rewatching buffy the vampire slayer made me realize that spike wasn't as much of an anomaly as i thought.
the judge tells drusilla, spike and that random scholar vampire that they all reek of humanity so it tells us that monsters can be human too. i feel like a lot of fans just go with what the council says about demons, without realizing that it's straight up propaganda to keep slayers in check.
we see harmony barely change once she's turned. darla seemed to have genuine love for angelus, as twisted as it was. we meet a vampire who's basically buffy's therapist for an entire episode. spike doesn't just feel love, he has empathy, especially for buffy and dawn. we meet two brothers who still care about each other despite the soullessness.
but the council has to make that shortcut and tell those girls that all vampires are pure evil. if they're not, then slayers are hunting people. if the council acknowledges that, then their soldiers have to bear the moral weight of being executioners. it's a necessary lie for the cause.
it's very interesting that a lot of viewers actually fall into the trap and think spike broke the lore when he IS the lore. simplifying it takes away a lot of what makes slaying an interesting moral dilemma and does a disservice to the show imo.
i think a lot of this boils down to a general confusion about what soullessness actually means. for some fans, it appears that soullessness implies a total absence of emotions when it's actually more complicated than that.
the soul gives a vampire objective morality. it doesn't make them good: it only gives them the ability to feel the weight of their choices based on a universal moral compass. but a lack of soul doesn't mean that one can't accomplish things that are deemed "good" for personal reasons.
subjective morality is still possible since they CAN have humanity. spike can do objectively good things despite the lack of soul (protecting dawn from glory, helping buffy save the world in becoming pt2, etc.), because he's got a whole lot of humanity.
his personal moral compass (which points a lot towards buffy) and desires can align with what is objectively moral. for spike to get his soul back, he NEEDS to have a pre-existing sense of morality, as primitive as it was. it wouldn't make any sense if he didn't. he didn't have the hardware necessary for a conscience but his own humanity prompted him to change, to make sense of his own self and reconcile his feelings (guilt, love, devotion) with an objective moral framework.
but angelus can't because he is the exception to the rule. while spike is unique in how heightened his humanity and sensitivity are, angelus IS a self-serving monster stripped of any sense of humanity. he can't be morally grey: there's nothing in him that isn't demonic. he's a purely evil shell of liam the man. he's the prototype of what the council uses to keep the girls in line but not the norm.
saying that spike is the exception also makes no sense in the grand scheme of things: in s6, we're introduced to the trio, all very souled and all very evil. the show makes a point to tell you that you need both your humanity AND soul to be complete. a soul can't save a rotten human like warren. a soul isn't enough for real change and true integration of the selves: liam's humanity was never strong enough so angel always carries his soul like a burden.
humanity is the heart of a person and the soul only serves as a magnifier.
yousharknotpass
2087
snowghoul
izzy806
germansingergirl
andulkaphoto
romaincrisis
janainaart
prguitarman
pixelskylines
