The Ethical Implications of Chosen
So this has been bugging me for a while, ever since I read eleusis_walks' essay on Chosen and how it's not feminist. His argument is this: throughout the series being a Slayer is synonymous with being a rape victim. This interpretation is implied heavily with the story of the First Slayer, or Sineya as she is called in the Restless credits. We all know the story - Sineya was tied down and forced to combine with a demon's essence to give her the Slayer's super-powers. So, metaphor = rape.
Then what does Buffy do (after moaning the whole series about being the Slayer) in Chosen? She, with the help of Willow (a previous sexual offender against Tara), turns all Potentials into Slayers. Yes, she asks the Potentials she knows to choose, but can any of them really say no? How could she possibly make such a decision for thousands of girls and women?
In this brief essay I'm going to look at this action from the point of view of 3 ethical theories: Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics (or Deontological), and the Double Effect method. Hopefully these theories will shed some light on what Buffy did, and we'll find out whether it was morally permissable.
OR
This is what Lili thinks about in lectures when she's bored!
The Utilitarian Argument
You guys all know the concept behind Utilitarianism is, right? It's a consequentialist theory that defines moral actions as those that bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. Basically, the ends justify the means.
In this way, it can be argued that Buffy may be right in what she did. After all, she created a "race of Slayers to beat back the dark". Although this is never properly explained, it can be assumed that without her army of Slayers, the world would have been over-run by "Ubervamps". Therefore, she prevented the world from ending, a good end.
But a Utilitarian would say, consider the suffering of the thousands of Slayers she created. They are now burdened not only with powers but a duty. Ignoring the whole ubervamp situation, is this worth the lives that may potentially be saved by the thousands of new Slayers? Some Utilitarians would argue that it's not: we KNOW what the Slayers would suffer, whereas the people they could save are only a potential. This is why some Utilitarians are against the death penalty: the suffering caused to those that are sentenced over a long period of time outwiegh the potential benefits of the death penalty.
So, on the whole, Buffy's actions can be defended from a Utilitarian point of view. But some would argue that the long term suffering of the Slayers was not worth the potential benefits of creating them. However, as doing so saved the world, in this way what Buffy did was morally permissable.
Verdict: kinda alright
Kantian / Deontological Ethics
This is a bit of a tricky one. Kant believed that one should act out of duty, not compassion or emotion. In this way, Buffy might be right - she was following her duty as the Slayer to protect. But Kant also says that people should never be used as a means to an end, and in this way Buffy was wrong: by creating the Slayers she was using them as a means to save the world/help others. Kant would say this is wrong. As there is a contradiction, let's look at Kant's theory of Moral Imperatives:
1 - one should never act in any way that cannot be made universal law (ie: you must only act in a way that you would allow everyone to do everywhere. Eg: lying is always wrong because if everyone lied everywhere there would be chaos).
2 - one should never treat humanity sinply as a means, but also an end.
We've already discussed the second imperative. But Kant does say that occasionally humanity can be treated as a means, but only if you treat them as an ends too. Which Buffy doesn't - she only thinks of how the Slayers can help the world, not of what the end might mean for them.
The first moral imperative seems to imply that Buffy was doing wrong: she forced women over the world to become Slayers possibly against their will and definitely without their knowledge. If everyone acted similarly - controlled people's destiny without knowledge or allowance - then the world would be a terrible place, one which Buffy would not like to live in. In fact, she has battled against the Watchers' Council controlling her in the exact same way for years, so we know she wouldn't want her action to become universal law.
Therefore, in Kantian ethics, though Buffy was acting out of duty, her action defied both moral imperatives and is therefore wrong.
Verdict: wrong.
The Doctrine of Double Effect
First of all, this is the Double Effect method. It was put in place to help advise Deontological theories, as they don't look at the role of intention. With this action, Buffy's intention was good (to save the world and help others). So let's see if she passes the test, which was put in place to investigate whether bad outcomes from an action are ever allowable. Which is a great test for this case.
Double Effect
- The act must be morally good or at least morally permissable.
- The agent must not morally will the bad effect but may permit it.
- The good effect must happen at least as immediately as the bad effect (the bad effect must also be a SIDE EFFECT, not the MEANS to create the good effect).
- The good effect must be desirable enough to compensate for the bad effect.
So, has Buffy's action passed? Let's break it down.
- Was her action morally permissable in this case? It did prevent the end of the world...
- Buffy did not will the Slayers to suffer in their newfound destiny and powers, but she, if not knowingly, permits it.
- The good effect happens about 10 minutes (I'd say - I have no idea how long the battle went on) after the bad effect. But the bad effect was not a side effect - it was the MEANS (create a race of slayers = means, to save the world = end).
- So, does saving the world compensate for the bad effect?
It seems this theory leaves us with an ambiguous verdict. You'll have to decide yourself whether the bad effect was permissable. Buffy's action passes parts of the test, but not others. So...
Verdict: you decide.
Personally, I think in this case it was morally permissable. But what about Spike's necklace? Was this another option Buffy should have considered before creating the race of Slayers? All theories do imply that if there were an alternative this would be preferable. So should she have tried that first, then created the Slayers? This is what I think.
Also, if any of you think I've got the various theories wrong, I apologise. I'm drawing on my lecture notes here. And of course I've simplified theories for discussion so if anyone can think of any more detailed nuances that might help us draw a conclusion, do tell!
Now it's up to you! Discuss.
~Lili
.
Then what does Buffy do (after moaning the whole series about being the Slayer) in Chosen? She, with the help of Willow (a previous sexual offender against Tara), turns all Potentials into Slayers. Yes, she asks the Potentials she knows to choose, but can any of them really say no? How could she possibly make such a decision for thousands of girls and women?
In this brief essay I'm going to look at this action from the point of view of 3 ethical theories: Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics (or Deontological), and the Double Effect method. Hopefully these theories will shed some light on what Buffy did, and we'll find out whether it was morally permissable.
OR
This is what Lili thinks about in lectures when she's bored!
The Utilitarian Argument
You guys all know the concept behind Utilitarianism is, right? It's a consequentialist theory that defines moral actions as those that bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. Basically, the ends justify the means.
In this way, it can be argued that Buffy may be right in what she did. After all, she created a "race of Slayers to beat back the dark". Although this is never properly explained, it can be assumed that without her army of Slayers, the world would have been over-run by "Ubervamps". Therefore, she prevented the world from ending, a good end.
But a Utilitarian would say, consider the suffering of the thousands of Slayers she created. They are now burdened not only with powers but a duty. Ignoring the whole ubervamp situation, is this worth the lives that may potentially be saved by the thousands of new Slayers? Some Utilitarians would argue that it's not: we KNOW what the Slayers would suffer, whereas the people they could save are only a potential. This is why some Utilitarians are against the death penalty: the suffering caused to those that are sentenced over a long period of time outwiegh the potential benefits of the death penalty.
So, on the whole, Buffy's actions can be defended from a Utilitarian point of view. But some would argue that the long term suffering of the Slayers was not worth the potential benefits of creating them. However, as doing so saved the world, in this way what Buffy did was morally permissable.
Verdict: kinda alright
Kantian / Deontological Ethics
This is a bit of a tricky one. Kant believed that one should act out of duty, not compassion or emotion. In this way, Buffy might be right - she was following her duty as the Slayer to protect. But Kant also says that people should never be used as a means to an end, and in this way Buffy was wrong: by creating the Slayers she was using them as a means to save the world/help others. Kant would say this is wrong. As there is a contradiction, let's look at Kant's theory of Moral Imperatives:
1 - one should never act in any way that cannot be made universal law (ie: you must only act in a way that you would allow everyone to do everywhere. Eg: lying is always wrong because if everyone lied everywhere there would be chaos).
2 - one should never treat humanity sinply as a means, but also an end.
We've already discussed the second imperative. But Kant does say that occasionally humanity can be treated as a means, but only if you treat them as an ends too. Which Buffy doesn't - she only thinks of how the Slayers can help the world, not of what the end might mean for them.
The first moral imperative seems to imply that Buffy was doing wrong: she forced women over the world to become Slayers possibly against their will and definitely without their knowledge. If everyone acted similarly - controlled people's destiny without knowledge or allowance - then the world would be a terrible place, one which Buffy would not like to live in. In fact, she has battled against the Watchers' Council controlling her in the exact same way for years, so we know she wouldn't want her action to become universal law.
Therefore, in Kantian ethics, though Buffy was acting out of duty, her action defied both moral imperatives and is therefore wrong.
Verdict: wrong.
The Doctrine of Double Effect
First of all, this is the Double Effect method. It was put in place to help advise Deontological theories, as they don't look at the role of intention. With this action, Buffy's intention was good (to save the world and help others). So let's see if she passes the test, which was put in place to investigate whether bad outcomes from an action are ever allowable. Which is a great test for this case.
Double Effect
- The act must be morally good or at least morally permissable.
- The agent must not morally will the bad effect but may permit it.
- The good effect must happen at least as immediately as the bad effect (the bad effect must also be a SIDE EFFECT, not the MEANS to create the good effect).
- The good effect must be desirable enough to compensate for the bad effect.
So, has Buffy's action passed? Let's break it down.
- Was her action morally permissable in this case? It did prevent the end of the world...
- Buffy did not will the Slayers to suffer in their newfound destiny and powers, but she, if not knowingly, permits it.
- The good effect happens about 10 minutes (I'd say - I have no idea how long the battle went on) after the bad effect. But the bad effect was not a side effect - it was the MEANS (create a race of slayers = means, to save the world = end).
- So, does saving the world compensate for the bad effect?
It seems this theory leaves us with an ambiguous verdict. You'll have to decide yourself whether the bad effect was permissable. Buffy's action passes parts of the test, but not others. So...
Verdict: you decide.
Personally, I think in this case it was morally permissable. But what about Spike's necklace? Was this another option Buffy should have considered before creating the race of Slayers? All theories do imply that if there were an alternative this would be preferable. So should she have tried that first, then created the Slayers? This is what I think.
Also, if any of you think I've got the various theories wrong, I apologise. I'm drawing on my lecture notes here. And of course I've simplified theories for discussion so if anyone can think of any more detailed nuances that might help us draw a conclusion, do tell!
Now it's up to you! Discuss.
~Lili
.