Question on the Ethics of the Pokemon World

[curious222]

Hi everybody, I'm a philosophy major and a huge fan of the pokemon franchise. In an ethics class I brought up the question of whether the treatment of pokemon was ethical. Its a small class so the teacher entertained the question and a division arose in class between people who thought pokemon were treated more ethically than animals in the real world, compared to those who thought animals were treated more ethically than pokemon.
The main reasons that people thought of for Pokemon being worse off were..
1) Because pokemon seem to be far more intelligent than animals, they deserve to be treated more like humans than less intelligent animals are treated in the real world, and instead of a state of limited equality, pokemon are controlled by humans, just like house pets.
2) If you look at the way pokemon are acquired, what basically happens is, pokemon trainer is walking through an area, a wild pokemon is startled and attacks, then the trainer sends out his pokemon and the two pokemon fight. Eventually the wild pokemon is beaten until it nearly faints, then it is captured and taken away from its homeland. (Not very ethical)
3) Pokemon are forced to live inside of pokeballs. Comfortable or not? We didnt think so, maybe you all are more knowledgeable about this.
4)Pokemon are forced to fight, until they faint, against other pokemon, on behalf of their trainers. These trainers who took them from their home and transported them to a foreign area, demand obedience and expect them to fight against other pokemon, only because their trainer tells them to.
5) Pokemon can be traded, thus they have no influence/control over the course of their lives. They are treated like slaves, moved around by their masters, bought and sold.

I am not going to go into the different ways animals are treated unethically because I think everyone has a pretty good understanding of whats going on in the real world.

I know this was a lengthy first post, and I appreciate anyone who has made it this far without becoming bored. If anyone has an opinion on the matter, please comment, further discussion would be great!
p.s. I know pokemon is just a game, but it is a fun/thought provoking conversation to have. Hope you all enjoyed this.

 

[PyriteWorld]

Maybe the pokeball is like doctor who's tardis xD

 

[Oryx]

This is a great first topic, I love discussions on Pokemon ethics. :)

One of the topics that I think you glossed over was the fact that because of their higher intelligence, Pokemon have the ability to make friends with their trainers, which makes much of what they do something that's their choice because they respect their trainers. Pokemon can destroy a human with little to no effort, but choose not to kill their trainer because their trainer loves them, cares for them, and is a good friend to them.

As far as Poke Balls, from what I've seen in the manga/anime the Pokemon get smaller once they enter the ball, so the ball is more like this:

Keep in mind that in the anime, where they can do things that they're unable to do with game mechanics, Ash lets his Pokemon out of their capsules pretty much every time they stop, every meal and such so they can play and stretch their legs. So they're not as inhumane as they may seem at first glance.

 

[psyanic]

Some Pokemon are treated as equals, not all, but some. There are a few instances, especially legendary Pokemon, where they are treated as gods and such. Other Pokemon, mainly those under the ownership of bad trainers, are obviously abused, etc. Not all Pokemon are treated like house pets. They seem to be more expressive than animals, mainly because they can level a house if they want to, so house pet Pokemon have the choice, in my opinion, to be there in the first place. And the right to leave is completely up to them, like Ash's Mom's Mr. Mime who chose to be there. Also, there are quite a few random NPC's in the Pokemon games who highly promote the welfare of Pokemon, such as saying that you should treat them as friends and respect them, etc.

Poke Balls don't seem to be uncomfortable. I don't know what goes on in there, but not many Pokemon seem to pop out and stretch or complain when they come out. Though there are a few Pokemon, like Ash's Pikachu, who do not like Poke Balls for reasons unknown. However, they aren't forced into them in most cases, so that's that. In the Pokemon Special manga, it's shown that Pokemon are simply shrunk and sucked into the ball. The ball itself is clear so you can see the Pokemon inside them and they don't appear to be hurt in any way. Also, Poke Balls reserve the Pokemons' health when they're fainted. It's more of a transporting thing, I think.

Yes, some Pokemon are forced to fight. I don't know too many situations where this holds true, except for Team Rocket or any other team, though. I've seen a lot Pokemon refusing to fight, and that's mainly a trainer issue. Like Ash's Charizard didn't want to fight for him, but that's a trainer issue. But still, Ash didn't exactly for him to fight. He simply begged and whined until he did get him to listen, which was somewhere in the Orange Islands. Pokemon have a lot more options to vocalize, and it's hard to force them to do something especially considering that they could kill you or beat you up if they wanted to.

I can't say much about the whole trading thing. I'd imagine most trainers wouldn't want to trade a Pokemon they're fond of, so trading away wouldn't prove too much of a loss if the feeling is mutual. The only place where Pokemon are bought is the Game Corner, and I believe it's been hinted that that is the doing of Team Rocket (in the Kanto games anyway). Though, animals are treated the same way. They have less of an opinion, since they lack the intelligence compared to an Alakazam or something, and although not many people move around animals like slaves, it's the same kind of situation. Also, Pokemon aren't forced to work or something, only fight. And even with that, they can choose not to fight.

 

[curious222]

You make a lot of great points Psy, the biggest thing I would say in response to some of your comments is that your saying because the pokemon are often willing to fight, or obey their trainers, it is not so bad, also if the pokemon doesn't want to listen, they dont actually have to. In reference to the pokemon agreeing to fight/listen to their trainer, id say that listening is expected by the trainer. From what we know, their is no period where the trainer tries to gain the trust of the pokemon, nor ever give them the option of not listening. But the use of pokemon for fighting, and earning what I could best describe as "honor" for their trainers seems to be a societal norm of the pokemon world, I do not really know what the pokemon gains from being a pokemon under the control of a trainer. Pokemon seem generally happy in the wild, so id have to assume the average pokemon would prefer to live in the wild amongst their own types of pokemon and family, compared to constant fighting for a cause that gains them nothing.

On the point of the pokeball, it seems like the pokemon community is equally perplexed about the comforts of a pokeball. But because after wild pokemon are weakened, they still struggle to escape from the pokeball, it must mean that it is either uncomfortable in the pokeball, or the pokemon have learned that once they are captured by the trainer, they will be taken away from their home, a fate any rational creature would want to avoid. Another interesting thing about the pokeball is that once a pokemon is caught in a pokeball, he can never escape. This is a very interesting characteristic that I think implies that once a wild pokemon fails to escape its initial enclosure into the pokeball, it must either be branded (by the pokeball) or some time of mind control-esque thing going on. This idea of psychic "branding" would explain why the pokemon cant escape after the first time, and why it is impossible to capture other people's pokemon. One can not catch another's pokemon, because said pokemon has already been mentally controlled. Further evidence for this type of enslavement by the pokeball are
1) Pokeballs can be stolen, then used by other trainers, thus the pokemon is attached to the pokeball, not the trainer.
2) The greater strength of the great ball,ultra ball, master ball etc. The level of control the ball initially enforces upon the pokemon is greater, giving the pokemon a tougher struggle when trying to escape what ever type of control the pokeball envokes on the pokemon.
-->I am not making any comment on the living conditions of the pokeball for the pokemon, I do not know whether it is good or bad, even if we assume it is nice inside, everything above still applies.

So in regards to pokeballs, I would have to say, unless someone can explain to me a more logical system for pokeballs in relation to catching and maintaining a pokemon, than they seem pretty immoral to me.

 

[Xander Olivieri]

Easiest way to put it for Pokeballs, Digital compression Leashes/Pet Carriers.

Makes for easy to carry and safely transport your Pokemon over the world. Pokemon have to be in Pokeballs (with a few exception), this was pretty much stated by Officer Jenny a few times when they thought Ash had stolen Pikachu (First/Second Episode)

Like how we are supposed to keep out Pets leashed, even when in private locations, Pokemon must stay in Pokeballs if it allows. (Yes this means that Ash, Misty, and Iris are breaking the leash law)

As for different degree of strength, you won't have a pet carrier for a house cat to safely carry a Great Dane. If it were made of the same material, the Dane could easily break out. Same with leashes, you wouldn't use some flimsy plastic of weak threaded leash/collar on a massive and sometimes aggressive dog like a Pitbull or Rottweiler. You'd use metal leashes and collars.

Pokeballs are also like collars where as the Pokemon cannot be caught by someone else while owned by another (Pikachu all over Unova where everyone is trying to catch him)

Now I saw something about catching and removing them from their homes as being immoral, keep in mind that 90% of our pets are not currently in their original habitat. Nearly all domestic dogs are from some other countries. Horses, Cats, certain pigs, hens, and Fish were all caught in the wild and raised/domesticated else where.

Even today you can get pure bred husky dogs from the north even if you live far south. A lot of exotic cats in rich homes are like this as well.

 

[curious222]

Easiest way to put it for Pokeballs, Digital compression Leashes/Pet Carriers.

Makes for easy to carry and safely transport your Pokemon over the world. Pokemon have to be in Pokeballs (with a few exception), this was pretty much stated by Officer Jenny a few times when they thought Ash had stolen Pikachu (First/Second Episode)

Like how we are supposed to keep out Pets leashed, even when in private locations, Pokemon must stay in Pokeballs if it allows. (Yes this means that Ash, Misty, and Iris are breaking the leash law)

As for different degree of strength, you won't have a pet carrier for a house cat to safely carry a Great Dane. If it were made of the same material, the Dane could easily break out. Same with leashes, you wouldn't use some flimsy plastic of weak threaded leash/collar on a massive and sometimes aggressive dog like a Pitbull or Rottweiler. You'd use metal leashes and collars.

Pokeballs are also like collars where as the Pokemon cannot be caught by someone else while owned by another (Pikachu all over Unova where everyone is trying to catch him)

Now I saw something about catching and removing them from their homes as being immoral, keep in mind that 90% of our pets are not currently in their original habitat. Nearly all domestic dogs are from some other countries. Horses, Cats, certain pigs, hens, and Fish were all caught in the wild and raised/domesticated else where.

Even today you can get pure bred husky dogs from the north even if you live far south. A lot of exotic cats in rich homes are like this as well.

I really like your interpretation of the pokeball, i guess a leash idea makes sense, except i just wanna ask how you imagine this "leash". As a psychic imprint or something along those lines?

Secondly, on the question of moving real world animals around, I think in the case of horses, Cats etc where they live in non-native territory, they are able to adapt and live their (i.e. horses of North America) or just die. But pokemon aren't being transported as groups to different locations, and because pokemon are significantly more intelligent than animals, it must be much harder for a pokemon to get over the trauma of being taken from their land because the area has more meaning than just the natural resources

 

[Oryx]

Although we have to keep in mind the intelligence debate; yes, we take cats and dogs away from their native homes, lock them up in carriers, etc. But we don't do that with humans because that would be inhumane. The question is, are Pokemon close enough to human intelligence that locking them up is inhumane like locking a less smart human would be, or are they close enough to animals that it's the same as cats/dogs?

 

[voicerocker]

I think that while Pokemon seem to be more intelligent that animals, they aren't quite as intelligent as humans.

1 sign could be that most Pokemon speak their name, but no other words or Pokemon's name, even when referencing that Pokemon. It's been proven in the anime that a Pokemon can learn to speak human language naturally, but only Meowth has ever been shown to do this and he told of how hard it was for him to learn to speak that way.

 

[curious222]

Intelligence is key, I think we'd all agree that even the dumbest Pokemon is smarter than virtually any animal, but some Pokemon are smarter than humans (Alakazam). Pokemon may not be able to speak to humans, but they are able to fully understand humans, based on their ability to take orders in battle. So I'd say they are all smart enough to be treated significantly better than animals would be treated.

 

[coolcatkim22]

I'm curious as to what the evidence the side debating that Pokemon are being treated better then animals said.

You said all the boring, overly used, beating into our skulls with a hammer till it's pouring out of our ears reasons for Pokemon being treated worse but you said nothing of the other side.

Please post the other side's arguments, I would really like to hear them.

 

[curious222]

I'm curious as to what the evidence the side debating that Pokemon are being treated better then animals said.

You said all the boring, overly used, beating into our skulls with a hammer till it's pouring out of our ears reasons for Pokemon being treated worse but you said nothing of the other side.

Please post the other side's arguments, I would really like to hear them.

Animals are treated worse than Pokemon because....
1) Animals are bred to be slaughtered, used for food.
2) Animals are cruelly tortured by people ( no evidence of this in the Pokemon world)
3) Many species of animals are hunted for sport. Some species have even been driven to extinction because of hunting.
4) Animals die from disease, Pokemon seem to only die of old age.
5) Animals have been bred to fit human desires, leading some species to be so heavily interbred that they have terrible hereditary health problems (blindness in Dalmatians, pure bred horses easily breaking their legs, chickens growing so quickly they can't support their own weight and also break their bones)

These were the biggest ones that I can remember. I didn't want to write these in initially because I didn't want these to devolve into a debate about how animals are treated, and wanted to try to keep the conversation on the Pokemon side. Hope this helps!

 

[coolcatkim22]

Oh, well, I was hoping for better arguments.

Thanks for posting them any ways.

 

[Yoshikkko]

Well, I agree with about everything Toujours has pointed out. About the fighting, Pokémon only fight if they are willing to, they are seldomly forced to because they have the capability to resist, like Ash's Charizard for example. If Pikachu doesn't want to fight, Ash won't make him and usually chooses another Pokémon for that battle. Of course there are exceptions but the same happens in the real world with dog fights and such.

Animals are treated worse than Pokemon because....
1) Animals are bred to be slaughtered, used for food.
2) Animals are cruelly tortured by people ( no evidence of this in the Pokemon world)
3) Many species of animals are hunted for sport. Some species have even been driven to extinction because of hunting.
4) Animals die from disease, Pokemon seem to only die of old age.
5) Animals have been bred to fit human desires, leading some species to be so heavily interbred that they have terrible hereditary health problems (blindness in Dalmatians, pure bred horses easily breaking their legs, chickens growing so quickly they can't support their own weight and also break their bones)

These were the biggest ones that I can remember. I didn't want to write these in initially because I didn't want these to devolve into a debate about how animals are treated, and wanted to try to keep the conversation on the Pokemon side. Hope this helps!

Well, all of the things you point out are not exactly things the anime (nor the game) should hint to or point out seeing how it's a kid's show and those things are not at all relevant or the point, but that does not mean that they don't exist there. At all. Where do you think burgers come from in the Pokémon world? Grass? And Safari Park is inhabited by endangered species, those are "rare" Pokémon. I am sure that Pokémon die of disease too, troughout the series we can see multiple Pokémon getting sick and needing antidotes or another kind of medicine, they just don't show Pokémon dying like that (or at all) for obvious reasons. In the first generation games, they even hinted at Gary/Green's Ratticate dying, and that was not of age, but of battle, so those aren't really solid arguments. Just because we don't see it does not mean it's not happening, there are plenty of hints.

 

[coolcatkim22]

Raticate didn't die that's just a rumor. And animals do exist in the Pokemon world, we've seen them. Though it really doesn't matter as it's pretty much confirmed that people do eat Pokemon (as well as animals).

In any case, there is evidense of Pokemon being eaten, tortured, hunted, and dying unnatural deaths. I won't include breeding since genetic code is passed on differently with Pokemon.

 

[Timbjerr]

One thing that I think deserves pointing out is that, compared to the entire population of the "Pokemon World", a relatively small percentage of people actually train their pokemon to fight seriously. It seems inflated in our minds because we're playing as one such trainer in the games and we seek out others to complete the game. It's implied that the reason Youngsters and Bug Catchers are so inept at battling is because their pokemon are simply family pets, and some of the other trainer classes are implied to keep pokemon on them for self-defense for traveling between towns.

The few serious trainers (i.e. gym leaders, E4 members, and champions) will get around accusations of animal cruelty by making some cheesy quip about how you have to treat your pokemon with love and respect or they won't be as strong as they could. This effectively helps to provide a contrast to whichever villainous team you deal with who are implied to treat their own pokemon cruelly and as a tool for a greater goal.

 

[Yoshikkko]

Raticate didn't die that's just a rumor. And animals do exist in the Pokemon world, we've seen them. Though it really doesn't matter as it's pretty much confirmed that people do eat Pokemon (as well as animals).

In any case, there is evidense of Pokemon being eaten, tortured, hunted, and dying unnatural deaths. I won't include breeding since genetic code is passed on differently with Pokemon.

Yes as I said, it was hinted at, I never said it was a fact. And um I also never said that there weren't any animals.

But yeah it's pretty much a given that Pokémon (and supposedly animals) are being eaten in the Pokémon world, not everyone there is a vegetarian lol.

 

[coolcatkim22]

It was never hinted. It's just a rumor based off a single line of dialogue which could be interpurted to mean any things.
Also, you implied there were no animals by asking where hamburgers come from.

 

[Oryx]

It was never hinted. It's just a rumor based off a single line of dialogue which could be interpurted to mean any things.
Also, you implied there were no animals by asking where hamburgers come from.

Are there any instances of cows that aren't cow-based Pokemon in the anime? While we have seen fish I can't remember an instance of a cow which means you can't assume they have cows in that world. Not sure why you're pushing that point anyway as you conceded that the overarching point she was making (that Pokemon are eaten in that world) is correct, there's no need to nitpick so closely.

If Pokemon are being eaten, that's an implication that Pokemon die there for reasons other than old age. That's another point you both agree on, you two agree on the two points being made so not sure why you're reducing the argument down to the nitpicky details if you agree with her points.

 

[Dratinichick]

I'm surprised no one else has said this... But at the end of the first episode (or is it the second? o.O) Pikachu gets attacked by a wild sparrow. This then leads to a mushy make up scene where Ash saves Pikachu from the Sparrow's flock, but at first Ash was horribly confused as to why he was attacked. His Pokedex then explains that most wild Pokemon are jealous of Pokemon traveling with trainers and so they attack them. Just my two cents...


Edited to add: In Heartgold ( I think it is) theres a book you can read somewhere about an ungrateful trainer who hunted Pokemon for fun and never respected them. Then all the Pokemon ran away and he had to go on a quest to find them... or something like that.... *hides* And what about that guy selling Slowpoke tails? How'd he get them if he didn't kill the Slowpoke?

Edited again to add: I found it ^^; It's the legend of Veilstone in Sinnoh, not exactly what I thought it was, but hey, playing four Pokemon games at one time will do that to you. So here's the myth.

A young man, callow and foolish in innocence, came to own a sword. With it, he smote Pokémon, which gave sustenance, with carefree abandon. Those not taken as food, he discarded, with no afterthought. The following year, no Pokémon appeared. Larders grew bare. The young man, seeking the missing Pokémon, journeyed afar. Long did he search. And far and wide, too, until one he did find. Asked he, "Why do you hide?" To which the Pokémon replied... "If you bear your sword to bring harm upon us, with claws and fangs, we will exact a toll. "From your kind we will take our toll, for it must be done. "Done it must be to guard ourselves and for it, I apologize." To the skies, the young man shouted his dismay. "In having found the sword, I have lost so much. "Gorged with power, I grew blind to Pokémon being alive. "I will never fall savage again. This sword I denounce and forsake. "I plead for forgiveness, for I was but a fool." So saying, the young man hurled the sword to the ground, snapping it. Seeing this, the Pokémon disappeared to a place beyond seeing...

I'll stop posting right after this I promise, but I found another Sinnoh myth about eating Pokemon...

"Sinnoh Folk Story 1" Pick clean the bones of Pokémon caught in the sea or stream. Thank them for the meals they provide, and pick their bones clean. When the bones are as clean as can be, set them free in the water from which they came. The Pokémon will return, fully fleshed, and it begins anew. Note: I found this all on Bulbapedia so if you wish to read them yourself, just type in "Sinnoh Myths" in the search box...