He’s just mad because he can’t acquire all the apple juice that I’m acquiring. (x)
People who think Ariel only wanted to be human so she could get with Eric
THIS SO SO SO SO MUCH!!
Hello, she wanted to be human before she ever even SAW Eric! She had a whole SONG about it!
While that’s definitely not true, she is still rewarded for doing virtually everything wrong for the entire movie.
Let’s look at this for a minute.
At the start of the film, Ariel’s main wrongdoing is… not doing what her dad wants. She’s more interested in her collection of human stuff. She wants to be human, but she’s not allowed to have any contact with them, because her father hates them.
She saves a human from drowning. You can argue that maybe Triton has a reason for hating the shit out of humans, but all we’ve seen so far is that a young woman had the basic decency not to let someone die. And she then did exactly what she was supposed to do. She saved him, but she left right away, and she was incredibly nervous that something bad would happen to her for it.
It did. Triton hears about it, and in return, he blows up all of his daughter’s things.
Remember, Ariel is sixteen. Her father could do almost anything else in the world. He knows that she’s young and doesn’t really understand the distinction between being in love and having a crush. He could sit down with her and explain it. He could make any effort to find out why this means so much to Ariel. Instead, he wrecks her sanctuary, her most valuable possessions, and then leaves.
So Ariel has been told, indirectly, that everything she wants is wrong, everything she feels is wrong, and her father dislikes her just for being who she already is. Given all that, it’s hardly surprising that the next thing she does is run off to the nearest sea witch to be all “hey, give me legs, I’m out.” Smart choice? No, but she wants to be out by any means necessary, because she’s trapped in a space that’s emotionally abusive and restrictive.
Yes, making a deal with Ursula is definitely a very bad idea. But then she realizes that she doesn’t actually have the slightest idea how to live among humans. She does her best to correct that, to engage with people, to fit in. And she gets close… until Ursula sees that she’s perilously close to success. Ursula intervenes because her only interest in Ariel was as a bargaining chip against Triton.
By the end of the film, she finally does get to be human with her voice… because Triton can do that any time he wants. He could have done that literally from the beginning of the film.
So Ariel gets “rewarded” in the sense that her desperate actions and one really bad choice were enough to finally convince her father that this really matters to her. I don’t think that’s really a matter of being rewarded for a long list of bad choices. (That would come later, in The Incredibles, where Mr. Incredible gets exactly what he wants by making a long list of selfish and bad decisions.)
Is it weird that I’m a rationalist and a virtue ethicist? IDK, I feel like most rationalists are utilitarians and consequentialists, and while I tend to agree with many of them on questions of applied ethics,* I’m definitely not a consequentialist in the way I ground or approach moral questions.
*since being mindful of consequences and utility is imo a virtue (for my own peculiar definition of the term.)
Yes and no.
I am of the opinion that in theory any ethical position can be expressed via any of consequentialist, deontologist, or virtue ethics, although some positions may be considerably easier and more natural to express in one than the other.
When it comes to actual practical decision making, I think virtue ethics has many advantages. The "corrupted hardware" concept is conventionally used to argue for practical deontology on consequentialist grounds, but I think that, if anything, it’s an even BETTER argument for virtue ethics.
What’s weird about virtue ethics to me is the normative basis. It seems weird to me to approach ethics from the basis of “I want to be a good person” rather than “I want to help people”. From the perspective of the second, the first seems selfish. But, well, anti-realism, so I can’t say that you’re wrong, just that from my perspective your weird.
I think consequentialism (even without utilitarianism) is extremely hard. Meta-consequentialism is a lot easier. I think Virtue ethics probably leads to better outcomes on average than trying to apply consequentialist utilitarianism, for example, so meta-consequentalism would tell me to choose it over consequentialist utilitarianism even if I think consequentialist utilitarianism is in some sense “better”
Ooooh I like meta-consequentialism, totally stealing that. I’ve always been like “well, I’m a consequentialist in the sense that I think the ultimate basis for evaluating options lies in understanding their consequences, but usually ‘consequentialism’ also implies a certain set of consequences that matter and also utilitarianism, which I don’t agree with” and meta-consequentialism is a much more succinct way to express that.
As for OP: mine is a virtue ethics because I believe human psychology (both epistemologically and behaviorally) is demonstrably habit/pattern/generalization based (or, to steal a phrasing I got from ozymandias314, virtue ethics is how you implement consequentialism on human hardware). That being said, my ethics is also explicitly selfish and the end goal is a flourishing happy life for me, so I can’t exactly combat fnord888's objection.
I’m somewhat confused about your idea that the normative end goal of your ethics is explicitly selfish but that you endorse virtue ethics for meta-consequentialist reasons.
I actually think virtue ethics is frequently a good way to implement consequentialism on human hardware (and that naively implement consequentialism on human hardware frequently has bad consequences). So in terms of “virtue ethics for meta-consequentialist reasons” I’m more or less on board even though my normative end goal is helping people*.
But I’m not sure how you get to meta-consequentialism in the first place if your goal is selfish (unless the consequences that are addressed by your meta-consequentialism are selfish).
*In more detail, I don’t think meta-consequentialism actually mandates selecting one specific tool for moral decision-making. The way to implement consequentialism on human hardware, at least for me and best as I can tell, is to have a set of multiple decision-making tools. Some situations are best considered through the lens of duties, some through virtues, and sometimes even for humans it’s appropriate to weigh consequences against each other.
Kenguru is a tiny electric hatchback for wheelchair users
By Ellis Hamburger, theverge.com
Kenguru’s electric car has no seats, and you drive it by putting your hands on motorcycle-style handlebars. It’s built for wheelchair users, who can roll right through the rear hatch of the car into the driver’s area. The Austin-based…
THIS IS SO COOL.
homeschool-winner asked: Re: Dirk inversion theory; I absolutely disagree! Bards and Princes, both being destructive classes, would naturally act in opposition to their aspect; Eridan had no faith in the lies of angels or the reality of magic; he believed the situation held no possibility of positive results, and as such, he betrayed his friends; he was a Prince of Hope who lacked hope. Kurloz has his mouth sewn shut, constantly smiling serenely, having not an angry bone in his body; a Prince of Rage, with no Rage.
The Prince of Rage also directly made others have faith, because what is destroying something if not creating its opposite? A bookburner could be said to Destroy Light, but when Light is destroyed, what remains is Void. And the same principle applies to Dirk; as one who destroys Heart, he naturally creates Mind, because Mind is what remains in the abscence of Heart. He acts Mindy because he has no Heart to speak of, which is what places him as definitively acting as a proper Prince of Heart.
This is a good point! However, I’m not entirely sure how much of that has to do with Princes being destructive classes, and thus naturally given to displaying their inverse aspect, or whether it has to do with the fact that none of the Princes we’ve seen have been particularly successful or well-adjusted to their mythological role.
None of them seem in tune with their role in the same way that, say, Jade or Roxy is. It could be that the Princes (active destroyers) are, to varying degrees, resisting their natures rather than embracing them, and because of that are acting more like Sylphs (passive creators). Under that reading, Eridan betraying his friends, causing them to be overcome with fear and anger, was him inviting the creation of Rage. Kurloz, on the other hand, has created Faith. He hasn’t really directly destroyed much of anything since the incidents with Meulin and Mituna. And, notably, despite being the closest to him and the most damaged by him, neither of them ever question his motives or loyalty the same way the other pre-Scratch trolls do. Meulin in particular has apparently gone so far as to convert to Kurloz’s religion! And as for Dirk, well, I already made that case in the post you’re responding to.
Ultimately, the three princes all seem to behave more in line with their inverse aspects, and they’re certainly destructive, so there is definitely something about being a Prince. The simplest explanation as you say: decreasing one aspect is equivalent to increasing its inverse. Jade said as much when telling Roxy about her powers as a Rogue of Void. If Roxy can cause something to exist by stealing its nonexistence, then it’s natural that Princes would indirectly create their inverse aspect by destroying their actual one. Kurloz may have inspired Hope by destroying Rage, Eridan definitely created Rage by destroying Hope, and Dirk creates Mind at the same time that he destroys Heart.
Around the Rim by Johnson Tsang
you are so thOROUGHLY NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT
Oh, my God, this is beautiful, and now I’m nearly crying. This. ALL OF THIS OMG.
When my best friend and I were in high school, trying desperately (and usually failing) to either not be gay or at least not hate ourselves for being gay, she once confessed to me, crying, that one of the reasons she didn’t want to be a lesbian is that lesbians aren’t happy in love, that their relationships can’t last, that she’d never seen happy lesbians in stable relationships. This shit matters so hard y’all.
I know I already reblogged this but the added commentary is necessary and important so I’m doing it again.
To all the clueless assholes who say it doesn’t matter when lesbian characters are mistreated, abused, hurt and left alone and heartbroken, never getting to have happy relationships
And to all the asshole writers who think it doesn’t matter if they show lesbian characters being abused and suffering and not being able to have happy relationships with the women they love…or who think that it doesn’t matter if they don’t portray lesbian characters and relationships at all
IT FUCKING MATTERS
We’re sick and tired of having to make do with ‘subtext’ and ‘hints’ and teasing…and sick of the only lesbian representation we DO get always having things end horribly for them
this is why I tend to stay from most LGBTQ+ YA novels
because they are always sad and everyone ends up depressed or without their family or friends support or somewhere tragic
I DONT WANT THAT
I want to read books where the girl has her family and friends support and she meets another girl and they are kickass lesbians/bisexuals/pansexuals in love and it isn’t a tragedy
I want to read books where we in the lgbtq+ community are seen happy and healthy without the whole ‘come to terms struggle’ that seems to follow us in the media
I don’t want to have to keep expecting the person like me to lose everything just because she happens to love a girl
I actually have a huge problem with most GSM novels because they’re all tragedy and heartbreak. If there’s a happy ending at all, it’s fleeting and in the final pages after a novel of torment and misery, struggle, depression, and hate. Meanwhile the straight kids get the cute coming-of-age stories with the sly romances and sneaking out at night, how to tell that boy you like how much you like-like him, where do you put your hands during the school dance, why’s your mom so upset about you dating Bobby because he’s a nice guy under that bad-boy exterior, but their main struggle isn’t about their ability to have a romance, it’s about something else entirely then they fall in love by the end and realize they were Meant To Be, or they valiantly defy all naysayers of their love together, winning over the hearts and minds of those around them and defeating the Big Baddy if there is one. You never doubt they’ll lose. Queer kids always lose. Their stories are made to lose. Queer kids fight oppressive society, all alone, and usually fail because that’s too much for a confused queer kid to handle all by themselves. Always by themselves. Because any friends that matter die, loved ones shun them, love interests brush them off, someone gets AIDS either because they were raped or to tell the reader that condoms are important, and idols are either dead, straight, or end up being terrible people. They’re alone in the beginning and they’re alone in the end, and if they do find a relationship it’s not the same storybook romance the straight kids get.
And if there is a happy story? It’s ignored because it’s “unrealistic”.