Confusion about Demons

[SadGeezer]

I’ve been wondering about this for a while now…do demons in Buffy have souls? In the early series it was easy to think so, cos all demons you saw were evil, but now Anya and Lorne from Angel are examples of good Demons. The thing is, Buffy has no remorse about killing demons, but if they are living creatures with souls who have the potential to be good AND evil, just like humans(who Buffy won’t kill, no matter how evil they are) then shouldn’t she at least some sort of regret about having to slay them?…wow, I made a serious ethical point, add that to last series list of issues- addiction, rape, murder, necrophelia(Spike IS technically dead, you know)- and Buffy can be quite a morally challenging show!

[Rag]

Morality is an entirely subjective concept. What I consider to be right and wrong may be worlds apart from your own set of rules. Throughout history there have been inumerable instances of one culture being abhorred by what is considered the acceptable norm by others (cannibalism and human sacrifice being obvious examples), and that’s just in humans.

Some animals have been proven to be scentient or self aware. They too have their own set of morals, up to a point. OK, domesticated animals have our morality forced upon them (i.e. you decide if your dogs behaviour is bad or good, and let it know in no uncertain terms). But even wild creatures have their own set of rules of right and wrong. Territorialism and it’s associated ‘rituals’ indicates this… But if you said that an animal had a soul, a wide number of religious groups would dub you a blasphemer.

The point I’m trying to get to is that I don’t think morality is a ‘soul’ issue as much as a ‘self awareness’ issue.

In the case of the Vamps, you have two self aware creatures forced to share one body. OK, the vamp gets dominance, but residual characteristics of the human still remain, as do memories. And therefore memories of the moral boundaries that that individual imposed on themselves. Therefore a vamp saying he is evil is simply applying his recent conduct to the remembered moral values of the ‘host’ human.

I believe that the Wheedon Vamps must still retain some of the humanity even after being Vamped (or at least have the potential to do so depending on the strength of the invading Vamp, this is also supported by the ‘older the vamp the stronger and nastier they get’…erm…thing). Therefore we have a conflict of views within a single entity. Spikes impotency due to the chip must have been like a slap in the face from his ex-human side. The moral code that he, himself doesn’t buy into, yet his body can remember living by, is now being forced upon him; and there is squat he can do about it. All the more reason for him to keep on reminding people that deep down he is still the same malicious b’stard that a short time ago they were all pretty terrified of.

Should all of this be the case, no bloody wonder vamps are always wandering around, doing their tortured soul bit, waxing lyrical about how evil they are.

This of course doesn’t even touch on the orginal subject of souls and whether B is naughty for killing demons… Don’t ask me… That’s far too deep. Discussions on morality I can do. Theology leaves me a bit cold (unless it is about the morality of religious groups).

****, that was all a bit deep. I’m now going to have to go and post something moronic to balance out my intellectual Karma.

[bonnee]

Its a good question Stu, and to be frank, I’m not sure the show encourages us to look too deeply into the implications of its proposed ‘metaphysics’. My feeling is that the metaphysics is philosophically unsound and morally questionable (to say the least). The show seems to encourage a moral dictinction between having a ‘spirit’ and having a ‘soul’, with possession of the latter somehow being morally superior.

Possession of a soul, for example, is supposed to indicate moral knowledge and compel choices – hence, knowing the difference between good and evil, and being able to act in accordance with such knowledge. Its what makes US different to THEM. If demons, vampires et al don’t – or no longer – possess souls (but are ‘animated’ by something other than a human ‘animus’ or soul ), then how can they be said to possess such knowledge – or be able to (not) act accordingly? They are (presumably) beyond good and evil, and so, mere victims of our own ‘knowledge’ (only accountable in so far as we hold them to account by own our standards and obvious ignorance of/indifference to their ‘otherness’).

Such beings are simply what they are (they have no choice but to be, and act in accordance with their own beings), although the show tends to conceive them by way of what they are NOT (unlike us, and so, morally worth/less or questionable).

The fact that Spike keeps calling himself evil strikes me as itself being morally questionable – how can he continue to ‘know’ himself to be ‘evil’ as such, and why doesn’t such knowledge become ‘good’ in the absence of no longer knowing/caring about the (human) difference? By ‘good’ I don’t mean in human terms, but rather as something worth pursuing for its own sake (as being self authenticating and justfied as a result).

Then there is the question of being potentially able to regain lost knowledge via the regaining of one’s soul, rendering Buffy a potential ‘murderer’ even in human terms. Why should having a soul privelege human beings in their eyes as well as our own – demons, et al might not know or care about the human moral difference, but they are certainly privy to their own concerns, practices, beliefs, suffering, etc. The moral precept of ‘the Slayer’ is supposed to mitigate such questions, but like you, I wonder about the ‘im/morality’ of it all.

If you want an attempt to explain (defend) the show’s metaphysics, consider visiting
http://www.atpobtvs.com/metap.html

And there is an online academic journal that might interest you.
http://www.middleenglish.org/slayage/%5B/url%5D

[ 30-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]

[Author]

Posts