interesting to hear different perspectives, so here's mine.

I'm a convert to Roman Catholicism, and have been most deeply shaped on philosophical and theological issues by St. Thomas Aquinas (a major authority in the Catholic Church).  So here's the Thomist perspective!!

1. The writers of BtVS mean something different by the word 'soul' than does Thomas.  All creatures have souls of one sort or another.  And if the soul was removed, the creature would be dead (really dead, not 'undead').  So there could be no unsouled creatures walking around.

2. But the word 'soul' in BtVS does seem to function much like conscience does in Thomas' thought.  In Thomas, our conscience is God's light within us.  Of course, we all have free will, and thus we are free to steer by some light other than God's light.  That's why humans can do great evil.  Only rational creatures have the spark of conscience so we can leave out animals and plants from our further discussion.  The question is whether demons would have a conscience (BtVS 'soul') also.

3. The answer is a qualified no.  Demons are fallen angels -- angels who have declared 'non serviam' i.e. 'I will not serve'.  They might still have a conscience, a seed of God's light in them.  But it would be very dark -- because they have willfully cut themselves off from God.  BTW, in Thomas's thought, demons can't be saved -- but only because they don't have bodies and are not in time the way we are.  Once they choose the 'non serviam' they can't chose otherwise.  But if we imagine fallen angels somehow taking on bodies, then I don't see any theoretical reason for them not to be able to repent.  In other words, Spike's choice to turn to the light is possible under a Thomistic view.

4. I do see Spike as hitting rock bottom in SR and making a choice to change.  Obviously this isn't done in a theological situation, with Spike choosing 'serviam' over 'non serviam'.  But to me it dramatically plays out about the same way.  He's willing to seek after a change that will radically transform him.  He essentially dies to himself, which is a deep Christian theme of conversion.  And it makes sense on a Thomistic view that the result of this conversion would be an enhancement of the spark of light that is the conscience.  Free will remains.  He can follow or not follow.  But the path would be clearer.  And that's the basis for my saying that the 'soul' matters.

5. We all choose by our actions to enhance or diminish that light of conscience.  We can grow over time in our ability to discern morally.  We might well move from a simplistic sense of right and wrong in which there is always an obvious right answer, to a more nuanced view which is equally sure there's a right and a wrong, but also clear that the answers are not always obvious.  Contexts do matter.  For example, it's 'always' right to return someone's property if you are holding it for them.  Unless, as Thomas observes, the property in question is a sword (translate to our day as a gun) and the owner of the sword is drunk and belligerent.  We grow in wisdom depending on how much we try to do right and stay open to really learning.  And (in a Christian context) with lots of prayer.

6. So with all of this the basics of the Buffyverse make sense.  Humans in general have a functional conscience.  But individual humans might make a series of choices which cut them off from God and which cloud that light.  Thus we can get humans that act like Warren.  Demons are generally stuck on their non-serviam and thus are not really likely to grow morally.  But since they are corporeal, it's possible that a demon with a big heart (SPIKE), could be led to choose something like the 'serviam'.  That demon would then have a conscience and would be functionally equivalent (in a moral sense) to a human.

7.  Did you notice that the implication of this view is that when Spike walks out of the cave he's really an angel and not a demon?  Course, I rather doubt he knows that!  Don't worry, though, Angels can be mighty warriors.  Think St. Michael.

8.  Speaking of which, Angelus is obviously firmly non-serviam, and therefore still a demon.  Having that spark of conscience thrown onto an unwilling demon would be a mighty punishment.  It could even lead to schizophrenia.

9. Minor point.  For Thomas there is a moral order to the universe.  Rational creatures (both demons and humans in the Buffyverse) are higher up than animals.  It's never O.K. to eat a rational creature the way it's OK for us to eat non-rational creatures.  In other words, on this view, demons are really evil.  The fact that we know that vampires can subsist without taking human life underscores the evil nature of their choice to do otherwise. 

10. I haven't worked out the ethics of Buffy's mission as a vampire slayer.  I suppose if she were Chosen, we could say she has a divine calling to eliminate the threat demons pose to humans.  But like I said, the ethics of this are tricky, and I'm not all that wise so my moral discernment is limited, and in any case there are limits to what we can know about the 'true' moral order of a fictional verse.  :)

None of this does justice to the richness of Thomas's thought.  But it should give you an idea of what a Thomistic read of this question would look like!

Anyway, when I say Spike needs a soul, I mean he needs to be more open to God's guiding light (which we all have in the form of our conscience, however much we cultivate or neglect it).  That would lead him to view other humans as fellow rational creatures, all of whom deserve respect and care.  It would allow him to see for himself the complex contours of moral life.  And it would just be intrinsically good, because it would mean he's closer to God, whether he acknowledges that connection or not.  (Course, he does in Beneath You, but that's another story...)

Jul 13 2007 05:49 am   #10Scarlet Ibis

But staying strictly with the Buffy and Angel verses, the jury is still out on whether or not their is one God.  There are the Powers That Be, heavenly and hell dimensions, but no mention of God directly.  And, what with Slayers being imbued with the power of demons, wouldn't that also make them "non serviam" by default?

Anyway, since God technically does not offically exist in those two universes, we can't really use St. Thomas' reasoning...

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 13 2007 07:30 am   #11ZoeGrace

Maggie,

That's very interesting.  I was raised extremely fundamentalist pentecostal, so needless to say the theology I was raised on wasn't nearly so nuanced lol.  My completely different philosophical views (not pentecostal, left that a long time ago) are what lead me to believe he doesn't need the soul.

And I think you are right, the "does he need a soul or doesn't he" issue will be largely influenced by people's own personal views on things like that.  I feel like he already "has" a conscience and that conscience will grow as long as he exercises it.  He doesn't, IMO need some extra magical thing shoved inside him.

I think it's interesting though about the idea that he's an angel now rather than a demon.  It would be very interesting if the buffyverse had followed that storyline and also if his gameface looked different.  It would have been REALLY cool if they'd introduced the philosophy you just did, like in one of Giles' dusty old books.  Maybe that's a fanfic you should write. 

I come from a perspective where humans are also animals.  Something that I think is sad is how we separate ourselves out so much from nature by elevating ourselves above the animal kingdom rather than just seeing ourselves as another species, more advanced in some areas.  

I've also seen some higher primates clearly reason and I'm not so sure my cats aren't self aware they seem to be very high functioning.  Which was what led into my "as a species" humans wouldn't necessarily automatically be better than vampires.  And also why I don't find a vampire eating a human any more offensive than a human eating a chicken.

Scarlet, Right.  There are hellgods we know that much.  And Tara and Willow pray to various goddesses for their spells.  There are several hell dimensions, logic would suggest as many heavenly dimensions.  So within the buffyverse itself it would almost seem like "everything exists."  

In the buffy world, demon seems to be a broad term denoting a certain type of mystical creature. Since there are nonharmful breeds of demon in the buffyverse we can be reasonably sure that demons in the buffyverse while often evil aren't automatically evil.  i.e. "demon" may not be a synonym for "evil."  

Though very often Spike will say something like "I'm a DEMON" As if that's supposed to automatically denote evil, so probably nonharmful breeds like Clem or individual nonharmful demons are pretty rare.


Jul 13 2007 07:36 am   #12Maggie2

That the jury is out does not imply that God does not exist in the Buffyverse.  And in Conversations with Dead People, we learn that the jury is out -- i.e. we can no more conclude "no" than "yes".  That means Thomas is a live option.  At least it works for me... 

BTW, I know Christianity freaks a lot of people out.  But I guess I'm hoping for understanding.  There's a wide range of understandings about what Christian belief entails.  And it doesn't all add up to the same thing.  And to repeat what I said at the beginning -- there's no hope of settling these issues through debate.  We all bring widely divergent presuppositions about these matters into our readings.  I just figured I'd toss mine out onto the table.

Anyway, good point about the 'demon' power of the slayers.  Though I could say that since they have souls, they all potentially have the 'serviam' and could be angels ... like Spike.  :) 

(But not like Angel!!)

p.s. There is one line in Beer Bad specifically saying there will be no Thomas Aquinas discussed here.  There are important ways in which Joss' universe is not Thomistic.  In the line in question, in particular, it's a denial of God's providence.  Joss is pretty existentialist.  But for an existentialist agnostic he has a rather amazing understanding (from a Thomist POV) of the problem of sin, the difficulty of redemption and a bunch of other stuff.  It's part of what makes the 'verse so interesting to a crazy Thomist like myself.  But none of this really takes away from what I said earlier, which is just how a Thomist reading would account for the various relationships between demons, humans and souls. 

Jul 13 2007 07:39 am   #13Scarlet Ibis

That's interesting Zoe- the humans being a more intellectual animal.  I've thought that subconsciously I'm sure... Gorillas are highly intelligent, and though cannot speak as we do, can learn sign language if taught.  Dolphins are also highly intelligent.  A lot of animals are self aware, and have feelings, a need to protect those they love, etc.  So in all fairness to vampires, in the strictly feeding sense, not senseless murder or torture, you really can't blame them for eating humans, their natural food choice.  Humans eat big, doe eyed cows.  And my goodness, veal (I don't eat veal.  I'm no vegetarian, but that's just wrong and icky to me).

I did see a fic where Spike became an angel, or was an angel... but it was... well, the way it was written, it wasn't my cup of tea.  So yeah Maggie, you should mos def persue that fic wise :D

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 13 2007 07:45 am   #14Maggie2

Hey Zoe, thanks for your kind words.  Thomas is just lovely, nice and nuanced.  Not that I don't love my non-Thomistic fundamentalist friends (and I do have a few).  We just keep the conversations at a more practical level.  Course, I spent most of my adult life as a practicing pagan, and still have a lot of pagan friends as well.

I think I've come across a couple "angelic Spike" fanfics.  If I had an ounce of talent, I'd put one out.  But I don't.  Alas. 

Jul 13 2007 09:31 am   #15Guest

I don't see humans as another animal, if only because I think it gives us (society) an excuse to not be as accountable as we should be. If you think about it this way, we have great power in the unlimited level that we can reason and think and create and dream. There is no animal that can go beyond a 5-year-old's intelligence and learning capacity in equivalent to our standards. To continue with the Christian related view, we are stewards over the earth and all it contains. That means we are supposed to care for it, maintain it, and protect it when threatened. But the fact that we do have *this much* free will means we have great responsibility in the power of exercising it. "With great power comes great responsibility."

I think to think of us as just another animal on the planet gives people too much of an out to indulge in their baser urges.

Fallen angels did become corporeal, Maggie - they chose to walk on Earth, they bred with humans, corrupted our bloodline, and that's why the flood was used. So Thomas was mistaken on that point. I'd have to look up the exact page, but it's where the Nephilim are mentioned.

As for religions on the BTVSverse, they were on TV, so obviously, they weren't going to go with one doctrine. And Joss is an atheist, so he definitely wouldn't stress there being a God on the the show. he had quite a large writing team, so I'm sure different beliefs were mixed in there, which would explain all the different references on the show. But, yeah, it's Hollywood.......so morals are flexible, and everybody's included.

I have always wondered, if a vampire's automatic food choice would always be the species they had come from, or whether it would just be the easiest available by their capability of reasoning. In other words, would a vampire pig go after other pigs as their favorite source? Or a cat, or a dog, or a bird? Did human-based vampires figure out in the beginning that it was easy to prey on their human neighbors, so the rule stood through the ages, even though they can subsist on other blood? In a time where livestock were prized possessions, was it just that much easier to fee off a human and drop the body somewhere, rather than someone raising hell because their favorite cow was missing?

CM

Jul 13 2007 09:57 am   #16ZoeGrace

Maggie, when you mentioned Thomas Aquinas I thought of the beer bad episode lol.  I'm not fundamentalist at this time.  I deconverted, had a pagan phase (not that I think paganism is a phase, it just was for me) and now I'm happily agnostic (which means i believe we "can't" know what's out there, not that I haven't made up my mind yet.) :P

I think the "crazy" christians are what freak people out (which IMO has nothing to do with your specific beliefs and everything to do with if you hound people relentlessly to join you), but to be fair there are crazies in every religion even non religion.  I've seen some pretty high pressure atheists who want to deconvert everybody.  So it cuts both ways (or all ways.)

Scarlet, I don't eat veal either.  They don't let them frolick.  And frankly I can often only eat meat when it doesn't "look like" it used to be alive.  So hamburgers and chicken nuggets I can deal with.  Chicken legs, not so much.

CM,  Seeing oneself as part of the animal kingdom IMO isn't an excuse to behave badly.  One should still act in the best interest of one's species.  Also I think judging all animal species by "our standards" is how we can claim that we are "higher" 

Yet Spiders are clearly better at spinning webs and Cheetahs are clearly better at running, and even Domestic cats are better hunters and see better in the dark, so it really comes down to what you are comparing.  To me it's apples and oranges, but it's all fruit.  

Also in measuring intelligence, we have to look at, intelligence in reference to what?  Reason in reference to what?  I've been around other species of animal enough to believe they think things out.  Everything isn't instinct.  They have personalities and feelings.

Primarily humans IMO are the animals of invention and art (though some of the higher primates show signs of both as well.  So it becomes a question of where exactly is the cut-off point.  If intelligence is your cut-off point are mentally retarded people animals?  I'm not trying to be cruel or offensive here, but it's a logical question.  There was a time when people believed that.)

I *do* believe we are just another animal, so I don't know what to tell you there lol.  *shrug*  I don't think this somehow lessens my responsibility or gives me an "easy out." What is does do for me though is make me feel more connected to the entire web of life, rather than seeing myself as "above" and "apart" from it.  And I believe that to be a very life affirming view to hold.

Also, I see human beings as "pack animals." We form hierarchies and such and there are many interesting similarities between wolf packs and human social structure.  So to me, this actually creates stronger a desire to "not harm the pack" as it were.

hehehe interesting on vampire pigs and such, but there were no vampire pigs on Buffy.  Unless we count Spike. :P


Jul 13 2007 07:38 pm   #17Guest

They do have personalities (see my cats) and feelings, but the level that they can reach in intellectual complexity compared to us is extremely limited. Mentally retarded people aren't animals, of course, they are just ill, or even "flawed" examples. There are many things that animals just aren't able to think *of*, or understand. None of them have devised a written language. They act largely how their DNA is programmed. An animal doesn't, and even can't, volunteer to change their nature. They don't have enough free will capability to do that. Only we do. I might have been born to be an artist, but I can choose to to be a programmer. I might not be as happy in that vocation, but I can still exercise the will to do so.

As far as the excuse - I don't see an individual identifying with other species on the planet as much of a problem, per se, but I do belive the concept is 'dangerous' in a society. I've seen enough people live to less than their potential because they say "hey, it's just nature". No, it wasn't nature, it was your *choice*. And I think we hold the burden of accountability *because* we can make so many choices. Animals aren't capable of changing the world. We are. That's *huge*, in my opinion.

Caro Mio

Jul 13 2007 11:19 pm   #18ZoeGrace

Most animals don't have opposable thumbs.  That could have to do with the written language.  But really this is a case to me of using ourselves as the yardstick of measurement.  If we used for example, Spiders, we could say..."Well Spiders aren't part of the animal kingdom, because they spin webs right out of their bodies.  Since no one else can do that, they are better, higher, different, etc."  

Also Dolphin language is so complex, even with all our technology we can't properly decipher it, so much for supreme human intelligence.  Dolphins also make up recreational games.

Higher primates have been known to communicate in sign language, some of them showing quite a range of feelings, and logical choices in various situations.  The fact that they are at a different point in their evolution than we are I don't think make human beings a "different" sort of thing altogether.  Just a creature farther on it's evolutionary path.

Biologically we are animals.  I can respect that your belief system doesn't allow you to comfortably integrate that information, but it's a scientific fact that our genome is 99% the same as primates and a large chunk is also similar to other species.  We are all made out of the same materials.  If you want to argue that we aren't "just" animals, then I guess that would be a religious based belief and that's fine, but to say that we aren't animals at ALL is a misunderstanding of basic biological reality. 

I don't think animals act only on instinct.  Many animals play and that's not solely an instinctual response unless you want to argue that it is in humans as well.  

And I think humans act on instinct more than they want to admit, but later use reason to come up with  examples of why they weren't acting on instinct.   I don't believe humans can change their nature either overall.  Good or bad human behavior is still variations on human nature and human behavior in any given situation with any given personality type of person is remarkably predictable most of the time.  Criminal profilers make good money based on this predictability.  It's also what makes psychology work.  If everything was completely random based entirely on free will choice then we couldn't predict human behavior, because it could be anything.

As for changing the world, all creatures have an impact on their environment as their environment does on them.  But we always like to think we are the superheros of the galaxy.  Given the destruction of the rainforests, etc. I would argue that some animals wouldn't agree.

Though I think we've gotten way off the topic here.  Because I really didn't want this to devolve into a religious discussion and I really am starting to feel that it is.  Because we aren't even discussing whether or not Spike needs a soul in the Buffyverse, but whether or not human beings are a species of animal.  And that discussion comes down ultimately to spiritual beliefs and lack thereof.  When such deeply held convictions are brought into the equation, likely the only thing that will happen is frustration.

Jul 14 2007 02:25 am   #19Guest

Yeah, we have.

I will say that I do integrate science into my theories. I studied biology heavily for years as a young person because I was going to be a marine biologist, specializing in cetaceans, before discovering that the degree required I take Calculus.

As for Spike needing the soul, one can say yes, but we also can't be 100% sure because we didn't get to collect further evidence of his choices pre-soul. I do greatly respect souled Spike. He's a good man, and everything he continues to accomplish makes me really proud of him.

Jul 14 2007 04:56 am   #20ZoeGrace

hehe "you" can say yes he needs the soul.  I don't think he needs it.  :P

Jul 14 2007 05:43 am   #21Scarlet Ibis

I think that the soul definitely speeded up his progression.  However, without the soul, I still know that Spike would have found his way there eventually.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 14 2007 07:06 am   #22ZoeGrace

heh, I just like him a little dark.  To me sorta evil spike is the attraction.  When he's all soulful and "good" all the time and holding back, yick.

Jul 14 2007 07:26 am   #23Scarlet Ibis

Oh, just to make it clear, what I was getting at was that the soul wasn't necessary, unless there was some sort of time limit on Spike learning and growing :D

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 14 2007 09:07 am   #24ZoeGrace

hahaha. 

Jul 14 2007 01:04 pm   #25Guest

Spike's always going to be a bit dark, anyway. He was already equalizing out on AtS, so I don't doubt that we would have seen the same flirtations and snark if S6 of AtS had happened. Yeah, he's on the good fight, but he's not gonna act like a saint. :D

CM

Jul 14 2007 09:37 pm   #26ZoeGrace

That's a relief.