Ethics of Pokémon.

[Realitycrash]

You see, because the pokemon are sapient, that makes it more acceptable, not less.

All pokemon but the tiniest of babies have the abilities and powers to say "Fuck You" to humanity and their trainers and they can refuse to go in the Pokeball.

I don't get why people assume the pokemon are forced to battle. Game mechanics and the animes prove they are not. Even Team Rocket's pokemon like their trainers.

If that is the case, then why do you bother with 'catching' them at all? Then they should be lining up to fight freely. They should unionize and get payed.
Or is it that they somehow want a 'worthy' trainer, and only those that catch them are 'worthy' enough? That seems highly irregular of an animal life (that every single animal, but sapient and non-sapient, actually live with the inbuilt purpose and desire of finding a good trainer and fighting other animals) but okay, if you can back it up with facts from the game/animé then sure.

 

[Schtimpy]

The way I always thought of it, you need pokemon to travel pretty much anywhere. Every time you leave a town, all sorts of monsters jump out of the grass and attack you. Good thing you have some monsters of your own to fend off the hordes of ( fire / lightning / rock / water / scyther / plant / etc. ) monsters. Yeah it's sad/cruel when a turtle gets hit by lightning, but a water gun attack would own a person, so having a Pikachu on hand is the only way to not die when you go in the woods.

Ever notice that the towns are really small, and most of them are walled off with one or two entrances? (in gen 1, haven't played the others)

 

[Puck]

Hmmm anybody think that pokemon jesus has something to do with the mindset of the pokemon world....

I am talking about Arceus the pokemon that created the very world. I don't want to get religious but the ethics of the pokemon world are vastly different to our world because they are not governed but the same issues we have.

Wars are won with pokemon, not guns. The most powerful entities are pokemon not people. Different world different ethics apply.


Capcha : Do unto others (how appropriate)

I love Arceus, it sums up the logic of the Pokemon world perfectly that I have the alleged creator of the universe chilling in my PC, just so it can be my personal bodyguard/gladiator whenever I feel like taking it for a walk.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Run away from home, drop out of school, trap wild animals inside tennis ball sized capsules, force them to fight each other, abuse their reproduction rituals, brainwash them, beat up other peoples' animals for money, get in the way of organised crime divitions - who have every intention of killing you, feeding your body to your abused animals, then incinerating said animals - all under the vague guise of doing it for science, even though you basically just killed or imprisoned GOD?

'Course it's for kids. Now you change your hair colour.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

You see, I never bought into that. To me, Pokemon has always been about teamwork and bonding with your companion. First of all, trainers don't make the pokemons fight to the death. They know when to stop, they know when a pokemon had enough. They treat them appropriately, feed them, take care of them, connect with them. It's a sports thing, and trainers can choose whether to take part in it or not. It's when a trainer pushes a pokemon too far that it becomes abuse. Yeah, they catch them against their will, but is it not the same as, say, taming a wild horse or some other wild animal? Something humans have been doing since the beginning of time? Also, if that were the case, why do the pokemon look happy? They should look miserable, but a lot of them look content and glad to be with their trainer.

Yes, pokemon has shown many times that they are intelligent. I mean, they can clearly understand the human language, and at times in the show can teach themselves to speak it, and with what you're saying is the case then with their power they could easily take over the world and eradicate the human race. Yeah, human's have pokeballs, but as mentioned above, pokemons can easily break out whenever they want. They're not an effective enough tool for imprisoning pokemon. Why do you think Team Rocket used so many various traps instead of just using a simple pokeball to catch them? We've seen several pokemon that have enormous ammount of power, so why haven't they done it already? Because they need the trainers just as much as trainers need them. It's a "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" type of thing. You noticed how wild pokemon tend to be weaker than trained ones. A Pokemon needs a trainer to become stronger, which is all a pokemon has for itself, really. And when a trainer is recognized for his skill, he's being recognized for his ability to command, lead, take charge, come up with tactics, taking care of his friends and allies, working together, and teach them to become more than what they are. So when parents are sending their kids to catch pokemon, it's teaching them several lessons to take in life, or in the universe that the series takes place in (also note that this takes place in a world far different than our own). It's like the relationship between a commander and a soldier, or a director and an actor. One cannot realize its full potential without the other.

 

[LightningFast]

A wild Pokemon is under threat from predators, competition other members of its own species, and a natural tendency to battle other Pokemon, as is evidenced in many Pokedex entries, and in the fact that Pokemon are required to fight in order to reach their respective evolutions, which are a natural part of their life-cycle. Those which don't fight are usually prey for those that do, like Caterpie is prey for Pidgey. If a wild Pokemon loses a battle, it does not receive any medical help for its injuries, unless perhaps there is a friendly Chansey, Blissey, or similar Pokemon nearby. In many cases, a Pokemon is killed outright by its opponent for sustenance. (Yes, I know humans eat Pokemon too, but SHUSH!)

A domesticated Pokemon is under no real threat of dying. They have no need to fear predation or natural disasters, are able to either fulfill their violent desires or overcome their docile ones. Furthermore, Pokemon grow faster and become stronger (effort values) whilst in the company of a trainer, which aids their natural growth. In any situation in which a Pokemon is put in mortal danger, they would be recalled. Killing other peoples' Pokemon is against the rules. Furthermore, domesticated Pokemon do not have to search for their own food. They are provided shelter, sustenance, and affection in an environment where the most severe injury they will receive is a burn, which can be healed in any Pokemon Center. Pokemon lore also suggests that humans and Pokemon co-evolved (Darwinian evolution, not Pokemon evolution), and that humans have been commanding Pokemon for many, many years. It's more or less in their DNA.

In short, might be bad, but I don't care because my Greninja is cool and he beats stuff up 'cause he cool.

 

[balladbird]

The only thing I agree with is how obsessed everyone is with Pokémon and little else. Seriously, what is wrong with them? Then again there do seem to be a lot more Pokémon in their world than animals in ours. You see them every step of the way for obvious reasons. Maybe we'd have as much interest too if animals were that prevalent everywhere and acted more similarly to Pokémon. It'd help if our suburbs and city were less urban and more natural with urban conveniences like it seems the way it is in a lot of places in the series too; though they had cities as well obviously there weren't as many nor were they as big as some of ours. I would like to point out that not all 10 year olds go out to catch Pokémon. Weren't some people shown to have remained home by choice or get a career not related to training or, at least, CONSTANTLY using Pokémon?

Actually, while this baffled me at first, it becomes more logical the more I think about it. In the pokeworld, pokemon are a necessary part of life for the humans who live there, comparable to an energy source, almost. Lots of ancient civilizations had cultures that were predominantly themed on how they earned their livlihood, even in the parts of the culture relating to recreation.

A nation with a famed navy would have numerous temples devoted to water gods or the sea, and tales of heroism on the waves would be the ones most popular with the people, for instance. So in that regard it makes sense that pokemon is such a huge part of the personal lives of the citizens, even if it is exaggerated a bit.

 

[FPLOON]

THEY'RE PIXELS!

Can't I just have one, ONE game where I don't have to question the ethics of jack shit and just have fun and play the damn game without having to consider animal abuse laws or something? Just one?

But, every video game universe should still upheld to the laws of our universe... especially our general enthics... That's the only way for anyone to relate to video game's universe at all...

OT: I'm not going to lie and say that I never heard this "argument" before or that I have never thought about the "ethics" of a given universe before... The whole point is, during that moment of watching/playing, you succumb to the laws and ethics of this fictional universe and, occasionally, be glad that certain things that that universe has is not something you would see everyday in public (without even batting a single eye) in our universe... Only when you tell yourself "It's not real and and it will never happen in the real world" will you ever be able to let the escapism of Pokemon turn your worries into cheers and warm friendships...

Or you could just, you know, not think too deeply into something usually marketed at children most of the time... (Just a thought...)

 

[Headsprouter]

I'm sorry, I was distracted by your use of the plural "Pokemons".

Pls to stahp.

I don't think you're supposed to apply real-world ethics and thinking to the Pokemon universe. Just enjoy the thing and remember the dividing line between it and real life.

Sorry to dismiss the question. Analysing stuff is fun and all, but I'm not going to let people rain on my parade when all I'm doing is battling pixels in a fictional, carefree universe. People who don't play the game always take the thing too seriously. If you enjoyed it as much as I did you wouldn't want to question it, either.

 

[Easton Dark]

If that is the case, then why do you bother with 'catching' them at all? Then they should be lining up to fight freely. They should unionize and get payed.
Or is it that they somehow want a 'worthy' trainer, and only those that catch them are 'worthy' enough? That seems highly irregular of an animal life (that every single animal, but sapient and non-sapient, actually live with the inbuilt purpose and desire of finding a good trainer and fighting other animals) but okay, if you can back it up with facts from the game/animé then sure.

It'd be easier to determine what is normal behavior if we knew the origins of pokemon.

It was surmised in the first season of the original pokemon anime that pokemon are actually aliens, or at least the jigglypuff/Clefairy/Wigglytuff variety is. Deoxys is definitely an alien. It was found in a meteorite. Unknown are unknown, and lately there have been many varieties of god pokemon, like Giratina.

They could definitely have been developed as weapons on another planet and sent to Earth, and even if they aren't weapons and are actually some new form of animal life, why does it matter if it's irregular for animal life to live the way pokemon are purported to do? They're pokemon, we don't know how they act in the real world, just in the pokemon world, so what's irregular here is not irregular there, apparently.

The first episode of Pokemon Origins also has an explanation from Brock, that the pokemon and trainer depend on one another and fight as one. If the pokemon find a strong trainer, they will in turn fight for them so they too can become strong. Like in the first anime, the reason Ash's Charizard doesn't like him is because he thinks he is a weak person, and spends his time loafing around when given orders. It's only when Ash gets serious or emotional or if it's in danger that Charizard actually does anything, at least until Ash proves himself much later on.

This is seen in the games in the form of pokemon not listening to you. If your pokemon is too high level and you haven't gotten the particular badge to "prove your strength" so the pokemon respect you, they won't listen. It's a way to balance the game so players don't totally steamroll gyms with high-level pokemon, but it's lore.

Not only that, but James' Victreebell and Jesse's Wabbafet break out of their pokeballs all the time, and it's not through force of will because they're tired of being subservient, it's just because they want to be outside and show their trainers some affection (as exampled above). Pikachu refuses to go in a pokeball and Ash couldn't make him go in if he wanted unless Pikachu gives the ok. It's also not like pokemon are tied to trainers for life, trainers regularly release their pokemon into the wild once again, like Ash did with his Butterfree.

I just don't see anything in any pokemon medium that I've seen or played that implies the pokemon are forced into fighting. In fact, you may not have thought about it, but it is impossible to catch pokemon if they have fainted. They must be conscious and able to consent to the capture before it completes. Food for thought.

 

[Racecarlock]

THEY'RE PIXELS!

Can't I just have one, ONE game where I don't have to question the ethics of jack shit and just have fun and play the damn game without having to consider animal abuse laws or something? Just one?

But, every video game universe should still upheld to the laws of our universe... especially our general enthics... That's the only way for anyone to relate to video game's universe at all...

OT: I'm not going to lie and say that I never heard this "argument" before or that I have never thought about the "ethics" of a given universe before... The whole point is, during that moment of watching/playing, you succumb to the laws and ethics of this fictional universe and, occasionally, be glad that certain things that that universe has is not something you would see everyday in public (without even batting a single eye) in our universe... Only when you tell yourself "It's not real and and it will never happen in the real world" will you ever be able to let the escapism of Pokemon turn your worries into cheers and warm friendships...

Or you could just, you know, not think too deeply into something usually marketed at children most of the time... (Just a thought...)

Exactly. I know spec ops the line specifically asked us to think about ethics in games, but that doesn't mean we need to do it for every game ever.

The ethics of animal abuse are irrelevant here because they're not real. Simple as that.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

...Yeah, some things are best left not being thought about too hard... I still love the games, but I prefer not to look too deep into the details, for the sake of my sanity.

 

[Bluesclues]

That seems highly irregular of an animal life

And therein lies your problem. You're thinking of them as animals; they're not animals, they're Pokemon. They're never referred to as animals, they're always referred to as Pokemon. They may hold similarities to animals in the real world, they might be modeled after some animals in the real world, but that doesn't mean they follow the same logic, ethics, or morality.

but okay, if you can back it up with facts from the game/animé then sure.

You DO realize the clip they linked is from the anime, right? The clip of Victreebel showing James affection? And the games always have countless NPCs expositing different facts about human/Pokemon relations. Including the Professors from each generation, which you meet about 20 seconds after turning the game on.

 

[PinkiePyro]

Has anyone ever heard of some of the brutal Poké-manga scenes, such as Arbok being sliced in half and you seeing its' innards?

It was a zombie Arbok.

That automatically makes it okay!

Honestly, I never really thought about Pokémon ethics, its outright stated that all Pokemon have Stolkholm Syndrome have a bond with trainers and fighting is a way of both getting stronger together, its innocent enough (although going around with a level 80 Charizard and burning lvl 3 pidgeys is...questionable)

actually you are wrong though there were zombie pokemon arbok wasnt one of them it was a pokemon of the guy controlling the zombie pokemon who was Koga who is evil and working for team rocket in the comics for some reason besides

Spoiler

the arbok in question got better because arbok can regrow its body appently

also for sh*ts and giggles here is said comic momant..

I would also like to state I have a catch and release stand only keeping those I might train later.. and as shown in the anime pokemon can choose to leave their trainers as shown by a snivy

 

[Fox12]

I've learned to deal with it. If you think about it, even the most innocent seeming points of view can be associated with one or another group that gives it a bad name, and I'm not one to shy away from an idea just because someone before me did it badly and/or for the wrong reasons.

As for the manga, no, I'm afraid I havn't

I would just say that you support animal rights activism, since PETA just represents the batshit insane side of animal rights. They're like the Westboro Baptist Church for animals. They give everyone else a bad name.

Yeah, if you put thought into it, it's a pretty brutal series. Forcing animals to fight until they're unconscious sucks, since that can actually cause brain damage. That's probably why Pokemon can only say one word, even though we know that Meowth can speak fluent English (Japanese?). Also, some pokemon, like Charizard, clearly didn't respect their owner, so that counts as slavery.

 

[Bluesclues]

snip

Didn't respect him because Ash was weak, not because he owned him. Ash proves himself to Charizard later in the anime and Charizard smothers him with affection from that point on. Hell, he pulls off an improbable but badass rescue of Ash in the 3rd Pokemon movie.

 

[jamail77]

snip

Actually, while this baffled me at first, it becomes more logical the more I think about it. In the pokeworld, pokemon are a necessary part of life for the humans who live there, comparable to an energy source, almost. Lots of ancient civilizations had cultures that were predominantly themed on how they earned their livlihood, even in the parts of the culture relating to recreation.

A nation with a famed navy would have numerous temples devoted to water gods or the sea, and tales of heroism on the waves would be the ones most popular with the people, for instance. So in that regard it makes sense that pokemon is such a huge part of the personal lives of the citizens, even if it is exaggerated a bit.

I've heard this argument before and don't buy it. They aren't really necessary at all. Plenty of times we see places powered by various non-Pokémon energy sources taken advantage of through man-made technology. While Pokémon were shown to sometimes help provide energy I don't remember seeing it much at all.

I think it's just because they're so prevalent and have become so intertwined in lives that the rest of life isn't important enough or interesting enough for most people in society. It's not out of energy dependence or worship.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I think Pokemon X/Y gives a glimpse into the world of pokeballs. It's kinda interesting, but not the greatest captivity. At least it doesn't seem like they're alone in there.
You can drop treats, decorate, and so forth, too so it's like a lil' home, I guess.

Pokeballs likely offer considerable safety, and trainers offer food, shelter, etc.

'd say pokemon want to be domesticated. As pointed out before, they can escape their balls, they can rebel/run away, and they do attack aggressively for the most part putting themselves in danger of being captured. It's just a matter of finding someone stronger than they are for the sake of protection, even if it's herd mentality.

 

[Fox12]

snip

Didn't respect him because Ash was weak, not because he owned him. Ash proves himself to Charizard later in the anime and Charizard smothers him with affection from that point on. Hell, he pulls off an improbable but badass rescue of Ash in the 3rd Pokemon movie.

It doesn't matter. If Charizard were free then he would be able to leave, regardless of his reasons. That's why the Pokemon should rise up against their human oppressors!

 

[Korolev]

Well, yeah, the situation is pretty F-ed up. You capture Pokemon against their will (they struggle to get out of the ball) and you get them to fight for you for no reward whatsoever. They're either in the ball or they're fighting. Great life, huh? They can't leave unless you choose to let them leave (and they ALWAYS leave when you release them - none of them ever try to get back into their ball after you release them, do they?)

They say that the pokemon learn to like their trainers after time. Yeah..... it's still pretty sketchy. You can kidnap someone and brainwash them to like you, but that doesn't make it right.

All pokemon but the tiniest of babies have the abilities and powers to say "Fuck You" to humanity and their trainers and they can refuse to go in the Pokeball.

Then why do they struggle to get out of their balls when you try to catch them?