Even though she did not get the slayer’s blood, the fact that Buffy tried to kill Faith “violates the moral stricture against taking a human life” (Marinucci 65). The “moral stricture” is what Buffy typically lives by, the fact that it is morally wrong to kill a human because, most of the time, humans are the victims and not the one causing the trouble. However, “human beings [like Faith] who become willing agents of evil are far from ordinary” humans, but are in fact “the moral equivalent of ordinary vampires” (Marinucci 65). Faith allows herself to become evil, unlike vampires who become evil unwillingly, which is not typical of a human. Humans that choose to go to the dark side change suit to become more like vampires, killing humans just for the rush. Vampires who kill for pleasure is what Buffy considers wrong, therefore she doesn’t extend “moral consideration” to them. Like vampires (excluding Angel), Faith doesn’t receive the “moral consideration” from Buffy that is usually “reserved for human beings” (Marinucci 63) and is officially pegged by Buffy and the Scooby gang as “evil.” With This logic, it would be acceptable for Buffy to kill Faith and “be no less willing to kill a human, under the relevant circumstances, than to kill a vampire” (Marinucci 65). Buffy kills the evil in the world, whether they be human or not, but she only kills humans when it becomes absolutely necessary in order for the world to stay out of danger, like she would a vampire.
It's that bold part that's really giving me troubles, the rest is really just there for context. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
The bold part started out to make sense but as I continued to read it towards the end, it is kind of confusing. That second quote seems to be tied in at the wrong time.
ReplyDeleteBreak this up into two sentences: "The “moral stricture” is what Buffy typically lives by, the fact that it is morally wrong to kill a human because, most of the time, humans are the victims and not the one causing the trouble."
ReplyDeleteTry using some of the language of the quotation (Faith is morally equivalent to..., for example).
The first bold sentence (Faith allows herself to become evil, unlike vampires who become evil unwillingly, which is not typical of a human.) Seems a bit disconnected from the quote. I think you need to talk about the quote first. The quote's talking about why she's like a vampire, but you jump straight to how she isn't like a vampire. Bridge that.
Or, rather, maybe move it to after the second quote, so that we understand why Faith is worse than a vampire.