(no subject)

[butterfly]

Still have the rest of VividCon to write up (I have notes for every vidshow that I managed to see, so, yeah, there's quite a bit more), but I've been distracted by (what else?) Stargate SG-1, which is such a shiny show.

I'm working today, but I have tomorrow off and currently have no plans, so I'll be working much on fannish and personal things on Wednesday.

In boniblithe's recent entry, you can find links to some vids from the premieres that are already up. I haven't gotten to it yet on my list, but I'd just like to recommend the vid for The Others, at least if you've seen the movie. Not sure it spoils the biggest thing (since I, well, already knew), but it spoils one of the very big things. It's a beautiful vid, though.

And this is random and Angel-related, but Lilah was not Wesley's healthiest relationship. Anyone else remember a very pretty woman named Virginia? With whom Wesley got together with and eventually parted from because they both realized that she couldn't take the violence of his lifestyle (and, give her points, consider where it took him)? And how very mature both sides were about the dissolution of their relationship? And the sweetness of the relationship and the cuteness with which it started? Did the poor woman fall into a black hole?

Comments

Yet another division

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

But then, I also don't think that it's true that all Spike was capable of without a soul was destruction. He saved Dawn. He tried to save Buffy. He took care of the Scoobies and Sunnydale after Buffy's death with no thought of reward, because it's what she would have wanted. He liked Joyce, and mourned for her, and tried to save her. He helped Dawn and made her promise not to tell Buffy, so we know it wasn't with an ulterior motive. Hell, way back in the day he helped Tara with her family before he even *liked* Buffy.

Well, I don't know about that last bit. I think that he was pretty much always attracted to her. But yes, always destructive is inaccurate. I was in the moment. What I should have said is 'selfish' -- he helps when it helps him or the people that he likes and the rest of the world can get sucked into hell.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not sure there's such a thing as good people and bad people, as opposed to good actions and bad actions. And that casts the dilemma somewhat differently. In that case, whatever you can do to encourage people to act rightly and stop acting wrongly is better than declaring that they're past hope, which does the opposite.

I think that the weight of culmative actions can make it hard for a person to shift directions, though I do agree that there's no cut-off point, no time in which someone can change directions. Anyone can make a 'good' choice or an 'evil' one. But I also think that intent matters and that you can't... pavlov someone into being good. They have to actually want to do good for the act to be any good for them and their moral direction. Spike made a choice in season six, a choice to become a man, but it was an inherently selfish choice -- he wanted Buffy, wanted her, not a shadow of her. And he had no clue what he was getting himself into. And because of that choice, that choice to change instead of trying to force the world to, he was given the chance to make other choices.

Yes, of course he can. But my point is that wondering if he ever could have loved her is a far cry from knowing the answer is no. I took his wondering as his first admission (moving, because too late) that their relationship had had a real chance at working, and I'm not sure where you're getting the interpretation that he knew it never could.

But I don't see him wondering if he could have loved her the same as him wondering if their relationship could have worked. I think that it would have failed, regardless of love, and that's what I see Wesley as knowing.

Re: Yet another division

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

But I also think that intent matters and that you can't... pavlov someone into being good.

I agree you can't Pavlov it. I don't think the chip by itself would have made Spike be good, though it did make his actions less evil.

But I do think you can *teach* it. I think that's exactly how humans learn it, and why sociopaths are often those who did not get the right kind of attention, affection, and lessons at the right stage in their development.

Pavlov is a reductionist, avoid pain/get pleasure kind of programming, where a single stimulus produces a single response. Teaching is about reward and punishment, but it's also about understanding and developing empathy, and using reward and punishment -- and analogy, and providing new experiences which can be used for analogy -- to lead someone to a new perspective.

That's not always successful -- you can lead a kid to morals but you can't make him drink -- but it's usually a lot more successful than *not* doing it, or we could just dump our kids in a room full of books and have them come out socialized at 18.

Spike, to me, is a sociopath. All soulless vampires are. It's normal for them. But that doesn't mean to me that he's hopeless. It's possible, even likely, that vampires, like kids who missed that developmental window, will never be able to feel the same as normal humans do.

But I know two people -- dear friends -- who consider themselves sociopathic with good reason. They don't feel inhibitions on hurting others the same way that I do. So they've painstakingly taught themselves ethics and social rules, and are very careful to apply them, because they know they can't trust their own instincts to do the right thing.

Does that make them not good, because like Spike their instincts are selfish and they can't feel it the way we do? Or does that, as I think, make them even more impressively good, because they're willing to fight their instincts to do what is right?

I am pretty sure they do it not purely, or even mostly, out of noble altruism but because it is enlightened self-interest -- they understand intellectually that doing good for others will be better for them. For that matter, you could argue that all altruists do the same thing.

At a certain point, to me, intentions don't matter as much as actions. If someone is behaving well out of the fear of going to hell, that's just as selfish as Spike wanting Buffy to like him. But they're still behaving well. If someone is committing murder in the belief that he's making the world a better place, I don't care, he's still committing murder.

The first is good and the second bad as far as I'm concerned. And I see ample reason to think that a soulless vampire could be, and was well on the way to be, becoming at least as good as the man who fears hell. Maybe not a hero or a saint, but a decent guy who does a little more good in the world than he does harm, for the very common reason that he wants to live up to the expectations of the people who believe in him. Hell Angel, for all his soul, became a good guy for exactly that reason.

but it was an inherently selfish choice -- he wanted Buffy, wanted her, not a shadow of her.

Ah, I don't agree. I think he made that choice for her as much as for himself, if not more. Ever since Glory we've seen him have the capacity.

And he had no clue what he was getting himself into.

I don't agree with that either. He'd seen Angel. He had as good an idea as anyone.

And because of that choice, that choice to change instead of trying to force the world to, he was given the chance to make other choices.

That I agree with. But I think making that choice in the first place indicated how much he'd already changed.

But I don't see him wondering if he could have loved her the same as him wondering if their relationship could have worked.

I get that in theory, but in that context and tone that's what it meant to me.

I think that it would have failed, regardless of love, and that's what I see Wesley as knowing.

I'm not so sure of that, and whatever he thought along the way, once she was dead I read Wesley as not so sure either. We just read the lines differently. There's no way to resolve that.

Re: Vampires and goodness

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

But I do think you can *teach* it. I think that's exactly how humans learn it, and why sociopaths are often those who did not get the right kind of attention, affection, and lessons at the right stage in their development.

Except that vampires already know the rules. They have a demon that makes them not follow the rules, but they do know them. It's not a natural ignorance, but a forced choice into ignoring them.

If someone is behaving well out of the fear of going to hell, that's just as selfish as Spike wanting Buffy to like him. But they're still behaving well. If someone is committing murder in the belief that he's making the world a better place, I don't care, he's still committing murder.

Well, yes, but the second person is insane. And the first person... if you only act out of fear, then the second that you stop fearing whatever it may be, there's no reason to keep doing good. Whereas someone who does good because it is good will continue to do so regardless of the stimuli. Good out of fear isn't sustainable.

Maybe not a hero or a saint, but a decent guy who does a little more good in the world than he does harm, for the very common reason that he wants to live up to the expectations of the people who believe in him. Hell Angel, for all his soul, became a good guy for exactly that reason.

And I also don't judge Angel as good in and of himself unless he's doing good out a will to do good. Angel isn't a good man at the end. He may or may not be a champion, but he ordered a man to be killed. And he knows that that's wrong and he did it anyway.

I think he made that choice for her as much as for himself, if not more. Ever since Glory we've seen him have the capacity.

Well, he had just tried to rape her. And she'd just proven that he couldn't. The only way to have her would have to be willingly.

I don't agree with that either. He'd seen Angel. He had as good an idea as anyone.

Seeing and experiencing are two very different things. He saw Angel... and made fun of him. It was until he had a soul that he truly understood the pain that Angel had felt ("Angel... should have warned me.").

But I think making that choice in the first place indicated how much he'd already changed.

I think that if Dru had ever said that he would need to have a soul for her to keep loving him, he would have gotten one, come hell or high water. She just wouldn't have either said or implied that. Buffy herself is the one who gave Spike the idea -- "I can't love you. You don't have a soul." She's the one who made it a prerequisite.

I'm not so sure of that, and whatever he thought along the way, once she was dead I read Wesley as not so sure either. We just read the lines differently. There's no way to resolve that.

Very true. I think we've reached the wall again in this one place.

Re: Vampires and goodness

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

They have a demon that makes them not follow the rules, but they do know them.

I think of this as the soul made empathy happen, but the soul is gone. So now they, the demon, need to learn empathy or learn why it's worth it to live by the rules without it.

Or relearn, but relearn the way someone with a brain injury does. You might remember that you used to read, but you don't still know how and choose to ignore it. If that part of the brain is gone, some other part has to learn from scratch.

That learning, to be at all effective versus the powerful drive to evil, would have to be emotional. They'd have to have strong first-hand motivation to overcome it. It makes sense to me that memories of having empathy, when you no longer have the empathy itself, would not be enough to govern their behavior. That doesn't mean nothing could.

but the second person is insane.

Not necessarily. They could be a soldier, a religious leader, an executioner. All kinds of people kill in the belief that they're improving the world. I rarely think they're right, but I don't think they're crazy.

if you only act out of fear, then the second that you stop fearing whatever it may be, there's no reason to keep doing good.

Yes. That's why fear is not enough. But fear of something like "losing the respect of someone I love" can go a long way to making people behave well for a long time.

The habits of that time, plus the rewards you get along the way (praise, trust, friendship, etc.) can be enough to keep you going after the initial fear has faded away.

Most people who learned not to lie for fear of being grounded aren't still afraid of being grounded, but neither are they lying. Most people learn habits & then reasons, not the other way round.

someone who does good because it is good will continue to do so regardless of the stimuli.

Maybe. IME few people are that unbudgeable. They have breaking points of things they fear or desire. They have vulnerabilities to consensus reality, so they can be convinced that what's bad is good, & then do that.

Good out of fear isn't sustainable.

Sure it is. It's ugly & coercive, but it was sustained by major religions for thousands of years.

Well, he had just tried to rape her. And she'd just proven that he couldn't.

I didn't exactly see that. I assumed he couldn't, because she's stronger than Angel & Angel is stronger than Spike, so QED. But what I actually saw was that he proved he couldn't. That he didn't take her "no" seriously until she threw him off, & then he was horrified by what he'd done (and by being horrified) & ran off.

I didn't come away from that thinking Spike now knew he could never trick or overpower her. He had her in chains before. I came away from it thinking Spike had realized he didn't want to overpower her. Which still leads to this:

The only way to have her would have to be willingly.

But as I said in the other thread, I think by then he was not so focused on having her as on not hurting her - & on having this constant debate in his head ended one way or the other.

Seeing and experiencing are two very different things.

Yes, of course. But you seem to be saying he had no idea of what he was getting into, whereas I think he had the best idea he could without having done it.

if Dru had ever said that he would need to have a soul for her to keep loving him, he would have gotten one

Maybe. I don't know. I think Spike transformed himself into a demon for Dru & a man for Buffy. In both cases there was magic involved but also a lot of work. In Dru's case the magic came first & the work after. In Buffy's case most of the work, to my eye, came before the magic.

I don't know if human William ever could have become evil enough for Dru without losing his soul. I don't know if vamp Spike could have become good enough for Buffy without gaining his soul, but I do think he became good enough to gain it, & that's no small thing.

She's the one who made it a prerequisite.

She did. Which goes back to my point about teaching. Give Spike a direction & he was incredibly motivated to follow, even to places that ought to be unthinkable to a vampire.