Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Super powers vs. Self-defense: The moral status of killing humans in the Buffyverse

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

  • Super powers vs. Self-defense: The moral status of killing humans in the Buffyverse

    This thread is spinning off from a discussion in the "Agree or Disagree" game.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingofCretins
    Disagree vehemently about Buffy being a hypocrite about killing humans. Buffy's speeches on killing humans were premised on the idea that she, nor Willow, nor anyone of the Scoobs were specially entitled to decide life or death because she's the Slayer or she's a witch. Buffy never killed a human being by virtue of her authority as a Slayer -- she only killed humans in situations in which she would have been entitled to do so even if she was not the Slayer. She would have been justified in killing the Knights in self-defense in "Spiral" whether she had powers or not.
    Cell said...

    The circumstances really don't matter. The writers from the start went out of there way to try and make the point that "our heroes don't kill humans, and if they do there are serious consequences." Buffy then later takes that further by making the claim in quite a few of her tiresome speeches that it doesn't matter what the situation is or what the person did, they are human and we don't kill humans. Despite all this she was killing humans willy nilly and not worrying or having to face any consequences as early on as The Pack. The writers are hypocrites in this regard, and as a result their turn their characters into hypocrites.
    The zookeeper in "The Pack" was another example of legitimate self-defense. First of all, the defensive act of flipping him over her back was not an inherently lethal attack. It was a purely defensive measure. The unintended result is that he was flung into hyenas that were hungry and pissed per his own act.

    In further point of fact, he had the hyena primal at that point, and would have fallen closer to Buffy's ordinary "jurisdiction" as a supernatural being at that point.

    And, Buffy did make an attempt to rescue him before she saw it was too late.

    All of this then leads into the issue of the soul. Buffy fought for Angel when he returned because he had a soul, it didn't matter what he did because he had his soul now. She did the same for Spike when he had his soul. From this one can get that she doesn't kill humans because of the soul factor. However she goes after and will kill Anya, even though Anya has a soul. So in the writers and Buffy's world it is perfectly okay for your boyfriend to commit atrocities, because he has a soul and shouldn't have to face your wrath because of that. However when it is Anya, she must die, when it is Faith that carries an antidote that will save her boyfriend, Faith must die. The writers and by extension Buffy are incredibly hypocritical in this regard, and it one of the major flaws in the show, if you choose to view Buffy as the hero character.
    Buffy's attempted murder of Faith is never whitewashed -- it's easily Buffy's darkest moment. And, no, I don't believe it was a justified act. The other most morally dubious moment for her was "killing" Ted. But, in both instances, her own morally unjustifiable behavior is salvaged by the fact that she didn't kill a human being in either instance.

    I think the right test of lethal force against humans by Buffy is a "what would Dawn be allowed to do" test. Dawn has no superpowers or superstrength. If Buffy killed someone in a situation where Dawn would have been allowed to, than Buffy also would be allowed to.

    In the situation of the zookeeper or the Knights of Byzantium, Buffy (and Dawn, in the hypo) was in imminent danger of being killed or seriously wounded. That's textbook for the justification of lethal force in self-defense. Doesn't matter at that point if Buffy's the Slayer -- she's still a human woman with a right to defend herself.
    sigpic
    Banner by LRae12

  • #2
    You view legitimate self-defense, and I also share that view. However the issue is not what you or I view, but rather it is what the writers and by extension Buffy views. For the writers and Buffy there is a clear demarcation between humans and demons. Buffy can kill all the demons she wants, but she should not kill humans. They stress this point many times. They even make sure to note later on that it is not okay, even in self-defense for her to kill a human. This is highlighted with Ted and Katrina. Even in self-defense Buffy is supposed to tow the line and stop before she kills a human, that is expressed numerous times on the show. Yet, many times she crosses this line and neither Buffy or the writers bat an eyelid when it happens. This is where the hypocrisy and the inconsistency in the writing starts. Personally this doesn't bother me because on the whole I view Buffy as a very hypocritical character. However, in no way did the writers intend for this to happen, my view is not the one that they want. That is why their writing and Buffy's actions in the killing of humans are a problem.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    The zookeeper in "The Pack" was another example of legitimate self-defense. First of all, the defensive act of flipping him over her back was not an inherently lethal attack. It was a purely defensive measure. The unintended result is that he was flung into hyenas that were hungry and pissed per his own act.
    Buffy attacked him, she did so to defend her friends, that is not self defense. She initiated the attack and she used her powers to fling him into a pen where he was killed. Personally I have no problem with this, he was evil, he dies, that's fine. But, the thematic that is set forth in the show goes against this.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    In further point of fact, he had the hyena primal at that point, and would have fallen closer to Buffy's ordinary "jurisdiction" as a supernatural being at that point.

    And, Buffy did make an attempt to rescue him before she saw it was too late.
    He was still human, as with other characters in the show that are human but are borrowing supernatural means, they are still viewed as human. She made an attempt to rescue him, but not a full hearted one and this is immediately followed by a joking moment from her. The death hasn't affected her at all, the taking of a human life didn't matter to her.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Buffy's attempted murder of Faith is never whitewashed -- it's easily Buffy's darkest moment. And, no, I don't believe it was a justified act. The other most morally dubious moment for her was "killing" Ted. But, in both instances, her own morally unjustifiable behavior is salvaged by the fact that she didn't kill a human being in either instance.
    The Ted incident is different, because it was self defense. Within the thematic of the show, her killing of Ted should not be justified at all, because self-defense does not make a difference. However, with Faith that was premeditated on Buffy's part. The hypocrite in her came out again, someone she cared about was in danger and because of that she would take a human life, no questions asked. Buffy is a stone cold killer, and she simply uses the "I don't kill humans" mantra to lie to herself and to try and convince herself that she isn't a killer, and to further feed into her superiority over others. Faith perfectly models this. When Faith kills she is enemy number one to Buffy, yet when Buffy does the same it isn't treated anywhere near the same, especially by Buffy and her friends.
    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I think the right test of lethal force against humans by Buffy is a "what would Dawn be allowed to do" test. Dawn has no superpowers or superstrength. If Buffy killed someone in a situation where Dawn would have been allowed to, than Buffy also would be allowed to.
    Both cases are the same within the thematic of the show, superpowers or no superpowers. The line is put forth very early that heroes don't kill humans, regardless of the situation and regardless of their powers. Dawn shouldn't kill a human no matter the situation, and neither should Buffy.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    In the situation of the zookeeper or the Knights of Byzantium, Buffy (and Dawn, in the hypo) was in imminent danger of being killed or seriously wounded. That's textbook for the justification of lethal force in self-defense. Doesn't matter at that point if Buffy's the Slayer -- she's still a human woman with a right to defend herself.
    A right to defend, but not a right to kill. Within the Buffyverse the writers have established for their characters that there is no justification at all for lethal force when dealing with a human. If you think differently, as I do, than that is fine, but that is completely different from the thematic put forth in the verse.
    Last edited by Cell; 23-02-08, 01:15 AM.
    The good fight, yeah? - You never know until you've been tested. - I get that now. - Doyle

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cell View Post
      issue is not what you or I view, but rather it is what the writers and by extension Buffy views. For the writers and Buffy there is a clear demarcation between humans and demons. Buffy can kill all the demons she wants, but she should not kill humans. They stress this point many times. They even make sure to note later on that it is not okay, even in self-defense for her to kill a human. This is highlighted with Ted and Katrina. Even in self-defense Buffy is supposed to tow the line and stop before she kills a human, that is expressed numerous times on the show. Yet, many times she crosses this line and neither Buffy or the writers bat an eyelid when it happens. This is where the hypocrisy and the inconsistency in the writing starts. Personally this doesn't bother me because on the whole I view Buffy as a very hypocritical character. However, in no way did the writers intend for this to happen, my view is not the one that they want. That is why their writing and Buffy's actions in the killing of humans are a problem.
      Just curious but is there a reason you copy/pasted this one everytime you replied to KoC's posts?

      Originally posted by Cell View Post
      He was still human, as with other characters in the show that are human but are borrowing supernatural means, they are still viewed as human. She made an attempt to rescue him, but not a full hearted one and this is immediately followed by a joking moment from her. The death hasn't affected her at all, the taking of a human life didn't matter to her.
      Originally posted by Cell View Post
      The Ted incident is different, because it was self defense. Within the thematic of the show, her killing of Ted should not be justified at all, because self-defense does not make a difference. However, with Faith that was premeditated on Buffy's part. The hypocrite in her came out again, someone she cared about was in danger and because of that she would take a human life, no questions asked. Buffy is a stone cold killer, and she simply uses the "I don't kill humans" mantra to lie to herself and to try and convince herself that she isn't a killer, and to further feed into her superiority over others. Faith perfectly models this. When Faith kills she is enemy number one to Buffy, yet when Buffy does the same it isn't treated anywhere near the same, especially by Buffy and her friends.

      I have deja vu at the moment because I've seen these same exact topics posted other places but I have to step in here and say there is definitely a difference between Buffy killing the Knights and when Faith was killing for no reason. I find you're statement on Ted and the one's previously to be sort of mixed up. I mean Buffy got slapped once by Ted, yes that's horrible but when it comes to self defense you have to feel like your life is in danger, ie the Knights attacking her, this was not one of those moments. The fact that Buffy felt horrible and thought she should be punished after she thought she killed him shows that she wasn't an all out killer like Faith was. She actually felt bad about killing Ted and Faith kills the deputy mayor, yes it was an accident but when it came down to it she stated herself; Buffy: "You killed a man!" Faith: "No, you don't get it. I don't care." That, right there, is the difference between when Buffy killed a human and Faith killing a human. Plus, Faith killed the vulcan and didn't feel bad about it at all. So yes Buffy kills when her or the people she loves are in danger which if it were any of us in that position, we would do the same! At least I hope.

      Cell could this whole Buffy being a murderer vendetta be because you hate Buffy but love Faith? Just kidding. I'm just trying to lighten the mood.
      T _A _T _E _R _S'____ W _O _R _L _D

      Proud recipient of the "Vagenis Award of Excellence"

      Comment


      • #4
        Hey guys! Nice thread Since I mostly agree with KOC point of view in this matter. I will focus on the arguments you have made within your post cell.

        Originally posted by Cell View Post
        You view legitimate self-defence, and I also share that view. However the issue is not what you or I view, but rather it is what the writers and by extension Buffy views. For the writers and Buffy there is a clear demarcation between humans and demons. Buffy can kill all the demons she wants, but she should not kill humans. They stress this point many times. They even make sure to note later on that it is not okay, even in self-defense for her to kill a human. This is highlighted with Ted and Katrina. Even in self-defense Buffy is supposed to tow the line and stop before she kills a human, that is expressed numerous times on the show. Yet, many times she crosses this line and neither Buffy or the writers bat an eyelid when it happens. This is where the hypocrisy and the inconsistency in the writing starts. Personally this doesn't bother me because on the whole I view Buffy as a very hypocritical character. However, in no way did the writers intend for this to happen, my view is not the one that they want. That is why their writing and Buffy's actions in the killing of humans are a problem.
        Your right Cell numerous times throughout the show both Buffy and the characters make a clear-cut difference in the attitude that Buffy holds in our attitude towards human. In any circumstances in relation to demons Buffy has the right to kill. As she states herself she has the right to kill because the police and all of the other forces of the human world do not have what it takes to deal with the supernatural, but with humans it is different. She does not have the right to kill humans just because she feels like it or because she has a dislike of them. Your right but there are reasons for Buffy difference in attitude in the two situations that you emphasis. With Ted Buffy was right for feeling the way that she did when she thought she was human. She did not have the right to kill him and she knew it because while he was attacking her it was not a life-threatening situation that she couldn't have gotten out of such as with the Knights in the Season 5 episode "Spiral." As for the matter of Katrina Buffy didn't kill her in self-defence both in reality and from what Buffy thought before she realized the connection with Warren. In Buffy's view Katrina was just there at the time an innocent bystander who had gotten hurt in the cross fire with her battle with the demons. She did the same as what Faith did in Season 3 with the deputy Mayor only unlike Faith she had the guts to go to the police and confess. This is the reason for Buffy's guilt. It wasn't because she thought she killed Katrina in self-defence against Katrina, but rather that Katrina was killed just for being there.

        Originally posted by Cell View Post
        Buffy attacked him, she did so to defend her friends, that is not self defense. She initiated the attack and she used her powers to fling him into a pen where he was killed. Personally I have no problem with this, he was evil, he dies, that's fine. But, the thematic that is set forth in the show goes against this.
        Your right Buffy attacked him? But as you said she did it to save her friend her calling as the slayer does not only dictate that she kills any demons that she encounters along the way, but also saves the life of those humans who needs it. As of such Buffy was completely justified in attacking him for the good of those around him. As for the issue of his death Buffy simply lead him to the circumstance of his death. He did not die by her hand.

        Originally posted by Cell View Post
        The Ted incident is different, because it was self defense. Within the thematic of the show, her killing of Ted should not be justified at all, because self-defense does not make a difference. However, with Faith that was premeditated on Buffy's part. The hypocrite in her came out again, someone she cared about was in danger and because of that she would take a human life, no questions asked. Buffy is a stone cold killer, and she simply uses the "I don't kill humans" mantra to lie to herself and to try and convince herself that she isn't a killer, and to further feed into her superiority over others. Faith perfectly models this. When Faith kills she is enemy number one to Buffy, yet when Buffy does the same it isn't treated anywhere near the same, especially by Buffy and her friends.
        Your right as I stated previously she was wrong with the killing of Ted and that is why Buffy felt the guilt she did unless your going to try and argue that she felt nothing after Ted? As for the issue of Faith your right apart of Buffy's reasoning for this attack was in relation to Angel, but I think she had every right to take down Faith now that she was proving herself to be a real threat. Faith isn't just a human but rather a level someone on par with Buffy. She was now a part of the supernatural community a rather dangerous part actually and as of such the matter of Faith living and dying was within Buffy jurdiscaton after all the rules of the human world did not apply in this instance. I mean we saw in Angel Season 4 how easily Faith could break out of jail had Buffy tried to handle her through getting her to go to prison. As for the matter of Buffy killing humans you have shown me a perfect example of when it affects both her and her friends. The issue of Katrina was never raised with any of her friends to see how they would have reacted to that and in any other circumstance I can recall it has been an issue of life or death. Buffy life or his and regardless of Buffy's abilities it is self-defence if this is the situation she is facing.

        Originally posted by Cell View Post
        A right to defend, but not a right to kill. Within the Buffyverse the writers have established for their characters that there is no justification at all for lethal force when dealing with a human. If you think differently, as I do, than that is fine, but that is completely different from the thematic put forth in the verse.
        Actually I would like to contest that argument several times throughout the verse we have heard Buffy make references to the killing of humans in special circumstances. One key example and one that occurred recently is in The Long Way Home Part 4 "Kill any demons you see. Humans you go for the wound unless they get stupid" See here Buffy is clearly telling us her attitude towards human no killing of them unless absolutely necessary which in certain circumstances where they are clearly outnumbered by the knights in spiral or the army in The Long Way Home then yes it may be absolutely necessary.

        Originally posted by holypotatoes View Post
        Just curious but is there a reason you copy/pasted this one everytime you replied to KoC's posts?
        I had actually wondered that too
        Livejournal

        Avatar made by Shameless666 of Livejournal

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cell View Post
          This is highlighted with Ted and Katrina. Even in self-defense Buffy is supposed to tow the line and stop before she kills a human, that is expressed numerous times on the show.
          The writers did 'bat an eyelid' when she crossed the line from self defence with 'Ted' and ended up just beating the crap outta him because she hated him. Buffy never intentionally tried to kill him in that scene, it was an accident he fell down the stairs, but she did cross the line from defending herself to going ape sh#t on the guy, and the writers made that pretty clear.

          And IMO Katrina is something different entirely. Buffy never even intentionally meant to hit Katrina, she didn't know it was Katrina grabbing her shoulder and she struck out thinking it was another of the demons.

          Buffy attacked him, she did so to defend her friends, that is not self defense. She initiated the attack and she used her powers to fling him into a pen where he was killed. Personally I have no problem with this, he was evil, he dies, that's fine. But, the thematic that is set forth in the show goes against this.
          I disagree. It is self defence still. Buffy hit him in the face and make him back away. He rushes at her and she flings him over herself, it was a defensive move. She didn't intend for him to go over into the hyena enclosure, and you see her run up to the bars in an attempt to save him, but reached him too late. It's exactly the same as in 'Go Fish' when Buffy defends herself and Xander by knocking the coach over. He falls into the hole but she tries to save him by holding on his leg. He falls from her grasp and is killed by the swim team monsters, but Buffy didn't intentionally try and kill the human.


          The Ted incident is different, because it was self defense. Within the thematic of the show, her killing of Ted should not be justified at all, because self-defense does not make a difference. However, with Faith that was premeditated on Buffy's part. The hypocrite in her came out again, someone she cared about was in danger and because of that she would take a human life, no questions asked. Buffy is a stone cold killer, and she simply uses the "I don't kill humans" mantra to lie to herself and to try and convince herself that she isn't a killer, and to further feed into her superiority over others. Faith perfectly models this. When Faith kills she is enemy number one to Buffy, yet when Buffy does the same it isn't treated anywhere near the same, especially by Buffy and her friends.
          I never had a major problem with her going after Faith. Aside from the fact it was pure negligence for Buffy to allow Faith to remain free as long as she had, especially when Graduation Day was at the least, the following day away, Faith had the cure for Angel, whom she was responsible for nearly killing. I agree with Buffy, it is justice. Faith tries to take a life, that life can be saved, Faith's the key, Buffy brings Angel Faith. I don't have a problem with this. Faith deserved to cure Angel, Buffy shouldn't have to offer herself and Angel certainly shouldn't have to die just so Buffy sticks to *her* rule that she doesn't kill humans. The actually slayer code is a little different. It states "She alone will stand against the vampires, the demons and the forces of darkness." What could forces of darkness possibly mean if vamps and demons were already covered in the code? It must mean humans with supernatural powers. Buffy did break her own rule in this instance, but IMO it was justified. Buffy was never mean to Faith about killing Alan Finch, she knows it was an accident. But Faith killed Worth because he could potentially help people save the town from the Mayor, it was an evil act. Buffy tried to kill Faith to save a good person's life.

          I try and look at every scene and what happened in that scene, the circumstances ect. You can either take an entirely 'big picture' view without looking at the specifics of the circumstances and just say "no killing humans and that's it" or judge it on a case by case scenario.

          But after reading your latest comment;

          I have found that lately there really aren't any episodes that I want to skip, but just scenes that I want to skip. I don't, because I wouldn't be viewing the whole story if I did that. But on each watching I detest Buffy's character more and more and really just want to skip through any and all of her sanctimonious and self-righteous speeches that only serve to heighten her superiority complex. Buffy being superior was something the writers were into far too much and a main reason why I really can't stand her, at all.

          Can't help but wonder if your just wanting to stick it to Buffy?
          Last edited by vampmogs; 23-02-08, 01:37 AM.

          ~ Banner by Nina ~

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by holypotatoes View Post
            Just curious but is there a reason you copy/pasted this one everytime you replied to KoC's posts?
            I'm going to chalk it up to the nerve damage in my hand causing me to paste it all over for some reason.

            Originally posted by holypotatoes View Post
            I have deja vu at the moment because I've seen these same exact topics posted other places but I have to step in here and say there is definitely a difference between Buffy killing the Knights and when Faith was killing for no reason. I find you're statement on Ted and the one's previously to be sort of mixed up. I mean Buffy got slapped once by Ted, yes that's horrible but when it comes to self defense you have to feel like your life is in danger, ie the Knights attacking her, this was not one of those moments. The fact that Buffy felt horrible and thought she should be punished after she thought she killed him shows that she wasn't an all out killer like Faith was. She actually felt bad about killing Ted and Faith kills the deputy mayor, yes it was an accident but when it came down to it she stated herself; Buffy: "You killed a man!" Faith: "No, you don't get it. I don't care." That, right there, is the difference between when Buffy killed a human and Faith killing a human. Plus, Faith killed the vulcan and didn't feel bad about it at all. So yes Buffy kills when her or the people she loves are in danger which if it were any of us in that position, we would do the same! At least I hope.
            The Ted incident goes to show the inconsistency on the matter. In that case Buffy feels wrong for what she did, yet when she kills the Zookeeper and later when she kills the swim coach, she shows no remorse for her actions at all. The writers of the show clearly support the Ted notion, wherein Buffy feels sorrow over a loss taken. However the thematic they put forth goes against this, because other than the Ted and Katrina incident she never feels this sorrow, she reacts with indifference, the same way that Faith initially reacted to her killing of the Deputy Mayor.

            Originally posted by holypotatoes View Post
            Cell could this whole Buffy being a murderer vendetta be because you hate Buffy but love Faith? Just kidding. I'm just trying to lighten the mood.
            I do actually love Faith, and hate Buffy, but this whole murdering humans thing goes beyond Buffy for me. There are examples of this with Giles, Angel, Gunn, Willow, and Xander, and it is just as inconsistent with them as it is with Buffy. Lightening the mood is perfectly cool though.

            Originally posted by Vampmaster View Post
            Your right Cell numerous times throughout the show both Buffy and the characters make a clear-cut difference in the attitude that Buffy holds in our attitude towards human. In any circumstances in relation to demons Buffy has the right to kill. As she states herself she has the right to kill because the police and all of the other forces of the human world do not have what it takes to deal with the supernatural, but with humans it is different. She does not have the right to kill humans just because she feels like it or because she has a dislike of them.
            My counter to this would be the revelation that demons do in fact have souls, not all of them but some do. If that is the case then how is Buffy's killing of demons justified at all? She doesn't kill humans because they are different, and the only thing that makes them different is their soul. Well, since some demons do have souls then Buffy shouldn't be killing them either.

            Originally posted by Vampmaster View Post
            Your right but there are reasons for Buffy difference in attitude in the two situations that you emphasis. With Ted Buffy was right for feeling the way that she did when she thought she was human. She did not have the right to kill him and she knew it because while he was attacking her it was not a life-threatening situation that she couldn't have gotten out of such as with the Knights in the Season 5 episode "Spiral." As for the matter of Katrina Buffy didn't kill her in self-defence both in reality and from what Buffy thought before she realized the connection with Warren. In Buffy's view Katrina was just there at the time an innocent bystander who had gotten hurt in the cross fire with her battle with the demons. She did the same as what Faith did in Season 3 with the deputy Mayor only unlike Faith she had the guts to go to the police and confess. This is the reason for Buffy's guilt. It wasn't because she thought she killed Katrina in self-defence against Katrina, but rather that Katrina was killed just for being there.
            The thing is that I agree with you, except for the last part about Buffy. In both the Ted and Katrina incidents I don't feel that Buffy felt all that sorry, and instead was trying to hide from the situation by throwing herself a pity party. However, while I may agree with you, the characters on the show do not. Everything they do and say is always about the war with the demons, and how humans are different and should not be killed. This point is stressed vehemently by every authority figure in the Verse, and yet at the drop of a hat they will go against it.

            Originally posted by Vampmaster View Post
            Your right Buffy attacked him? But as you said she did it to save her friend her calling as the slayer does not only dictate that she kills any demons that she encounters along the way, but also saves the life of those humans who needs it. As of such Buffy was completely justified in attacking him for the good of those around him. As for the issue of his death Buffy simply lead him to the circumstance of his death. He did not die by her hand.
            She was justified in attacking him, but was she justified in killing him? This is the classic Punisher/vendetta angle. To attack is justified, but when does a vigilante cross the line? Buffy attacked for selfish reasons, her love for her friends, and this rage allowed her to throw the Zookeeper into the pen and die. Buffy crossed the line from using her powers to save people to using her powers to kill people. Maybe her actions were justified, I believe they were, but they should not have been justified in the mind of the characters.

            Her hand caused him to fall into that pit, without her hands he doesn't enter that pit and he lives. She killed him, it's no different than me knocking someone into oncoming traffic, they may not die by my hands, but I still killed them.

            Originally posted by Vampmaster View Post
            Your right as I stated previously she was wrong with the killing of Ted and that is why Buffy felt the guilt she did unless your going to try and argue that she felt nothing after Ted? As for the issue of Faith your right apart of Buffy's reasoning for this attack was in relation to Angel, but I think she had every right to take down Faith now that she was proving herself to be a real threat. Faith isn't just a human but rather a level someone on par with Buffy. She was now a part of the supernatural community a rather dangerous part actually and as of such the matter of Faith living and dying was within Buffy jurdiscaton after all the rules of the human world did not apply in this instance.
            One of the things that separates the Slayer from the demon within them is their humanity. That is why within the characters minds Buffy should not have been justified in going after and trying to kill Faith. She didn't do it because she was a threat, she did it because Angel was going to die. Faith was still a human and Buffy sought her out to kill her. She wasn't a soulless thing as they believe demons to be, but she was a human headed down the wrong path. Buffy's solution to this was to find Faith and kill her, that does make her a murderer.

            Originally posted by Vampmaster View Post
            I mean we saw in Angel Season 4 how easily Faith could break out of jail had Buffy tried to handle her through getting her to go to prison.
            This is a common problem in any universe that deals with superpowered beings. But, in this case I don't buy that as justification. In a world full of magic and tricks, there would have been a way to deal with Faith, but Buffy didn't care about any of that. She only sought Faith's death.

            Originally posted by Vampmaster View Post
            Actually I would like to contest that argument several times throughout the verse we have heard Buffy make references to the killing of humans in special circumstances. One key example and one that occurred recently is in The Long Way Home Part 4 "Kill any demons you see. Humans you go for the wound unless they get stupid" See here Buffy is clearly telling us her attitude towards human no killing of them unless absolutely necessary which in certain circumstances where they are clearly outnumbered by the knights in spiral or the army in The Long Way Home then yes it may be absolutely necessary.
            Haven't read the comics yet, so I can't comment on anything comic related. But, like I said before, I have no problem with Buffy killing the Knights and believe it would be the right thing to do. Buffy should have a problem with it though, as should the rest of her friends. That has been established as the way they think at the time when the TV series ends.
            The good fight, yeah? - You never know until you've been tested. - I get that now. - Doyle

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by vampmogs View Post
              But after reading your latest comment;

              I have found that lately there really aren't any episodes that I want to skip, but just scenes that I want to skip. I don't, because I wouldn't be viewing the whole story if I did that. But on each watching I detest Buffy's character more and more and really just want to skip through any and all of her sanctimonious and self-righteous speeches that only serve to heighten her superiority complex. Buffy being superior was something the writers were into far too much and a main reason why I really can't stand her, at all.

              Can't help but wonder if your just wanting to stick it to Buffy?
              Like I said, earlier it's not just Buffy that I take to task over this issue. I have major problems with the way it is handled in regards to every major hero that is in the series. It is a major inconsistency between the characters, the writers, and the thematic. It doesn't just affect Buffy, but also Giles, Angel, Xander, Willow, Gunn, etc. So far the topic has only been about the incidents involving Buffy, that's why she is the only one I have addressed.
              The good fight, yeah? - You never know until you've been tested. - I get that now. - Doyle

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cell View Post

                The Ted incident goes to show the inconsistency on the matter. In that case Buffy feels wrong for what she did, yet when she kills the Zookeeper and later when she kills the swim coach, she shows no remorse for her actions at all. The writers of the show clearly support the Ted notion, wherein Buffy feels sorrow over a loss taken. However the thematic they put forth goes against this, because other than the Ted and Katrina incident she never feels this sorrow, she reacts with indifference, the same way that Faith initially reacted to her killing of the Deputy Mayor.
                I will never believe either one of those to be murders committed. I'm sorry. Both the coach and the Zookeeper would've killed her if she didn't fight them. Human or not they were both evil beings at that time and deserved to be killed. I mean they had already killed people before. Flutie was killed because of the Zookeeper. The Zookeeper was the one who brought the hyena's in there. Obviously he's responsible for all the deaths.



                Originally posted by Cell View Post
                My counter to this would be the revelation that demons do in fact have souls, not all of them but some do. If that is the case then how is Buffy's killing of demons justified at all? She doesn't kill humans because they are different, and the only thing that makes them different is their soul. Well, since some demons do have souls then Buffy shouldn't be killing them either.
                She doesn't kill soulful demons, she sleeps with them. Faith's the one who killed that one demon who was harmless, you know the one's with the Books of Ascension. He seemed perfectly fine to me.



                Originally posted by Cell View Post
                Her hand caused him to fall into that pit, without her hands he doesn't enter that pit and he lives. She killed him, it's no different than me knocking someone into oncoming traffic, they may not die by my hands, but I still killed them.
                Well it depends on if the person you pushed into traffic was trying to push you into traffic.



                Originally posted by Cell View Post
                One of the things that separates the Slayer from the demon within them is their humanity. That is why within the characters minds Buffy should not have been justified in going after and trying to kill Faith. She didn't do it because she was a threat, she did it because Angel was going to die. Faith was still a human and Buffy sought her out to kill her. She wasn't a soulless thing as they believe demons to be, but she was a human headed down the wrong path. Buffy's solution to this was to find Faith and kill her, that does make her a murderer.
                No, it makes her an "attempted murderer!" Which actually in this case I was all for. I mean Faith was more demonic than human at this point. An eye for an eye, I say. (wow I think I have too many I's in that one )


                Originally posted by Cell View Post
                This is a common problem in any universe that deals with superpowered beings. But, in this case I don't buy that as justification. In a world full of magic and tricks, there would have been a way to deal with Faith, but Buffy didn't care about any of that. She only sought Faith's death.
                On the contrary. Buffy tried to help Faith numerous times after Faiths first killing. She tried getting her to go to the police. She tried getting Angel to talk to her. She basically did all she could do at that moment. It wasn't her job to try and help her but she did try. The Watcher's council tried to but who knows what they would've done with her once they brought her to England.
                T _A _T _E _R _S'____ W _O _R _L _D

                Proud recipient of the "Vagenis Award of Excellence"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by holypotatoes View Post
                  I will never believe either one of those to be murders committed. I'm sorry. Both the coach and the Zookeeper would've killed her if she didn't fight them. Human or not they were both evil beings at that time and deserved to be killed. I mean they had already killed people before. Flutie was killed because of the Zookeeper. The Zookeeper was the one who brought the hyena's in there. Obviously he's responsible for all the deaths.
                  So then, if someone is attacking me and I shove them into a bears den, I'm not responsible for their death. Whether they provoked it or not it was my actions that led to their death. Buffy is no different, whatever the circumstances she killed those two men, by her hand they were felled.

                  Originally posted by holypotatoes View Post
                  She doesn't kill soulful demons, she sleeps with them. Faith's the one who killed that one demon who was harmless, you know the one's with the Books of Ascension. He seemed perfectly fine to me.
                  Anya had a soul and Buffy went to kill her. It has been established in Angel and in Buffy that not all demons are soulless. Vampires as a breed of demon do not have souls, thus Angel and Spike would be exceptions for their breed. But, other demons have souls, and undoubtedly Buffy has killed some of them. And, in the case of Anya we know that she was going to kill her/tried to kill her.

                  Originally posted by holypotatoes View Post
                  Well it depends on if the person you pushed into traffic was trying to push you into traffic.
                  Not in the Buffyverse, in that verse, murder is murder. Unless of course you happen to be poking the Slayer, then your transgressions can be overlooked.

                  Originally posted by holypotatoes View Post
                  No, it makes her an "attempted murderer!" Which actually in this case I was all for. I mean Faith was more demonic than human at this point. An eye for an eye, I say. (wow I think I have too many I's in that one )
                  Like I said, I agree with that, but the writers and characters on the show do not. There is a clear difference between you and I thinking Buffy's actions in that case are justified and the notion that the writers put forth through the characters on this issue, that Buffy is dead wrong in her actions.

                  Originally posted by holypotatoes View Post
                  On the contrary. Buffy tried to help Faith numerous times after Faiths first killing. She tried getting her to go to the police. She tried getting Angel to talk to her. She basically did all she could do at that moment. It wasn't her job to try and help her but she did try. The Watcher's council tried to but who knows what they would've done with her once they brought her to England.
                  She tried to help, and Faith rejected the help, although personally I would be resistant to accepting help from someone that has treated me like an outside and a piece of garbage from the moment we met. But, that's another issue, help was offered, Faith refused, but that still doesn't mean that they couldn't find another way to deal with her besides murder. Buffy has special rules for certain people, and it just so happens that Faith doesn't fall into the special category for Buffy. Therefore Buffy can kill Faith, but others that have done worse, Willow for instance, don't have to worry about Buffy killing them, ever. Buffy could have tried to find another means to detain Faith, but she didn't even put forth the effort beyond talking down to her like usual or later trying to kill her.
                  The good fight, yeah? - You never know until you've been tested. - I get that now. - Doyle

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So then, if someone is attacking me and I shove them into a bears den, I'm not responsible for their death. Whether they provoked it or not it was my actions that led to their death. Buffy is no different, whatever the circumstances she killed those two men, by her hand they were felled.
                    Buffy didn't do anything in either situation that you wouldn't have legally (at least in the US) or morally been entitled to do. For me, that settles the question. Buffy is a human being, she has the same rights and privileges and duties of any human being, including self-defense with lethal force.

                    And you completely ignore that the deaths of both the zookeeper and the coach were clearly unintended, since Buffy tried to rescue both of them.

                    The controlling philosophical rule here is the Principle of Double Effect, which states, generally, that if you are doing something morally just that has a negative side effect, even foreseeable, you are not culpable for the negative side effect. In the case of the zookeeper, the swim coach, and the knights, Buffy stands very clearly inside the protection of the principle of double effect.

                    Anya had a soul and Buffy went to kill her. It has been established in Angel and in Buffy that not all demons are soulless. Vampires as a breed of demon do not have souls, thus Angel and Spike would be exceptions for their breed. But, other demons have souls, and undoubtedly Buffy has killed some of them. And, in the case of Anya we know that she was going to kill her/tried to kill her.
                    We're creating an unnecessary tangent -- soul vs. no soul is not part of this forumalation, frankly, and never has been.

                    First of all, we've got to distinguish what we're analyzing. There are two ways that Buffy kills *anything*
                    • Buffy kills in situations where any person would be entitled to kill -- in self defense or defense of others situations against imminent danger. This can include any target, human or demon.
                    • Buffy kills in situations where she has *discretion* to kill, under the authority she finds in the fact that she is the Slayer.


                    The first instance covers every single human death at Buffy's hands.

                    The second is where we find situations like the decision to go after Anya and pretty much everything else. So, we need to consider "what is Buffy's authority/discretion to kill that's specific to the Slayer?"

                    Well, Vampmogs provided it. "She alone will stand against the vampires, the demons and the forces of darkness." That is the statement that covers Buffy's moral authority. There is no mention of souls or the lack thereof there. The unifying principle is that Buffy has authority to respond to any threat posed by supernatural forces, and these can include human forces (Catherine Madison or Gwendolyn Post, for instance -- although, again, she didn't intend Post's death, just to (heh) dis-arm her). It also included Anya, Spike, or Angel. Or Willow when they fought in "Two To Go". It also includes Faith, as a Slayer, although that is about as close to the line as Buffy has ever gotten in terms of exceeding her authority, mostly due to her motives. But, in general, solving those problems is what Buffy, as the Slayer, is there to do. And when Buffy kills in those situations, she is doing it with the same moral authority that police might use lethal force.

                    There has only been one time in which Buffy exceeded her just authority as the Slayer, or her rights as a human, and that was with Ted. She was justified in striking him initially, but carrying the fight further, after she had control of it, was improper. But, since he turned out not to be human, it's hard to press it as a problem they needed to continue to address.
                    sigpic
                    Banner by LRae12

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I always question such issues from my own perspective rather than wondering exactly what the writers intended.

                      I've always been of the opinion that at least Joss does like to explore the elements of moral ambiguity and make his characters make hard choices.

                      What I like is that there is no simple answer to Slayer jurisdiction. Buffy doesn't respond to death and life and as Slayer but as a person, I think that's important. Any Slayer jurisdiction would be written by the WC and in any case Buffy doesn't follow it, for her, there is no handbook.

                      I have no problem with the representation on the show because it's been debated many times. The writers have rarely put it in black and white and I applaud them for that, for the simple reason that it helps us to connect with the character and more easily reconcile Buffy's supernatural world, with ours (which I thought kind of the point).

                      I personally agree tht Buffy's abilities do not automatically make her judge/jury/executioner. However if this is the case then we move into Master/Slave morality, the same morality Faith used on Buffy to rationalize her actions. This means Buffy can do whatever she likes simply because she is able to do whatever she likes.

                      Which ever view you take, Buffy certainly has trouble with this former and aside from her overall, moral view that human life is sacred based upon a qualitive value not a quantative one.

                      Another issue that doesn't escape the writers attention is judgement of demons objectively. Buffy has even apologized to vampires after they've been turned. Her killing them becomes less of a moral judgement (punishment) and more of a practical need to protect our interests (or lives).

                      As we've seen on W&H or on Angel in general, demons can work along side humans soulless or not. I argue that the threat level is more the case in any instance. Buffy (and others) has to be scrutinized on her killing of any sentient being and how we justify it can vary too.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There's a big difference between setting out to purposely kill someone, as opposed to reacting to a situation where your life and lives of people you love are in danger. And even in that circumstance Buffy in almost ever situation has made the attempt to preserve any human life. Like Checkpoint for example. And when the 'evil human' is about to die from their own evil consequences she generally makes an attempt to save them. I could go and name all the times this happened, but it would take me too long.

                        The only real time when Buffy has made the choice for what she sees as the better is when she sets out to kill Faith. And I bought the need for her to do so.

                        I suspect that Cell's objections largely stem from his dislike of Buffy. Buffy was my favourite character till around season 5-6. I don't see why people can't like her up until her life went a little darker.. and even then she still has good reasons for acting the way she did.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                          Buffy didn't do anything in either situation that you wouldn't have legally (at least in the US) or morally been entitled to do. For me, that settles the question. Buffy is a human being, she has the same rights and privileges and duties of any human being, including self-defense with lethal force.
                          In our world yes, but in the world of the Buffyverse, no. They have a much different moral code, although honestly moral code is all up to the individual. In the Buffyverse they establish early on that even in self-defense the killing of a human is not okay.

                          Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                          And you completely ignore that the deaths of both the zookeeper and the coach were clearly unintended, since Buffy tried to rescue both of them.
                          The intent doesn't matter, they died, and because of Buffy, that is all that matters. She never would have had to rescue them had she not put them in a place where they could be killed in the first place.

                          Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                          The controlling philosophical rule here is the Principle of Double Effect, which states, generally, that if you are doing something morally just that has a negative side effect, even foreseeable, you are not culpable for the negative side effect. In the case of the zookeeper, the swim coach, and the knights, Buffy stands very clearly inside the protection of the principle of double effect.
                          The Principle of Double Effect only applies when you believe in it, and the Buffyverse established very early on that they did not agree with that principle at all.

                          Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                          We're creating an unnecessary tangent -- soul vs. no soul is not part of this forumalation, frankly, and never has been.
                          Actually, it has been a part of the equation from the beginning. Very early on it is established that the soul creates a difference in someone, it makes a monster not a monster anymore. The soul is what separates humans from demons. That is why a demon can easily be killed for committing atrocities, but a human can not, because his soul changes the entire equation. This is one of the reasons why Buffy is very hypocritical in this action, because she will follow this guideline only when it suits her needs, yet she expects all others to follow this guideline all the time.

                          Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                          First of all, we've got to distinguish what we're analyzing. There are two ways that Buffy kills *anything*
                          • Buffy kills in situations where any person would be entitled to kill -- in self defense or defense of others situations against imminent danger. This can include any target, human or demon.
                          • Once again, you are failing to separate the real world for the Buffyverse. Our concept of acceptable lethal self defense is not shared by the Buffyverse.

                            Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                          • Buffy kills in situations where she has *discretion* to kill, under the authority she finds in the fact that she is the Slayer.
                        Her abuse of that authority is the main issue here. She allows that authority to be used to kill when she feels like it, yet when someone else kills in the same way she does they need to be brought to justice for their actions in Buffy's eyes. It can't work both ways, Buffy can't act all puritanical about others killing humans for the same exact reasons that she does.

                        Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                        Well, Vampmogs provided it. "She alone will stand against the vampires, the demons and the forces of darkness." That is the statement that covers Buffy's moral authority. There is no mention of souls or the lack thereof there. The unifying principle is that Buffy has authority to respond to any threat posed by supernatural forces, and these can include human forces (Catherine Madison or Gwendolyn Post, for instance -- although, again, she didn't intend Post's death, just to (heh) dis-arm her). It also included Anya, Spike, or Angel. Or Willow when they fought in "Two To Go". It also includes Faith, as a Slayer, although that is about as close to the line as Buffy has ever gotten in terms of exceeding her authority, mostly due to her motives. But, in general, solving those problems is what Buffy, as the Slayer, is there to do. And when Buffy kills in those situations, she is doing it with the same moral authority that police might use lethal force.
                        And I have answered why this is an erroneous belief a few times now. Buffy has no moral authority, she goes against this moral code that you imply exists on multiple occasions, and thus she forfeits any moral authority she may have ever held.

                        Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                        There has only been one time in which Buffy exceeded her just authority as the Slayer, or her rights as a human, and that was with Ted. She was justified in striking him initially, but carrying the fight further, after she had control of it, was improper. But, since he turned out not to be human, it's hard to press it as a problem they needed to continue to address.
                        Buffy has exceeded this moral authority numerous times in the Buffyverse. Because the Buffyverse does not follow the same accepted lethal force self-defense principle that we do, she has exceeded her supposed moral authority every time she has killed a human in self defense. But, more than that she exceeded her moral authority every time she attempted to kill a human but didn't, or killed/attempted to kill a demon with a soul. She exceeded this authority when she ignored Willow killing multiple humans & Willow never faced any consequences for her actions. Yet, Buffy continued to berate and look down, and condemn Faith for her killings, despite the fact that Faith owned up to her actions, sought redemption and faced the consequences. Buffy's hypocrisy when it comes to her actions and to the actions of those around her in regards to this issue caused her to exceed and lose her moral authority very early on in the series.

                        Originally posted by alexa View Post
                        I suspect that Cell's objections largely stem from his dislike of Buffy. Buffy was my favourite character till around season 5-6. I don't see why people can't like her up until her life went a little darker.. and even then she still has good reasons for acting the way she did.
                        As I have said numerous times now, my complete detest of Buffy has nothing to do with my feelings on this issue. I also take other characters to task on this issue, Giles, Xander, Willow, Angel, etc. This is an issue I have with the Buffyverse as a whole, not just Buffy the character.
                        Last edited by Cell; 24-02-08, 04:52 AM.
                        The good fight, yeah? - You never know until you've been tested. - I get that now. - Doyle

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          She tried to help, and Faith rejected the help, although personally I would be resistant to accepting help from someone that has treated me like an outside and a piece of garbage from the moment we met.
                          Buffy didn't do this. They initially had troubles but began to bond quite a lot actually. Buffy was basically the only one opting for her rehabilitation and willing to give her a second chance, even Angel was rather hesitant and negative about the idea. Faith tried to frame her for murder and Buffy still wanted to help her, give the girl some credit.

                          But, that's another issue, help was offered, Faith refused, but that still doesn't mean that they couldn't find another way to deal with her besides murder. Buffy has special rules for certain people, and it just so happens that Faith doesn't fall into the special category for Buffy. Therefore Buffy can kill Faith, but others that have done worse, Willow for instance, don't have to worry about Buffy killing them, ever. Buffy could have tried to find another means to detain Faith, but she didn't even put forth the effort beyond talking down to her like usual or later trying to kill her.
                          I disagree. Firstly, IMO Faith fulls under Buffy's jurisdiction anyway. But more importantly, Buffy only acted on trying to kill Faith only after Faith had poisoned Angel. It wasn't just an act of revenge, Buffy didn't go after Faith until she learnt Faith's blood could cure him. That's why she went to kill Faith, to save the life of a good person, It's a fair trade, Faith did this to Angel, Faith has to pay the price of her actions. Buffy should not have sat there and left Angel to die because she doesn't want to break her moral code, that's illogical, and she surley shouldn't have to offer herself to Angel because of this either. Neither options were fair.

                          ~ Banner by Nina ~

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by Cell View Post
                            In our world yes, but in the world of the Buffyverse, no. They have a much different moral code, although honestly moral code is all up to the individual. In the Buffyverse they establish early on that even in self-defense the killing of a human is not okay.

                            Once again, you are failing to separate the real world for the Buffyverse. Our concept of acceptable lethal self defense is not shared by the Buffyverse.
                            Because you say it isn't? Do you have anything other than "because thinking makes it so" upon which to base that?

                            And also, if you really think "moral code is all up to the individual", that morality is subjective, exactly why are you trying to hold Buffy to *yours*? I don't accept subjective morality anyway, but if you really do, then you've negated every comment you've made about Buffy's actions.

                            The intent doesn't matter, they died, and because of Buffy, that is all that matters. She never would have had to rescue them had she not put them in a place where they could be killed in the first place.

                            The Principle of Double Effect only applies when you believe in it, and the Buffyverse established very early on that they did not agree with that principle at all.
                            When precisely did that happen? Was there a season 1 episode I missed where double effect was put to the test and disregarded as valuable?

                            See, statements like "intent doesn't matter" are just this undisprovable moral code with you. You (apparently) are taking your own subjective moral standard and declaring that it is the objective moral reality of the Buffyverse. Intent matters a great deal.

                            Especially since, last I saw, the vast majority of the Buffy canon takes place in the United States, so presumptively, American jurisprudence for criminal law and Western, classical liberalism, enlightenment moral philosophy is preeminent in the culture of the characters.

                            Actually, it has been a part of the equation from the beginning. Very early on it is established that the soul creates a difference in someone, it makes a monster not a monster anymore. The soul is what separates humans from demons. That is why a demon can easily be killed for committing atrocities, but a human can not, because his soul changes the entire equation. This is one of the reasons why Buffy is very hypocritical in this action, because she will follow this guideline only when it suits her needs, yet she expects all others to follow this guideline all the time.
                            In the course of the Buffyverse, we've seen humans (ostensibly) without souls (Angel 1.14 "I've Got You Under My Skin"), demons with souls (forget the vampires, what about both Anya and Halfrek, based on 7.05 "Selfless). We've seen human villains pose significant supernatural threats (Catherine Madison) and pose human threats (Warren Meers). We've seen demons that are unquestionably dangerous (The Polgara) and demons that are essentially harmless (Merle, Clem). Over the course of 254 televised episodes and 15 canon comics, the unifying moral principle is that *what you are* means far less to whether you fall under the legitimate authority of not just Buffy, but the "whitehats" in general, Angel, Willow, Giles, Wes, etc., comes from *what you do*.

                            Specifically, whether or not you pose a supernatural threat. This distinction is made clear not once, but twice in the episode "Villains". First, by the thing Willow talks to, when it declares Tara's death outside the scope of dealing with magically because it's "by human means". And second, by Buffy herself --

                            BUFFY: Being a Slayer doesn't give me a license to kill. Warren's human... So the human world has its own rules for dealing with people like him... Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. We can't control the universe. If we were supposed to ... then the magic wouldn't change Willow the way it does. And ... we'd be able to bring Tara back. There are limits to what we can do. There should be.
                            While she doesn't explicitly refer to it, the second component, that Warren didn't do anything that you aren't supposed to call the police about, is implicit in this summary.

                            Call it the Ghostbusters principle... who ya gonna call? If the bad thing that's happening is one for which an ordinary person would have no legitimate recourse other than to call the cops, then Buffy is limited that way. If it's a situation where the cliche of "what can the cops do?" that's come up before in the Buffyverse ("The Harvest", for one, Willow suggested calling the police), then it's in Buffy's arena. Like she said back then, the cops aren't equipped to deal with those things. And those are the things that Buffy deals with.

                            Her abuse of that authority is the main issue here. She allows that authority to be used to kill when she feels like it, yet when someone else kills in the same way she does they need to be brought to justice for their actions in Buffy's eyes. It can't work both ways, Buffy can't act all puritanical about others killing humans for the same exact reasons that she does.
                            In your interpretation, is there a morally justifiable right of self-defense? If so, is it just Buffy that doesn't get the benefit of it? Or can nobody defend themselves from an impending vampire attack in your opinion? Was Buffy wrong to bounce that swim team guy's face off his steering wheel when he got fresh in "Go Fish"?
                            sigpic
                            Banner by LRae12

                            Comment


                            • #16
                              Originally posted by Cell View Post
                              In the Buffyverse they establish early on that even in self-defense the killing of a human is not okay.
                              Could you please give us a quote in which they make their position on this clear? Because I certainly can't remember them ever stating such a thing. In the episode 'The Witch' Buffy was fully prepared to kill Catherine Madison in self defence and that was the third episode of the entire series. You can't get much 'earlier on' than that.

                              Furthermore, Giles makes his position on the matter pretty clear during 'Consequences' when Faith accidentally kills Deputy Mayor Alan Finch. He states that "it's tragic but accidents do happen." And explains that "slayers are on the front of a nightly war." He's rationalised it, slayers make mistakes, when acting out in self defence and he doesn't judge harshly on them, or the council for that matter, because the slayer never intended to harm the person.

                              In 'The Pack' when Buffy flips the zoo keeper into the Hyena enclosure she was never intending to flip him in there, simply to flip him over her to avoid being hurt. If it was her intention to aim for the enclosure she wouldn't have made the effort to run up to the enclosure in an attempt to save him. If it had been a pre-meditated move she would have had to consider the Hyeans would kill him, and therefore wouldn't have made the effort to try and save him.

                              Again, this episode is very early on in the series. So unless you can provide a quote in which they explicitly state that killing humans in an act of self defence isn't justifiable than I really don't see how you can state such a thing?

                              ~ Banner by Nina ~

                              Comment


                              • #17
                                As far as I'm concerned, every single instace where Buffy has killed a human -or tried to, it has been justified. Including Faith. As KoC said, the one instace where Buffy used her slayer powers in an unnaceptable way was when she was whaling on Ted, and even then she didn't intend for him to fall down the stairs, it was an accident. Plus he turned out to be a robot.


                                In the Buffyverse they establish early on that even in self-defense the killing of a human is not okay.
                                When? As others have quoted from the comics, when Buffy broke into the military base to save Willow, she pretty much said that while she wants to avoid killing humans, she's prepared to do it if absolutly necessary.

                                Comment


                                • #18
                                  You know I actually love when she kicks Ted's ass. Actually I don't really say ass... his arse!
                                  I know she went a little too far, but damn he so deserved it. This may be me channeling Buffy because I know what an agressive/abusive father figure is like when you're that age.. damn I loved when she hit him with the fry pan "Hi Uncle Teddy" - SLAM.

                                  Be interesting where Buffy and the rest are willing to go in season 8.. seems like they're going down the gray road.. as opposed to the straight out black one.
                                  sigpic

                                  Comment


                                  • #19
                                    Originally posted by alexa View Post
                                    You know I actually love when she kicks Ted's ass. Actually I don't really say ass... his arse!
                                    I know she went a little too far, but damn he so deserved it.
                                    Oh yeah, for sure. I certainly wasn't weeping when she was kicking the crap out of him, anymore than I was when Willow was putting Warren through hell.. but yeah both instances crossed the line. Buffy went over the mark from self defence to just wailing on a guy who couldn't even defend himself at that moment, she stopped defending and really just started attacking.

                                    ~ Banner by Nina ~

                                    Comment


                                    • #20
                                      Originally posted by Cell View Post
                                      My counter to this would be the revelation that demons do in fact have souls, not all of them but some do. If that is the case then how is Buffy's killing of demons justified at all? She doesn't kill humans because they are different, and the only thing that makes them different is their soul. Well, since some demons do have souls then Buffy shouldn't be killing them either.
                                      Actually I have been thinking about this also. Meaning that Buffy has right to kill every demon whatsoever, but not humans because they have 'the soul'. But how can be soulful Warren better than soulless Spike from "Intervention" for example?

                                      They do have the policy in the show that killing humans is ALWAYS wrong:

                                      Consequences:
                                      FAITH: You're still not seeing the big picture, B. Something made us different. We're warriors. We're built to kill.
                                      BUFFY: To kill demons! But it does *not* mean that we get to pass judgment on people like we're better than everybody else!
                                      FAITH: We *are* better! That's right, better. People need us to survive. In the balance, nobody's gonna cry over some random bystander who got caught in the crossfire.
                                      BUFFY: I am.
                                      And yet there are things that Cell pointed out...

                                      Also, I was just reading an article from "BtVS and Philosophy" and I'd like to quote an essay "No Big Win" by Gregory J. Sakal from this book. Sakal analyzes Spike's road to redemption and concludes:

                                      An almost disturbing question that is raised by this examination of Spike's redemptive behaviour is, what does this say about the mission of The Slayer? If an inherently evil creature like Spike shows even a potential for redemption, is it right for the Slayer to go around killing every demon and vampire that she encounters? The answer to this is pretty straightforward: she doesn't.
                                      sigpic
                                      banner by litzie avatar by diane

                                      Comment

                                      • Working...
                                        X