BSV Forum - General - The Bloodshedpub

Good deeds, though selfishly motivated still count?

Mar 23 2007 10:14 pm   #1Scarlet Ibis

I've read in several different threads about how Spike, and the good deeds he'd done pre soul, kinda didn't count since they were selfishly motivated (for the people he cared about or Buffy).  In fact, Lindsay mentions this to him on "Angel."  But the thing of it is- is that supposed to mean something, or cancel out that he in fact did something good?  IMO, I think it's no- we're all selfishly motivated like that. Like if you were on a bus or something, and there was one available seat, you may give it up to an elderly person or someone who's pregnant, but even more inclined to do so should it be your grandmother, your friend, etc. 

The question is, what difference does it make what the person's motivations are, as long as the outcome of "good" is the same?

Oh, and another question- what was Spike's motivation here:

Cut to the inside of 314.

Everyone else drops.

Willow: Wow.  That was--

The door breaks down and a demon comes inside.

Spike comes in and breaks the demon's neck.

The demon falls to the floor.

Spike: Nasty sort of fellow.  Lucky for you blighters I was here, eh?

Giles: Yes, thank you.

Cut to Spike.

Giles: Although your heroism has been slightly muted by the fact that
you were helping Adam to start a war that would kill us all.

Xander: You probably just saved us so we wouldn't stake you right
here.

Spike: Did it work?

They all get up.

Spike: Well, then everything's all right.  And we all get to be not
staked through the heart.  Good work, team.

Considering that if they were all killed, Spike could've just left Sunnydale, all un-staked, what was the point in saving the Scoobies?

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Mar 23 2007 10:25 pm   #2Unbridled_Brunette

Personally, I don't think the fact that the good deeds were selfishly motivated makes them any less significant. To me, Spike's deeds were selfish because he did them to prevent his own discomfort (sometimes this was physical, most of the time it was emotional). On the whole, since season five, his good deeds centered around Buffy. When Buffy was pleased, he was happy. When Buffy was displeased, he was not. Therefore, he began to struggle to fit her expectations of what a "good" person were. Does that make his deeds selfish? Yes, in a way. But his acts were also performed out of an overwhelming sense of love. After all, if he had not loved Buffy, he would not have cared whether she lived or died...whether she was happy or miserable. There is tremendous heroism in being willing to risk everything for someone you love. Why should the importance of that be diminished just because you wouldn't be willing for risk the same thing for a stranger? 

Faithfully bowing at the altar that is Stephen Colbert
Mar 23 2007 10:33 pm   #3fallen_angel

Simple straight forward logic: You'd donate a kidney to your family member but you may not to a stranger does that make the act not-good. As a kid you told the truth, cleaned your room and blah blah blah so you won't get in trouble with your parent. Motive was self preservation but does that change the fact that you wre a good kid? Buffy jumped off the tower to save the world but she actually did it for Dawn, does that make her sacrifice any less significant.  Love is selfless, therefore any action done out of love can't be selfish.

It's a secret no one tells
One day it's heaven one day it's hell
And it's no fairytale take it from me
That's the way it's supposed to be

You will fly and you will crawl
God knows even angels fall
No such thing as you lost it all
God knows even angels fall

--Linda Davis

Mar 23 2007 11:02 pm   #4spikes_wish

Now this sounds like my philosophy and ethics class. Which actually had got me thinking a *lot* about spike.

I think the fact that Spike's actions were selfishly motivated is significant to his character. That was the only way he would be able to progress to become the vampire that does it with less selfish reasons, as seen in Angel S5.

Everything that Spike does with or without soul has some selfish motivation- in Angel S5 he wouldn't have gone out and saved people the "dark avenger" style if he didn't get some kind of enjoyment out of it- thats just the kind of creature that Spike is. And the good deeds that Spike did pre-chip were good- and as i am a firm believer in actions over consequences making an action good or bad, they were good. he saved lives and helped people in trouble. However, that does not necesarilly make him a good person. Just because a person does good things doesnt make hem a good person.

For example, if a criminal type person made large donations to a charity for appearance's sakes, that doesnt make him better as a person. He's doing it for selfish reasons, his motivation. Spike beginning to do selfishly motivated good deeds was just one step on his path to being a better man. It's no different to how Angel was pursuaded by Whistler to help out the Slayer in Sunnydale.

The good deeds Spike did count. They made a difference to people's (well, character's) lives. But they counted more when he did it with better intentions. There is no such thing as a completely selfless act, as proved by Joey and Phoebe on 'Friends', except possibly sacrificing your life to save many (chalk one up for Spike and Buffy). It's not unfair to say that it is doubtful Mother Teresa wouldn't have done what she did had it made her miserable.

But it is also not unfair to say that Spike was a better person when he was fighting to help people, rather than trying not to get staked after betraying the Scoobies. There's a theory that for an act to be good, it has to be so internally (intentions) as well as externaly (the act and its consequences). And in the end Spike had both, pretty much. So his good deeds were better because of it.

if that confused you i apologise. it kinda confused me while i was writing it as i seemed to jump around a lot. Anyway, as I said I've been thinking about this a lot since this is what i've been doing in ethics for the past two weeks so i had a lot to say. Just hope i managed to say it right :P

spikes_wish

xxx

Mar 23 2007 11:04 pm   #5GoldenBuffy

i agree, a good deed is good no matter what motivated the person to do it. so what if spike did these things before the soul for himself. the point is they were good and not evil.

And in the air the fireflies
Our only light in paradise
We'll show the world they were wrong
And teach them all to sing along
Mar 23 2007 11:28 pm   #6spikes_wish

*But* they dont make him a good person. See my argument above.

Mar 23 2007 11:29 pm   #7Scarlet Ibis

Very interesting points, though spikes_wish seems to be on the other side of the fence- the criminal donating to charity to keep up appearances is a good example...

However, can somone please explain to me why Spike would save the Scoobies?  Getting staked through the heart would be moot if they were dead or severely injured... What was his motivation there? 

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Mar 23 2007 11:37 pm   #8spikes_wish

well if the other scoobies had died, i doubt buffy would have. and we all no how stake happy she can be when she's upset.

i wouldnt say i was completely on the othe other side of the fence- i still think that the things Spike did were good. I just believe they would be *better* had he had a more selfless intention.

Mar 23 2007 11:48 pm   #9FetchingMadScientist

In my opinion, Spike isn't selfish at all.  In fact-he is the most selfless character in the Buffyverse.

Let me explain what I mean:

First- Who is more selfish, the person who does good with no hope of reward- the scoobies hated him, and he knew Buffy didn't love him.  In fact, in "Family" he saves her from the demons even though she couldn't see him do it.  And, punching Tara in the nose, what did that get him, other than a splitting headache?  He stays in Sunnydale, after Buffy's dead, because of a promise. Once again, no hope of reward- or is it Angel, circa AtS season two?  He knows there is this Shanshu thing, and he thinks it's in the bag, so he does good.  Again, who's better?  You tell me.

Second, and this is my own opinion- Tara's argument about Quazimotto (sp) , doesn't wash with me.  Doing something because you love someone, regardless of whether they will love you back, is the most selfless thing one can do.

Spike was trying to be better.  He was evolving, as do we all, but he wasn't getting help with, or credit for, his baby steps. And he was fine with that, he made them anyway- and became effulgent.

Imagine what he could have done with a little help and encouragement.

"Never a fetching mad scientist about when you need one." -Spike
Mar 23 2007 11:51 pm   #10Scarlet Ibis

Ok- I think I agree 110% with FetchingMadScientist.  Very well said...

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Mar 23 2007 11:54 pm   #11spikes_wish

Completely agree with the baby steps thing- thats exactly what he was doing. he couldn't go from being selfish to selfless overnight.

But, he wasnt doing it knowing buffy would never love him. he always knew that if he tried hard enough, there would be a chance. and its not like he was wrong- he gets in with the scoobies in between S5/6- yes its completely forgotten affterwards, but he had it for a little while. and he gets into buffy's pants, which was what he wanted. At least to begin with anyway.

And we're talking about if an act whilst selfishly motivated is still good. by saying that Spike was selfless means that you kind of agree.

but i dont think spike was selfless- at least not up until season six. His intentions began to change then, throughout the whole season, ending up with him getting the soul.

Mar 24 2007 12:01 am   #12Scarlet Ibis

Well, actually in "Into the Woods" when he's talking with Riley, he says he doesn't think he has a chance.  "But a fella's got to try," so he did.  And some of the good things he did didn't always revovle around Buffy.  Making Willow feel better and telling her she was desirable,  proving Tara wasn't a demon (which, coincidentally, was helping Willow too), making sure Dawn stayed safe all the times she snuck out of the house, saving Xander's other eye, saving Angel from being literally sucked into a coma, um... I'm sure there's other stuff too- just can't recall them.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Mar 24 2007 12:08 am   #13LadyYashka

There's a saying that applies to this. I don't remember where it came from but it basically said, "Evil done by good hands is still evil. Good done by evil hands is still good."

In other words, Spike's good deeds, while his motives were not pure, still count.

Tomorrow may be hell, but today was a good writing day, and on the good writing days nothing else matters. — Neil Gaiman
Mar 24 2007 12:27 am   #14spikes_wish

And again I emphasise that Spike's actions *were* good. They *did* count They had good consequences. Had the act been internally good, however, they would have been better, and counted for more. They counted more, and were better when he had more selfless motvivation- for example, showing Tara wasnt a demon was a better act than trying to help Buffy with the troll (notice how he only started caring when she turned up?)

Spike had become a better person by season seven BtVS/ season 5 AtS. His acts counted for more. Sacrificing himself to save the world was them most selfless act he could ever do, and is easily argued that it is the best thing he ever did (from a moral standpoint. Personally I think him beating the crap out of Angel in Desting was the best thing he ever did). The act was completely selfless, and thefore better.

Acts do not make a person good or bad- look at Buffy. She saved the world a bunch of times and she wasn't the nicest person to be around in season six, was she?

 

Mar 24 2007 03:53 am   #15Maggie2

I do think intentions count.  And some intentions are better than others.  But I think it's a mistake to think that anyone is *totally* selfless.  A very morally evolved person becomes so attached to good things that they get pleasure from doing the right thing.  Doesn't make their acts "selfish", though.  Moreover, it takes a lot of evolution to get to the point where one can enjoy doing the right thing.

And I think BtVS does a good job of showing how hard that journey really is.  Buffy ends up jumping from the tower in a kind of relief because she can't take living in a world that takes so much sacrifice.  She isn't attached enough to the good to get pleasure from doing the right thing, and the sacrifices are literally killing her.  Even by the end of the series, I think she still struggles with the 'burden' of things.  She does what she does because it's her duty and her self-identity is tied up in her duty.  But she never really learns to live well with it.

Likewise, Angel totally loses his way when he thinks there will be no reward.  So the good he does also comes from things other than having a pure joy in doing good.  And the motives he uses are not self-sustaining -- and he pretty much totally loses his way.

Spike, by contrast, never pretends to be 'noble' or 'self-sacrificing'.  Instead, he gradually moves from being nakedly self-serving to acting for love.  And that's what leads him to his joyful self-sacrifice in The Chosen.  In other words, I think we have a lovely portrait of someone learning to love the good.  (For philosophy buffs it's all very Platonic -- eros (love for Buffy) leads him to higher loves.)  I think that's what accounts for Fetching Mad Scientists great observations about the fact that it is Spike who coughs up some of the purest acts.

(For philosphy people: a way to sum this up is just to say that for Joss Plato trumps Kant in a big way).

Mar 24 2007 05:10 am   #16pfeifferpack
Most of what I'd say has already been said. I think there is a payback for good deeds done by anyone. For those close to altruistic there is the feeling that you have done a good thing and the high you get for that. There is always a reason that involves the deed doer. Like the humble man who takes pride in his humility *G*. The motives for good deeds in all characters could show interesting results (Angel and his Shanshu and promise of redemption, Buffy and her being the special chosen one...that "I'm Special" feeling, Willow feeling like a contributer to something important thus being important, etc. There is always a reward to the doer of good deeds. Kathleen
Mar 24 2007 11:13 am   #17spikes_wish

I pretty much agree with what Maggie2 is saying that there is no completely selfless act- something I'm pretty sure I pointed out with a Mother Teresa example up there somewhere. I think Spike was a character who came the closest to committing one with his sacrifice- he knew that there was probably some kind of hell waiting for him on the other side, and this act would only have bad consequences for himself ( I mean, having to put up with Angel unable to leave W&H? gotta be torture). But by doing it he not only proved once and for all his love for Buffy, he reached a new level of love, something shown throught Season 5 of Angel where he helps people for much less selfish reasons.

Neither Buffy nor Angel ever came as close to comitting a selfless act as Spike did, and it is easily argues that, to begin with, Angel only started helping people for selfish reasons- because he loved Buffy. It was only after Whistler had shown him the Slayer that he agreed to help.

 

Mar 24 2007 02:37 pm   #18jess2357

Spikes wish - I think I'd go even further than saying no good deed in entirely selfless. Personally, I think all deeds are entirely selfish. No matter what the drive - a good feeling, a respite from a guilty conscience, a desire to please others, an ego boost, a physical reward, or mere habit - all deeds are performed ultimately to please or satisfy the self.

Could just be me there I guess.

Mar 24 2007 09:56 pm   #19spikes_wish

I can't believe that- maybe I just think to much of people, but I don't think everyone is entirely selfish, or that any act is entirely selfish. At least, not in the whedon-verse anyway. Would could Spike personally gain as a result of sacrificing himself to save the world?

And even in the real world i don't believe that- using an example of donating money to charity instead of going to the cinema with your friends, for example- the most selfish act would be to ignore the charity worker and go ahead and make plans with your mates. I'm not saying that happiness can't be gained through giving money to charity, just that there are more selfish acts.

Mar 25 2007 10:23 am   #20Caro Mio

The definition of selfish, from Webster's dictionary:

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

What If I'm Not the Slayer? now updated with chapters 22 and 23.
Mar 25 2007 01:42 pm   #21spikes_wish

Selfish according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

• adjective concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure at the expense of consideration for others.  

And I think it's fair to say up until Spike was tortured at Glory's hands that this is what Spike was. It was when Buffy realised how far Spike would have gone to protect Dawn, uncaring of the consequences to himself, that we saw Spike being selfless. And it counted more than the other good acts he'd comitted previously- even Buffy realised this, shown to us when she gave him that first non-dream non-spell peck on the cheek.:P

Mar 25 2007 07:08 pm   #22Scarlet Ibis

She kissed him on the lips in "Interventinon."  And I think that saving the Scoobies in s4 was an unselfish act- no one even knew that Spike was close by- there was no way he could have been blamed had Giles, Willow or Xander had been hurt by that demon bursting in on them.  At least, no more than for pitting them against each other in the first place. It'd have been their fault for not barricading the door properly.  And boosting Willow's self esteem- no profit there.  Also, before Joyce's death, helping out Dawn wouldn't have just been for Buffy's sake and affections, he cared about the Joyce and her feelings too.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Mar 26 2007 12:46 pm   #23spikes_wish

I don't think spike saving the scoobies S4 was a selfless act- something he admits himself. Sorry, but I just don't buy that.

But most of what we see past Intervention (peck on the lips, cheek same diff) was a much more selfless Spike (not completely, but much much more so)- the good deeds he did meant more than before. And I think maybe the writers sorta realised this and that's why they aimed for a 'meaner' Spike in season 6, as a soulless being shouldn't be able to commit even a little bit of a selfless act. But what happened in Intervention was a milestone for Spike's road to (don't wanna say redemption here)...becoming a better person, which does. By the end on Angel S5 and Buffy S7, Spike is willing to give up his life, consequences be damned, for the greater good. And these count for so much more than  Spike trying to help the troll purely to get into Buffy's good books.

spikes_wish xx

Mar 26 2007 04:28 pm   #24FetchingMadScientist

The watershed moment  for the  viewers (the writers had to play catch up) with regard to Spike and his less-than-selfish acts had to be *before* "Intervention" otherwise Spike would never have put himself in that situation.

  Let's face it, "evil" Spike would have told Glory who the Key was, no doubt about it.  He knew Glory was probably going to kill him.  In fact, it looked like he might give her up, but still he didn't.  If Spike had been dusted, how is that end self-serving?  He was tortured *before* Buffy kissed him.  I see what happened in "Intervention" as proof he really cared about the Summers girls.

Okay, so he denied it, a lot, just like Buffy did.  But that didn't mean he didn't care.

I still point to "Family" as the beginning of a selfless Spike.

"Never a fetching mad scientist about when you need one." -Spike
Mar 26 2007 06:08 pm   #25Scarlet Ibis

Personally, I don't think Spike was ever 100% selfish, even when he was evil.  Did Dru ever love him? No- she basically wanted someone to take care of her and keep her company when "Daddy" was to busy with her grandmother and didn't pay attention to her.  But Spike took care of her because he loved her, and I'm sure that he knew that she didn't feel the same about him.  100+ years, and he was good to her.  She didn't even have to stay totally faithful to him- he just wanted her by his side.  I'd say that "Family" was when he wasn't being selfish for the "good" side or for people.  However, had Dru not been in Angelus' arms in s2, but Angelus was still opening Acathla, I still think he would've approached Buffy to stop the world from being sucked into hell.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Mar 26 2007 07:48 pm   #26FetchingMadScientist

I agree with you, Scarlet.  In fact, you *could* make an argument for "School Hard" being the beginning.  Spike could have killed Buffy, and Joyce then- but he didn't. I was just trying to point out that the change had to have started before "Intervention."

"Never a fetching mad scientist about when you need one." -Spike
Mar 26 2007 08:33 pm   #27spikes_wish

 I refuse to buy that he was selfless to begin with, as, to be frank, it's bollocks. What makes me adore Spike is looking at the journey he's made, and how I watched him become a better man. He was selfish- at times completely. And yes, he had streaks of selflessness which is what made him a morally better vampire than all the other ones. But the idea that he was slefless to start with would mean he was automatically a good person when he fell in love with Buffy and started helping people. Which he wasn't. He was rude and selfish and looking out for number one. But as season five progressed we saw sparks of a different kind of Spike- for instance in Family and in Intervention. We saw the person he could be, and watching him become that made me like him even more, I just don't like the idea that he was selfless to start with, or that he could have automatically be accepted as a good person by both the Scoobies and the audience- without all these obstacles, external and internal, I don't think I would love the character like I do now. It's the struggles he goes through that makes the audience both love and sympathize with him, and I think if he had been as eay to accept as Angel was, we wouldn't think half as much of him ass we do now.

Although the topic has changed significantly- you ought to change the thread title to "If Spike Was Selfless" rather than asking whether a good deed counts less if selfish intent is behind it. Which, by reading what we;ve all written, we' seemed to have agreed that it does. Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing whether or not Spike was selfless.

Mar 27 2007 12:40 am   #28Scarlet Ibis

Edited- In "Fool for Love," him comforting Buffy, fifteen to twenty minutes after she had been a mega biatch to him had nothing to do with being selfish, IMO.  I just knew there was an ep I was forgetting to mention...

I don't think being selfless or a selfless act has to do with a person being ultimately "good" or "bad/evil," which was why I brought up the selfless acts he did pre s5.  And as many threads do, the subject changes as the responses come in, so I'm not worried about that.  And personally, I don't think a good deed counts less if selfish intent is behind it- I don't think everyone on this thread shares that view either...  Sometimes, a person can do a good thing, and not even be aware that they're doing it, so there was no intent behind it whatsoever.  It doesn't take away that good came from their action.

Let's say that in s4, Spike had a purely selfish intent to save his own hide, so he saved the Scoobies from a potentially brutal death at the hands of a violent demon, ready to ravage something from being locked up so long in the Initiative.  I don't think it made his saving their lives any less because of his reasons behind it.  At the end of the day, they lived and came out of their unscathed because of him, and that's what counts.

"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Mar 28 2007 02:52 pm   #29jess2357

OK, I back down from my earlier statement, as I was working from a different definition. If to be selfish requires a disregard for others then Spike is rarely selfish at all - certainly not in s2 and 3 - it's all pretty much done for Drusilla. s4 he is I guess, but then not all the time - Willow consolling for example. Seems like he actually has to try in order to be selfish by this definition, in order to maintain the big bad look.

Mar 30 2007 04:51 pm   #30spikes_wish

I'd like to point out that I'm not arguing when Spike was/wasn't selfish, just that when he has a more selfless intent behind a morally good act, they're better, and count for more. I'm not saying Spike was selfish in season two, but his acts weren't good, so he was obviously not a good person then. Selfless, maybe, but not good. We saw our most selfish spike in season four, undoubtedly, as he cared little for anyone else. In Season Five we saw the selfless Spike we had seen with Druscilla gradually return, but in a completely different way. He was now struggling to do good, and although to begin with they were selfishly motivated, they became less and less so. Then in season six, Marti Noxon turned it all around taking us, to what I shall refer to as "the dark place", in which (IMO) she completely re-wrote Spike's character in more than one episode- as if it was suddenly realised that spike was evil and soulless and mean- season six smashed and beyond saw a much more selfish Spike, seemingly only interested in one thing from Buffy. Possibly a reastion to Buffy's bitchiness, or possibly Marti's crappy writing.

Season Seven we say a more familiar Spike with extra whining, and lots of akward less than fluffy spuffy moments. But, in the end, he was a hero. His intent was pure, for love, for the world, for chrsitmas and the welfare of puppies etc etc. He was selfless, as were his actions, as well as being morally good. If the consequences of an action is good, the action is good. If the intent of a good action is pure and selfless, the action is better. An action with terrible consequences is not made better if the intent was selfless- the action was still bad. Using an example of Spike feeding Druscilla- he knew that the consequences would be bad. The person had family and friends who would be affected, he helped the woman he loved take a life from another. Just because his intent was only for Dru to get better, doesn't make the action morally good.

I'm not sure how much sense i did or did not make there, but never mind.

spikes_wish

xxx