We have a common problem here: How do we treat subjects (that means human and other animals) that do not follow the rules of their society? You may argue that a subject did show a certain behaviour and you conclude that it will continue with this behaviour. In Warren's case: he did rape and killed and he did treaten Buffy and others on more than one occasion. So, he did break the rules. Question is: would he do it again? And that is a question you cannot answer unless you're a good fortune teller. Imagine the following situation: someone from a far away country visits you and you two go for a walk around a lake. Suddenly you see several white swans. Your visitor doesn't know this animal and you explain to him what they are and that they are called "swans". Some days later you two go again for a walk and again you see swans. However, this time there is also a black swan. What will that visitor think? Maybe that this black animal looks like a swan except for the colour - therefore it cannot be a swan but another species. (Remember, that visitor never before in his life saw a swan and he only knows - thanks to you - that the white ones are called swan.) Question: Is he wrong? For you who knows that there are black swans he is wrong. But he only knowing about the white ones thinks he is right. And that is the problem. Not only is the concept of right and wrong something that follows the respective viewpoint but the human mind works in patterns. We expect the traffic light to change between red, orange and green because that is the pattern we learnt. We expect the apple to fall down not upwards because that is what we learnt and is the only thing we saw in the past. We expect that a killer will kill again. Nevertheless, we will never know for sure what will happen in the future because we are still in the present. (About the apple example just as a sidenote: think about space...) So it's debatable wether or not Xander was "protecting his family from guaranteed future pain".
(Have to split the comment because I used too many charaters…)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Yah! He's dead.... ?
Date: 2010-07-13 08:22 am (UTC)You may argue that a subject did show a certain behaviour and you conclude that it will continue with this behaviour. In Warren's case: he did rape and killed and he did treaten Buffy and others on more than one occasion. So, he did break the rules. Question is: would he do it again? And that is a question you cannot answer unless you're a good fortune teller.
Imagine the following situation: someone from a far away country visits you and you two go for a walk around a lake. Suddenly you see several white swans. Your visitor doesn't know this animal and you explain to him what they are and that they are called "swans". Some days later you two go again for a walk and again you see swans. However, this time there is also a black swan. What will that visitor think? Maybe that this black animal looks like a swan except for the colour - therefore it cannot be a swan but another species. (Remember, that visitor never before in his life saw a swan and he only knows - thanks to you - that the white ones are called swan.) Question: Is he wrong? For you who knows that there are black swans he is wrong. But he only knowing about the white ones thinks he is right. And that is the problem. Not only is the concept of right and wrong something that follows the respective viewpoint but the human mind works in patterns. We expect the traffic light to change between red, orange and green because that is the pattern we learnt. We expect the apple to fall down not upwards because that is what we learnt and is the only thing we saw in the past. We expect that a killer will kill again. Nevertheless, we will never know for sure what will happen in the future because we are still in the present. (About the apple example just as a sidenote: think about space...) So it's debatable wether or not Xander was "protecting his family from guaranteed future pain".
(Have to split the comment because I used too many charaters…)