As far as the old school Council goes, I think "kill no human" rule served a relatively transparent purpose: it protected the Watchers. Like any good slave morality, it was a mechanism by which the physically weaker Watchers could control the stronger Slayers.
I think it's plausible that some of that reasoning has persisted into the newer, reformed Council. The remaining old-school elements within it would continue to fear the Slayers' power, and even the newer Watchers would justly fear the possibility of Slayers going rogue. Also, given the sheer number of Slayers post-"Chosen" the probability approaches certainty that a significant number of them would go rogue. It seems reasonable to me then that even Giles and Dawn might--acting out of the best of intentions, of course--find themselves involved in activities designed to limit the autonomy of the Slayers under their guidance.
Personally, I tend to believe that all people deserve a fair trial, yadda yadda yadda. Dawn's "he's better off dead" is not my position, no matter how horrible the man might have been. However, I characterize both Dawn and Giles as individuals willing to abandon these rules when they feel it is necessary. (I think that canon strongly supports this characterization for Giles, and makes it plausible for Dawn.) A Watcher is ultimately accountable to no one but the Council. Running the Council, Dawn and Giles are accountable to no one but themselves. This makes them extremely dangerous, and I think they recognize that fact.
There exists a single check/balance to that power: the fact that both Dawn and Giles are, ultimately, only human. A Slayer who decided that she was above the law in the way that Dawn and Giles have decided they are would be nigh unstoppable, except by other Slayers. Power corrupts, and to have both the freedom to decide who lives and dies and Slayer strength would be to have, in the opinion of the Council, absolute power.
Note that I am more interested in my writing about the former type of power than the latter. The way that Dawn and Giles act as moral supermen--truly in the wake of the Nietzschean ubermensch--fits neatly into my thoughts on how fanfic, and Buffy fanfic in particulars, acts as an expression of the adolescent fantasy, or of the will to power. That does not mean, however, that I approve of the actions: I think Giles was wrong to kill Ben in "The Gift" for example.
I also don't think that Dawn and Giles completely have fallen into the trap of thinking of themselves as moral supermen (I'll keep the sexist usage because it befits the Nietzschean overtones and also because "superpeople" just sounds stupid). Like the Operative in Serenity, they know that what they do is evil but do it anyway to earn others their place in heaven.
As such, I really do think Dawn and Giles feel that such action as I describe in the fic above exists to preserve a Slayer's "innocence." While I agree with you that the soul/no-soul distinction doesn't necessary make much sense (although the challenge of writing in a world which is metaphysically Platonist has its own allure), I do think Dawn and Giles continue to believe in it: Giles supports Buffy killing vampires but is proud that she won't kill Ben (and kills Ben so she won't have to). So I do think that Giles (and by extension, Dawn) believes that it is possible to spare a Slayer's innocence by committing evil acts (the killing of people with souls) which "need" to be performed and thus preventing her from having to do it.
In Dawn's case, however, I do think this is half the case, and the other half is that she does recognize that there are potentially evil acts (the killing of demons without souls who are potentially redeemable) which she is simply incapable of performing, and then no matter how much she doesn't like it she must turn to others to her dirty work for her.
I'm glad my ficlet was such food for thought! Thank you.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
**Intentional Fallacy Alert**
Date: 2006-01-21 02:56 am (UTC)I think it's plausible that some of that reasoning has persisted into the newer, reformed Council. The remaining old-school elements within it would continue to fear the Slayers' power, and even the newer Watchers would justly fear the possibility of Slayers going rogue. Also, given the sheer number of Slayers post-"Chosen" the probability approaches certainty that a significant number of them would go rogue. It seems reasonable to me then that even Giles and Dawn might--acting out of the best of intentions, of course--find themselves involved in activities designed to limit the autonomy of the Slayers under their guidance.
Personally, I tend to believe that all people deserve a fair trial, yadda yadda yadda. Dawn's "he's better off dead" is not my position, no matter how horrible the man might have been. However, I characterize both Dawn and Giles as individuals willing to abandon these rules when they feel it is necessary. (I think that canon strongly supports this characterization for Giles, and makes it plausible for Dawn.) A Watcher is ultimately accountable to no one but the Council. Running the Council, Dawn and Giles are accountable to no one but themselves. This makes them extremely dangerous, and I think they recognize that fact.
There exists a single check/balance to that power: the fact that both Dawn and Giles are, ultimately, only human. A Slayer who decided that she was above the law in the way that Dawn and Giles have decided they are would be nigh unstoppable, except by other Slayers. Power corrupts, and to have both the freedom to decide who lives and dies and Slayer strength would be to have, in the opinion of the Council, absolute power.
Note that I am more interested in my writing about the former type of power than the latter. The way that Dawn and Giles act as moral supermen--truly in the wake of the Nietzschean ubermensch--fits neatly into my thoughts on how fanfic, and Buffy fanfic in particulars, acts as an expression of the adolescent fantasy, or of the will to power. That does not mean, however, that I approve of the actions: I think Giles was wrong to kill Ben in "The Gift" for example.
I also don't think that Dawn and Giles completely have fallen into the trap of thinking of themselves as moral supermen (I'll keep the sexist usage because it befits the Nietzschean overtones and also because "superpeople" just sounds stupid). Like the Operative in Serenity, they know that what they do is evil but do it anyway to earn others their place in heaven.
As such, I really do think Dawn and Giles feel that such action as I describe in the fic above exists to preserve a Slayer's "innocence." While I agree with you that the soul/no-soul distinction doesn't necessary make much sense (although the challenge of writing in a world which is metaphysically Platonist has its own allure), I do think Dawn and Giles continue to believe in it: Giles supports Buffy killing vampires but is proud that she won't kill Ben (and kills Ben so she won't have to). So I do think that Giles (and by extension, Dawn) believes that it is possible to spare a Slayer's innocence by committing evil acts (the killing of people with souls) which "need" to be performed and thus preventing her from having to do it.
In Dawn's case, however, I do think this is half the case, and the other half is that she does recognize that there are potentially evil acts (the killing of demons without souls who are potentially redeemable) which she is simply incapable of performing, and then no matter how much she doesn't like it she must turn to others to her dirty work for her.
I'm glad my ficlet was such food for thought! Thank you.