(who never saved the world once)

You're right. She didn't. Did any other slayers? Did the world end?

Willow had to bring back Buffy so a) there could be more Buffy and b) so that we could see she was arrogant and sliding to the dark side.

I'm going to sit here with rational ita. Well, she'll sit, I'll be lying down on my side.

Will there be cabana boys, ita?

Will there be cabana boys, ita?

Yes, and body pillows.

The practical reasons alone are justification, even if they would be a betrayal of Buffy's friendship.

I empathize greatly with your position, Hec. I really do. But this still has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of what our beloved peeps did.

I don't believe Willow did it to help out the world. She did it because she could, and because she wanted her friend back. I do believe she honestly thought Buffy was in hell, but I also think believing that served her own purposes.

This is where I am, too.

Ah lovely, cabana boys and body pillows. After my nap, could Pablo bring me a frothy coconut something to drink?

But this still has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of what our beloved peeps did.

Au contraire, it is certainly right by Utilitarian ethics. Even the Acceptable Losses standards drummed into the CoW and exhibited by both Giles and Wes. Though I don't think Giles would've had the heart to pull Buffy out of heaven. But I bet Wes would if he thought it would make a difference.

I mean, did they all think Joyce was in Hell? Or Jenny Calendar?

Both of these were non-supernatural deaths. Buffy may have been dead (did they establish it one way or the other?) before she hit the ground and was closing a portal to what was expicitly stated as being a hell-dimension. I'm sure there was rationalizing going on - as I said, it's the Sunnydale way, even for our heroes sometimes (e.g. Giles thinking it had to be Jenny's ghost in IOHEFY) - but I think there was sincere belief mixed in.

Wesley definitely would have pulled Buffy out of heaven. But the Buffyverse doesn't celebrate utilitarianism, generally doesn't tout it as anything virtuous. The highest standing utilitarianism gets is "necessary evil" in Willow's world.

Hec, do you think Willow honestly never thought Buffy might not be in Hell? That's the part of this debate (well that, and the lying) I'm thinking about. Willow certainly thought the world needed Buffy, and she certainly knew she and her friends needed and missed Buffy. I'd never dispute that. Resurrecting Buffy was completely understandable. I'm not even talking about whether this was justifiable (most things are if you ask enough different sorts of people). But there was a good chunk of Willow (the chunk that lied, and didn't allow Willow to engage her usual curiosity) that knew she was doing a bad thing, don't you think?

Hec, do you think Willow honestly never thought Buffy might not be in Hell? That's the part of this debate (well that, and the lying) I'm thinking about.

Willow looked pretty stricken in OMWF when it was revealed. So, I'm thinking she never considered the possibility that Buffy was better off dead.

I don't know - I'm having a hard time following this argument a bit because people keep trying to apply real-life ethics to the narrative, and (as we've seen in the past) I don't think this works very well. People especially get upset when a character violates their particular ethical hot button, but there are times when narrative is in the driver seat. There are also times when The Meta is in the driver's seat (like...Seth wants to leave so Oz fucks around. Now Oz is bad. If Seth didn't leave would Oz have fucked around? No, I don't think. Pretty inconsistent with his previous behavior but they did a fairly good job of justifying it within the context of that episode).

So...I don't really like making the moral judgements on the characters as if they had free will. They're under Joss' control - he makes them do the bad things. Bad Joss! Spank me 'til Tuesday.