Animation Source Forums

OK, first off I'm going to set the rules before anyone skips over them:
*No bickering. Post your views and any evidence for them in a calm, civilized manner.
*No name-calling.
*No insults.
*Clean language only.
*Anyone who breaks these rules will be asked to stop. If they persist, they will be reported to the mods.
I often get into debates with people on this site over the moral behavior of a character in a story, and I can't recall a single time when the other person didn't say at some point, "They're just dogs. It would be wrong for humans to do it, but for dogs it's just natural." Now, I don't want to insult anyone here, but hearing (OK, reading) that argument always makes me think, "Man, how deep in the sand is this guy's (or girl's) head. Again, I am not trying to insult anyone by saying this. I just think it's crazy that people can overlook the flaws in that kind of logic.
Now, I agree that dogs cannot be expected to measure up to human moral standards in reality. Dogs in the real world do not know right from wrong. They may do things that seem moral, like saving people from burning buildings. But that probably comes from their loyalty to humans and their pack instinct. They are, in essence, programmed to protect people- specifically those they are loyal to. A dog belonging to a burglar will attack a police officer just as quickly as the officer's dog will attack the burglar.
But if you think about it, we are not dealing with ordinary dogs in these stories. To show what we are dealing with, let's say a person was turned into a dog without significantly altering their mind. Could that person still grasp right and wrong? Yes. Would it be right to hold him (or her) accountable for doing something wrong? Yes. This is basically how it is with stories about anthropomorphic characters (i.e. dogs that talk to each other like Balto, or to people like Scooby-Doo). Anthropomorphic characters are, essentially, human characters in animal form. As such, they are almost always endowed with human morals to one degree or another.
I know some of you are laughing, and some of you are just shaking your heads like I'm some kind of idiot. But before you write me off as some kind of dork, consider the Balto trilogy for proof. In the first movie, viewers know that Balto is the good guy because he risks his life to save people who have always hated him. True, his affection for Jenna was almost certainly a motive, but please note that at the worst times it was Rosie's name he was whispering. Through Jenna, he had come to care about a human he barely knew. We know that Jenna is good because she cares about Balto in spite of, and indeed perhaps because of, the way everyone else looks at him. In the real world, one might chalk this up to hormones, but it's plain that this case is something more: love. Not lust, generated by simple instinct, but true emotional love on a human level. And that love motivates her to do everything she can do to help and encourage him, further establishing her status as a good character. Steele, on the other hand, is marked a bad guy because he acts outside moral law by trying to advance his own agenda at the expense of an entire town. The movie was clearly designed for viewers to judge the characters by their moral decisions, not their adherence to mere instinct.
The trend continues in Wolf Quest with Balto's concern about Aleu's wolflike appearance, as well as his guilt when she almost gets killed because he had hidden the truth from her. He is motivated largely by his protective instinct as a father, but at the heart of the matter lies his guilt, an emotion that couldn't possibly be there if he did not know he had failed to do the right thing. In Wings of Change, we see the reverse of this in the sled team's selfish reluctance to save a man in danger. We see them as heroes when they come to the rescue because they have stopped doing what made sense and started doing what is right. And we see Balto as a still greater hero because once again, he did what was right from the very beginning.
The trend is the same in almost any movie about animals, be it a fairly down-to-earth plot like The Fox and the Hound or a far-fetched plot like Cats and Dogs. To face animals with moral dillemas, it is neccessary to grant them the human capacity for moral reasoning and behavior. So the next time you're about to say, "They're just dogs," remember that they are not ordinary ones.

To paraphrase a friend of mine, "Riddle me this, Batman: What do you want?" Seriously. Where are we going with this? Back down that same ol' lane? The same ol' morality argument again? How many topics are going to have to get locked before we figure out that this discussion isn't relevant anymore?

And yes, I know that wasn't your argument here. But I'd be foolish to think that wasn't where you were going.

But gee, I'll bite, just to see what you had up your sleeve. I'll concede your point. Balto etc. act in a morally cognizant way. What of it?

Dragon Tamer, I'm sorry to say that I cannot quite agree with you.
I won't walk around the field, so I'll put it simply; "It's fanfictions."
Stories created by individuals with no affiliation with Balto's creators.

Regarding the moral behaviour of the characters envisioned in these fanfictions, your arguments cannot quite stand as firmly as they should, or deserve, simply because it is weakened by the fact that each individual has individual thoughts, thus have different views, opinions on morals, etc etc. than one another. This goes for animals too.
You are right, however, that some morals might be questionable (personally, I've read quite a lot of fanfictions with questionable morals, events, descriptions, etc).
However, I believe that, even in real life, the zoologic community (that is, 100% of the world's animals) do, in some way, have a moral comprehension. Surely, they do not worship all which we worship, surely they do not comprehend all we comprehend. But there are many universal laws for living creatures. Among some, I'll mention three of them.
"All beings on Planet Earth, are bound by universal feelings; love, pain, hate, anger, happiness, fear, hopelessness, despair. Thus, they are equalient to their other co-inhabitants of earth."
"All beings on planet Earth, are bound by a sense of morality and logic, thus increasing their ability of worldly comprehension."
"All beings on planet Earth, are bound by suffering. If a creature dies an unnatural death, for unnatural reasons, the being shall suffer greatly."

These morals of animals, has evolved far beyond our understanding, thus we comprehend them, although claim they "act on instinct" to lower our own feeling of insignificance.

I shall shorten this thoroughly, however;
Surely, human morals and feelings are far stronger than that of an animal, and surely the animals are incapable of emotional blows of a human level, but all are still bound by some of the same feelings, morals. It is the work of God himself, Dragon Tamer. Every living creature has morals, but we humans are unable to comprehend, and learn about it.


As final words, I want to state that films like Balto, the characters, fan fictions, etc. is just that: Fiction. It is not real. You're right that the creators put effort in giving the characters of Balto the ability to make us judge them by morals, behaviour, you name it, but still, it is just an animated film... None of this, perhaps except from the few parts of the real story they put in it, really happened.


Surely, you must think I am some kind of an idiot now, especially since I am not quite sure if I have gotten a bit off-topic here, or that I misread your post at some point (want to buy paragraphs), but these thoughts are simply that; my thoughts about the subject.

Well, at least the first person to show up was someone civilized. I was afraid my first response would be... well, I won't name names. I respect your thoughts, but if I might ask you a few questions: first of all, am I to understand that you believe in moral relativism? That concept is a myth. As C.S. Lewis once explained it, morality is no more a matter of the individual than mathematics. People get it wrong sometimes, just as they may make a mistake "doing their sums." But their opinions do not change the outcome.
Second, you say that all animals have a sense of right and wrong. May I ask how ants or flies or mosquitos understand morality? All a mosquito grasps is going towards food, water, or a potential mate, and flying away from danger. I realize that the topic at hand concerns dogs (and in some cases on this site, lions), but it's not wise to go making blanket statements like that.
Lastly, you seem to have missed my main point entirely. These are anthropomorphic characters we are dealing with. They are given, on some level at least, a level of understanding that they would not posess in real life. Since you brought up the matter of understanding the world around them, I'll address that. Let's take a look at Balto. In real life, he might have cared about Rosie because she was kind to him (although it would have taken Rosie much longer to warm the heart of a real mistreated dog, and especially a wolf-dog, than it did in the movie). He would probably have understood that she was sick. But he wouldn't have understood the medicine, as you will readily see if you've ever seen a dog being taken to a vet's office. On Jenna's part, she again would have cared for Rosie, and might have been attracted to Balto. She, like Balto, would have understood Rosie was sick. But she wouldn't have understood the medicine. And Steele is, ironically, perhaps the best example on this point. All a normal sled dog would probably understand (judging from what I know of sled dog behavior) is obedience to the musher. He wouldn't have been looking at the whole thing as an ego trip. He might have attacked Balto when he showed up, owing to their intense (albeit one-sided) rivalry. But no real dog would have delliberately sabotaged his team's chances of getting back. That was unquestionably an act of evil- something that can only exist in a being that at least understands right and wrong.

Indeed, you're right. I figure I missed your main point entirely, but the reason I did not mention anthromorphic animals in my post, is simply because I have nothing to say about them.

A wasp or a mosquito. Scientifically, they are not supposed to have any other feelings than hunger, albeit their role in the world helps keep population of animals, mainly mammals, including us humans, at bay (we're talking about diseases, etc.), and similar. Since, according to the bible, God created all creatures of the world to have a purpose (might've misread it), and having a purpose of life introduces a moral; if you are not doing what you are supposed to, then you are breaking that moral. (Please, no religious discussions, although I broke my own rule. *slaps self* And, please do correct me if I am wrong... these bible things are hard.)
The wasps are similar, only they do not suck the blood of living creatures, they are, indeed, helping to spread the populations of our vegetation. Also, a moral. If it doesn't do as it is supposed to (among bees and other pollen-carriers), it will have an easier life. But this messes up the entire world, as Earth is dependant on plants to live, just as all creatures are. This moral is called a "Dilemma", which is one of several.

And indeed, morals are completely subjectively in ones mind, but there are many relations between us humans, and them animals. For instance, had our mate been in danger (the word mate loosely, but intended used for co-relational purposes), would it be morally correct not to protect her/him? No. This applies for the animal world as well. A-ha, we have an objective moral issue.
I hope you understand what I mean. I know you might think something like "But it's instincts!", but you're wrong. Scientifically proven, mammals are not born with the instinct of protecting their dear. It is a socalled "fake" instinct, created by our feelings of friendship and love. Had we not loved anyone, or been friends with anyone, this would not have been evolved in that way.
This also applies for animals, although their processation of feelings are quite different. For an animal, let's say the wolf, they fall in love with an animal of the opposite gender, they have pups and lives happily together for about a year, perhaps two.
This is when their natural instincts, and genetical build enters the scene, from both parts, pushing them away from each others. The mother wolf will become wary of the father, and he will simply lose interest and no longer care. The mother wolf will often also push herself away from her children at the same time.



Going back on topic, I do, indeed, believe in moral relativism, as much as I believe in spiritualism and shamanism. (And trust me, I do believe in those)

Regarding the fact about the anthromorphic animals, your statement on your first post seems to weaken just a little.


This is, indeed true. But are we talking about human understanding? Because if we are, I just want to state that all human individuals have a different way of thinking, thus their morals and understanding of the world is different. Yes, indeed there are more "good" people than "bad" people in the world, so my statement is also weakened a little right here. I was simply saying that there is no complaining about the morals of other people, even anthromorphic characters. In the real world, we are created by nature to think differently, but in the fictional world, anthromorphic animals, or whatever people create, are non-existant, with a personality not shaped in any way by community, but by the writer him- or herself.

In short, the world "moral" is subjective to each an every one of us (within limitations), and what may be morally incorrect to you, could perhaps be morally correct with another.



Surely, you're right, Stone Paw. But I would like to point out that people are free to write that they wish. Now, if Jenna suddenly began dating Steele, for no reason, I would quit reading at that point, but what if Steele had decided he really wanted her, and therefore started to act much much more kindly, non-arrogant etc., but faking it to make Jenna believe so, while he in reality is destroying Balto emotionally (as he's tried in the films). Now, that would be something I would have accepted.
As long as it's done tastefully, within the rules, and with relatation to the previous films, Balto FanFictions are like a fight for your life; anything goes.

I repeat, the way they look at morality may be different, but it all boils down to the fact that right and wrong cannot be simply bent to one's whim any more than two plus two can equal six.
As for what you said about instincts, you have committed two errors: one logical, the other zoological. Zoologically speaking, you seem to have confused wasps with bees. Bees carry pollen. Wasps eat other bugs. Second of all, bees and other pollen carriers do what they do bacause they are feeding on the nectar (and sometimes the pollen as well). The pollen does, essentially, the same thing that a burr does: it attaches to a passing animal with the purpose of, hopefully, coming off in a place where it can grow. And speaking of purpose, that's another mistake you've made. Having a purpose doesn't always mean understanding it. A hammer does not know what its purpose is. Lest you think that's too belittling of animals, I should point out that a bomb-sniffing dog doesn't know what a bomb is, or at least not what it does. All the dog knows is, "I'm supposed to find this scent."

Thank you, Stonepaw. You understand my point perfectly.

*sigh* Hate to admit it, but I did confuse wasps with bees at some point, I guess, although I stink at insectology =P

But I still stand on my opinion firmly, and I will vote "No" and leave this topic. Since you seem to be looking for errors that thoroughly, I cannot quite see why you cannot find the errors in your first post... But I will not bother to discuss it any further.
What I am trying to point out, is frankly; most of the members could not care less, me included, about morals in a fanfiction. If it is done tastefully, and professionally, anything goes.

What errors?


99% of the fanfics I have gotten into such debates over have been neither.

I wholly agree with Stone Paw here. His explination is mine to the 'T' on why I voted yes is here as my opinion on the matter.

As obvious as your reasons for this topic are, you make a good point, but it still can't defeat the purpose of fanfics, kiddo. I'm not even gonna explain it. It's a no brainer. I don't care how "wrong" it is, even tho these animals have more personification than real life animals, they're still animals, and they still have animal instincts, and they're still not real, and they're still fanfics.

May I ask what you want proven here? I dunno if I skipped over your conclusion due to the fact that indenting seems to be an issue here or what, but I don't see much of an argument here. I see a point, yes, and I can see where you're coming from, but its just one quill out of many better ones, which are mostly found in the opposition. But if you could answer my question, keeping it short sweet and to the point, that would be peachtastic.

Exactly. I some cases, it doesn't matter whether the characters are going on morals or instinct. Take Homeward Bound, for instance. The behavior of the characters in that story, particularly Shadow, could have been motivated by ethics, instinctive loyalty, or both. But when you have an animal behaving in a manner clearly against human morality, it should either be depicted as immoral or displayed as simply a-moral (without morals at all). Anything else is poor writing and, quite frankly, not a very good tribute to a series like Balto.
By the way, why is it that I see a quote from cat, but no post from cat?

You mention human morality as though it were some sort of constant. Human morality is subject to whoever is looking at it. The Nazis thought they were morally justified because the Jews and others were less than human. Racists think they're justified because other races are inferior. Christians think they're justified because they have the backing of a being they like to call God. It's all based on your particular beliefs, what you were brought up with, and what you're seeking to achieve.