Some day I might reveal (even more than I do already) my total inner nerdiness by talking about how a lot of these conversations never converge because people are using very different paradigms for their moral reflections. In this case, you are a Kantian and I'm a Thomist. (BTW, if it means anything to you, I'm ALWAYS a Thomist).
I think my basic point is that a lot of the board discussions (which admittedly are not meant to be lofty) are mired by the false notion that there is one and only one motivation for a given act. That's not true to the story. It's not true to real life. Like Rahirah, I find it very cool that both the story and life are like that.
That said, as a Thomist I deny that there's any sharp distinction between altruistic and non-altruistic acts. We all act in pursuit of the good we perceive. We just have better or worse understandings of what that good is. I agree that Spike's soul helps him have better understandings of what the good is. But even without the soul he's identified his well-being with the well-being of others (I couldn't stand it to see her in so much pain). That's a move up the ladder of love that lots of people with souls fail to make. I think the soul strengthens the higher motivations and makes it more likelythat he'll withstand various temptations to swing back down and pursue lower loves.
I do think you have to work hard to deny that Spike wasn't behaving nobly from the Glory torture incident through Buffy's return. You describe that to anyone outside the verse and they're not going to say "well, it's obvious that that guy has a glass ceiling he's never going to get through if he can't stop being so inherently selfish." Even if you give it the characterization Eowyn gives it above, most people would think that was good or noble behavior. Good or noble loves.
Where the soul comes to matter is that when Buffy comes back, it's revealed that his possession of her is a stronger love than some of the loves that are actually more noble (honoring promises, wanting to be the sort of person who could be treated as a man). His loves are ranked improperly. His good loves are there, and are really good. But he wants a lesser good more than the higher good. But it's still a mistake to say that he wasn't operating out of good motivations earlier. They just aren't the whole truth about him. As he learns. And seeks to remedy with the getting of the soul.
If we were to do this as Kantians we'd say that we NEVER know if someone has good motives, because what matters is what they do when they face a test where they are tempted to privilege their own good (happiness, well-being) over what's right. You can pass a hundred such tests, but still not know if there's not one big temptation out there specific to you that would cause you to fail. In this case, Spike's looking pretty good until he hits the test he fails (he has a shot at possessing Buffy and all the rest takes a distant back seat). But on Kant's view, pretty much all of us have a test out there that we're going to fail. Or at least none of us has any reason to think that there's NOT a test out there that we'd fail. Angel fails when his son is at risk, or when he despairs of achieving "redemption". Buffy temporarily failed when she didn't kill Angel in the middle of season 2. But I think the rest of Buffy's story is a pretty good meditation on just how dessicating it is to actually try to live life as a Kantian hero. Which is why I'm a Thomist. Buffy didn't need to learn how to be strong enough to privilege the right over the good or others over herself. She needed to learn how to love life enough that she could find some unity between the good and the right, where she could identify her own well-being with higher causes than just herself, but in a way that's life-giving and not life-draining.
And that was my inner nerd. Shutting it up now.
Of course you're not a Spike hater! And you know the sorts of folks I'm talking about!!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-27 12:31 am (UTC)I think my basic point is that a lot of the board discussions (which admittedly are not meant to be lofty) are mired by the false notion that there is one and only one motivation for a given act. That's not true to the story. It's not true to real life. Like Rahirah, I find it very cool that both the story and life are like that.
That said, as a Thomist I deny that there's any sharp distinction between altruistic and non-altruistic acts. We all act in pursuit of the good we perceive. We just have better or worse understandings of what that good is. I agree that Spike's soul helps him have better understandings of what the good is. But even without the soul he's identified his well-being with the well-being of others (I couldn't stand it to see her in so much pain). That's a move up the ladder of love that lots of people with souls fail to make. I think the soul strengthens the higher motivations and makes it more likelythat he'll withstand various temptations to swing back down and pursue lower loves.
I do think you have to work hard to deny that Spike wasn't behaving nobly from the Glory torture incident through Buffy's return. You describe that to anyone outside the verse and they're not going to say "well, it's obvious that that guy has a glass ceiling he's never going to get through if he can't stop being so inherently selfish." Even if you give it the characterization Eowyn gives it above, most people would think that was good or noble behavior. Good or noble loves.
Where the soul comes to matter is that when Buffy comes back, it's revealed that his possession of her is a stronger love than some of the loves that are actually more noble (honoring promises, wanting to be the sort of person who could be treated as a man). His loves are ranked improperly. His good loves are there, and are really good. But he wants a lesser good more than the higher good. But it's still a mistake to say that he wasn't operating out of good motivations earlier. They just aren't the whole truth about him. As he learns. And seeks to remedy with the getting of the soul.
If we were to do this as Kantians we'd say that we NEVER know if someone has good motives, because what matters is what they do when they face a test where they are tempted to privilege their own good (happiness, well-being) over what's right. You can pass a hundred such tests, but still not know if there's not one big temptation out there specific to you that would cause you to fail. In this case, Spike's looking pretty good until he hits the test he fails (he has a shot at possessing Buffy and all the rest takes a distant back seat). But on Kant's view, pretty much all of us have a test out there that we're going to fail. Or at least none of us has any reason to think that there's NOT a test out there that we'd fail. Angel fails when his son is at risk, or when he despairs of achieving "redemption". Buffy temporarily failed when she didn't kill Angel in the middle of season 2. But I think the rest of Buffy's story is a pretty good meditation on just how dessicating it is to actually try to live life as a Kantian hero. Which is why I'm a Thomist. Buffy didn't need to learn how to be strong enough to privilege the right over the good or others over herself. She needed to learn how to love life enough that she could find some unity between the good and the right, where she could identify her own well-being with higher causes than just herself, but in a way that's life-giving and not life-draining.
And that was my inner nerd. Shutting it up now.
Of course you're not a Spike hater! And you know the sorts of folks I'm talking about!!