S07:E10 - A Royal Problem

[Music Chart Fan 818]

2 hours ago, Jeric said:

I have to disagree with that premise. Utilitarianism is a legitimate ethical philosophy, and that philosophy what is demonstrated here. I mean, "The good of the many outweigh the good of the one or few" isn't considered a massive deviation on ethical thinking by scholars. I get it doesn't fit with your own personal values, but it is a legit school of thought. It's also one that rulers tend to consider very often. The two characters that give Starlight a pass probably are the two most likely to agree with Utilitarianism.

The view that people have a fundamental right to ownership and control of their own bodies, and that violating that right without consent is wrong, is also one that is widely held, espoused, and practiced. I see that principle as the basis on which, for example, rape and slavery are nearly universally considered egregiously immoral. So I think that judging Starlight's actions using that moral framework is perfectly legitimate.

[Jeric 46,835]

39 minutes ago, Music Chart Fan said:

The view that people have a fundamental right to ownership and control of their own bodies, and that violating that right without consent is wrong, is also one that is widely held, espoused, and practiced.

Is it though? I mean it is widely held, espoused and practiced in many countries, but ... let's be intellectually honest here ... it may not even be widely practiced by the majority of our species. I can still point to entire nations that disagree with you. Truth resists simplicity and all that good stuff.

Curiously, I agree with what you are saying if the implication was that the show was applauding rape. It isn't so it doesn't bother me. That line of thinking is bordering on absurd and is kinda neither here nor there. I definitely don't agree to the point where I would suggest that utilitarianism is inherently unethical (which is why I mentioned it).  

I'm personally not a utilitarian. My family has a higher place of honor in my heart than anyone else, so several thought experiments in philosophy tend to put me at odds with utilitarianism -- and would directly make me an evil bastard in the process. The good of them definitely outweighs everything else.

 

[GrimGrimoire 4,970]

14 hours ago, AlexanderThrond said:

Sure. Although, all of that is only true for the statement "Celestia and Luna were pleased by Starlight's actions;" with an ethically contentious issue like this, I think it's valid to think they ought to have been less approving of Starlight's methods.

They were not pleased in the beginning. This is is shown in the episode. They at the end said she made the right decision and were happy and better for it all. There is a big difference. Making the right choice does not always mean you will make everyone happy all the time. Realistically speaking, they for all we know may be somewhat peeved at her for it all the same despite everything, but recognize it was the right call. But all of that would be venturing into headcanon territory.

 

14 hours ago, AlexanderThrond said:

I don't see how she shamed them or used them, but I think "violated" is more of a judgment call, because she did change their bodies without their consent and that can be seen as a violation. Some people do tend to speak too strongly about her, but if you think swapping cutie marks without consent is wrong, I don't see what else you'd call it.

Well the statement was not necessarily directed at you. But there are some who do equate what she did to shaming or using them, but that is neither here or there. As for violation... again, it goes to your own persona beliefs and reflects off of what i said before. I don't know what you would call it, it is up the viewer honestly... we don't have cutie marks and magical powers to swap them and as such we have nothing in real life to compare it to. We cannot build ethical cases based around cartoon shows with fantastical properties. We can try to compare it to something we have in real life as best we can, but it is really up to the viewer to decide how to place it. In my personal opinion, I would classify this example as educational.... but I cannot prevent someone from seeing it another way since normal morals and ethics do not apply, or at the very least are extremely difficult to argue. This discussion is evidence of that.

 

14 hours ago, AlexanderThrond said:

Perhaps, but I at least wouldn't do it without consent, and I'd like to think that most people would agree with that.

I disagree. People are not nearly as complex as they try to pretend to be... they very simply do not want to be hurt (usually) and want to be understood (again, usually). There is no way to put the situation to the test obviously, but you can use this very forum for an easy answer to the hypothetical situation... A vast majority of these users have expressed the desire they wish they could make someone else understand, and I am willing to bet several people in this very thread wish they could make someone else within this thread see things from their point of view. Remember it does not hurt them in anyway, and is only temporary, as such while some would argue it could be a punishment, others can easily argue it is educational. We utilize all sorts of things this very day and age to teach people a lesson or help them understand something with varying degrees of success and sentiment, some with consent, others without, and we all either utilize them, or agree with them every day of our lives to varying degrees.

If there were a magic button on your computer or in your room right now that said "push me to swap situations (or whatever) for 24 hours" A great majority could not hit it fast enough, because they know that the likelihood of anyone consenting with their request for understanding would go unheeded. People everyday already ask for that consent over and over and are denied in some form or another.

Like I stated, this is all rather fantastical, and the show did not in anyway expect you to dig that deep, and I admittedly am taking it to much higher extremes. They simplified it into 2 characters had a problem, that could only be solved by making them see things from the others point of view. Therapy might have solved the problem, but you won't get that in 15 minutes of anything. Which brings us to Starlight's spell... yes she could have asked for consent, however that is its own debate right there whether they would have agreed or not. After all, both thought they were right and had no reason to consent... stubbornness is a thing after all and no one wants to be proven wrong. Include my points above.. plus it being a 23 minute cartoon show that needs to get to the point. To be fair, the episode could be re-written where she does ask and with some minor changes we would get the same results, That is hindsight though.

 

1 hour ago, Music Chart Fan said:

The view that people have a fundamental right to ownership and control of their own bodies, and that violating that right without consent is wrong, is also one that is widely held, espoused, and practiced. I see that principle as the basis on which, for example, rape and slavery are nearly universally considered egregiously immoral. So I think that judging Starlight's actions using that moral framework is perfectly legitimate.

Did you seriously just compare harmlessly swapping some marks on their ass temporarily so they could see how the others job was (in a cartoon show at that) to rape and slavery?

If you think those things are in anyway similar, all I can say is wow.

 

And yes, it is widely held, espoused and practiced everyday...to a degree. It is also ignored everyday by the very same people who practice it, whether by law or by moral code.

It is ignored when you put people in prison (We don't ask if they want to go or not)

Hold children in detention (Again, we don't ask if they want to or not)

Prevent them from drinking, having sex, smoking underage (It is their body, they own it, age is irrelevant it could be argued as long as they are able to consent)

Say no to them doing drugs (again, their body, it can be argued they can do what they want as long as they know the risks)

Prevent them from bullying or assaulting others (We are preventing them from controlling their own bodies and expressing their own feelings, as well as some apparently would argue hurting ourselves as a species)

Yes, all of these are ridiculous and extreme, and all of them have been or are still be argued by people today as violating somebodies rights somehow somewhere. Heck a couple of them are even floating around in the debate pit I believe. I cannot tell anyone where to draw the line for their own moral code about what is right or wrong, but I really don't see the horrible immoral cruelty being performed here in this situation considering everything made available to us.

[Dusky Flare 11]

I think neither of you is completely wrong.

But you will not solve ethical problems lots of philosophers couldn't solve decently in the last several hundreds of years, will you?

And... Wasn't it a cool episode anyway?

[Jeric 46,835]

12 minutes ago, Dusky Flare said:

I think neither of you is completely wrong.

But you will not solve ethical problems lots of philosophers couldn't solve decently in the last several hundreds of years, will you?

And... Wasn't it a cool episode anyway?

Yes. Agreed on all of that. I will also say that even though a few of us are arguing the fine points of arguing ... myself, Thrond, and Grim all enjoyed the episode based on our stated impressions. This one just happens to leave a few threads allowing some of us to open up other discussions. 

[Redhatbrony 59]

I've finished my review right now.

And I have to say this episode was even weaker, than the one before.
I dislike daybreaker and the fight in this episode.

So it's more a rant, than a review.

But still here is my video.

 

[Music Chart Fan 818]

1 hour ago, GrimGrimoire said:

Did you seriously just compare harmlessly swapping some marks on their ass temporarily so they could see how the others job was (in a cartoon show at that) to rape and slavery?

If you think those things are in anyway similar, all I can say is wow.

Of course the degree of violation of rights differs for those actions; I'm arguing that the same basic moral principle applies in all of those cases.

2 hours ago, GrimGrimoire said:

And yes, it is widely held, espoused and practiced everyday...to a degree. It is also ignored everyday by the very same people who practice it, whether by law or by moral code.

It is ignored when you put people in prison (We don't ask if they want to go or not)

Hold children in detention (Again, we don't ask if they want to or not)

Prevent them from drinking, having sex, smoking underage (It is their body, they own it, age is irrelevant it could be argued as long as they are able to consent)

Say no to them doing drugs (again, their body, it can be argued they can do what they want as long as they know the risks)

Prevent them from bullying or assaulting others (We are preventing them from controlling their own bodies and expressing their own feelings, as well as some apparently would argue hurting ourselves as a species)

Yes, all of these are ridiculous and extreme, and all of them have been or are still be argued by people today as violating somebodies rights somehow somewhere. Heck a couple of them are even floating around in the debate pit I believe. I cannot tell anyone where to draw the line for their own moral code about what is right or wrong, but I really don't see the horrible immoral cruelty being performed here in this situation considering everything made available to us.

I believe that a person's rights (to life, liberty, and property) may be curtailed based on the extent to which that person provably violated (or would imminently have violated) others' rights. So I think the degree to which imprisonment or preventing bullying or assault (along with other punishments) is justified could broadly be determined in that fashion.

I believe that consenting people who are drinking, having sex, smoking, or doing drugs (with consent of the owners of the property on which those things are being done, when applicable) are not violating anyone else's rights, and therefore forcibly preventing people from doing those things is immoral.

As for schools holding students in detention, to my understanding, schools have students and their parents agree to abide by the rules or submit to prescribed punishments as a condition of the students' attending and participating at the school.

And yeah, essentially no one is going to be completely consistent in abiding by the moral code I've been arguing for, or almost any other one, but that shouldn't mean that people can't recognize and argue against moral violations as they see them. And examples based on, e.g., the actions characters make in a show like this one, or the situations you pose, can be useful and informative in seeing how moral principles are applied.

[Thrond 3,257]

2 hours ago, GrimGrimoire said:

I disagree. People are not nearly as complex as they try to pretend to be... they very simply do not want to be hurt (usually) and want to be understood (again, usually). There is no way to put the situation to the test obviously, but you can use this very forum for an easy answer to the hypothetical situation... A vast majority of these users have expressed the desire they wish they could make someone else understand, and I am willing to bet several people in this very thread wish they could make someone else within this thread see things from their point of view. Remember it does not hurt them in anyway, and is only temporary, as such while some would argue it could be a punishment, others can easily argue it is educational. We utilize all sorts of things this very day and age to teach people a lesson or help them understand something with varying degrees of success and sentiment, some with consent, others without, and we all either utilize them, or agree with them every day of our lives to varying degrees.

If there were a magic button on your computer or in your room right now that said "push me to swap situations (or whatever) for 24 hours" A great majority could not hit it fast enough, because they know that the likelihood of anyone consenting with their request for understanding would go unheeded. People everyday already ask for that consent over and over and are denied in some form or another.

3

I would be very upset if someone did that to me. I do not want to suddenly and unexpectedly be taken out of my life and into someone else's. I figure I'm not alone in this. So I would not do it to other people. It's a nice fantasy, but acting on it is very different from thinking about it. 

(Although, in this case, I'm willing to bet the Princesses were glad for something to shake up the tedium of their usual work. Especially Celestia.)

2 hours ago, GrimGrimoire said:

And yes, it is widely held, espoused and practiced everyday...to a degree. It is also ignored everyday by the very same people who practice it, whether by law or by moral code.

It is ignored when you put people in prison (We don't ask if they want to go or not)

Hold children in detention (Again, we don't ask if they want to or not)

Prevent them from drinking, having sex, smoking underage (It is their body, they own it, age is irrelevant it could be argued as long as they are able to consent)

Say no to them doing drugs (again, their body, it can be argued they can do what they want as long as they know the risks)

Prevent them from bullying or assaulting others (We are preventing them from controlling their own bodies and expressing their own feelings, as well as some apparently would argue hurting ourselves as a species)

Yes, all of these are ridiculous and extreme, and all of them have been or are still be argued by people today as violating somebodies rights somehow somewhere. Heck a couple of them are even floating around in the debate pit I believe. I cannot tell anyone where to draw the line for their own moral code about what is right or wrong, but I really don't see the horrible immoral cruelty being performed here in this situation considering everything made available to us.

4

In those cases, we try to justify it, and people get very upset when they don't agree with the justification. In the case of Starlight switching the Princesses' cutie marks, I'm not entirely sure the circumstances called for such drastic action. 

2 hours ago, Dusky Flare said:

And... Wasn't it a cool episode anyway?

 

I've been complaining about it for a while so I'd just like to state again that I really enjoyed the episode. 

 

[Jeric 46,835]

6 minutes ago, AlexanderThrond said:

I would be very upset if someone did that to me. I do not want to suddenly and unexpectedly be taken out of my life and into someone else's. I figure I'm not alone in this. So I would not do it to other people. It's a nice fantasy, but acting on it is very different from thinking about it. 

It also isn't exactly what happened in the episode. Their butt stamps and magic were switched, yet nothing said they had to go along with it, so an argument about being forced should take into account that they actually had a strong measure of free will here. 24 hours and boom, all back to normal. Hell Luna would have had a free day off because she lacked her dream powers.

 

It's also why the rape/slavery analogy I read earlier is horribly thought out. 

[Thrond 3,257]

6 minutes ago, Jeric said:

Hell Luna would have had a free day off because she lacked her dream powers.

 

I edited my post with something to that effect. I bet Celestia appreciated the break from her usual monotonous job as well. 

Anyway, I still consider this to be a sign of Starlight still having a habit of altering ponies' bodies and minds without their consent, which I find alarming and thought until now that the show viewed as a bad thing. The sisters' annoyance immediately after the fact felt right to me, it's just that praising Starlight for it afterwards didn't. And, in my opinion, it would take only one or two extra lines to fix that, although with this episode it's very possible that they didn't have even 30 seconds to spare. Wish it were somehow longer. 

[Ragland Tiger 3,297]

Is it me, or am I beginning to see an awful lot  of straw men  around here?

[Thaliel 116]

still not happy this was bascially pretending the comic where luna takes over for a whole day never happened

[Music Chart Fan 818]

1 hour ago, Jeric said:

It's also why the rape/slavery analogy I read earlier is horribly thought out. 

I think the basic idea is that if one accepts that actions X and Y are immoral to the extent that they violate general moral principle A, then by the same logic, action Z would also be immoral to the extent that it violates general moral principle A. Actions X, Y, and Z can be different, and can violate A to different extents, but the same logic applies to all three.

[Dusky Flare 11]

8 hours ago, Music Chart Fan said:

I think the basic idea is that if one accepts that actions X and Y are immoral to the extent that they violate general moral principle A, then by the same logic, action Z would also be immoral to the extent that it violates general moral principle A. Actions X, Y, and Z can be different, and can violate A to different extents, but the same logic applies to all three.

Ethical algebra... fascinating...

*brohoof*

 

[Cl0udChaser 3,006]

This episode is one of my favorite and Daybreaker is one of my favorite character too.

[ggg-2 3,550]

A Twilight music box. .....Hasbro, why the hell aren't you marketing this?

[CypherHoof 26,479]

6 hours ago, ggg-2 said:

A Twilight music box. .....Hasbro, why the hell aren't you marketing this?

Maybe closer to xmas, to hit the gifting season?

[takai 1,060]

Excellent excellent episode. Twilight was hilarious and felt like she did in earlier seasons, Luna and Celestia had so much personality, the jokes were all hits, and the fight with Daybreaker was just plain fun fanservice.

I think this episode conveyed it's lesson well, walking a mile in someone else's shoes isn't as easy as you think it is. Starlight is always kind of eh, but I'm surprised she actually still has a Cutie Mark manipulating spell. The banter between the sisters was a lot of fun, especially when we don't see them that often. This is an episode I've wanted for a LONG time because I think the princesses have potential for great episodes, and this one proves that.

Easily my favorite episode of the season.

[CypherHoof 26,479]

3 minutes ago, takai said:

Excellent excellent episode. Twilight was hilarious and felt like she did in earlier seasons, Luna and Celestia had so much personality, the jokes were all hits, and the fight with Daybreaker was just plain fun fanservice.

I think this episode conveyed it's lesson well, walking a mile in someone else's shoes isn't as easy as you think it is. Starlight is always kind of eh, but I'm surprised she actually still has a Cutie Mark manipulating spell. The banter between the sisters was a lot of fun, especially when we don't see them that often. This is an episode I've wanted for a LONG time because I think the princesses have potential for great episodes, and this one proves that.

Easily my favorite episode of the season.

Seen so many negative comparisons to the micro comic that I finally went and found it and... was disappointed after all the buildup. Eps is a lot closer to "trading places" than the comic, the Luna in the comic is more like the one at the start of Luna Eclipsed, does not to have any special powers over dreams, and didn't have any real learning opportunities other than "my sister works harder than I thought".  I do like that Celestia got a Spa Day though - I don't know for certain that she didn't in this episode, so that's now my headcannon

Not surprised that Starlight has that spell - she probably researched all sorts of cutiemark spells before settling on the equality one, but I think as spells in this episode go, the Twilight music box one Wins All of the Things

This is one of the all time great episodes, not least for the amount of discussion it has prompted (this threat alone is more than a dozen pages long now )

[Dusky Flare 11]

16 minutes ago, CypherHoof said:

Eps is a lot closer to "trading places" than the comic, the Luna in the comic is more like the one at the start of Luna Eclipsed, does not to have any special powers over dreams, and didn't have any real learning opportunities other than "my sister works harder than I thought". 

Please keep in mind that the comic is indeed from the time close after Luna Eclipsed.

So it seems that the comics are not canon after all, at least not the micro series.

 

[Phirun Natela 77]

With a single flip of the coin, his life changed forever.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Phirun Natela

[Dusky Flare 11]

8 hours ago, Hebbocake said:

The comics have always been canon unless it contradicts the show. It does now, so no canon.

Makes it convenient for the show (and they ARE indeed the ones who determine the course, I agree).

I just can understand that some people (incl. myself) might not be too happy with that. It makes the world inconsistent, or at least unreliable.

E.g. if you do fanfic and try to stick with canon you might just get a problem eventually if you use the comics to base on.

Anyway... the show is the only thing to rely on. And as far as I remember they stated, that consistency and logic is not first priority making it... (read or heard that somewhere... don't remember where).

Maybe I'm just a little bit sad because I liked that particular comic and the idea of the show is just so close to it.

[CypherHoof 26,479]

1 hour ago, Dusky Flare said:

Anyway... the show is the only thing to rely on. And as far as I remember they stated, that consistency and logic is not first priority making it... (read or heard that somewhere... don't remember where).

Perhaps blaming Discord is the MLP equivalent of "a wizard did it"?

[cuteycindyhoney 13,283]

People hating on Daybreaker are forgetting one thing. This "Daybreaker" is Starlight's nightmare of what such a being would be like. It didn't originate with Celestia. Having said that, I loved the episode. I thought the map wise to send Starlight instead of Twilight. Twilight's blind devotion and unquestioning love for Celestia would have prevented her from even seeing there was a problem. It would have been terrible if she came to think it was all Luna's fault. 

I loved Twilight's near terror at Starlight's swapping the regal sister's cutey-marks. She's the one pony that would know what a disaster that could lead to.  Instead, the sisters got to walk a mile in each other's hooves.

Oh, and then there's this. Who didn't smile when seeing Twilight's avatar spell?

 

[CypherHoof 26,479]

5 hours ago, cuteycindyhoney said:

I loved Twilight's near terror at Starlight's swapping the regal sister's cutey-marks. She's the one pony that would know what a disaster that could lead to.  Instead, the sisters got to walk a mile in each other's hooves.

Only problem with that is the effect it had on Starlight. I know it is very much how Twilight reacts to things getting out of her control, and yeah, Starlight needs a slap in the face when she reaches into the magic box for answers to her problems, But the dream sequence shows how devastating that was to her.  Twilight needs to learn that when people look up to her, she needs to be more careful with how she acts in front of them. Perhaps Celestia could give her lessons?

5 hours ago, cuteycindyhoney said:

Oh, and then there's this. Who didn't smile when seeing Twilight's avatar spell?

Definitely. Couldn't help but compare this to the El Goonish fairy avatars, but second thought was "if they can get these into the store for xmas, they are going to make a killing"