DISCUSSION: The Ethics of Pokémon Battles

[Silktree]

TamashiiHiroka's video is pretty spot on about the movie, but I don't agree that there was no other way to tackle Pokemon ethics in a semi-realistic setting. They could make a movie about "just" the following points:

1. Just like that Cubone, Pokemon usually resist Poke Balls unless they have some interest in the trainer. This may require some interaction outside of battles (as is often the case in the anime).

2. A Pokemon can escape from its Poke Ball if it has lost its trust in its trainer.

3. Battles are rarely so flashy that a Pokemon could get hurt. A move like Flamethrower is used to corner a Pokemon rather than directly attack it, while something extreme like Earthquake is banned. If the opponent isn't playing by the rules, the trainer can just send their Pokemon back to its Poke Ball.

Naturally, villains wouldn't treat their Pokemon like equals or care about rules, but there are worse things in real life.

 

[Ereshkigal]

The thing that really muddles this is that we know some Pokemon can communicate with humans on an equal level, or even with knowledge beyond what the average person would have. So, to a degree, I have to wonder how much of that "Pokemon love battling" isn't just some bored psychic types trolling gullible trainers.

 

[Silktree]

Some examples where the games implied brainwash:

1. Silver stole two Pokemon (the starter and Sneasel) and they just followed along. It's hard to tell if they really loved him by the end.

2. More recently, Team Plasma captured Hugh's sister's Purrloin, which would go on to forget all about Hugh years later.

3. Dialga/Palkia and Kyurem were controlled by Cyrus and Ghetsis, respectively.

 

[Poneto]

It's exercise, they like it and its good for them. That's as far as the philosophical debate goes in my mind lol.

In all seriousness, is it just me, or did Pokémon seem more mysterious and less understood in Gen 1?

Nope, it's not just you, I've thought this for quite some time. And I preferred it, but sadly Pokemon are becoming more like intelligent pets and less like friendly (or not so friendly) monsters.

 

[Silktree]

I don't know. Has the anime changed all that much in terms of characterizing Pokemon? You can't say they're intelligent in any games except for some legendaries. But no doubt there was a lot of mystery if you avoided the anime in the first two generations, and the original wild Pokemon theme was spooky.

 

[Ereshkigal]

I've noticed that, if anything, the games seem to treat them like animals and not intelligent beings for the most part. Even USUM dex entries described most of them in ways reminiscent of animals, with only a few noted for doing anything intelligent.

 

[hanecco]

Some examples where the games implied brainwash:

1. Silver stole two Pokemon (the starter and Sneasel) and they just followed along. It's hard to tell if they really loved him by the end.

I'd argue this treats them more like animals than being a case of actual brainwashing. If I stole my neighbour's pets, they'd probably also 'follow along', especially if they didn't have a strong bond to their previous owner. I doubt the starters really cared all that much about Prof. Elm.

===

My view is that Pokemon battling has the same purpose as play-fighting does for lion cubs. Some, not all Pokemon, want to take it to a more advanced level and train themselves (or train with a trainer). Training to an advanced level is done for competitive battling and for defence purposes (aka military). Some Pokemon might also want to evolve, so they start training.

As for intelligence, I like the idea that different species and types have different intelligences. I also think that evolved Pokemon have better intelligence than unevolved Pokemon so 3 stage evolutions have human level intelligence. But when I'm writing fanfiction, I usually give them all human-level intelligence, because when I think about it it's somewhat strange that a Starly won't have the same capacity for intelligence as a Staraptor.

One thing I've always wondered is if a species with human-level intelligence, but a completely different body (like 90% of Pokemon ever), would lead a life that appears animalistic to us. Does an animal-like life, living in the wilderness etc, imply an animal-like intelligence? If we think about our depictions of cavemen and hunter-gatherers, we seem to think so.

 

[Silktree]

I'd argue this treats them more like animals than being a case of actual brainwashing. If I stole my neighbour's pets, they'd probably also 'follow along', especially if they didn't have a strong bond to their previous owner. I doubt the starters really cared all that much about Prof. Elm.

Those pets wouldn't follow you around under normal circumstances. As for the starters, I'd argue that Prof. Elm is the only professor that has been shown to bond with any starters:

I do agree that it wasn't brainwash, as Silver was more confused than malicious. The starter might have not seen the difference between being taken without permission and with it. The Sneasel case is more problematic because it actually belonged to another trainer, but maybe it wanted a stronger one.

 

[Beth Pavell]

One thing I've always wondered is if a species with human-level intelligence, but a completely different body (like 90% of Pokemon ever), would lead a life that appears animalistic to us. Does an animal-like life, living in the wilderness etc, imply an animal-like intelligence? If we think about our depictions of cavemen and hunter-gatherers, we seem to think so.

That speaks to an ongoing debate in biology, in regards to how we measure animal intelligence. It's a debate that's got one foot in philosophy as well, though I'm sure most biologists would disagree. Classically intelligence has been measured by how similarly an animal behaves compared to a human - so tool use and language have always been of interest. The challenge is, is this really just human-centric bias?

It's an assumption that comes up sometimes in pokémon fanfiction, too. Humans would hate being confined to a Poké Ball, so some fanfiction assumes pokémon would be too (Tends to show up in the "Pokémon training is slavery" plot). Inevitably, questioning what intelligence means also has implications on ethical thinking

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

Silver stole two Pokemon (the starter and Sneasel) and they just followed along. It's hard to tell if they really loved him by the end.

I don't think pokémon would think of this as theft, really. They don't consider themselves property, they were expecting to be given to a new trainer, and if Silver had a "please join me on my journey" talk with them, we'd never have known about it. Anyway, Silver ends up with a crobat, which evolves via friendship, so I'm sure he has a good relationship with his team by the end at least.

More recently, Team Plasma captured Hugh's sister's Purrloin, which would go on to forget all about Hugh years later.

Sometimes an animal or a person will get legitimately attached to a new person. Sure, the pokémon was "stolen" but that's not the same as brainwashing. Plasma are pretty clearly well-intentioned, so it's not like they'd have been cruel to purrloin.

Dialga/Palkia and Kyurem were controlled by Cyrus and Ghetsis, respectively.

Haven't played through BW, but as I recall, Cyrus was a unique situation in which he used the red chain, yes? So, your average pokémon trainer isn't really comparable.

These are also all antagonists, rather than heroes to be emulated, in any case. This doesn't suggest that the setting is necessarily full of non-consensual servitude.

Classically intelligence has been measured by how similarly an animal behaves compared to a human - so tool use and language have always been of interest. The challenge is, is this really just human-centric bias?

Absolutely, this is anthropocentrism. Pokémon rarely (but still sometimes) have the ability to speak, literacy, complex societies and so on, at least outside of PMD. However, they pretty universally have the ability to understand humans, even complex and specific commands, and very often have good problem solving abilities. Besides, if we take the anime as our benchmark, then unless meowth is secretly some genetic aberration, the implication of his existence is that pokémon at least have the capacity for human-level intellect.

Humans would hate being confined to a Poké Ball, so some fanfiction assumes pokémon would be too

Well, pikachu hates it. And protests confinement with his superpowers exactly as you'd expect. Since other pokémon don't make the same objections, it's pretty clear they don't generally feel the same way.

 

[Nitro Indigo]

@unrepentantAuthor You messed up the quotes at the end.

Besides, if we take the anime as our benchmark, then unless meowth is secretly some genetic aberration, the implication of his existence is that pokémon at least have the capacity for human-level intellect.

I'm surprised I've never seen an E D G Y theory about the implications of Meowth's speech.

That reminds me, I came up with a Pokémon/Fullmetal Alchemist AU fanfic where Pokémon live alongside humans like people, and the ones that work for the military are kept in Pokéballs; in other words, they're being kept on a leash. Nobody likes it, and I got the idea from a common headcanon that in a world where humans died out, Pokémon would use Pokéballs as prisons. (I used that in a fanfic I wrote in 2015.)

 

[Silktree]

I don't think pokémon would think of this as theft, really. They don't consider themselves property, they were expecting to be given to a new trainer, and if Silver had a "please join me on my journey" talk with them, we'd never have known about it. Anyway, Silver ends up with a crobat, which evolves via friendship, so I'm sure he has a good relationship with his team by the end at least.

I agree that Silver is a decent trainer when all is said and done, but he does struggle at first with his priorities as a trainer. The starter theft might be easy to explain, but Sneasel already belonged to someone else (the Shuckle guy). Maybe Sneasel was bored with life in Cianwood, so this example actually shows that Pokemon can reject their trainers.

Sometimes an animal or a person will get legitimately attached to a new person. Sure, the pokémon was "stolen" but that's not the same as brainwashing. Plasma are pretty clearly well-intentioned, so it's not like they'd have been cruel to purrloin.

The guy who stole Purrloin is one of the Shadow Triad, who are Ghetsis' loyal servants who always knew the truth about his goals. He wasn't cruel to Purrloin, but...

"I stole this Pokémon five years ago in Aspertia. So it seems likely that it is the Pokémon you're talking about. But now, it only listens to my commands. Such is the fate of Pokémon that are trapped in Poké Balls!"
"Ah... I feel sorry for Pokémon. They're ruled by Poké Balls and the whims of their Trainers... Lord Ghetsis spoke of Pokémon liberation two years ago simply for his own ambitions, but... If his plans had succeeded, many Pokémon would have been saved. This Liepard--well, you knew it as a Purrloin--if it had been released, it might have returned to you. Well then..."
"You... I'll return this Pokémon to you. Considering what Lord Ghetsis is about to do, I have no further need of it."

I am not sure what the scriptwriter (Matsumiya) had in mind here. Yes, the Shadow Triad don't exactly hold normal views on Pokemon, but Liepard does prove the guy right by acting strangely around Hugh.

These are also all antagonists, rather than heroes to be emulated, in any case. This doesn't suggest that the setting is necessarily full of non-consensual servitude.

True, but it raises a troublesome possibility that there are several trainers who don't really care about their Pokemon.

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

Sneasel already belonged to someone else (the Shuckle guy).

Ah, well. I don't think it's out of the question for pokémon, particularly dark types like sneasel with a vicious temperament, to find someone like Silver much more interesting than Shuckle Guy. We have other examples (Cross from I Choose You!) of pokémon bonding positively with unpleasant people because they themselves have a dark personality.

Pokémon that are trapped in Poké Balls!"
"Ah... I feel sorry for Pokémon. They're ruled by Poké Balls and the whims of their Trainers...

This is pretty damning, but we know it's far from an absolute rule. I'm hesitant to believe that pokéballs have a mindcontrol property. Perhaps this guy just has the right personal qualities to command purrloin, and this is how he interprets his successes.

True, but it's a troublesome possibility that there are trainers who don't really care about their Pokemon.

This is absolutely the case, just as there are animal abusers in our world. But it certainly doesn't mean that partnership with pokémon is inherently a bad or unjust thing. It can and often is a very positive relationship for both parties.

 

[Chibi Pika]

I don't think it really makes sense to say that because Pokemon training can be abusive, that makes it problematic. Anything can be abusive. Parenting can be abusive, but I've never seen anyone argue that parenting is problematic lol.

Now, some things are more vulnerable to abuse than others, certainly. But when you have a superpowered monster that (1) willingly approached a human (2) challenged the human to a contest of skill to determine its suitability as a coach (3) agreed to accompany the human to get access to training and tournaments, and (4) could leave at any time if it so chose... I can't fathom why anyone would call that slavery instead of an all-expenses-paid, cross-country competitive circuit.

I'm also not sure what's up with the argument that Pokemon "spend all their time in balls when they're not in fights." That'd take a pretty terrible trainer. The anime shows trainers letting their Pokemon out for playing, lounging, and exploring all the time. Pokeballs are just a convenient transport. Even the games (which go the more animalistic route) have been giving you more and more options for your Pokemon to engage in non-battle activities. (Pokemon Amie, Poke Pelago, ect.)

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

@Chibi Pika excellent points, well-put.

I think the "spend all their time in balls" belief is probably from people misremembering or only having shallow exposure to the franchise, and having their interpretation catch on. A lot of video game abstractions, such as the population of most towns being under ten people, have influenced the fandom unduly. I've seen passionate arguments that vehicles don't exist in the pokémon world because there are no cars or roads in the games, even though Gary owns a convertible in the first episode and the G1 games had a cruise ship. People get hung up on this kind of stuff for some reason! It's a shame.

Now, purely for fairness, I will point out that your bulleted summary of pokémon acquisition is highly idealised. But even though there are incidences of pokémon being caught in less perfect scenarios, I think that on balance the anime leans heavily towards a norm of mutual respect and cooperation.

 

[Ereshkigal]

What's really funny about the "vehicles don't exist" stance is that vehicles like trucks have been depicted in the games since Gen 1. Anyone remember the Mew myth about a certain truck in Red and Blue?

And Pokemon have been depicted remaining outside of their Pokeballs since Red and Blue, too.

Ultimately, it seems like the only people who keep their Pokemon in balls for long periods of time are trainers who battle regularly.

 

[Nitro Indigo]

I've seen passionate arguments that vehicles don't exist in the pokémon world because there are no cars or roads in the games, even though Gary owns a convertible in the first episode and the G1 games had a cruise ship.

Don't forget the road under Skyarrow Bridge.

 

[hanecco]

My headcanon about vehicles is that they aren't as common as in our world because flying or teleporting Pokemon can get you to your destination just as easily. Vehicles are used for heavy loads that Pokemon would tire of quickly, like cargo, or for long distance travel. They're also used a lot in cities.

 

[Nitro Indigo]

I once saw a theory that vehicles are more common in Orre because there aren't many Pokémon there.

 

[Nitro Indigo]

Sorry for double-posting, but I just remembered a crossover fanfic I've read where Steven Stone tries to explain the Pokémon League to a character from the other world, and when she has no idea what he's talking about, he simplifies and compares Pokémon trainers to knights, which I thought was interesting. Now I'm starting to wonder if the origin of Pokémon training had something to do with a Great Offscreen War, like the one in Kalos, or the one from Lucario and the Mystery of Mew.