This is an archive of a topic from the 2001 season of Mighty Big TV. It appeared in the Buffy forum's General Gabbery section, and was horked in the great Glarkathon of January 2002. This section was 2/17/01-2/21/01.

Brooding_Soul
February 17,2001 4:25:47 PM EST


I thought that rather than clog up the Crush thread with all the philosophical talk of good and evil, we could post it here.

Ace and Sep, I searched the archives for the old philosophical thread, but it got horfed. Feel free to close this if need be, I wouldn't mind.


lejo
February 17,2001 9:43:57 PM EST

So if a Vamp is dusted in the woods with no one to stake it, does it make a sound?

Alright, here's my problem with classifying Good and Evil as perception of actions. Doing so eliminates the notion that there can be anything beyond an individual view of the world.

Once you accept that there aren't, if not absolutes, than basic guidelines to morality, you pave the way for the ruin of ANY belief system. By taking away the fundemental notion that a system of thought is valid even if it is not universally shared.

Good needs to be something all groups can identify. That identification doesn't have to come easily, but without a common ground than there potential for harmony between disparate viewpoints becomes impossible.

Therefore- without moral guidelines that can be shared by all, there cannot be unity, or even tolerance, between groups. I couldn't live in a world like that, and therefore my belief is there are Moral Certainties, even if they can't be codified.

alkibiadhs
February 17,2001 10:49:42 PM EST

The trouble, Lejo, is this.

From whence is this "foundation" drawn, precisely? I realize that living in a world with no universally recognizable guidelines for "good" and "evil" is difficult...but I suspect that the evidence that we live in exactly that sort of world is pretty strong. Logically speaking, I'm not sure it is possible to come up with a moral code that doesn't rely upon itself for justification. Hence, philosophical outlooks like cultural relativism. The point is...if you have some worldview, and you want to judge another worldview, what do you use to make that judgement, other than the worldview you started with? Morality is horribly tricky that way.

So far as Buffy goes...since it's a T.V. show they can make it a world with moral absolutes and that's fine. But to me, taking those absolutes away makes the show more real. And more real = mo' better, in my mind. Hence, ambiguity rules. That's all.


lo
February 18,2001 12:06:36 AM EST

Here's where I think the philosophical problems of Buffy arise from. The show is attemping, I think, trangress the usual narrative of Good versus Evil. But, in order to subvert the norms, it needs to acknowledge them, right? So we're left with a show that, I think, is trying to subvert the morally absolute "hero" story, but is completely immersed in it at the same time. Hence the multiple interpretations.

But that's just my take.

Manu
February 18,2001 08:54:51 AM EST

But see, it doesn't HAVE to be moral relativism. More like perspectivism, where you acknowledge the fact that any given society's moral beliefs ARE conventional - and not based on objective, absolute notions of right and wrong (which would require the existence of something like Plato's Forms and, ultimately, the One. The Good. In other words, God) - but nevertheless consider them valid and necessary.

The generally accepted moral codes and rules are what they are because that's what works in the given context. That's what allows that society to survive, develop and flourish. And, therefore, from the POV of that society, they ARE good and valid and necessary. It doesn't mean that vampires, who are by definition outsiders (They're [un]dead. Society doesn't even acknowledge their existence anymore), can be reasonably expected to accept and live by these rules. Nor does it mean that Buffy should care in the least that *her* rules do not, technically, apply to vampires and that rejecting them does not make them inherently and irrevocably Eeeevil. She still has every right to kill them, precisely because they're a threat to the society of which she's a part and to the rules which are indispensible to its survival. But only as long as they're a threat, which, interestingly enough, she seems to have acknowledged (subconsciously, at least) by not killing chipped-Spike, even though she still thinks him Eeevil.

The problem is she still DOES believe that what she's doing is right in an absolute sense and not just in a pragmatic, utilitarian sense. And the realization that things are not that simple would shake her to the core. Which is something that I would really, REALLY like to see and why I instantly became a S/B shipper.

Does what we've been SHOWN (I still choose to ignore most of what we've been *told* as expressing the beliefs of the characters and in no way the incontrovertible truth) on BtVS so far support this way of looking at the moral Jossverse? Probably not. But I still feel that there's been a lot more subtextual ambiguity than the orthodox reading of the text would suggest. Until now.

Maybe we should start a "Moral ambiguity, YAY!" thread.


kmm56
February 18,2001 10:32:43 AM EST

Oddly enough, I think part of why I would prefer the Buffyverse to have absolute rights and wrongs is because in the real world I come down pretty hard on the side of morality being subjective. (Which isn't to say I won't support mine until the cows come home; I just don't believe the universe is backing me...)

alkibiadhs
February 18,2001 1:43:06 PM EST

Word to you, Manu. There was nary a word I disagreed with in that post.

I do wonder, however, if the demon population is aware of this complexity. I mean, you do have to be careful with this kind of stuff, because it would be very easy to turn demonkind into an angry, oppressed minority group, and that isn't what we want this show to be about, is it? On the other hand, it definitely seems like certain characters, like Spike, the Master, and the Mayor, are keenly aware of the different ways of looking at things.

To quote the mayor "There's more than one way to skin a cat...and I happen to know that from personal experience."

lo
February 18,2001 2:06:01 PM EST

Manu: Great post, especially because "moral relativism" (even though I don't mind the term) has really negative connotations in our culture. I think you're right, it's a matter of "standpoint," that what is "right" and what is "wrong" all depends on who is doing the looking.

Thanks for clarifying.


Fool IV
February 18,2001 5:25:29 PM EST

Hmm. I'm going to try to keep this simple, because I got about two paragraphs into an elaborate exegesis when I got distracted and ended up writing sappy haiku until 3:30 in the morning. First of all, absolute moral relativism and pragmatic relativism are not the same thing. Pragmatic relativism is based on Plato's cave, with the supposition that it is impossible to leave the cave.

Incidentally, some recent stuff I've been hearing third-hand from the quantum superstring theorists seems to suggest that Plato's Ideal Forms are about to make a major comeback, at least in that some theorists are postulating that the "strings" in superstring theory are mediations between the physical world and a lower, primal order; that physicality - quarks, leptons, all the various particles - are expressions of underlying structure.

Anyways, the argument is that it's not possible to leave the cave and experience the absolute directly. Thus we interact via perception, theory, and ideas - mediated ethics, rather than primal morality. And even if you feel that there is a primal morality, can you accept that all ethical systems are models or maps? One shouldn't confuse the map for the terrain.

lejo
February 18,2001 5:37:30 PM EST

Hee!

Super-string theory and moral pragmatism.

I love this place.

alkibiadhs
February 18,2001 5:47:35 PM EST

Okay, fool IV, that all sounds really cool...but I'm really, really confused how that would end up getting applied to the buffyverse.

Are Spike and Buffy using different maps for the same terrain?

Or are they using pretty similar maps and going in different dicrections?

And does this metaphor make any sense?


Fool IV
February 18,2001 6:15:09 PM EST

Oh, it's only marginally applicable to the S/B thing. Was only really addressing moral relativism and moral pragmatism. However... I would say that _Crush_ made it pretty clear that Spike's operating with an ethical map published by some demonic Rand-McNally Corp, and he's trying his best to get out of Buffyville. Buffy is navigating with a Soviet-era map, created by stalinists on the Watchers Council less interested in getting travelers from point A to point B than keeping unauthorized personnel out of sensitive areas.

Did you know that commercial map-makers deliberately leave a couple tiny towns out of their products, so that they can identify stolen work when it appears in a rival's publication?


Manu
February 18,2001 6:37:39 PM EST

Well, I used both "pragmatism" and "utilitarianism" in a loose, non-philosophical, ordinary language kinda' way. Which I probably shouldn't have. Something like "practical" would've done just as well.

But, to me, both "relativism" and "perspectivism" are about there NOT BEING an absolute, objective standard relative to which we can evaluate our judgments, not just about it being inaccessible to us. After all, if we can't access it, what reason do we have to think it exists? The whole point of Plato's cave allegory was that we COULD achieve noesis, if only we tried hard enough. And that the shadowy reflections of the Forms and, ultimately, the One, led us to such imperfect standards as we do have. Is that what you mean by pragmatic relativism? 'Cause I'm not familiar with it and that doesn't strike me as relativist at all.

And don't even get me started on the implicit rationalism which still pervades most science (physics in particular), even though philosophers have largely given up on justifying it.

Still... this shit is fun and I'd really like to hear more about it. Since atomic theories already imply an underlying structure, which is already not quite matter, I assume you're talking about this structure being meta-physical in a stronger sense than that. Which kinda' makes sense what with superstrings not even existing in four-dimensional space.


Fool IV
February 18,2001 6:51:22 PM EST

In regards to Plato's Cave as a call to break out of the cave... that's why Plato is a poopyhead. I'm generally leery of taking him seriously - you could argue that _the Republic_ is partially to blame for Stalinism. But, like him or loathe him, he's the font of western organized philosophy. The elephant in the room, so to speak.

As for philosophers abandoning rationalism - bah! Quitters, the lot of them.

I'm pretty weak on modern philosophy, tell the truth. I'm still working on Kierkegaard, let alone anybody in the twentieth century. My exposure to anything after Neitzsche is pretty much at an abbreviated college-survey course level. This is what you get at your modern state-college liberal arts school: an education that can't be reliably distinguished from the results of autodidactism. :/


alkibiadhs
February 18,2001 6:52:58 PM EST

Oh, you people should not be allowing a philosophy major in mid-thesis to philosophize about pet obsessions instead of self-delusion (which is my topic). But you are, so...

I think there's some middle ground to be found in the writings of Immanuel Kant. Kant felt that the foundation for epistemology (and ethics too, I think) could be found not in some metaphysical entity, but rather in the way human beings perceive the world. According to him, human beings are built with certain kinds of perceptions; color, smell, pleasure, soforth. These things, he felt, were universal, at least to humans, but also subjective in the sense that they literally represent the interaction between individuals and the world.

So if ethics are the same way, the existence of "true" moral values does not stem from something as ontologically shaky as Plato's forms. Rather, to use the cave analogy, we understand ourselves by *the way we perceive the cave*, rather than by what we perceive within it.

And if that's true, you have a real break between, for example, Buffy and Spike.

Buffy is human. There are ethics for her which are real and true and she does her best to stand by them...but the ones that exist for Spike are different because he's not human. Only, in his case, because his world has been messed with significantly, it might be that his moral compass, such as it is, has shifted. The trouble, of course, is that if Kant is right, Spike can never do what Buffy thinks of as good for what Buffy thinks of as good reasons. There will always be a tension between how he acts and how he sees the world. But of course, that sort of moral confusion is in no way a turnoff for me.

Also, the Republic is a distopia, as indicated by Plato/Socrates repeatedly saying "You're going to hate this", and is therefore not responsible for communism.

Manu
February 18,2001 7:37:40 PM EST

alkibiadhs, don't tell me you're a philosophy major too?

I'm just as leery of Kant's categorical imperatives as I am of Plato's cave (I'm talking about "The Critique of Pure Reason" too. Never read the "Practical" one). They are based on very tenous inferences about our basic space/time intuitions and he was largely motivated by his desire to justify our tendency to make "universally valid" statements like Newton's laws (and, ultimately, our moral beliefs). Which, surprise, surprise, are now considered essentially invalid, although the math still stands for situations where relativistic effects don't come into play. Not to mention that his whole argument for synthetic a priori propositions strikes me as nonsense (mathematical propositions are sooo NOT synthetic) and the analytic/synthetic and a prior/a posteriori distinction's been re-hashed a thousand times since (notably by Kripke, who IS also a rationalist, but has a better point, IMO, than Kant. If you're into rationalism, Fool IV, give him a try. Of course, to me, Wittgenstein is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century).

Not to say that Kant doesn't have a point. It's entirely possible that there IS something some fundamental similarity in the way our brains are wired and that it will inevitably lead us all to see the world, morality included, in a certain way. But he hasn't proved it to my satisfaction and the fact that we can question our morality, as well as all our perceptions, leads me to wonder whether Nietzsche was right when he believed that we could transcend them too (the übermensch).

At any rate, I'm not sure this changes any of what I was already saying where B/S is concerned. There's little difference to me between standards being *universal* only in human terms and their not being *universal* at all. They're still a matter of perspective, albeit it's a species thing, not an individual thing. I already admitted that, from a practical point of view, such standards as are generally accepted, are what they are for a good reason and we are very much entitled to adhere to them. It's just that, in this case, they're not really a matter of convention, but a fact of our (ever-changing, let us not forget) physiology. Which is immaterial for most intents and purposes.

And I'm not sure "The Republic" was a dystopia to Plato. I think he sincerely believed that that was the way to go and that he DID encourage other people to firmly believe that they KNEW what was best for everyone. Which is kinda' like the necessary, if not sufficient, condition for all totalitarianism.

I.Must.Stop.Editing.Compulsively.

alkibiadhs
February 18,2001 8:01:43 PM EST

I'm very, very pleased by the people in this thread, can I say that?

However, Manu, while I agree with everything you've said (except the thing about math being non-synthetic--if you want proof, look at Kurt Godel's proof that mathematics cannnot be derived from logic), I think that the morality as convention/morality as universal truth/morality as species-indexed truth is *exactly* the center of this particular debate.

As I understand it, the point of working out where ethics come from is, in this case, to figure out if it makes sense that Spike could go from a villain to a hero despite being a vampire. As I understand it, it works like this:

If morality is pure convention and subjectivity, Spike can do whatever the heck he wants. If he wants to take on Buffy's view of the world and become heroic, of course he can.

If morality is platonic, fixed, and utterly universal, then the morality of both Buffy and Spike is on a sliding scale of their participation in the "form" of the good or whatever. Spike can reform, but it's going to be bizarre, because the path from where he started to "the good" is pretty twisty.

If morality is a species-based thing, dependent upon the wiring of the brain, or the construction of the mind (if you're a dualist, which I am), then there's a big honkin' problem for Spike, because, as a demon, human morality will *never* quite make sense to him.

As for Nietzsche and the Ubermensch...you will notice that Nietzsche does not really know what an Ubermensch is like, although he hints at it. I am very skeptical of the supposed ability to "transcend" the human condition. But you know, if that's really what it is, then maybe Spike/Angelus/any sufficiently thoughtful vampire *is* the Ubermensch. Scary thought, eh?

Manu
February 18,2001 8:44:17 PM EST

alkibiadhs, I'll give you the Godel's proof thing. Math is definitely NOT my strongest point. Or a point at all. But that still doesn't convince me that either math or logic can have anything resembling true empirical content, much less that propositions which DO possess empirical content can be a priori. Maybe I just don't understand what the proof really entails. I've heard of it, but I still don't get it. What with math not being my strong point. Or a point at all. Heh.

Anyway, while I completely agree with your analysis (except for the brain/mind duality. I'm still not entirely sure where I stand on that. But that's not an issue here), I'm not actually a Spike redemptionista. I don't really think that he can simply go back to believing in right and wrong the way humans do. You can't just go back to something you've already *transcended*, for lack of a better word, even if it is just a matter of convention. More importantly, I don't want him to. I'd much rather have Buffy et al recognize the fact that there's no reason why he should (since he's NOT human anymore) and that it's enough that he's willing to act as though he believes. Which he should be able to, because he used to be human and must still remember how it felt. Although it seems like the writers are trying to tell us otherwise.

And, believe me, I have sooo thought of vampires as the ubermensch. They actually fit in pretty well with Nietzsche's admittedly vague idea. They're all about the will to power and amorality and exploring the irrational side of the human psyche. I mean, Alcibiades and Cesare Borgia are examples he used to indicate the ideal he had in mind. And I think we've already agreed on the similarities between Spike and Alcibiades. Maybe Cesare can be Angelus? He was certainly way nastier than Alcibiades.

As for the possibility of transcending what we now call "the human condition"... Maybe not by sheer power of the will, but wouldn't evolution eventually take us there anyway? How can we assume that what is "universal" about us now (assuming there is such a thing) will always be the same?

Oh, and, I know that there's nothing manicheist about the platonic ideal, but wouldn't the Buffy version have to modify it to include absolute Evil, not just the Good? So that Spike could be inherently Evil, like I keep hearing that he is?

lejo
February 19,2001 03:35:47 AM EST

Okay- but here's my problem with all of the above arguments.

Philosophy is not truth. Nor is it free of the same bias you lampoon morality for. Philosophic schools are built on an individual or group's perception and interpretation of what exists. Not vice versa.

As such- all the Nietzche, (I can't be bothered to spell his name correctly) Kant, Plato and Popeye in the world doesn't change anything. They simply provide terminology and jargon.

In the end, I have to go with my gut. Just like everyone does. And my gut tells me that you can't sideline or trivialize the notion that there are some actions, situations or events which contain an element of genuine Goodness or genuine Evil. It's my gut and I'm sticking to it.

Fool IV
February 19,2001 08:05:37 AM EST

Heh, I'm going to take my pathetic history major carcass out of the way of the dueling philosophy boffins, but for one observation: The early episodes of Buffy give a lot of evidence for an absolute morality. There's the "no earthly paradise" mythology, the various chaos goddesses, first evils, and the whole Lovecraftian Elder Ones pressing on the borders of reality. The problem for applying conventional moral absolutism is that if the Buffyverse Mark 1 possessed a moral absolute, it's demonic, not divine. There's a greater morality, and human nature is absolutely antithetical to it. Under such a reading, Buffy circa "Becoming pt 2" would be the uebermensch, transcending morality through a will to power. Of course, the post-graduation seasons and the whole Angel thing has tossed most of that in the dustbin - after all, the writers don't need hell anymore now that they blew up the high school sets.

BTW, I've tried to read Kant. Man writes like a grocer taking night classes to become an accountant. I guess I could dig out Critique of Pure Reason from the bottom of that box & try again. I've read a lot about his categorical imperatives, but I'd always dismissed it as an Enlightenment attempt to have God & avoid theology at the same time.

Manu
February 19,2001 11:02:00 AM EST

lejo, you are quite right. The problem, of course, is that my gut has always told me something quite different from yours.

At any rate, philosophy IS just a way for people to rationalize their gut instincts, to try and justify their beliefs (or lack thereof). But I honestly feel that there is some merit in trying to clarify and articulate to yourself WHY you believe (or don't believe) something, beyond simply saying that your gut tells you to. Sometimes you can find that you were wrong. I know I have.

Fool IV... That is just TOO fucking funny! WORD on Kant's non-writing non-style! That is, without any doubt, the perfect description. Hehehe. See, this is why I luuurve Nietzsche so much: the clarity, the incisiveness is almost blinding sometimes. Ummm, I am, naturally, talking about the stuff he wrote BEFORE he went completely psycho. Heh. Still, Kant is definitely worth plowing through.

I am VERY intrigued by the observation that we've never seen much evidence of a divine absolute to be contrasted to the demonic absolute on BtVS. I knew that, but I never really stopped to think about it. So then, logically, the antithesis to Evil is something that is not absolute at all: humanity. This takes me right back to my interpretation of the show in terms of the eternal struggle between order and chaos, Being and Nothingness, rather than Good and Evil (whatever that is). Nothingness is only absolute if it *wins*, and Being can never be absolute, because it'll always have to fight and change to survive. In fact, I should probably call it Becoming (I've always thought of that ep title as, like, a major Nietzsche shout-out. Although I still can't quite see Buffy as the uebermensch. I mean, how exactly did she transcend human morality?) to avoid the absolute connotations of Being.

The only thing that still bothers me is the determinism hinted at by the prophecies. It kinda' reeks of a God, a sub specie aeternitatis POV, and a "plan". Of course, the plan here seems to be morally neutral, since W&H think that the final outcome could very well be the end of the world. I kinda' like the irony of that: Buffy and Angel fighting the "good" fight when, all along, they were MEANT to lose. Heh.

Have to think about this some more. Mid-terms, schmid-terms.

Fool IV
February 19,2001 1:33:29 PM EST

Although I still can't quite see Buffy as the uebermensch. I mean, how exactly did she transcend human morality?

The only thing that still bothers me is the determinism hinted at by the prophecies. It kinda' reeks of a God, a sub specie aeternitatis POV, and a "plan". Of course, the plan here seems to be morally neutral, since W&H think that the final outcome could very well be the end of the world

Oh, nothing better than a spot of pretentiousness in the evening. Puts things in perspective, ya' know.And I am all over the Hegel dialectic thing. I just think that we have to clean it up a little, keep it simple. Whistler, the oracles, TPTB (duh! How could I have forgotten about them?) are the thesis, the senior partners and what have you are the antithesis and the synthesis is... Wait, the only thing Absolute in Hegel is the whole, isn't it? So how exactly is there both absolute right and absolute wrong? Decreasing degrees of rightness would make more sense to me.

Aaargh, I'm actually very weak on both Hegel and Kierkegaard ….But now my interest is piqued by that second problem. Where the hell is my copy of "Fear and Trembling"?

Oh, actually, the Kant/Einstein thing is not that simple. Because Kant's space/time intuitions are empirical, not intellectual. We may be able to conceptualize time and space in a way he never envisioned, but that doesn't mean we can actually perceive or experience them differently than we already do. The only way to definitively disprove his argument would be for someone to actually travel at relativistic speeds and tell us whether his perceptions were significantly different.

So how would divination work in the absence of divine inspiration? Hey, see, the two words are even etymologically related.

quote: I mean, there's something slightly fucked about asking a teenage girl to forgo any kind of existance beyond slaughter and an early death.

Ach, the act of perception collapsing the wave function...

And that must be some helluva pattern for someone to see it in such detail hundreds of years ahead.
Exactly how old were those prophecies anyway?