Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Does a soul really make that much of a difference?
With all this talk about Buffy and the slayer and being the gift of death, I was wondering what gives Buffy the right to dole out death. Yes she is the slayer and shes really strong and all that but what set of guidelines is she using. She always seems to mention the presence or absence of a soul as a main criteria for killing or not killing something. We know that vampires do not have souls while people do, which is why Buffy kills vampires and not humans, but how does a soul make humans different from vampires? does it make them different? Vampires do have human emotions; I have actually seen a good number of demons who are nicer than some humans. Does that still mean the demons die while the humans live? A good example is Warren. Hes human and a killer. He puts peoples lives in danger to further his own agenda. He has done all of these terrible things yet Buffy will not kill him. Another example is Spike. Yes he has a chip in his head but he is genuinely nice and helps the slayer out as much as he can. He even loves her but she thinks of him as less than human. How can this be right? How can a soul really be that big of a deciding factor. No one earns a soul, its just something they are born with. And I guess we could touch base on the whole superman/morals question about how every life is worth saving but Im no superhero so I believe that in some cases, saving many is worth taking the life of one. That may make me seem cold hearted but when Buffy was saying she would kill anyone who tried to kill Dawn, EVEN THOUGH killing her would stop the world from ending, I felt that she was being selfish by putting her morals above the safety of the world.