Episode Poll: 5.14 Crush

[gabrielleabelle]

It's awkward writing this part when doing scheduled posts. Like now, I'm writing this one week ahead of time. By the time this posts, I'll be finished with the GRE - the big looming THING in my future. I have no clue if I'll be jubilant or dismayed.

But I guess Crush is something to look forward to, cause guys, I love this episode.

Comments

[kikimay]

1- I ADORED Spike's casual look. Yes, yes!

2- It's difficult to understand the nature of goodness. Of course, Spike can do good things even without a soul, but what is good and what is really important: his intentions (For example: trying to seduce Buffy) or his attitude? In this case with have a direct comparison with Angel, so here we talk about the nature of goodness according to Angel. Spike can ever accept to be a martyr even without a soul?
Well, in the end I went for: he can be good, but not just because of the chip.

3- I went for another answer. For Buffy all that matters is that Spike tried to kill her, so she was really pissed, but at the same time she can perfectly sleep at night, even with the confirmation that Spike's evil. Dru and Harmony are both vampires and it's also not clear: 1) If Harmony *really* care about anyone; 2) How Dru deals with emotions and feelings, due to her crazyness. I think that she suffers deeply, but in a way she seems pretty disconnected (And she already knew about Spike's feelings towards the slayer)

4- Again: nature of love. I think that vampires can feel selfish love. If we talk about selfless, unconditional love, I think it's necessary a soul.

5- Not sure. Spike's unpredictable.

6- I think that Spike would allow a biting or even torture. Killing the object of his obsession? Not sure.

[gabrielleabelle]

3. *nods*

This was a tough one for me. I think I ended up choosing Drusilla.

[nicnac918]

2.I have a problem with the argument that "being good" is dependent on your intentions (not that you were making that argument, but you brought it up).

Say I was rich and donated a couple million dollars towards searching for the cure for cancer. If I'm doing it to bribe someone somehow, that's obviously bad because that's actually changing the form of the action itself. But what if I was just doing it to get on someone's good side? Does that mean that the money I spent doesn't count? What if I had cancer and I was facilitating the research in hopes of finding my own cure, does that make it bad? What if I just do it because I like the warm and fuzzy feeling I get when I help people? Which intentions count as being good and which negate the good you're doing?

[kikimay]

That's the problem! It's really philosophycal, I think (The nature of goodness) You can also presume that if Angel, for example, does good because he wants to make amends, in the end, all he thinks about is himself. But he, on the other hand, changes the life of others, sometimes really helping them.

[nicnac918]

That's why I typically define being good as consistently preforming good actions and avoiding bad ones. They don't have to get it right every time, but most of the time at least. I do make exceptions for people who aren't aware of the badness of their actions, i.e. the naive person who is tricked by the villain into thinking the heroes are mass-murderers that need to be stopped.