Buffy vs Wes

[Kana]

I posted something similar to this a while ago in the debate section but it was mostly to do with Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism is general but this is specific to this episode.

OK in Choices as you most likely know Willow is kidnapped by the Mayor and Buffy thinks they should trade the Box of Gavrok for Willow. Wesley however believes the box should be destroyed. Buffy says that trading the box is the only choice and calls Wes insensitive however Wes responds that he is not saying that they should give up Willow's life but they will find another way to help her but thousands of lives depend on getting rid of the box.
Who do you agree with more, Buffy(and Oz) or Wes? Please keep in mind that we are judging this based upon the ep itself not on what we know will happen after the ep.

I'm tired at the minute so wont weigh up the pros and cons just yet. As the discussion grows, I'll maybe chime in with a few points here and there.

[Laura]

Good discussion, Kana .

Anyway, this is a hard decision. I would want to say Wesley, since I would know that it was the wiser choice, since it would seem that his decision would end up saving lives (like most of his other decisions).

However, I must admit I agree more with Buffy's decisions. Her decisions not only focus around people around the world, but also about her close friends and family. In the end, I would have to choose my family and friends over the world. I certainly wouldn't give up on the world, though. For example, if I was stuck with Buffy's situation during "Choices" then I would definitely go after Willow, since she was my best friend and I would have faith that I could stop the Mayor another way. When there's a will, there's a way. However, it also depends on the friend. For example, if I had to choose between a friend and thousands of lives, and I was sure that my friend wouldn't want to live as the expense of many people's lives, then I would have to let my friend go (like Fred in "A Hole in the World"). My answer was different for the Graduation Day question since nothing was for sure yet.

[shred]

Hmm...this is a tough one. This is really a heart vs mind issue. Given the circumstances and the consequences of the Mayor getting the box, I would agree more with Wesley though.

In a situation like this, I think one should be thinking with his/her head and not his/her heart. You can say it's one of Buffy weakness. Time and time again she always thinks with her heart and though most of the time it works out for the best, you can't always make decisions with your heart.

The Gift is one prime example. If Buffy was thinking with her head, she would have killed Ben. She decision not to kill Ben would probably backfired if Giles wasn't there.

My point is that Buffy should sometimes make decisions with her head as Giles can't always be there to ensure the problem is dead. And, in all honesty, this incident was one of the decision Buffy should have made with her head and not her heart. She should be thinking as a slayer not as a friend, in my opinion.

So I would agree with Wesley.

[Kana]

Ok so it's even and good points both you guys.

Laura underpinned the fact that Buffy does tend to think of her friends/lovers first. She seemed more motivated by saving Angel than generally stopping Spike in What's My Line but is this necessarily wrong? Should we look at lives numerically?

One thing is for sure, Buffy's plan is not the only plan as she dogmatically insists.

Ok just to make you guys think a little I've thought up a few arguments on both sides.

Trade

Buffy is focusing on the inherent value of human life and why shouldn't she? Buffy was willing to risk the town but to save Willow who could potentially help the save the town anyway. Wes wasn't exactly very bright for trying to appeal to Buffy's selfish nature saying it's her chance to get out. Buffy cares about her friends, that's who she is and that's what has got her this far.

Don't Trade

Wes was trying to save Willow and the town. If they trade then the town is at risk and Willow is in the town so it risks her anyway. Buffy was being too sentimental and not at all logical.

So there it is. Any more view points?

[Bre]

I voted for Buffy because it turned out in the end anyway. But also I think that's what I would have done too. It is obviously a selfish choice, but I couldn't risk my best friend or family member like that. Wesley was looking out for the best interest for the world, which is also good, and has valid points.

It is similar to Angel's decision whether to bring back the sarcophagus to save Fred, but in the process it would kill thousands of people. In the end, Angel acted as Wesley wanted to (in Buffy), and they did save people, but ended up losing Fred. And who knows, maybe the fight went wrong in the end and he made the wrong choice.

[Allan]

I voted Buffy. I agree with Bre completely about Wesley looking at the bigger picture, but when it comes down to it, can you really leave a loved one like that?

The thing with Wesley is that he later stepped into the grey area, particularly in Ats. I think in many ways, his opinion stemmed from inexperience. As he grew and evolved, I think his respect for helping those you love grew with him.

[buffymanic]

I'm with Buffy all the way, there's no way I could let somebody I loved that much die, even if it meant putting the world in danger. I think her decision was balanced out though by the fact that Angel had the ability to becaome a champion in his own right, therefore give more weight to the argument for saving him.

Wesley was just following the rules, and you can't really blame him because thats what he was taught his whole life. He wasn't at that point able to stand up and form his own opinions on these situations. Whereas Buffy had already had a lot of experience in folowing her own gut and her own beliefs plus, if you told Buffy to do something she was pretty much guarenteed to do the opposite

[Kana]

I actually wouldn't say it has to do with inexperience, I think it's part of their personalities. Buffy has always looked at saving friends and the value of individual human lives. It part of what makes her a slayer. She also has a tendancy to follow her gut as it's been said and it's got them this far.

However if we are to look at the the incident in hand we cannot simply talk about her track record and experience without taking into account the validity of an opposing argument.

Going back to the differences between the two I think it's more to do with personality rather than experience. Buffy has had to make plenty of hard decisions but her instincts are always either her friends or the individual. Even in later seasons she found it hard to reconcile herself with 'big picture thinking' or 'warrior ethics'. Her decision not to kill Ben may tie in with Kantian ethics and maybe that is what Giles meant by her heroism. However by letting Ben live she may be endangering the lives of the friends she died to protect. Is that being heroic or just a bit soft and stupid? Even when she sent Angel to hell, she suffered greatly as a result and even skipped town. Even 5 years later when everything turned out ok and Angel was fine she still lives in the moment when she sent her demon lover to hell.

While Wes has grown over the years he hasn't completely lost his ends justify the means philosophy...

He sent those Pylean villagers to their death for the big picture
Left Gunn to fight the zombies in W&H.
Tortures a drug user for information.

Eve on Wes: Focuses too much on the big picture? Overlooks the people involved?

So again I wouldn't say this is about inexperience but more about personality. We have often wondered how far Wes would go for the greater good and whether it would nullify the value of the ends anyway.

I voted for Buffy because it turned out in the end anyway.

lol. But seriously like I said, we cannot judge it purely on the outcome. Buffy was a little lucky in the end but Larry and some of the other students were not. This is a result of Buffy's decision. While Buffy didn't necessarily forsee this specifically, she cannot say ignorance is her excuse as Wes warned this may happen. If she is placing Willow's life above theirs then this moves out of Kantian ethics and into selfishness.

But also I think that's what I would have done too. It is obviously a selfish choice, but I couldn't risk my best friend or family member like that.

This is exactly why I wouldn't be a hero if I could help it. I'm too selfish .

It is similar to Angel's decision whether to bring back the sarcophagus to save Fred, but in the process it would kill thousands of people. In the end, Angel acted as Wesley wanted to (in Buffy), and they did save people, but ended up losing Fred. And who knows, maybe the fight went wrong in the end and he made the wrong choice.

We cannot be sure if the fight going wrong would be a direct result of not saving Fred. We don't know if Illyria would have gotten free anyway (not sure about that.) But certainly Angel let her die but I would imagine that Spike is right in that Fred wouldn't want to be saved at the cost of so many lives.

I voted Buffy. I agree with Bre completely about Wesley looking at the bigger picture, but when it comes down to it, can you really leave a loved one like that?

I doubt I could but I'm not sure if that would be right. However by risking the town, Willow's life is being risked anyway, along with many other lives.

The thing with Wesley is that he later stepped into the grey area, particularly in Ats. I think in many ways, his opinion stemmed from inexperience. As he grew and evolved, I think his respect for helping those you love grew with him.

Absolutely but as I've said, Wesley still looked at the big picture on occasions. I think it's more to do with who he is and of course seeing his faher, how he was raised as well.

I'm with Buffy all the way, there's no way I could let somebody I loved that much die, even if it meant putting the world in danger. I think her decision was balanced out though by the fact that Angel had the ability to becaome a champion in his own right, therefore give more weight to the argument for saving him.

Oh, I was talking about 'Choices' rather than Graduation although that's a debate in itself. . I suppose we could apply that to Willow based upon her potential (not what we know she will do because we cannot judge Buffy or Wes on the knowledge they do not yet have.)

Wesley was just following the rules, and you can't really blame him because thats what he was taught his whole life.

Like I said, we have to look at the validity of his argument. It wasn't simply a case of Buffy was right in time Wes will see. She just had a different view. As Bre said both of them had noble ends but both of them viewed it from a different perspective. Both Wes and Buffy have succeeded and messed respectively because of their mentalities so I would say it's kind of a judgement call.

[Nico]

Buffy wasn't a little lucky she was incredibly lucky. In her head the spiders would have been released on the population as a member of the population I would have tended to go with Wes. I think all that the outcome tells us is sometimes taking risks, even selfish ones, pay off.

Buffy didn't save Willow because of her potential, she did it because she wanted her friend back, she loved her I would have done the same and in Buffy's mind I am sure she was thinking she could fight the spider things.

[Beck]

Buffy has always made stupid choices, and they are always to save someone's life. She has done this for people who aren't her friends, she has always been about saving individual lives. I honestly think she'd have done the same no matter who it was, but it being Willow made it a non issue choice for her. I see both sides of the argument, but ultimately I'd have sided with Buffy. If she started to let one life here and there not matter, then what happens to her as a slayer? In this case it would have completely demoralised the entire group and I doubt with that kind of grief they could have stopped the apocalypse anyway.

In the end though, it was Oz that made the deciding choice not Buffy or Wes.

[Forsaken]

I voted for the big picture (Wesley) but I am hard pressed to say for sure. This basically comes down to a classic comic book conundrum. Buffy's stance IS the stance of the hero. The hero believes that if you don't try and save everyone, absolutly everyone, then you've failed. It's very optomistic. The other stance is the stance of the general. The general has to treat every threat as a numbers game, in what way can you most likely save the most people. It's a more realistic point of view. I don't know, maybe I favor the pessimistic (or anarchist) point of view: everybody dies, you can't do anything about it.