First let me say this: for me to say "Dean becomes the monster" may have been overstating myself a bit. More precisely, what I mean to say is "Dean takes the position that in his life Azazel took."
I do think show has done a great job putting monsters in this morally gray area. That's why I love it so much! It's much more interesting to have all this to think about, and to have Dean really struggle with the decisions he's put in a position to make.
You say " Do creatures have the right to live if they only kill out of necessity? As Hunters, is their job to save humans from creatures who would feed on them, to kill creatures that feed on humans pure and simple, or make moral judgments about whether the creatures are killing people who are "ok" to eat/killing out of hunger? "
This is a really good set of questions. Is Dean's job to save humans? yes. Is Dean's job to kill creatures that eat humans? yes. But is he also required to make moral judgments? I think yes. By assuming the role of Hunter, when he was young, he was taught by John that black and white all monsters must die. But over time I think Dean came to realize the vexed moral position being a Hunter put him in.
As Hunters, Dean represents Humanity. Humans do have the right to defend themselves, and Dean is their representative (by heredity), so he's assumed that terrible responsibility of being a killer and killing things that need killing. I honestly think this question goes all the way back to the roots of the series in eps like the skinwalker that took Dean's shape or the one about the changelings. Monsters are not humans. Their fight is for survival in a hostile world. Just like the kitsune, the changeling lived on human brain product -- it's essentially a wolf or a tiger amongst humans as sheep, and Dean is the guard dog. He's been set to tear out the throat of any wolf that starts culling the flock.
This ep was more disturbing because the wolf tried to explain herself, and because her track record is good. She's a wolf, not a human being -- so Dean doesn't owe her anything -- but at the same time, she doesn't owe anything to humans either. As her natural prey, humans aren't there to be apologized to. I might thank a deer if I kill it to eat, but I don't really apologize. Ethical vegetarians (of which I'm not one) make the decision that they don't have to eat meat, and that eating meat only increases the amount of suffering in the world. Therefore they abstain. Few people would condemn them for fixing a bowl of beef stew if their child went anemic. Yet Dean condemns the kitsune mother.
It may be an ethical standoff. Since the two species are naturally at odds, perhaps neither side loses moral ground for killing the other. I'm not a very linear thinker, so I tend to flipflop seeing the view from both sides. But I do really appreciate that show has given us such a compelling narrative from the monster's point of view -- enough so that many people have questioned Dean's moral compass for killing her.
I do think show has done a great job putting monsters in this morally gray area. That's why I love it so much! It's much more interesting to have all this to think about, and to have Dean really struggle with the decisions he's put in a position to make.
You say " Do creatures have the right to live if they only kill out of necessity? As Hunters, is their job to save humans from creatures who would feed on them, to kill creatures that feed on humans pure and simple, or make moral judgments about whether the creatures are killing people who are "ok" to eat/killing out of hunger? "
This is a really good set of questions. Is Dean's job to save humans? yes. Is Dean's job to kill creatures that eat humans? yes. But is he also required to make moral judgments? I think yes. By assuming the role of Hunter, when he was young, he was taught by John that black and white all monsters must die. But over time I think Dean came to realize the vexed moral position being a Hunter put him in.
As Hunters, Dean represents Humanity. Humans do have the right to defend themselves, and Dean is their representative (by heredity), so he's assumed that terrible responsibility of being a killer and killing things that need killing. I honestly think this question goes all the way back to the roots of the series in eps like the skinwalker that took Dean's shape or the one about the changelings. Monsters are not humans. Their fight is for survival in a hostile world. Just like the kitsune, the changeling lived on human brain product -- it's essentially a wolf or a tiger amongst humans as sheep, and Dean is the guard dog. He's been set to tear out the throat of any wolf that starts culling the flock.
This ep was more disturbing because the wolf tried to explain herself, and because her track record is good. She's a wolf, not a human being -- so Dean doesn't owe her anything -- but at the same time, she doesn't owe anything to humans either. As her natural prey, humans aren't there to be apologized to. I might thank a deer if I kill it to eat, but I don't really apologize. Ethical vegetarians (of which I'm not one) make the decision that they don't have to eat meat, and that eating meat only increases the amount of suffering in the world. Therefore they abstain. Few people would condemn them for fixing a bowl of beef stew if their child went anemic. Yet Dean condemns the kitsune mother.
It may be an ethical standoff. Since the two species are naturally at odds, perhaps neither side loses moral ground for killing the other. I'm not a very linear thinker, so I tend to flipflop seeing the view from both sides. But I do really appreciate that show has given us such a compelling narrative from the monster's point of view -- enough so that many people have questioned Dean's moral compass for killing her.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Reply
Leave a comment