Pokémon Ethics: An Introspective Discussion

[Ironbound]

I'm fairly sure this is the right place for this kind of thread.

All right, so yesterday I had an interesting discussion regarding the right and wrong, and everything in between, of the Pokéworld, in the Sun and Moon thread. Seeing the thing getting more and more detailed, I decided that this needed a thread of its own for open discussion and opinions.

The idea of this thread is that any contributor can state or ask a question about any aspect of morality within the Pokémon canon, and that we can all come to share our op pinions about it and have a nice little chat.

For instance, I'll start now with the same topic which spiralled out of the Sun and Moon thread:

The ethics of breeding and of Pokémon eugenics.

Here is the fact of the matter: Those of us who breed for competitive purposes undoubtedly know of IVs and Natures and of EV training, and of their tremendous importance. To that extent, we seek to obtain the statistical best out of a Pokémon.

The premise is that we breed that Pokémon repeatedly until we obtain an offspring with those perfect IVs and nature. Assuming we acknowledge the Pokémon as an entity, we are accused of deliberately prostituting it, often to a gelatinous blob, and forcing it to breed and breed again, after which it is simply discarded like a used- well, discarded. Then, very often, all those poor lv.1 babies are either ruthlessly dumped into the wild, or traded off into the abyss known as Wonder Trade. Those of them who show promise are subjected to the same rigours again and again, and the cylce continues until we obtain what we term a 'pertect' being.

This entails treating all these Pokémon in a most heinous, callous manner. Or, if we don't even consider them as an emotive being (being, after all, just a tool or a piece of random statistical pixels) we are guilty of even more monstrous apathy. The whole process is inhuman and racist. (What? Of course I wasn't involved in making Mewtwo or anything. What gave you that notion?)

I speculated that we might well see an antagonistic organization dedicated to Pokémon genetic research, who run the daycare as a breeding factory and who aim at ultimately unlocking the absolute potential in any Pokémon. The 'casual player' faction is against this, favouring the ethical raising of Pokémon, disregarding their flaws and genetic weaknesses and behaving like a Pokémon Rights activist lobby.

Now the discussion opens: what is the true morality here and in what way, and what would YOUR opinions be?

REMEMBER: this is an open discussion. Everyone's opinion may differ, no one is right or superior, and I don't want to see a flame war. Please.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Viridescent

[TimTim]

Oh god, now you make me guilty of boxing countless low iv'd Budews bred in my last playthroughGranted pokemon are semi-sentient(they obey human commands, which is made up of human languages, that should count for something there), if it was in real life that would cause a major issue with pokemon eugenics and breeding mechanics. It's even worse when you have seen the anime where pokemon love, play and communicate with each others and trainers like any other humans do. Forcing the newly bred babies which have barely seen the world into what are essentially cock fights(which many countries have outlawed) is another controversy that we are forced to be confronted with, be mindful that even cock fights gamblers use only mature roosters in their prime of their age in the process(that said, already at least live half their lives in comparably good life, must be 'cause strong roosters need to be well fed). The old Team Plasma that led by N(not Neoplasma) was not entirely wrong about freeing pokemon from humans in this regard in my opinion despite how they approach the subject with far extreme measures. It would be great if we have that option to go 'casual player' faction to explore different side of the ethical conundrum.

[Masquerain]

I believe all of us are guilty of doing these things, and yes we are GUILTY because we do those things. As I already speculated in the other thread, if we were to ever receive a team doing what we do, we would be giant hypocrites if our role was to stop them.. since we would merely take their place after. That is the very reason I think we will never get such a team, but yeah.

I agree about Plasma's PETA tendencies not really being wrong, however, they tried to force pokemon away from their trainers, and that's also bad (let's ignore that they were hypocrites who freed pokemon from the tyranny of battling by using their own to battle) I do think that pokemon should be given a choice whether they want freedom or want to remain together with humans. The anime is what tries to promote that kind of thing since all the trainers there "ask" their pokemon if they wanna stay or leave.

As for making them battle, I don't think that's wrong in essence, since in the pokemon world, trainers and pokemon live and work together in various aspects, be that battling, helping to carry/build stuff, or simply to keep humans company. In that world, to be a trainer is treated as a "job", a career.. and I view it like a career in wrestling or so , I guess, fighting to determine the strongest. I suppose battling is ok as long as you know your pokemon's limits and don't overdo or overtrain like..say.. Paul, in the anime.

What we do, breeding for IVs and natures, will always be wrong in my opinion, and to claim otherwise seems weird. Maybe, in the end, we are indeed just giant hypocrites if we really think about it, but seeing as this thing is no different than people in the real world breeding cats and dogs for a certain breed/pedigree etc, I suppose the most correct thing to do with your "rejects" is to release them or trade them away to a new home, like most people give away puppies and kittens

[Ironbound]

I'm repeating my counter argument, but necessarily so because this is a new thread:

Considering the situation involves assuming Pokemon to be real, IVs and EVs must also be real.

What if a Mon with poor IVs is weaker or crippled? A poor speed IV Mon is born lame, for instance, and one with bad defense might be frail or weak-boned, etc. Similarly a wrong nature might be in contradiction to their very existence and might be a bad thing for them in the wild: imagine a Gentle nature Gyarados, or a Relaxed nature Jolteon. These natures are more like a character flaw, since a Gentle Gyarados cannot be the predator it is naturally designed to be, and a lazy Jolteon can't run fast so it won't be able to survive long anyway.

It is harsh, but life is also harsh. Are there not many crippled animals born every day? Are not the weak killed by the strong? Is it not a law of nature? In fact, it is nature's way of showing mercy to the weak: by killing them instantly, they are put out of their miserable existence. Even real life animals bred for their purpose are put down ethically to spare them pain: Horses and dogs, if they are incurably crippled or diseased, are euthanized humanely too.

So if we, or the 'evil' organization, is doing research to try and make pokeom genetics stronger, they are doing a good thing, because they want to reduce this cruel randomness that happens due to weak genes. If, in that process, some Pokémon get hurt, it's just a necessary evil, all for a greater good. And if we dispose of Pokémon with bad IVs or a bad nature, we are doing them a favour also by sparing them a crippled life.

I could also say that wanting a Pokémon of an opposite nature just for the sake of domestication is not exactly good either...like deliberately dulling the instincts of a Bengal Tiger simply because you want to keep a big cat as a pet, when it belongs in the wild.

Besides, a Mon with perfect IVs or the correct instinctive nature is not a killer by itself. No, it will simply be healthier in mind and body, and it will still love and obey its trainer. A Modest or Timid Jolteon with perfect IVs and training would probably still be a better pet if you domesticate it, and would also do well in the wild.

And as for the hypocrisy of BW Plasma, I concur. Their premise was Pokémon liberation... But their ends seemed to justify their means, since many of their underlings were using Pokémon themselves to poorly conceal a robbery of other people's Pokémon, regardless of their wishes.

N, however, is a beautiful character, naive and all the more terrifyingly truthful due to the innocence of his ideals. He used Pokémon, yes, but only because the game mechanics didn't allow for a trainer to do anything with Pokemon aside from capturing them. Also, N always released all his Pokémon immediately after the battle: he only used teams made-up of natural Pokémon that are found in nearby routes each time. The only exceptions are his Darmanitan and Zoroark, which adopted him as a child when he was left alone in the forest. Besides, he also released them afterwards, before taking off with Reshiram/Zekrom, and Darmanitan and Zoroark both accepted their freedom.

This makes Ghetsis even more heinous, but that discussion is for later. Let us continue talking about the current topic of Breeding eugenics, then we shall proceed to Battling ethics and other, interesting topics.

Oh my, I'm starting to like this thread's future prospects.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Viridescent

[Lugruf]

I think that the first thing we need to ask ourselves is whether forcing pokemon to fight is ethical or not (notice that if there weren't pokemon fights there would be no breeding for the perfect fighting pokemon). The thing is that we need to take into account that pokemon is first a videogame, and then a world. Even more, its game mechanics were designed 20 years ago, when the gameplay aspect of the game was cosidered more important when designing than storytelling or building the world. Thus, the Pokeworld is a world built around a videogame mechanic: pokemon fights.

The problem is the followong. As long as there are fights, and so there's a reason to compete, there will be people willing to find the most efficient way of competing. That's why almost all competitive games end up having a metagame. There will always be people who will see EV training and IV breeding not as something unethical over sentient or semi-sentient beings, but as the most viable strategy to win on the game. For example, I don't feel any attachment for the pokemon I play in showdown, as they are teams I can build in 5 minutes and discard at will. For me, changing a value in the EVs of a pokemon is modifying a variable, not altering a living creature.

So, there's no real point in discussing if breeding is ethical or not. We should discuss if pokemon fights are ethical. However, we then reach to another problem: if you remove fights, then there is no game. So, we need to decide if we give more importance to the gameplay aspect of pokemon, and then fights and everything they involve are correct, as pokemon would be then just a sprite with a bunch of variables; or if we give more importance to the lore and the world where the game is built, and then discuss about the ethics of pokemon fights.

[TimTim]

IV may be tied to the survivability in wild sure, I am not so sure about nature though, what you said about Gentle Gyarados, let's not forget about where Gyarados comes from, a weak ol' Magikarp, gentle nature might help Magikarp getting away with special attacking predators in wild living long enough to evolve, even with Timid nature, it helps with fleeing from falling prey to fast carnivores, besides those damping natures are not entirely unusable in battling(for those who are not into cmopetitive). It is mostly depending on trainers really with how you bring out the best in your companions.

[Ironbound]

Well said, Lugruf. I agree that fighting leads to breeding and all other unethical practices, but the reverse isn't always true. Breeding g itself may not be only for fighting; look at Brock in the anime, who wanted to be a Pokémon Breeder (Granted, he was also a gym leader, but if I recall aright it was because he was filling in for a brother or something) only to help Pokémon lead a healthier life.

Also, yes, I agree entirely with your statements about Pokémon ultimately being a videogame, and therefore they don't have any soul so we can do what we please to obtain what is merely a favourable statistical output. But I had based it on the assumption of granting Pokémon recognition. I'm not talking about Showdown here, since it isn't canon, being only a simulator or a 'lab'. Those teams are not sentient, so we leave them out.

Games are games, yes, but some like Undertale make a good point about the supposed souls of what we take to be nothing more than pixels over whom we have a godly power. Assuming we take Pokémon in a similar vein, we can agree that breeding g is unethical, even comparable to the atrocities performed by the 'mad scientists' to real world animals or even people, when we look back at history.

We do have to recognise that this is rather a hypocritical topic (most of us have to admit that even if breeding is unethical, it is a thing, and almost everyone does it. The fact that GF has such a mechanic is itself proof of its unalterable truth) so we can write it off as a necessary evil.

And Hushie, we can agree that Natures do boost a statistical advantage in the wild, so a Timid Gyarados may be faster at fleeing and less adept at hunting than the ideal Adamant one. Natural Selection, you may say. In fact, since we know that even Lv100 Magikarp can occur in the wild, perhaps Timid Magikarp simply doesn't even have a great chance to evolve into a Gyarados, being more suited to being a feesh. Likewise, a Timid Gyarados, if found to exist, can be concluded to have a poorer chance of survival. It all again boils down to the arbitrariness of Nature, I suppose. Then again, the 'greater good' of doing research to improve wild genetic strains is questionable. Scientists today do fiddle around with experiments on critically endangered animals to try and improve their chances of survival in the wild; doing something like that with rare Pokémon might be justified, even if it causes some short term friction. However, the larger question of playing God and messing with the natural order of weak and strong things existing in nature arises. Like Cepheus said earlier, if everything is OP, the wild would be a grimmer, unnatural place, I suppose.

Moving on, it's about time to discuss what Lugruf stated: ethics of Battling.

[Cepheus]

One last thing about the breeding:

Breeding in itself IS NOT a bad thing! - You mentioned that Brock wanted to be a Pokemon Breeder, does that mean he wants to breed the same Pokemon all over again until he gets a perfect result, and just discard all the other babies?

No - he wants to be a Pokemon breeder because he loves caring for Pokemon. Brock doesn't care for IVs or Nature, he wants to help pokemon with their love and caring for their eggs until they hatch.

The only unethical breeding would be that competetive chain-breeding - Don't generalize it!

(also Brock took the Gym-Leader position from his father - and has now given it to his little brother)

(If Pokemon were real - scenario)

Let's say you want to have another Eevee - because they are cute and fluffy or to get the last Eeveelution you are missing for your household - because Eeveelutions are your favorite and what not...

What are your options?

- catch a wild eevee

- trade with someone

- BREED an Eevee

You know noone who would part with their Eevee/lution in a trade, and there are no wild eevee living in the near area... only option left is breeding one.

It also has something positive - if you keep the egg with you and your other Eeveelutions, the new baby-Eevee will naturally bond with you and the others while in the egg, making it easier for you to become/stay friends - it's a happier little Eevee!

and since you only need one Egg you don't need to chain breed for it to be perfect - because at this point, you simply don't care. Because you personally cared for it while it was an Egg. - It's an emotional bond.

Even if it is not as fast as the others, or even if it is a bit frail - it will still be a happy Eevee with a lot of friends caring for it!

(Eevee taken as the example for obvious reasons... )

-----------------------------------------

Anyway, Pokemon battling.

Glorified Cock-Fights with super-powered Animals.

I assume Pokemon have at least some little urge to fight in them - genetically - for survival in the wild, because just sitting there getting eaten by a predator and doing nothing about it, and we wouldn't have certain Pokemon.

Now we come along, capture them, train them, and battle against other trainer who have done the same.

Now this isn't any survival-scenario in the wild anymore - we are doing that for entertainment (a Pokemon League match has thousands of watchers and fills an entire Stadium!) and for our own prestige!

We deliberately get these Pokemon, who have emotions and feelings, we have BEFRIENDED, to hurt each other for our ego!

WE want to be the very best, like no one ever was...

WE want to be Pokemon-Master

These fights don't stop at 'hurting eachother' - no - they DESTROY their surroundings!

best seen in the Pokemon Origins anime, where Red battles Giovanni in the Silph.Co. building - During their fight they blew a giant hole into the walls of the building, thorugh which Giovanni escaped by boarding a helicopter. And the rooms interioir was DEVESTATED!

You know - I know it's a cartoon - but Jesse and James would be DEAD after their first 'blasting off' after Pikachu gave them a taste of, what maybe, thousands of Volts with his Thunderbolt!

Ash would have 4th degree burns over his entire face... hell, he would look like Two-Faces burned half over his entire face, because of his Charizard always Flamethrower-ing his face!

And all the audience would do is laugh it off - because it was great battle...

Seriously every battle in some kind of closed off room - like in any kind of building would be devestating! - depending on the intensitiy of the battle you could totally collapse the building on top of you - burying your opponent, their Pokemon, your Pokemon, and yourself under thousand of tons of Steel, Bricks, and cement!

What about catching Pokemon?

We drag a Pokemon away from its natural habitat, eventually away from its FAMILY - who is worried sick because their 'dad' never returned from his berry-hunt, and we force them to fight!

Maybe this Pokemon doesn't want to fight other Pokemon, but since we are now its trainer - it has to obey us, and do what we tell it to do.

And even if it doesn't obey our orders... it cannot really get away from us - we can always return it to its Pokeball and keep it there.

Have you ever wondered why Pokemon in the anime always come back to its trainers even when mistreated? (like Paul did)

I think it has something to do with their connection to the Pokeball - They CAN'T get away from you, because you didn't 'release' it into the wild with YOUR own will - The Pokemon HAS to come back to you because it is bound to that Pokeball!

All of this would be wrong in all kinds of ways - IF it were real...

With all that:

Make Love - Not League!

[Ironbound]

One can again say that competitive breeding, if refined properly, is no more an evil than real-life breeding for traits. And breeding again need not be for battles alone, although now I am coming to the point of why I think competitive battling is not evil and that breeding for it is no worse that breeding for horse races.

Certainly I would agree that taking a Pokémon unwilling from the wild is not correct, however, domestication is also a thing. I suppose one can ethically partner with a wild Pokemon, if both parties are willing.

Also, I don't buy the theory that a Pokémon is bound to its Pokeballs unless released, or that it has to obey its trainer. There are instances of Pokémon breaking their Pokeballs, or fleeing, or simply refusing to obey their trainer, like Ash's Charizard did (thoush Ash is ass anyway, I wouldn't blame Charizard) so that mayn't be true entirely.

Besides, catch rates are a thing, and Pokémon can refuse capture and escape, or downright attack anyone who approaches with an intent to capture them. The wild Salalmence in one episode I can't recall is a good example. And even Master Balls can fail, if it is destroyed or even consumed, like that one legendary Whiscash did. They're not helpless victims, and they can hit back very hard against humans if they didn't want to partner with them.

Which leads us to the premise that they want to partner with their humans and can at least tolerate their existence if not like or love them. Even a harsh trainer like Paul had a partnership with his Pokémon, even though they were of similar mind - perform and be rewarded, fail and be punished. It was only his Chimchar that couldn't take that attitude, so one can say that it depends from Mon to Mon. In fact, mons can be as evil or benevolent as people, and this need not correlate with the attitude of the trainer. Certainly they influence each other's mentality, but it is entirely possible for an evil Mon to exist alongside a not-evil person, like that one Malamar. Besides, Hunter J and her Salamence and Drapion is a perfect example of a ruthlessly amoral partnership between people and Pokémon.

I suggest the Pokémon partnership to be like Man and Elephant, if not Man and Dog; a successful and mutually beneficial partnership that has existed for centuries. We are not discussing Pokémon who exist as companions or as aides in man's work (it is said that mons like Conkeldurr and Machamp help people with work as well, so it can be assumed that other Pokémon also help willingly with transportation, medical care or whatever). About battling; It is proven also that most Pokémon, even the plant-like ones, are as sentient as a human being, so equating them to cock fights may not be the best comparison. Rather, as Masquerain said, it can be equated to a wrestling or other athletic Combat tournament between humans, with the Pokémon themselves fully aware of their actions and even enjoying it themselves. I agree, forcing a Pokémon to fight is bad, but I think any Pokémon, even a Cherubi, can refuse to fight if it doesn't want to, as was demonstrated. Do your average battles between normal trainers is not an evil act, it is as much a sport as any martial art and is normal in the Pokéworld society, as evidenced. So while J's partnership with her equally reprehensible Salamence is evil, competitive battling is not necessarily so.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Viridescent

[Lugruf]

Games are games, yes, but some like Undertale make a good point about the supposed souls of what we take to be nothing more than pixels over whom we have a godly power. Assuming we take Pokémon in a similar vein, we can agree that breeding g is unethical, even comparable to the atrocities performed by the 'mad scientists' to real world animals or even people, when we look back at history.

There is a main big difference between Pokemon and Undertale though. Pokemon is a game built around its game mechanics, while Undertale is built around its story. In Pokemon, you have two main mechanics: fighting and collecting; and all the world is built in order to make those two mechanics work. If you think it, in the games pokemon are little more than objects. Mechanically talking, there is not much difference between a Gyarados and a Llanowar Elf:

It's an object you collect and you use to play a game, and the bond between you and it is of ownership. You own the pokemon, which is forced to obey to you.

Undertale however is built around its story, and the game mechanics are there to reinforce that story. If you look at its combat, you are not supposed to fight. You are supposed to talk to the monster, listen to him, laugh at his jokes or whatever you need to become his friend. It's a completely different mood. It's also asymmetric, what implies that competitive can't exist (nobody would play competitive Undertale) and so nobody will look for the best way to win in Undertale. Even grinding is justified by the story, as you are killing all living beings on purpose. You don't need that experience, I mean, the game is pretty easy and level doesn't make much of a difference, but you grind in order to make the story advance. That's a game built around its story and where all the elements contribute to reinforcing it, and so it's obvious to feel attached to their characters and to the game itself.

I know that the picture the series conveys of the relationship between pokemon and people is completely different, but I haven't watched it so I can't talk about it. I can make an analysis of the game's mechanics though, and this is what I've found. You can call it ludonarrative discordance if you want, as normally the pokeworld is presented as a happy world where humans and pokemon live together happily and all that, but the game mechanics are giving the opposite message.

(By the way, does anyone know how to make an image smaller?)

Edited April 8, 2016 by Lugruf

[Ironbound]

Fair point; the ultimate objective of Pokémon has always been on battling, which, as I pointed out, needn't necessarily be considered immoral unless it is forced, but yes, considering that a Collector class of trainers exist, I do concur with you.

My example was not aimed at equating Pokémon with Undertale as a whole, but merely as an illustration to say that even videogames can have us feel more towards the characters in them. I will not dispute your opinion, since in fact I myself also agree that Pokémon has always been built around 'Gotta catch 'em all', especially if you take the game canon aside from the anime canon (which I too stopped watching years ago)

However, the games have been developing with the generations in terms of the premise of Pokémon. In truth, the games are still built around becoming the champion and stopping an evil team, but each generation has a more developed role for our companions. The introduction of Contests and Pokeathlon encourages different aspects of companionship with Pokemon other than battle tournaments, and the addition of Pokémon Amie reveals a more cuddly aspect of said companionship. One can cogently say that the role of the in-game trainer with his Pokémon has been expanding, since some generation plot points (such as BW's) even directly address the issues of simply collecting pokemon. If we include spin-off game canon, it isn't even necessary to partner a Pokémon in a Pokeball, as shown in the Ranger series. Although the player can choose to keep viewing Pokémon as nothing more than a battle/collection game, it remains his choice; Pokémon itself has been evolving to represent more of a relation, like what it tries to spoon-feed us in the anime.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Viridescent

[AuthorReborn]

There's a point that I feel should probably be brought up in this discussion and I'm a little surprised it has yet to be so: selective breeding. For reference, I'll just use the standard definition on Wikipedia for selective breeding: "Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans use animal breeding and plant breeding to selectively develop particular phenotypic traits (characteristics) by choosing which typically animal or plant males and females will sexually reproduce and have offspring together." This form of breeding has happened over millennia with most species we have encountered and domesticated over time, such as wheat and dogs based purely on the fact that those flora and creatures who possess traits more beneficial to humans, or whatever the current top of the ecosystem may be, are more likely to reproduce and survive than those who instead work against the current head. Humans have been a powerful force for thousands of years, with our ability to create fire, build large, defensive structures, and, the ever useful opposable thumb. So by working in coordination with the humans, the stronger, more beneficial creature will end up being able to survive longer and reproduce more, which is humanity's own way of influencing evolution. So by our very nature in working in coordination with these strange and grand creatures we call Pokémon, we will be slowly influencing their generations to be either stronger than before or obselete. This can be commonly exemplified in the actual actions of Pokémon breeding itself. Frankly, trainers are more likely to breed already strong Pokémon, such as Garchomp and Volcarona, than weaker ones, such as Sunflora and Surskit. Similarly, if you have a Pokémon with 31s in multiple IVs, you are more likely to breed this Pokémon than one with multiple 0s. So frankly, the process of competative breeding is then based on simply exponentially accalerating this process to be more beneficial in the present.

There's nothing particularly wrong with this, and indeed, I believe it could lead to another question: which is more ethical- chain breeding or hacking in Pokemon? For the purpose of this discussion, we'll just say that hacked mons are genetically designed in the Pokémon specfically to have the greatest traits. While hacking is generally seen as the true moral problem of the two, it could be argued alternatively: hacking is more ethical as you will never have any "breejects," or imperfect Pokémon who then be unable to preform the task their masters had intended, so they are then released into the wild or wonder traded to a forgien land. Instead, the hacked Pokémon will always end up with the exact desired stats as that was how it was designed.

[Ironbound]

I'm glad this point has been raised. To be frank, I was waiting for opinions, because this thread shouldn't become a monologue.

Selective breeding is indeed what Pokémon breeding g is based off, as you rightly said. While it isn't necessary to not breed Poliwaraths and Sunfloras, for thanks to the munificence of Smogon every Pokémon save Luvdisc, Farfetch'd, Unown and the like can find some place in some tier of competitive battling; however, breeding for better IVs is logically the same as stated, in that you'd use a 'breed stock' which has excellent IVs itself, rather than one with bad IVs. As I said, ethically this is just as acceptable as real life breeding of racehorses or dogs in stud farms and kennels.

The point raised about hacking is far more intriguing now, since it is generally frowned upon both in casual and competitive runs. Of course, editing a Pokémon to have the wrong moves or abilities and such attributes is indeed unnatural and therefore unethical, as it would upset the balance of both nature as well as any competition, in a Pokémon-is-real scenario. But even 'normal' hacking is an aberration in such a situation, being a similar concept as cloning, only instead of copying a sentient life form, we are creating one out of the blue with enhanced powers, so to speak. Basically, we are playing God and this raises even more complex ethical questions.

How are we to decide on hacking? How do we justify the Creation of Pokémon just for our whims out of nowhere? What is to be done to the hacked Pokemon after it is used in the tournament of what-have-you? Release into the wild and upset the natural balance? Trade away? Box forever? Destroy? After all, it is still a sentient being that would be all the more confused due to its unnatural creation. If Mewtwo taught us anything it's that unnaturally created enhanced beings are generally a bad idea, both for the creature itself and potentially for the world around them. We'd be needing a Nuremberg Code of sorts to be agreed upon to decide the legality and morality of hacking and consequent actions in the canon world. Breeding, despite all the selection and rejection and potential abuse that it entails, it at least natural and socially more tolerable.

Of course, stepping out of the frame and viewing the game as merely a game, Hacking is done, of course. Hardly anyone other than purists have the time anymore to breed mons, and we all 'gen' our mons for battles. This is not a difficult decision at all since in that case Pokémon have no individuality and are merely pixelated pawns that are created and erased like any other set of variables.

What do you guys say?

[Shamitako]

Just one thing real quick

In fact, mons can be as evil or benevolent as people, and this need not correlate with the attitude of the trainer.

IIRC there's an episode in the anime where Team Rocket's Pokemon talk about Pokemon not being bad, only trainers. IDR much more than that, but I thought it worth noting

*Boops out*

[Ironbound]

...and then there are two recentish XY episodes which involve a megalomaniac Malamar that causes harm to other Pokémon, both wild and belonging to the group, simply out of its own malice and desire to take over the forest/wherever it lived.

There's also an evillish wild Florges that terrorized Ash's Goomy's swamp.

That statement made by Jessie's Arbok, IIRC, can be safely assumed to be invalidated by the Canon anime itself, even without us having to understand that it was merely an opinion of an individual Pokémon, who is no more a representative of its entire race than I am of us all.

The anime IS for kids, after all.

[Spineblade]

Yes, I imagine that line about there being no bad Pokemon was more of an attempt to include a positive message towards children to be good towards animals than anything else. Not that there's anything wrong with teaching children life lessons, but it can make for some, uh, not-entirely-realistic interpretations of the real world (and a realistic Pokemon world).

Edited April 8, 2016 by Spineblade

[Felicity]

Why do people eat pokemon they're meant to be your friend STAHP WITH THE SLOWPOKE TAIL

[Halloween]

heyo. it was only a matter of time before i showed up, huh. disclaimer: i can't really see the pokémon anime and the pokémon games as quite the same universe, and it was ten years ago i saw an episode of the anime anyway, so i'll be talking about the "canon" games here.

also im on a plane again, typing this, so no internet; sorry if i'm not up to the current discussion.

i think it's very difficult to judge a completely different culture on our terms – for example, school seems to be completely mandatory in the Pokémon games, and teenagers and pre-teens often travel the world instead. most people are seen at home rather than working, factories are unmanned, Pokémon seems to help out with most work forces. if people have a job, it's "celebrity" or gym leader. or both. there's also no mentions of guns or similar weaponry. i have little doubt that from their perspective, our culture would be downright barbaric.

it's like white ppl going to africa all like "YALL NEED JESUS", like, chill ffs, haven't we done enough damage?

there's also another large difference between the Pokémon world and ours - the medical science. directly after the battle, Pokémon are returned to their Pokéballs, where they, unless poisoned, are in a medical limbo. the pokécenter heals all injuries in a second after that. If human medicine would work like that - instant healing after each battle - i'd have spend a lot more time in parking lots. Or at least id like to think so, but i guess i'd still be pocket-sized

and i really don't see much of a difference between competitive breeding and what we do to dogs - in fact, i think competitive breeding might be the more humane version, because that's at least aiming for healthy, strong critters - unlike competitive animal breeding, where traits that's actually bad for the animals are deliberately added because "cuteness". eurgh pugs.

and pokémon fucking love doing this. the more we fight with them, the more they like us. some evolve because we put them through enough shit. there's this one chick in every game since gen 2 that's like, "hells fucking yeah look at that onix that's onix is just all over you get a room already. or fight some more." alakazam is many times smarter than a human; surely it could figure a way to escape if it really wanted to?

i mean, i drew a line with changing a pokémons nature through some weirdass psychology session, but i think genetical breeding is the future. im totally gunna get git myself a superbaby in 10 years: 180 IQ, none of my addictive tendencies, swagass fashion sense and lupita ngyong's - or whatever her name is - superior face.

actually still on a plane apparently Norwegian airlines have internet, oops

[Raindrop Valkyrie]

So throwing aside the whole issue that is "Series were never created to looked at this in-depth in the first place especially since this series is intended for children who won't look past the surface level" loop hole.

Anyway, I can understand that thinking it be quite morally wrong would be an issue... but... that's from our perspective. We don't know how different this world is, LET ALONE do we know the implications of all of this in thier world. They live in an entirely different environment to us. How would we tell them what they are doing is wrong? They'd probably not even understand our logic. Becuase the World they know is very different from our own.

These Pokemon are... well nearly a part of everything and they effect their daily lives etc. While to a lesser extent pets do this in the real world... it's nowhere near the level of what Pokemon effect the world they live within. I mean... after all, not only are they widespread but they have freaking magic powers etc. Our worlds are more or less apples and oranges. Quite a bit is similar that it's recognizable. But, so much is different I doubt that trainers in that world would see it quite like we, outsiders looking in, do. I mean, Breeders exist as just a normal thing within the Pokemon universe... In a quite different way than in irl. They openly practice. That in and of itself shows how different their world is from our own. It's not typically something to hide in their world, it's not soemthing that happens behind closed doors or away from where we can see it. It's everywhere and right out in the open.

We can see it happening. Daycares even you know kinda allow their places to be used as breeding faclities for Breeders that don't have the means to set up their own location for a nominal fee. Of course... this facility has other uses int eh raising of Pokemon as well, but it can't be denied that it is also used for this second purpose. ((no matter how dumb the games pal with the "Oh I ahve no idea how this got here, wooooooooah!" shtick.))

So even if it would be considered inhumane in our world... it might not be in theirs.

[Ironbound]

Ahh, Now that's an interesting topic. Pokémon as food, and Pokémon food chains! We have our new topic, people!

Now, the wild is always the wild. I realise that the Pokedex is written by kids and so shouldn't be very accurate, but there are several entries that talk of Pokémon being eaten by other Pokémon, or even by people. For instance, Starly do attack wurmple, and Hydreigon eats everything that moves. Slowbro is a Fisher which eats aquatic Pokémon, presumably, and many Grass types are edible: Cherubi's smaller head is packed with nutrients, apparently, and if course everyone knows of Tropius and its banana-chin.

We now approach the topic of eating a Pokémon or a part of it. Of course, Pokémon can be agreed to be more sentient than animals like the average fish or chicken, in fact as sentient as a human, so going and eating your Torchic mayn't be very...ethical. The Sinnoh myths as spoken of in the Canalave library even straight up talk about how Pokémon were butchered once and how it came to be repented later, though the veracity of a myth is always questionable.

However, some Pokeproducts can be consumed safely and harmlessly, like Tropius's fruit, Chansey's eggs, or Miltank's MooMoo Milk. Slowpoke tails are also edible, as we all know, since a restaurant in XY straight up serves it to the player as well.

The ethics of this may be justified. Consider that slowpoke has a very dulled nervous system, so it doesn't feel any pain. Consider also that it gets the ability Regenerator, which allows it to quickly grow back its tail. Also of note is the fact that it fishes with its tail tip; this its tail is meant to be bitten or damaged and this doesn't harm the animal. Harvesting slowpoke tails is then almost as OK as taking a Tropius banana or a Chansey's egg, since slowpoke doesn't really care (or seem to know, since it is stated that it often forgets to reel in its catch and so the fish presumably gets away with a chunk of its tail even). And there you have that particular dish.

Order up! And now I'm sleeping BTW so see you in several hours. Feel free to progress the discussion meanwhile.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Viridescent

[AuthorReborn]

I'll clarify my point on hacking a bit more, but before I do, I must say, this discussion is being excellently and strangly civil about such a complex and intriguing issue. Good job, everyone!

Anyways, when I was talking about hacking before, I mainly refering to the idea of "genning," which generally refers to the practice of artificially produced Pokémon which possess entirely legal and obtainable abilities, moves, and statistics, although it is unlikely that a person would obtain these through normal gameplay do to extraneous conditions or the massive time consumption. So basically it is again an extension of the idea of selective breeding, changing the creatures to better suit our valued traits, although the breeding portion is entirely eliminated for efficiency.

[Lugruf]

When talking about if eating pokemon is ethical, the same way as when talking about battling or breeding, we need to think if we consider pokemon as equals to human beings or we consider them to be inferior, as we consider animals in our world for example. It has been mentioned before that pokemon can be as sentient as human beings, or there was the example of Alakazam having a way higher IQ than any human. There are also other examples like the talking Meowth of the series, or some other pokemon able to communicate with telepathy that are practically human at a cognitive level. Taking into account all of this, pokeon should be considered to have an equal status to humans, and therefore it's not just that eating them is wrong, but even owning them is wrong. Notice that if we consider pokemon equal to humans, owning one would be comparable to slavery. Thus, the whole culture of the pokeworld built around pokemon battles, owning pokemon and breeding them is ethically wrong, not to mention eating them.

I don't like the idea of not being able to ethically judge the pokeworld due to the cultural differences. I always try to build my ethical estatements on top of a premise, sort of what mathematics do with axioms. We start accepting that a is true, and therefore we reason to reach the point of b being true or false. However, the statement is not categorical, as it is subject to the premise being true. If we accept the premise as false, then the whole reasoning would be false. For example in my reasoning above, you may consider that pokemon are inferior to human beings and should not be treated as equals. Then, my conclusion, that it's wrong to own them, would be false. In general, if the idea you take as premise is correct in whatever yoy are analyzing the reasoning should be valid.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Lugruf

[Halloween]

getting into the value of life is deep water; if we consider Pokémon our equals because they have a higher intelligence than us, then what about dolphins, should they have human rights? are people with lower intelligence less valuable? i'm fucked

we also use "intelligence" as a blanket term here - iq, eq, common sense, pre-meditated actions. just as the highest intelligent monkeys were thought to rank 3 on the eq scale (humans are 7), it was up until recently not proven that they could think ahead. alakazam might have a high iq, but if it lacks eq - empathy, ability to read others, situations - it's not going to evolve as a species like humans can.

I've read somewhere that it's forbidden to portrait Pokémon as human food in the anime, but I can't find the source, and hamburgers obviously appeared... so idk. In the series though, only the slowpoke tail was mentioned as eatable as far as i can remember, and that regrows.

anyway, inferior/superior... isn't it said in the start of every game that "we" actually live in symbiosis? implying that their position beside us is voluntary - they could rebel. they don't want to. presumedly because they, as the game states by equaling experience with happiness, enjoy fighting, and the benefits and harmony a human-pokémon relation provides.

[mde2001]

Okay, pretty much my sole participation to this discussion is here (first a side note- that florges who attacks Goomy isn't evil- it is protecting its sick child).

The moral questions pretty much boil down to whether you consider pokemon to be the equivalents of animals in our world. If you do, then making them fight is cruel, and eating justifiable (except if you're a vegetarian).

However, pokemon are often shown to be more than animals. They are magical creatures, who rely on partnership with a human to reach their full potential. The clearest evidence of this is friendship evolution. These pokemon require the connection with a trainer through battle in order to reach their most powerful stage, showing that they are more than slaves, they are partners (unless if you want to make the point that they are slaves who develop Stockholm syndrome- but I feel like that's a bit of a stretch).

Pokemon battles aren't like cock fights, as (excluding origins and a few anime battles), the pokemon don't get injured. They'll need help at the pokemon center, but they aren't really damaged. Both pokemon in a battle are participating in it to grow. If a pokemon feels like it has outgrown a trainer, they will disobey (for trade evolutions in particular), showing that they aren't unwilling slaves as they still have free will.

This is why eating pokemon is more questionable, as they are meant to be a partner in a codependent relationship, so when the human eats the pokemon it is throwing that relationship out of balance.

IV breeding is pretty hard to justify either way.

[Combat]

It's time for me to contribute to this ethical discussion!

All jokes aside, I suppose it's fair to throw in my two cents. First off, we have IV breeding. I've never actually done this, not because of the "moral" implications, but because it's boring. I don't have time for that. In fact, I've never done breeding on a mass scale until Reborn, when I tried to get a shiny Rilou (and failed over one hindered eggs later.) Now, Nintendo hasn't revealed how eggs come to be (to my knowledge) so one could argue that for the parents, it is a painless process. I mean, there is no psychical way a Wailord and a Skitty would naturally work. Now, the real question, comes to the children. Many people seem to think that a trainer is sending a level one Pokemon to it's death by releasing it, and frankly, I don't have an answer for that. Is it ethical to be trying to create a superior Pokemon? No, defiantly not.

Battling... PETA's biggest argument against a video game. From what I can tell, most Pokemon seem to enjoy battling, as the usual risks during one are minimal. Is it wrong? Unless a Pokemon seems to state it doesn't want to, I see no reason. That does make me wonder if over leveled Pokemon are disobeying it's trainer simply out of spite, or if there a darker reason to it...