Are Pokémon people?

[Noivern]

I've been thinking about this lately. You see, Pokémon are probably more than really funny-looking monsters that happen to look like some kind of real life animal or a mythological creature. Or some inanimate object that happens to be living (up to a certain degree).

Their behaviour these days are very human-like when you think about it, or in case of Mystery Dungeon, exactly. Hmm...

Makes me wonder if Pokémon qualify to be people.

 

[PiccoloX]

Depends on the source. The game Pokemon are more monstrous than the Anime Pokemon due to their diets alone. Anime Pokemon all eat berries, unless they eat grass or leaves. The Pokedex in the game tells you who's eating who sometimes. lol

 

[Karpi]

For a model of how pokemon interact with each other, I like to think of herbivores in our world (mostly mammals and birds). In the zoo I see giraffes and ostriches put together, and they sleep next to each other and whatnot. In my city there are birds and squirrels who are omnipresent and share the space of people's yards. Rabbits sometimes included. And so on.

Not that these animals are friends necessarily, they just don't care if the other is around because neither is a predator. And to me that's how the vast majority of pokemon behave toward other pokemon species, with the exception of obvious predator-prey relationships (Goldeen+Sharpedo, Swellow+small bug types, Skitty+Houndoom, etc).

I wouldn't say the general group of pokemon are "human status", but "dog status", sure. I know they can be trained and will communicate with their trainers, but we have absolutely no evidence that different species of pokemon come together in the wild to form complex interspecies social groups without humans pushing them toward it. Your pet dog can be trained and can be friends with your cat and your rabbit, but if that same dog had grown up in the wild, it's not going to seek out cats and rabbits to be friends with, nor will it seek out humans to become more intelligent, even though it has the capability. I would say this is the base level of intelligence of all pokemon, seeing as they all show the capability to be trained and interact with humans successfully even though some are just worms or sludge.

Some species we know are more intelligent than that, such as Lapras. But then again, some real animals are more intelligent, like gorillas. I would say that they probably deserve more protection than the rest. Meaning Lapras herds should be protected by law as "human" whose needs (territory, fish, clean water) are just as important as a city full of humans. Would it really be surprising to find out that Alakazams had a complex society? I don't think so.

It's this second, more intelligent group of pokemon where morality comes into play. Is it fair to capture and train them when they are aware of exactly what's going on? Having a pet cat that will love you because you feed it is a lot different than having a pet gorilla that will resent you for its lack of freedom.

So how do you draw the line between whether or not pokemon deserve human-like rights? That's the tough part. Maybe if there is demonstrable evidence that the pokemon approach the humans and try to convey that they want to be left alone. Even if it's not peaceful. Cattle will never band together to take out the humans holding them prisoner in revenge because they don't have that kind of planning ability. Do chimpanzees? I don't know. Maybe that's why pokemon taking the first step isn't a good measure of it.

Either way, my answer is: Swellow does not merit human-like rights, but Slowking does.

 

[Beth Pavell]

I think the benchmark for personhood should be a moral compass - something which nothing on Earth has apart from humans. As for pokémon, I suppose the closest candidates would be anime pokémon, where we do see that some individual pokémon have a conscience. The problem is that in the anime, humans treat pokémon as if they should never be accountable for their actions (Charizard is the prime example. That Ash has always been loving and loyal to Charizard since it was a Charmander is never even brought up. No-one seems to think that its refusal to prevent a volcanic eruption is in any way a moral failing, etc). So there's an inherent contradiction there - does a conscience mean anything if the individual is never expected to be held accountable to it? My immediate feeling is no

 

[Lysson]

I'd say so (which is why I think eating Pokemon is weird). It does say that humans and pokemon used to dine as one at a table/get married depending on what language you play Pokemon D/P/Pt.

And Pokemon are highly intelligent, they can understand humans but... humans usually don't understand Pokemon (remind me again why Pokemon obey such creatures?) like you can just catch a wild Pokemon and if you tell it to use a move it does it (if you have enough badges, maybe Pokemon view badges as a sign of strength as to whether they should actually obey the human if the human is strong?)

They can also show emotions and pull facial expressions, just like people. This is seen in the anime, Pokemon Amie and the PMD series.

Pokemon can also seem to talk to one another even if of different species as seen in the anime.

I don't compare Pokemon to actual animals as they're very different beings so that's where I get my view point from.

 

[BlackButterfree]

No. People are people. If you mean are they like people, again the answer is no. They are intelligent, capable of showing human traits but they themselves are still animals. And while some are represented as smarter than humans in the games (Alakazam) or as smart as humans in the anime (Slowking) it is never uniform across all "smart" Pokémon or across all canons. So no, they're not people but they're not animals either.

 

[roxanwright]

In the anime pokemon, they act more like humans. They have feelings and can think on their own. Aside from that, they are also capable of communicating with other pokemons and I think they are able to differentiate what is right from what is wrong.

 

[elveonora]

Each species of Pokemon has a varying degree of intelligence. There are those as conscious as humans or even beyond, so those should be treated as people, yes.

 

[Muur]

I'd say no. They're their species, like Humans are spiecies. Are Humans Pokemon would fit better.

 

[Life]

Biologically, the answer is simply no. Humans are humans, rats are rats, and Pikachu are Pikachu. Are we similar? In some aspects, yes, but there are hardly enough to consider humans and Pokemon the same. Though I suppose it differs for each species.

From a moral/philosophical standpoint, it can really go either way.

 

[Karpi]

No. People are people. If you mean are they like people, again the answer is no. They are intelligent, capable of showing human traits but they themselves are still animals. And while some are represented as smarter than humans in the games (Alakazam) or as smart as humans in the anime (Slowking) it is never uniform across all "smart" Pokémon or across all canons. So no, they're not people but they're not animals either.

Right, obviously animals = animals, pokemon = pokemon, and people = people.

How would you feel about selling a house to a Slowking? Or letting Gardevoir sit at its own table in a restaurant and order food? Basically, would you treat intelligent pokemon LIKE humans as capable of participating in human society?

Not to pick you out as a target or anything, I just want to know what you think.

 

[BlackButterfree]

No. People are people. If you mean are they like people, again the answer is no. They are intelligent, capable of showing human traits but they themselves are still animals. And while some are represented as smarter than humans in the games (Alakazam) or as smart as humans in the anime (Slowking) it is never uniform across all "smart" Pokémon or across all canons. So no, they're not people but they're not animals either.

Right, obviously animals = animals, pokemon = pokemon, and people = people.

How would you feel about selling a house to a Slowking? Or letting Gardevoir sit at its own table in a restaurant and order food? Basically, would you treat intelligent pokemon LIKE humans as capable of participating in human society?

Not to pick you out as a target or anything, I just want to know what you think.

Not wild Pokémon. If my own Gardevoir wanted to sit down and eat with me, she could. But I wouldn't sell a house to a Slowking.

 

[coolcatkim22]

Very good question. I believe the answer is yes.

It's always been my impression that Pokemon have enough intelligence to be on a similar level of humans. Some Pokemon seem to be more intelligent then others since the dex refers to some Pokemon having the intelligence to understand human speech which would imply others do not.

The dex isn't always reliable though since it seems to have information that defies laws of physics as well as contradicts itself on occasion.

Still, they understand when their trainer calls out moves with little to no training it seems. Plus, they are domesticated almost instantly after capture (though there is evidence that this may be caused by the Poke ball).

I think the benchmark for personhood should be a moral compass - something which nothing on Earth has apart from humans.

Actually, animals do have moral compasses. That's why, say, a wolf usually won't attack and kill the other members of its pack for food.

 

[Miar]

No, Machops and Hydreigons aren't human. No matter how smart any mon is or how symbiotically it coexists with man, something separates them.
I want to think it's intelligence that allowed humans to build advanced civilization and become dominant over animals. Some Pokémon MIGHT be smarter (which I doubt) but their brains may not be wired the same way.

It could be argued that humans are or were Pokémon, as the Sinnoh myths claim. At the least from a scientific viewpoint they're both animals.
ex: energy through food (even the plant ones eat), mobility, sexual reproduction are traits of animals.

 

[elveonora]

Ugh, do people read properly? The thread asks if Pokemon are people, not if Pokemon are Humans. People isn't necessarily a synonym for Humans.
A person is a being with high self-awareness and of its surroundings. Essentially, if a Pokemon is intelligent enough to declare: "I think, therefore I am" it's a person. They may not be able to speak, but if the anime is any indication (disregarding questionable canonical relevance) then Pokemon like Mewtwo have human-like intelligence, therefore are people.

Also to correct some misconception about their biological relationship, Humans are in fact animals, but Pokemon were stated not to be animals, so if there's some truth to the Sinnoh myths, then Humans and Pokemon may have been related, but billions of years ago. Currently they are as different as Plants and Fungi.

 

[Beth Pavell]

I think the benchmark for personhood should be a moral compass - something which nothing on Earth has apart from humans.

Actually, animals do have moral compasses. That's why, say, a wolf usually won't attack and kill the other members of its pack for food.

That isn't an example of a moral compass. Wolves are social animals, and social animals tend not to be violent towards one another for very good survivalist - or selfish -reasons. The individual can only survive by working together with the pack - or herd - in some way. Resolving disputes with violence, or turning on pack mates, is usually counter-productive as it means that each pack member has to keep an eye on all the others instead of external prey or danger.

 

[aliveatnight]

Hmm, that's actually a tough one. I'd have to say yes, that all Pokemon are people (even the worms), simply because even the dumbest of Pokemon has enough intelligence to understand us and our commands, and to fight for us.That automatically makes them smarter than animals, and from that point the intelligence just depends on the Pokemon.

 

[Karpi]

I decided that it's probably not a settled question in the pokemon world. Meaning there are probably some "smart pokemon allowed" restaurants where Gardevoir can go eat by herself, some "all trainer's pokemon allowed" restaurants where she can't go independently but can still go with a trainer and so can a Poochyena, and some "no pokemon allowed" restaurants for people who don't like to hear the sound of Geodude crunching rocks in his mouth.

I imagine there is a division in the smart pokemon world as well, between Alakazams who support trying to integrate into human society and Alakazams who believe they should have a competely separate society. And humans who either support integration or segregation as well, obviously.

Johto, I'll pretend, is one of the more accepting regions of pokemon in human society, since walking pokemon (aside from Wailord/Steelix and friends) are allowed basially everywhere. Whereas in Sinnoh there are specific areas (Amity Square, I imagine there are copies of it in other cities) where you can walk your pokemon but they aren't allowed to just roam around in general in the cities.

Just throwing some ideas out there.

 

[Capricious Equilibrium]

I decided that it's probably not a settled question in the pokemon world. Meaning there are probably some "smart pokemon allowed" restaurants where Gardevoir can go eat by herself, some "all trainer's pokemon allowed" restaurants where she can't go independently but can still go with a trainer and so can a Poochyena, and some "no pokemon allowed" restaurants for people who don't like to hear the sound of Geodude crunching rocks in his mouth.

I imagine there is a division in the smart pokemon world as well, between Alakazams who support trying to integrate into human society and Alakazams who believe they should have a competely separate society. And humans who either support integration or segregation as well, obviously.

Johto, I'll pretend, is one of the more accepting regions of pokemon in human society, since walking pokemon (aside from Wailord/Steelix and friends) are allowed basially everywhere. Whereas in Sinnoh there are specific areas (Amity Square, I imagine there are copies of it in other cities) where you can walk your pokemon but they aren't allowed to just roam around in general in the cities.

Just throwing some ideas out there.

I'd say walking Pokémon is more of a graphical limitation thing, not by the rules of the game's society. For example, in earlier gens it was easy to pull off but they left it out due to it being an unnecessary feature, was toyed with and then implemented in Gen IV, probably left out of Gen V due to its rushed nature, and with 3D models it's hard to get off with making Wailord and Arceus a bit taller than their trainers.

Anyway, I'd say dependant. Some Pokémon are animal-like intelligence wise, others are closer to humans. But in a similar vain that humans are animals, it's implied humans are highly evolved Pokémon, straying so much from the base that we 'evolve' completely difference and have swapped powers for intelligence, morals, reason and justice. So by that logic, people are Pokémon, so why can't the opposite be true for other highly evolved (not changing evolutionary stage, like, actual evolution) Pokémon?

 

[elveonora]

Well, there are still humans in the Pokeverse with "powers" like Aura users and Psychics. Also N etc.