Worldbuilding Appendix: The Ethical Philosophy of Ponyland · 2:44am Apr 15th, 2013
Dang it, I hate it when I get friendship-nuked.
Some time back, I posted an essay arguing that Equestria was matriarchal. My next essay in this series will be on the subject of politics and will draw heavily from the novel Twilight Sparkle and the Crystal Heart Spell, which seems to confirm some of my speculations and gives us the fullest look we've yet had into Equestrian society and the ponies' view of government. However, in philosophy, ethics precedes politics, so I thought it good to pause and discuss what the basis of ethics in pony thought appears to be. My comments here will inform the next few chapters of A Mighty Demon Slayer Grooms Some Ponies, and altogether this set of essays will form the backbone of what I call the Chronoverse (after Chronomistress, the first story in this setting), the version of Equestria in which all my stories take place.
Both the original My Little Pony n' Friends and Friendship Is Magic serve a didactic purpose: both shows are explicitly interested in conveying a set of morals to their viewers. Both teach children to be kind, compassionate, and friendly. However, they appear to back up their teachings with markedly different and ultimately incompatible philosophical justifications. Granted, neither show explores deeper philosophical issues: that isn't their purpose; both are shows for children, and both keep their focus on matters children can comprehend. They are concerned first and foremost with praxis (behavior) rather than theory. Although theory grounds praxis in a philosophical system, we learn praxis first as children, and only learn theory later after our minds are developed enough to grasp it. As a show aimed at children, My Little Pony, in any of its versions, is interested solely in practical ethical lessons for the very young and therefore pushes theory out of the picture.
Nonetheless, I suggest that we can get an idea of the theory underlying the show. I propose that, at least loosely speaking, My Little Pony n' Friends, also known as G1 (which is the ancient history of G4 in the Chronoverse), is Humean in its ethics, and that Friendship Is Magic is, at least loosely speaking, Aristotelian.
I believe the two-part episode "Crunch the Rockdog," which will receive frequent reference in the next two chapters of Demon Slayer, is the linchpin of G1, giving us its most explicit ethical expression. As the episode opens, Truly and Gusty accuse Wind Whistler (the "Spock" of the G1 cast) of having no feelings because she critically examines a fairy tale with a sad ending. Shortly after, we meet a giant bulldog made out of rock, named Crunch, who ruthlessly hunts down the bushwoolies in order to turn them to stone. He sings one of the more catchy of G1's songs, in which he claims, "I hate soft . . . nice is bad . . . everything that's soft and squishes, makes me feel mean and vicious."
He certainly looks like trouble.
Megan, Danny, and some of the ponies go on a quest to stop Crunch; they encounter His Elevated Eminence, a sapient mountain who created Crunch to guard the Heartstone, a rock that gives the mountain his "feelings." His Elevated Eminence grieves because Crunch is "out of control," lacking a "heart." Megan must take the Heartstone out of the mountain and place a fragment of it in Crunch's collar, thereby giving Crunch feelings so he will no longer desire to turn everything he encounters into stone. But when Megan pulls the Heartstone from its pedestal deep inside His Elevated Eminence, the mountain suddenly becomes "a grouch" and threatens to bury Megan and the ponies in a cave-in.
At the climax, Wind Whistler confronts Crunch and announces her allegiance to him. She invites him to turn Truly, whom she calls "a sentimental fool," into stone. It is apparent that Wind Whistler is dissembling, and Crunch quickly sees through her facade. Nonetheless, though the ruse has little effect, Megan says a prayer to the Heartstone, and the magic rock responds by turning Crunch into a harmless puppy. After that, Buttons breaks off a fragment of the Heartstone, Megan places the fragment in Crunch's collar, and Crunch returns to his former powerful self, except now he's friendly.
It is clear that the word "feelings" in this episode does not mean any and all feelings. Specifically, compassion and empathy are in view. Crunch is able to laugh sardonically and to get angry; he is not lacking in all feelings, but only in certain positive feelings. Similarly, Wind Whistler is not accused of lacking all emotion whatsoever, but only the ability to empathize with fictional characters. When the Heartstone is taken from His Elevated Eminence, His Elevated Eminence does not become emotionless, but becomes wrathful and selfish, demanding his Heartstone back instead of caring for the people his creation is harming.
This view of morality as based in feeling is not unique to this episode, but appears to summarize the attitude of G1 generally. Even the show's theme song conveys this: "Whither you wander, hither and yonder, letting your heart be your guide." G1 repeatedly emphasizes the confirmation of feelings as the basis of ethics. This is clear again in the episode "Baby, It's Cold Outside," in which an evil penguin king attempts to freeze all of Ponyland. When the king inadvertently freezes his own son, Megan sings him the song, "How Could You Be So Cold?" and the king recognizes his own lack of compassion. Similarly, in "The Glass Princess," Princess Porcina willingly turns all of Dream Valley to glass, but has a change of heart when she encounters the ponies face-to-face and realizes they are beings like herself; her compassion, her "feelings" are awakened, so she repents.
And here we go again.
This is reminiscent of David Hume's view of ethics. Hume proposed what we now call the "Naturalistic Fallacy"; according to Hume, an "ought" cannot be derived from an "is." That is to say, there is, according to Hume, no logical connection between facts and obligations. Taken to its logical end, no obligations can exist at all in Hume's system: for example, the mere factual existence of my grocery bill cannot create an obligation on me to pay for my groceries, and I could therefore claim that the facts of my having picked up groceries at the store and bagged them does not obligate me to give money for them. Since this is the destruction of society, Hume attempts to get out of the dilemma by suggesting that ethics is based in what he calls "fellow feeling": a sense of compassion unites men to one another and inclines them to be good to one another. Of course, this begs the question of how we can know what it means to be good to one another, since conceptions of good actions cannot be derived from factual statements, and it also begs the question of why we ought to obey our fellow feeling, since the fact of its existence does not place on us an obligation to obey it.
The moral philosophy of G4 is laid out in the pilot episodes of Friendship Is Magic, and it is basically a form of virtue ethics, which finds its first and perhaps its clearest exploration in Aristotle. Virtues are good habits, which Aristotle describes as means between extremes: in one of the best-known examples, he depicts bravery as a mean between cowardice and foolhardiness; the brave man is he who faces danger at the right time and in the right way. Aristotle also places a heavy emphasis on friendship, describing it at length and proposing it as the foundation of society. In this way, ethics leads directly into politics: moral virtue is conducive to the virtue of friendship, and friendship is the virtue on which the polity is based.
Friendship Is Magic proposes something similar. It presents five virtues, the "Elements of Harmony," without which the sixth Element, "Magic" (which should be understood to be specifically the magic of friendship) cannot appear. Friendship, also called harmony, appears to underpin politics in Equestria: the kingdom was founded upon it, as is made clear in the pageant of "Hearth's Warming Eve," and it is so important that the mention of its absence in times past elicits a shocked gasp from the pageant's audience.
I know, right?
For this same reason, it is fitting that Twilight Sparkle and nopony else of the mane cast should ascend to princesshood: Twilight's friends represent virtues necessary and conducive to friendship, but Twilight represents friendship itself. Her friends support her, and she accomplishes nothing without their help, but still she surpasses them because she represents the end toward which they are directed.
After this brief survey of the ethics of Ponyland, we might easily ask, how does the ethics of G4 escape the criticism hinted at in G1, the aforementioned Naturalistic Fallacy? How does one get from mere observations to virtue ethics?
Obviously, as already mentioned, the show itself is not interested in elaborating a theory, so we will get no answer to this question from the episodes of Friendship Is Magic. Nor in fact will we get the answer from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, since it is an ethical treatise specifically and therefore also concerned mostly with praxis. The answer to the question comes from Aristotle's Metaphysics and is elaborated in what is called Natural Law Theory, which is perhaps the only system that escapes Hume's criticism and provides him a satisfactory answer. The answer is that the connection between "is" and "ought' is a metaphysical one: final causes, which are ends or directions or purposes that exist in nature as facts, provide, when applied to free-willed beings, the "oughts" that such beings should pursue in order to obtain the good. But that takes us beyond the intention of this brief post.
I believe the underpinning ethical philosophies of G1 and G4 also explain the different social structures of the two shows. In G1, the ponies are a small group living on the fringe of a wilderness. They are disorganized and constantly in danger. Their behavior, though generally well-meaning, is inconstant, and they are often lazy. They do indeed follow their feelings, "letting your heart be your guide." Although it sounds pleasant, in practice this can easily mean merely following whims or appetites, and that is indeed what the ponies appear to spend most of their time doing. By contrast, in G4, the ponies emphasize virtue, which when rightly understood means the subordination of inclinations to reason, and that necessarily means doing the right thing even when it is difficult, even when it is unpopular, even when all personal desires say to do otherwise. Doing what they must even when it is hard, the ponies of G4 do not huddle on the edge of a wilderness as their ancestresses did, but instead rule an empire.
Very well said.
Well, I've read this through at least three times now, and I still can't disagree with anything you've said.
What would you say to an exemplarist model of virtue theory as a possible alternative?
Thanks for the article, DGD. It's the inspiration for deep philosophical thought from just watching the pilot episodes of Friendship is Magic that most drew me into joining the herd - after you brought the show my attention, of course! MLP is still a children's cartoon, so the messages are understandably simplistic (toy model), but even so, the lessons are sophisticated enough to capture the gist of classical virtue ethics.
As you well know, I've been interested in writing up my own long essay on the Aristotelian nature of the FiM moral lessons to submit to the Apple Cider project, so any article by a Brony touching on the parallels of pony ethics with classical moral philosophy is sure to pique my interest. Since we're so close in our philosophical approaches, I'm not sure I have much to add. You even mentioned the often-cited "is-ought" problem, which I haven't really dealt with it in my writings so far, as I didn't expect to run into too many brony moral skeptics, but I guess it helps to be prepared for anything. Certainly more could be said on this topic, but you can only do so much in one short blog post.
I hadn't really thought much about G1's moral lessons, so it was really nice of you to do this comparison with G4.
I certainly agree.
Thanks Davidson
1009195
I think any ethical system that attempts to dodge metaphysics is open to Hume's criticism. It was by attempting to eliminate metaphysics entirely (though he failed) and have nothing but empirical data that Hume's philosophy lost not only ethics but even cause and effect, and fell into utter absurdity. Nonetheless, after starting with an outrageous and self-contradictory assertion (the general and universal claim that all knowledge is limited and specific), he was quite rigorous, and so the Naturalistic Fallacy, like some of his other ideas, cannot be dismissed out of hand.
I think this is especially a problem for the so-called "New Natural Lawyers," who try to do Natural Law without the Natural Law.
From what I know of Virtue Ethics, it is basically Natural Law's twin brother, so I sometimes (as here) goof and use the two interchangeably; when Alasdair MacIntyre talks about the habits and attributes leading to excellence, he is basically talking about final causes, but without using the term.
I think Exemplarist Virtue Ethics must beg the question of why I should take an exemplar to be an exemplar. Even if the exemplar lives well and happily as Aristotle's hypothetical good men do, I could still stubbornly ask why I should prefer to live well and happily with my virtue instead of wretched and miserable with my vice. And if the exemplar gets insulted, tortured, and executed in horrific fashion like the Christians' Good Man, or for that matter like Plato's, then I could easily ask why in the world I would ever want to live virtuously if that's what I can expect it to get me.
However, I imagine the ponies would more likely be Exemplarists than Natural Lawyers. Living in a children's world as they do, I would expect them to have no metaphysics. But I would expect them, childlike, to point toward those especially admirable ponies--the princesses and Celestia particularly--and say, "I want to be like that!"
This might call for another essay.
1009730
Please do. These things are always an enjoyable read.