Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Spike (Season 4, 5, 6) a 'good' vampire?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Spike (Season 4, 5, 6) a 'good' vampire?

    I say not. Many have said so. We can continue to debate this, even when BuffyWorld is down!
    sigpic
    Banner by LRae12

  • #2
    As I've said before...it depends on what we mean by "good". The way I see it, good is as good does.

    I think it's too much to say outright that Spike is "good", especially in S4 when he's just been chipped. At the same time, I'm not sure we can call him "evil", either. Spike is caught somewhere between good and evil, slowly, with fits and starts, trending in the direction of good.

    Could he have gotten the whole way without a soul? I dunno...but I know what Wesley says over on the other show--every source agrees on the possibility of change.
    DeadWar: Burden of Proof
    Out Now.
    Avatar by Barb
    Feedback is always welcome here.

    Comment


    • #3
      The old saying is that your character is who you are when nobody is looking. Who was ChipSpike when nobody, particularly Buffy, wasn't looking?

      Demon egg trafficker?
      Bronze-hunting with Drusilla?
      Testing his chip on that girl in "Smashed"?
      sigpic
      Banner by LRae12

      Comment


      • #4
        Character is not a constant, then, because who we are when nobody is looking changes over the course of our lives. I know I have, and not always for the better--I'll admit as much.

        Two of those are classic cases of temptation--Spike does fail, yes, after a struggle. Some people may be here to argue that Spike was thoroughly good, and I'm not--Spike screwed up over and over. But he screwed up in the sort of situations in which even good people sometimes fail--when he was tempted with the things from his old life.

        As for the demon eggs...You know, I never have been really convinced that was him. If it was, he must be way out of his depth, because he bollockses that one up as badly as Harmony ever did.
        DeadWar: Burden of Proof
        Out Now.
        Avatar by Barb
        Feedback is always welcome here.

        Comment


        • #5
          As I've said before...it depends on what we mean by "good". The way I see it, good is as good does.
          Agree! And especially for a Vampire!

          The old saying is that your character is who you are when nobody is looking. Who was ChipSpike when nobody, particularly Buffy, wasn't looking?

          Demon egg trafficker?
          Bronze-hunting with Drusilla?
          Testing his chip on that girl in "Smashed"?
          The times you mention are all times in which he is in love with Buffy but she is rejecting him because of his lack of soul. And in Crush - Drusilla represents his "old Vampire life" which he - admittedly - longs for because he can't be what Buffy wants. It's like an alcoholic and his old drinking buddies! Who is more likely to welcome you back into the "group" than those who won't judge you - they are right there with you (to drag you back down...)! Drusilla represents this to Spike - as mentioned before - even removes the "limitation" from him.

          Character is not a constant, then, because who we are when nobody is looking changes over the course of our lives. I know I have, and not always for the better--I'll admit as much.
          This can even be said for Spike over his course of time in Buffy's World. Think back to when he first made the deal with Buffy to help her if she will help him get Dru out. He doesn't attack her Mom which sets up a nice relationship between them. When he comes back in "Lover's Walk", again, sits there talking with Buffy's Mom - not hurting her. There are as many pros for as there are cons against Spikes' behavior.

          As for the demon eggs...You know, I never have been really convinced that was him. If it was, he must be way out of his depth, because he bollockses that one up as badly as Harmony ever did.
          See... I'm not the only one who doesn't believe it was Spike either...
          -TP<3
          "At that point I'd love a fight and a heart to heart and then of course naughtiness and happy ever after."
          - Dorian's Kitten re: Spuffy Reunion

          Spuffy Videos!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ThePoet's<3 View Post


            See... I'm not the only one who doesn't believe it was Spike either...
            Yeah I wish there had been a bit more explanation there. I do think Spike was involved more than "holding them for a friend", but when exactly he found the time to try and pull of the evil scheme is a mystery. As is what exactly he thought he was doing. But I can buy that Spike was trying to get cash; especially since Buffy needed some quite seriously at that point. Seeing her in the Doublemeat palace, had to be tough for him too. I'm thinking that for Spike, whose entire ethical system at that time is based on the standard: "Do what will make Buffy love me", getting her some money (even the wrong way) would seem like the thing to do.
            "All I ask is that... that you try to see me."

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah a lot of what spike's about in this phase of his un-life is trying, and failing, to please buffy, to be what she wants.

              My view is that he definitely is not a good vampire at this point because to me, without a soul there can be no such thing.

              What you can have though is a 'weak' vampire and for all his prowess in battle and ability to survive spike does have a 'weakness' as does harmony. That weakness to me is a deep underlying need to be accepted. Once spike can no longer be accepted by buffy or in vamp society by being the big bad he has to try to be accepted in a different way. I see spike as basically trying to be accepted as a man at this stage and failing because he only has a hundred plus years of doing things one way to fall back on. In effect he is trying new things but can't help falling back into old ways as he goes. With no soul and therefore no moral compass he has little to tell him what he is doing wrong.
              JUST ENOUGH KILL

              sigpic
              Banner by Ciderdrinker

              Comment


              • #8
                So I'm currently contemplating the possibility that drinking blood and thus killing humans does not in and of itself make a vampire evil. I know, I know, stay with me a moment.
                Vampires are not human; they need blood to survive. I don't think it can be evil to do what you must to survive. Just like we cannot require the impossible. Killing is the traditional way of acquiring it. Certainly we can say that not killing is a better way to survive, but perhaps that is something that requires unique ethical growth.
                I am thinking that humans eating meat is an interesting parallel. I'm a vegetarian, have been for eleven years. However most of my friends are not. While I don't feel they are making the best choice, I obviously don't consider them evil. They are doing what our predecessors needed to do in order to survive.
                So, maybe vampires are not strictly speaking evil for merely being vampires. Maybe they need to do something particularly cruel to be rightly called evil.
                "All I ask is that... that you try to see me."

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't believe in morality, so I can't tell what Spike's score on the "big cosmic scoreboard" would be, but in these seasons he is definitely not acting in the interest of the Scoobies. He has a somewhat twisted love for Buffy, which sometimes ends up helping her, (see The Gift) but most of the time, he is either intending to hurt her (Smashed, The Yoko Factor) or trying to help but ending up hurting her in one way or another (Into the Woods). In Season 4, he helps the Scoobies for cash, but then tries to break them apart to get the chip out of his head, meaning that he wants to become his old self. In Season 5, he threatens to kill Buffy if she doesn't admit she has some sort of feeling for him. He's constantly trying to fulfill his "love" for her, but always in strange ways, and just won't give up. Then, in Season 6, he takes Buffy away from her friends, her source of strength. When she finally tells him it's over, he just won't give up, like in Season 5, and tries to rape her. After she throws him across the room, he thinks Buffy would love him if he had a soul (because of all the "you soulless thing" 's from Buffy) and goes to get one so she can "get what's coming to her." His motives for getting the soul were not as much "do what's best for Buffy" (which would be going away and staying away at this point) but "do what will make her unable to not love me without being incredibly inconsistent and/or lying to me about 'you soulless thing.'"
                  Buffy: It sounds like it's difficult for you. Maybe your sister makes it hard for you to establish your own identity. You said she's controlling, she doesn't let you make your own decisions -
                  Dawn: Yeah, and she borrows my clothes without asking.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Morality- 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
                    2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
                    3. Virtuous conduct.
                    4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct

                    Redrevo, I think that when you say that you don't believe in morality that you don't mean it. That is, morality exists: people have systems of ideas. Actions are classified by those systems.

                    I think you mean that you believe yourself to be a moral relativist, that is that you reject the idea that any one moral code is the best and that you believe right or wrong is dependent upon the time, place, person, etc. (This would be opposed to the theory of Moral Absolutism.) I actually am not, but I will point out that a moral relativist would be challenged by my vampires not evil question.

                    However, in pointing out that Spike does not always act in the best interests of the Scoobies, you suggest that there is value in that. That the best (read morally correct) choice is the one that is best for the scoobies. A moral relativist would have to accept that Spike's personal moral code does not contain that rule and that if it is not part of his moral system then he is doing no wrong (since moral relativists deny an ultimate right and wrong).
                    "All I ask is that... that you try to see me."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Dorian's Kitten View Post
                      Morality- 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
                      2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
                      3. Virtuous conduct.
                      4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct

                      Redrevo, I think that when you say that you don't believe in morality that you don't mean it. That is, morality exists: people have systems of ideas. Actions are classified by those systems.

                      I think you mean that you believe yourself to be a moral relativist, that is that you reject the idea that any one moral code is the best and that you believe right or wrong is dependent upon the time, place, person, etc. (This would be opposed to the theory of Moral Absolutism.) I actually am not, but I will point out that a moral relativist would be challenged by my vampires not evil question.

                      However, in pointing out that Spike does not always act in the best interests of the Scoobies, you suggest that there is value in that. That the best (read morally correct) choice is the one that is best for the scoobies. A moral relativist would have to accept that Spike's personal moral code does not contain that rule and that if it is not part of his moral system then he is doing no wrong (since moral relativists deny an ultimate right and wrong).
                      The issue is right there at the top of your post. You can't define "right", or "wrong", or even "good." Every time you define it, someone will come along saying, "Well, what about this? Isn't this (right/wrong/good/bad)?" And you'll either try to accomodate their definition or admit that there is no generally accepted definition of "right" or "wrong", rendering the words useless and rhetorical. I'm not a moral relativist. I think people act on their "morality" because either they believe in god(s), making "virtuous" actions in their direct self-interest, or they're acting in self-interest either directly or indirectly. I try not to get people angry because I'm a herd animal. I've got insecurities, social insecurities, that I can't get rid of. Therefore I try not to randomly insult people - that would leave me with no social circle and less things to do. "Right" and "Wrong" are not dependent upon circumstances because they can't even be once-and-for-all defined. People define these words "right" and "wrong" based on their personal likes and dislikes, what's in their own interests. Therefore it's no use trying to use these words in a rational discussion with other people.

                      I don't like what Spike is doing (hurting the Scoobies) because he could just as easily be doing that to me, and I identify with the Scoobies after watching them for four years. I empathize with them, and if they are hurt, I know that would be me if the Sunnydale-hellmouth-world actually existed. It's the same reason rational people decided to make murder illegal. The majority of people in society not only would have no rational reason to murder someone, but they could probably not defend themselves against a murderer. So, the majority of people, acting in their own interests, decided to punish murder by death to protect themselves. I could not defend myself in a fight, so I support the incarceration of violent criminals. If I were larger and stronger, and if I were in serious financial trouble, I would not because I'd probably be one of the violent criminals myself. Self-interest trumps the "cosmic scoreboard", even if it's a "personal subjectively-defined scoreboard", every time.
                      Buffy: It sounds like it's difficult for you. Maybe your sister makes it hard for you to establish your own identity. You said she's controlling, she doesn't let you make your own decisions -
                      Dawn: Yeah, and she borrows my clothes without asking.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think I'm going to resist the urge to trample all over the vaguely Nietzschean, Randian overtones of the previous post by posting another "who would win?" thread.

                        Spike spends his entire time in Seasons 4, 5, and 6 trying to either become a killer again or sleep with Buffy. They are his all consuming motivations. They don't stand out as being arguments for Spike as 'good'.
                        sigpic
                        Banner by LRae12

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by redrevo View Post
                          The issue is right there at the top of your post. You can't define "right", or "wrong", or even "good." Every time you define it, someone will come along saying, "Well, what about this? Isn't this (right/wrong/good/bad)?" And you'll either try to accomodate their definition or admit that there is no generally accepted definition of "right" or "wrong", rendering the words useless and rhetorical.
                          This is actually one of the basic arguments for moral relativism. If you can't define an absolute right or wrong then you need to accept that there is no such thing and all moral codes are a product of their society and social norms (whether religiously orientated or not).

                          Originally posted by redrevo View Post
                          I'm not a moral relativist. I think people act on their "morality" because either they believe in god(s), making "virtuous" actions in their direct self-interest, or they're acting in self-interest either directly or indirectly. I try not to get people angry because I'm a herd animal. I've got insecurities, social insecurities, that I can't get rid of. Therefore I try not to randomly insult people - that would leave me with no social circle and less things to do. "Right" and "Wrong" are not dependent upon circumstances because they can't even be once-and-for-all defined. People define these words "right" and "wrong" based on their personal likes and dislikes, what's in their own interests. Therefore it's no use trying to use these words in a rational discussion with other people.
                          Again, suggesting that the concepts of right and wrong are based entirely on preferences is consistent with a moral relativist argument.


                          Originally posted by redrevo View Post
                          I don't like what Spike is doing (hurting the Scoobies) because he could just as easily be doing that to me, and I identify with the Scoobies after watching them for four years. I empathize with them, and if they are hurt, I know that would be me if the Sunnydale-hellmouth-world actually existed. It's the same reason rational people decided to make murder illegal. The majority of people in society not only would have no rational reason to murder someone, but they could probably not defend themselves against a murderer. So, the majority of people, acting in their own interests, decided to punish murder by death to protect themselves. I could not defend myself in a fight, so I support the incarceration of violent criminals. If I were larger and stronger, and if I were in serious financial trouble, I would not because I'd probably be one of the violent criminals myself. Self-interest trumps the "cosmic scoreboard", even if it's a "personal subjectively-defined scoreboard", every time.
                          You have just described the way a society would create a socially-derived moral system. Since we all agree that it is in our best interest: murder is wrong. Once again this is consistent with a morally relativist stance. Since nothing is absolutely right or wrong, right and wrong are socially derived based upon the norms of the community.

                          I find it particularly interesting that you both empathize with others and yet believe that if you were physically different there would be nothing holding you back from hurting people for financial gain.

                          I think that you are confusing morals and ethics. I also suspect that you are associating the two with religion in an unnecessary way.


                          So I just read over my post and I think I may have gotten too personal here. I am in no way intending a personal attack on you here redrevo. I just switch too easily into philosophy class mode. I get a bit worked up by philosophical debate. If I got too aggressive, I apologize. I actually suspect that you are not a moral relativist, few people are, I just wanted to point out the internal inconsistencies with the argument being presented.
                          Last edited by Dorian's Kitten; 02-06-07, 03:55 PM.
                          "All I ask is that... that you try to see me."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You have just described the way a society would create a socially-derived moral system. Since we all agree that it is in our best interest: murder is wrong.
                            It's not a moral system as there's no "right" or "wrong" involved. The society is not concluding that murder is wrong, the people are simply saying that they will punish murder because it's in their interest. Unless you're defining "wrong" as "things that are punished in contemporary society", which I have not heard before, it's not a moral decision because morals are defined as objective "right" and "wrong".
                            Since nothing is absolutely right or wrong, right and wrong are socially derived based upon the norms of the community.
                            No, nothing is absolutely right or wrong, therefore the community discards notions of objective "right" and "wrong" and develops their own norms based on self-interest. Whether you want to call that "morality" is up to you.

                            I find it particularly interesting that you both empathize with others and yet believe that if you were physically different there would be nothing holding you back from hurting people for financial gain.
                            Yeah, it's a weird human quirk. I probably wouldn't hurt those I've come to know and empathize with because I have social needs, but yes, I would hurt people for financial gain if I knew I wouldn't be punished and I'd succeed.

                            I think that you are confusing morals and ethics.
                            Exactly how are they different?

                            I also suspect that you are associating the two with religion in an unnecessary way.
                            Religion, like (objective - you're defining morality in a way I have not heard before) morality, is irrational and the two are often intertwined.


                            My conclusion: If I were Spike, of course I'd support my actions, but since I'm not, and he's not acting in my self-interest, I don't.
                            Buffy: It sounds like it's difficult for you. Maybe your sister makes it hard for you to establish your own identity. You said she's controlling, she doesn't let you make your own decisions -
                            Dawn: Yeah, and she borrows my clothes without asking.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by redrevo View Post
                              It's not a moral system as there's no "right" or "wrong" involved. The society is not concluding that murder is wrong, the people are simply saying that they will punish murder because it's in their interest. Unless you're defining "wrong" as "things that are punished in contemporary society", which I have not heard before, it's not a moral decision because morals are defined as objective "right" and "wrong".
                              We punish for the act because it was determined to be wrong. Wrong as defined by the rules or laws of the society.

                              Originally posted by redrevo View Post
                              No, nothing is absolutely right or wrong, therefore the community discards notions of objective "right" and "wrong" and develops their own norms based on self-interest. Whether you want to call that "morality" is up to you.
                              I've already quoted the dictionary. Morality is a system of ideas on what is right and wrong conduct. I am not just saying that is morality, it is the commonly accepted definition of the word.


                              Originally posted by redrevo View Post
                              Exactly how are they different?
                              Morals are the rules, Ethics form the justification for the rules. For example: We might have the excepted rule that it is wrong to kick a dog. That is morality. The rule, the moral code, could be based upon a belief that the dog has inherent value, that it has ethical standing, or that it is the property of another being that has ethical standing. The reason, the justification for the rule, is ethics.


                              Originally posted by redrevo View Post
                              Religion, like (objective - you're defining morality in a way I have not heard before) morality, is irrational and the two are often intertwined.
                              They often are, but needn't be. There are many moral codes and ethical systems that exist entirely separate from any discussion of god.

                              Originally posted by redrevo View Post
                              My conclusion: If I were Spike, of course I'd support my actions, but since I'm not, and he's not acting in my self-interest, I don't.
                              But the question I was presenting was: His actions may not be supported by our moral codes, but does that mean that he is evil? Can a nonhuman be evil for actions against humans? Does this not suggest that humans can be evil for actions against nonhuman animals?
                              "All I ask is that... that you try to see me."

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                The reason, the justification for the rule, is ethics.
                                What if the justification for the rule is only self-interest, not some notion of "value" or "standing"?

                                But the question I was presenting was: His actions may not be supported by our moral codes, but does that mean that he is evil? Can a nonhuman be evil for actions against humans? Does this not suggest that humans can be evil for actions against nonhuman animals?
                                What do you mean by "evil"?

                                We punish for the act because it was determined to be wrong. Wrong as defined by the rules or laws of the society.
                                I don't need a definition of "wrong" as determined by society, meaning what is wrong to do and what isn't. I don't need examples of rules. I want to know what doing "wrong" means. How is it inherently preferable to doing "right"? How do we get a "should" or an "ought to be" from an "is" or "is not"? Your argument is as follows:

                                1. It is in the majority of society's material self-interest to punish for murder.
                                2. Therefore, society punishes murder by death.
                                3. ???
                                4. Therefore, murder is "wrong". One "should not" murder.

                                The only statement that logically follows from 2) is that it's now in everyone's direct interest not to murder. Not that it's "wrong".

                                Is "wrong" defined as "punishable by death"? As "things which may hurt sentient beings"? If it's the latter, I'm proud to be both "wrong" and "evil". But I'm still absolutely sure I'm on the side of the Scoobies, the side of the humans in the Buffyverse.
                                Buffy: It sounds like it's difficult for you. Maybe your sister makes it hard for you to establish your own identity. You said she's controlling, she doesn't let you make your own decisions -
                                Dawn: Yeah, and she borrows my clothes without asking.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  First: If the justification is self interest alone that simply means that the moral code is based upon and ethical system that holds self-interest as a sound reason to act. Something like: Whatever is best for you is the best choice.

                                  I meant evil as in "ethically wrong".

                                  Finally. This is not my argument. I am not a moral relativist. I firmly accept (nonreligious) justifications for a moral code.

                                  I am really just trying to explain that wrong can simply be not in accordance with the rules, irregardless of whether or not the rules themselves have a sound ethical system behind them. And the argument I was presenting (though in no way subscribing to) was:

                                  1. That which is in our self-interest is best.
                                  2. Murder is not in our self-interest (or allowing murder/being murdered is not in our self-interest)
                                  3.Our moral code is based upon that which is in our self-interest.

                                  Therefore it is against (wrong in) our moral code to murder.

                                  This just means that saying that you think everyone should act according to their self-interest doesn't eliminate the existence of right and wrong. It merely becomes the basis for determining what is right or wrong.

                                  I am telling you that moral codes exist whether or not you believe in an absolute ethical system, because moral codes or just the rules part. When I said wrong I meant wrong according to the rules. It does not mean I accept the justification for said rules.
                                  "All I ask is that... that you try to see me."

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally Posted by Mabus
                                    Two of those are classic cases of temptation--Spike does fail, yes, after a struggle. Some people may be here to argue that Spike was thoroughly good, and I'm not--Spike screwed up over and over. But he screwed up in the sort of situations in which even good people sometimes fail--when he was tempted with the things from his old life.
                                    Where talking about murder here, most people don't screw up and kill someone again. If Spike can so easily screw up and go back to his past life, where he kills innocent people than that in no way makes him 'good.' I think we are being a tad flippent about this, remember what Spike went back to when he got tempted, and if he got tempted think about what his means. If one is tempted to kill again, how does that possibly make them good?

                                    As for the demon eggs...You know, I never have been really convinced that was him. If it was, he must be way out of his depth, because he bollockses that one up as badly as Harmony ever did.
                                    So what? The demon eggs just walked themselves into his crypt? Was that why Spike didn't want Riley to go down there because he knew he was hiding them and is that why he made up the lamest excuse ever to Buffy and Riley when they caught him? Heck, even if Spike was just holding them for a friend, a friend who could be 'The Doctor' this doesn't mean he is anymore better. He knew what they were, knew that the doctor was going to be selling them to shady governments and knew how dangerous they were to innocent people. Holding them in no way makes him a good creature, it is inexcusable.

                                    Originally Posted by The Poet's <3
                                    Agree! And especially for a Vampire!
                                    Well no not really, because 'good is what good does' does not always apply, certainly for a vampire. It is like saying Spike was good because he helped Buffy battle Angelus in 'Becoming Part 2. Technically he was fighting on the side of good but in no way from good intentions, he did it to win Dru back, he didn't care a less about Buffy or the world no matter how much he prattled on about it. The fact of the matter is, Spike says he loves the world so much yet he sees Angelus about to kill Buffy, shrugs and runs away leaving the precious world to be sucked into Hell. He was in no way being good here, even if to get what he wanted he had to be on goods side.

                                    The times you mention are all times in which he is in love with Buffy but she is rejecting him because of his lack of soul. And in Crush - Drusilla represents his "old Vampire life" which he - admittedly - longs for because he can't be what Buffy wants. It's like an alcoholic and his old drinking buddies! Who is more likely to welcome you back into the "group" than those who won't judge you - they are right there with you (to drag you back down...)! Drusilla represents this to Spike - as mentioned before - even removes the "limitation" from him.
                                    So Spike is somehow excused for killing innocent people because he was rejected by a girl? Don't you think you're being a tad to leniant here? Imagine if our court system was the same, all those found guilty of murder could be excused because a girl they liked rejected them that day! If Spike was truly good he wouldn't kill no matter if Buffy rejected him or not, the fact he did after she rejected him proved he only didn't kill because of her and when he lost hope he returned to his killer ways. Again I say this is no way makes him a good creature? How could one ever use rejection as an excuse for Spike's murders?

                                    Comparing Spike's murderous habits to a drinking problem is in no way comparable, Spike wasn't drowing his sorrows in a pub somewhere, he was killing innocent people.

                                    This can even be said for Spike over his course of time in Buffy's World. Think back to when he first made the deal with Buffy to help her if she will help him get Dru out. He doesn't attack her Mom which sets up a nice relationship between them. When he comes back in "Lover's Walk", again, sits there talking with Buffy's Mom - not hurting her. There are as many pros for as there are cons against Spikes' behavior.
                                    Why the hell would Spike attack Buffy's mother when she was in the house with him making the deal? That would make no sense for Spike to do that, why kill the slayer's mother when you are trying to persuade said slayer to join forces with you? This in no way makes Spike good, all it shows is that he isn't completely retarded.

                                    We also don't know what Spike would have done with Joyce in Lover's Walk, I mean sure he wasn't attacking her at that point, but neither did Angelus in Passions and he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Does this make Angelus good? Of course not. Spike didn't go there to kill Joyce, he went there to get Willow's spell book.

                                    Are you forgetting that whilst you praise Spike for not killing Joyce he had badly wounded Xander and was holding Willow and Xander against their will at that very moment? Yeah he was such a prince in that episode, especially when he threatened to shove a broken bottle into Willow's face!

                                    Originally Posted by Dorians Kitten
                                    So I'm currently contemplating the possibility that drinking blood and thus killing humans does not in and of itself make a vampire evil. I know, I know, stay with me a moment.
                                    Vampires are not human; they need blood to survive. I don't think it can be evil to do what you must to survive. Just like we cannot require the impossible. Killing is the traditional way of acquiring it. Certainly we can say that not killing is a better way to survive, but perhaps that is something that requires unique ethical growth.
                                    I am thinking that humans eating meat is an interesting parallel. I'm a vegetarian, have been for eleven years. However most of my friends are not. While I don't feel they are making the best choice, I obviously don't consider them evil. They are doing what our predecessors needed to do in order to survive.
                                    So, maybe vampires are not strictly speaking evil for merely being vampires. Maybe they need to do something particularly cruel to be rightly called evil.
                                    You are right a vampire has to feed to survive. However, Spike could have survived fine on butcher's blood but instead as soon as he had the opportunity he tried to kill again in Smashed. Lets also not forget that Spike loved the thrill of brutally bashing slayers to death, he sought them out for his own pleasure which he needn't do, so really whilst yes vampires have to feed to survive, Spike found pleasure in his kills.

                                    I don't really see how one could claim Spike to be good?
                                    Saying he was rejected in no way excuses his actions, I got rejected in 9th grade but I didn't go murder someone as a rebound.

                                    Saying that Spike is good because he didn't kill Joyce doesn't work, he was holding Willow and Xander hostage at the time.

                                    Saying it wasn't Spike holding the demon eggs makes no sense, he clearly was since they found them in his crypt. And even if he was the middleman to the real doctor, he knew what the doctor was going to do with the demons, and knew what a threat they were. In no way is he any better than the doctor, he was helping someone build an army of killer demons to wipe out humans in areas.

                                    ~ Banner by Nina ~

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by vampmogs View Post
                                      You are right a vampire has to feed to survive. However, Spike could have survived fine on butcher's blood but instead as soon as he had the opportunity he tried to kill again in Smashed. Lets also not forget that Spike loved the thrill of brutally bashing slayers to death, he sought them out for his own pleasure which he needn't do, so really whilst yes vampires have to feed to survive, Spike found pleasure in his kills.
                                      I would liken this to any form of hunting that humans do for sport. As I mentioned above, I don't condone it, but society generally supports many types of hunting (deer, duck, bear, etc)-the majority of people involved in these activities are doing it for pleasure. They could more easily (and with the costs of guns/ammunition/licenses/trips etc) and frequently more cheaply feed themselves without hunting. Also they do not need to eat other living beings, but again society accepts these acts.
                                      "All I ask is that... that you try to see me."

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        I really can't see Spike as 'good' as it where, I just think that he realised that doing good deads and the like and being thought of more favourably by Buffy etc. was the best thing for him at that point in time and best suited his purposes. After learning he could hurt demons I think is a good example of this.... I don't believe that he cared that much about helping buffy, it was more that him being around her enevitably lead him to good fights.
                                        sigpic
                                        A Boy Named Jayne

                                        Banner and avie by LRae12

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X