Fighting over what they believe is right without asking the boy/donkey's input. The kids were lured into the island. Sure they weren't forced onto the island but at that age it's quite easy to convince someone to come to the island. The coachman abused the boys in that regard.

I understand where you're coming from.

However, let's not forget that at that stage in life, there are many choices adults make for their kids and sometimes, depending on their profession for kids that are under their care that can have consequences that can last the rest of the kid's lives.

Do said adults always ask for the kid's input? Sometimes yes, but there are a lot of adults that take the 'I know what's best for you' or the 'No son of mine...' route.

In a sense, he did ask for their input once he examined them at the dock. Pretty much of all of them were protesting, saying they didn't want to be donkeys (even if they could only express this with braying). His attitude however was that they'd had their fun and it was time for them to pay for it (i.e., as donkeys). Yes, it was symbolic for not getting an education and having to spend the rest of you life paying for it and/or for making one simple/stupid mistake with the same consequences.

Did he have the right to make that decision for them? Of course not. He's not their father and he has no legal authority.

Here, I am going with the idea that he feels this is best for society, even if not the for boys (at least not all of them). Granted, he's also doing it for money, and he may try to justify as making a hard decision when in reality, he's little more then a scam artist. He might also feel that any boy stupid enough to fall for the trap might be better off as a donkey and/or might deserve to be a donkey.

Having said that, I still do feel that he is evil. Changing those boys with no chance of redemption and <i>profiting</i> from it as well as enjoying it ranks pretty high on the evil scale. Yes, he does try to justify it and in his twisted mind, there is method to his madness, but yes, it's still madness.

Fairy = deontologist
Coachman = utilitarian

Insofar as the deontologist and the utilitarian will agree that freedom of choice is necessary either in itself or for the actualization of oneself toward happiness, the coachman has no argument. Both are against paternalistic education---that choices concerning the development and course of one's self-shaping should be entire subsumed by authority. Parents ought to present their children with multiple views and provide the opportunity to develop with only marginal influence or at least contrary influences. A free choice cannot be made unless one understands more than one option and is, at a minimum, pressured equally.

The "for the betterment of society argument" fails from a Marxist and a postmodernist standpoint. The poor are often criminalized and are constrained into adopting the criminalized image as their identity---a self-realization of the Othering society has imposed. Society "being better" in anyway is a structure imposed by those who are powerful enough to dictate the standards of behavior. Perhaps, a society of street vendors, homeless, and limited localized laws that are more tolerant of deviance and minor failure to adhere to standard could be a "better society," only it is not possible to realize this, nor is it entirely convincing so long as "the powers that be" influence, not only the physical system, but the moral value of speculating on contrary alternatives.

The poor do not choose to be poor nor do criminals often choose to be criminals. Furthermore, the point of "nature" or "essence" after existentialism is that it is not a fixed thing. "Human nature" does not exist as an objective truth.

So, the coachman has not acted toward "establishing the greatest possible understanding in the individuals who he is presenting a choice," and has justified this on the basis that a significant majority already commits this immoral behavior daily---appeal to the system imposed by the dominant groups of society without a necessary rational basis for justifying its moral superiority.

That he takes pleasure in it might be sociopathic, but the proclivity towards certain desires is not necessarily a reflection on one's moral character. Desire is not synonymous with intent, which means the deontologist wouldn't say this is necessarily evil. The utilitarian is a bit complicated concerning sorting out all of the net-this-and-that and intentions with regard to wanting to increase utility, but I would presume to say that either his own pleasure is positive (it would be even worse if no one enjoyed anything from this) or that only certain "rational fulfillments" count and his pleasure may be irrelevant. In any case, one is not evil for being sociopathic or deviant for that matter. There are many well functioning and moral (or at least not immoral) sociopaths in the world, despite the fact that they have been demonized by popular culture. To add another point, profiting from the harm is only symbolically offensive...a disrespect for the act of causing harm. In terms of moral action, making money off of one thing or another is not necessarily more or less moral.

Suppose two cases:
1) a hired hitman kills someone in the street and is paid upon completion
2) a hired hitman kills someone in the street and does not profit from it (due to some reason, perhaps he failed in some way)

Did the fact that he get paid in case 1 in anyway make his actions more immoral? The killing itself constitutes the "evil" done, after all. We could call both equally bad because of this action and whatever implications it may have. If profiting in someway contributes to suffering, then it is indirectly immoral. I don't see how the coachman profiting will create a structure that perpetuates misery more than the structure he already has in place. Perhaps, he self-perpetuates by providing himself a reason to keep doing this. If the profiting is really on the side, though, and the intent is to "make the world a better" place, then he cannot influence his own intent in the first place in this manner. (The argument becomes circular anyway) (Note: This is simplifying a much more complicated issue of contextuality in ethics, but it does intuitively suggest a point. The answers to the question are much contested.)

The coachman is actually a pretty decent guy insofar as he has suggested that he is reflective and willing to participate in rational discourse. The only accusation that might be lobed against him is being misguided---it is easy to get tangled in the web of the scope and moral implications of our actions. Insofar as we have all have failings of this sort to vastly differing degrees, I am not one to judge. Ignorance is tolerable to a certain extent. Where do you draw the line?

The problem with the moral analysis of animal transformation is that there are no decent analogies to make. 1. no one is dying. 2. that one is being degraded is dependent upon one's social views of animals. 3. alteration of personality (via an intentional physical alteration of the brain) does not work because there are no attempts being made to degrade the survivability and ability to thrive. 4. that there is something sacred about individual identity being altered---our identities are altering continuously in significant ways---how do you even begin to define what is a "positive alteration of one's identity" or what a single identity even is? 5. animals do have rich cognitive lives as well as self-awareness, which is being shown in new neurological research, arguments from philosophy of language, mind and emotion, etc.

Basically, changing species is about as far outside the paradigmatic examples of morally informative situations as one can get. That, and humanity is so full of hubris that, honestly, little thought has been devoted to envisioning animals in ways other than "we dominate them". (Check the argument above concerning the poor for an interesting rebuttal to widely held views about what "the animal" actually is.) "Animal" is only a construct that serves the purpose to allow humanity its conceptualization of its own concerns. Basically, it is an "other" which is defined tacitly in order to give our concepts sense. I ask, what does a dog have in common with a lizard any more than a human has with a lizard or a dog that justifies labeling the former two animals and humans "animals only in a physical but not metaphysical sense". The dog and the lizard have a lot less in common than the human and the dog in terms of behavior and physiology. So, how can one even justify the category animal? It seems incoherent. The category of "children" can suffer this same deconstruction considering that there are children vastly more intelligent and more mature than both you and I, and that children are often capable of a lot more than they are given credit by parents, psychologists, and teachers. Honestly, we wait WAY TOO late to start teaching our kids important lessons about life, philosophy, alternative possibilities about ideology, ugliness in the world. There are so many "king of my own little quarter acre (or larger)" dictators in the world that want to influence by controlling the next generation's thoughts. The fastest way to teach children is answer to first honestly their damn questions (most don't even get this far) without second proclaiming oneself a god, and use good judgement in illuminating new questions if the kid isn't asking something he should...i.e. what the hell is pleasure island's point anyway.

The worst one can say about the kids is that they couldn't make an informed choice in a drastically life-changing matter. The more the choice impacts one's life, the more informed one ought to be, children or not. So, the coachman committed a major moral violation due to the scale of the imperative of the children knowing the consequences of their actions.

(I apologize for the double post, it seems I didn't press the correct respond link and didn't directly respond to your post the first time)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Your response was both detailed and educated, which is great.

One of the problems with turning these boys into donkeys is that some (if not most) will end up in situations where their ability to survive long term will be extremely limited. They will likely be abused by their new masters (i.e., whipped if they don't work fast enough) and will probably not be given enough food, water, rest etc. to properly work yet their masters will still expect them to work and work and work with no compensation (although, a donkey would have little ability to use money) or any intensive beyond "work or die". In short, it's more or less a death sentence for a lot of those boys. Often, stories of what becomes of one or more of those boys will at some point have one of them die.

Now, if they could go somewhere where they'd be treated with respect and love then it might not be so bad.

One could also argue that the sudden loss of identity would be akin to killing someone. I.e., the idea that their sense of what they are is suddenly changed from that of a boy to that of a donkey. It would be a horrible emotional shock and it's understandable that Lampwick was driven into an insane panic by the shock of his sudden change in species.

There are various opportunities and societal expectations that come from one's species (and gender as well). As well there are certain mentalities that one might associate with various species.

What those boys could expect from the future and present would change dramatically. In a sense, they are being fired from being human being forced to take up a new position as donkeys. Problem is that they never expected to be donkeys and don't have the mentality to go along with their new forms. I can see them being upset not over the idea of being trapped in what has become the wrong bodies, but over the lifestyle a donkey would have and over the idea that they could become donkeys in mind eventually.

However, they are also looking at it from the perspective of a boy who has never been a donkey in body or in mind. Perhaps over time if they were well treated did end up thinking more like a donkey and living a life appropriate to their new forms, they might find out that it's not so bad. They might even find the limited option of donkey life (compared to human life anyway) just fine as their emotional needs could well be simpler.

One could argue that they'd be forgetting and/or not knowing what they're missing out on as humans, but that could well only be because of the hubris you mentioned of humans seeing their lives and forms as being *the* forms everyone wants to have. We might see animals lives as being less appealing and wonder how they can be happy, but we also forget that we're looking at it through human eyes rather then those of someone more physically and emotionally build for said life.

Again, one could argue that they'd only be happy because they've been brainwashed but, again, is it so different from a human ending up in a different career that they initially see as temporary and are not really suited to eventually adjusting to it and being fine with it. Although, I do see the moral issues here. Perhaps instantly mentally making them 'used' to being donkeys would be where the issue would come up rather then allowing them to adjust to it naturally.

Really though, I wonder just how different our minds work from those of other species, especially other mammals. Yes, we have intelligence and innovate in ways species simply do not. However, if we were to become donkeys and were subject to the same physical sensations, limitations, chemicals, hormones etc. that they are, would we be so different?

I think in the end, I agree that ultimately what makes the Coachman immoral is changing them against their will and doing it boys that might not be old enough to make an informed decision about becoming a donkey even if they did have the choice.

Three things I thought of, after reading this (and I enjoyed reading it by the way ):

1) If you turn a thuggish, delinquent, workshy boy into a donkey, might not he retain those characteristics as an animal - becoming wholly unpleasant, if not terrifying, to own? Think of how Disney's Lampwick reacts after he fully transforms, which has more to do with fury than distress or fear, I always think. Trying to get him into a crate would not be fun!

2) Return to human form was possible, in both Collodi's version and Disney's. In the former, fish nibbled away all Pinocchio's donkey features after he was thrown into the ocean, having become lame. (Clearly donkification only went skin-deeep in his case.) In the second, he lost his donkey ears and tail at the same moment he became a real boy, i.e. through magic, as well as selflessness.

3) I can understand why The Coachman might think that persistently asinine young men (those past school age) might be beyond redemption, but boys younger than that can change their ways - I know that from my own experience. There were two boys at school with me who were an absolute nightmare for a good while - always bullying people and playing up teachers - but by the time they were 16/17 they had grown out of that (much to everyone's delight!), and for their last two years at school were more or less like the rest of us. I guess that could be true of others too.

Thanks for the review, you make some interesting points.

I agree that Lampwick was redeemable. Yes, he was a bad kid but really, was he that bad? Officially, I think he was supposed to be around 12 so there was still plenty of time for redemption and for him to change. Heck, for all we know, he just might have been going through a phase. However, it's also possible that his behaviour was a mere beginning and he would have gotten far worse as he got older. The Coachman here felt unwilling to take that risk.

One thing I disagree with is saying that an adult is beyond redemption and cannot change. While it can be harder to change once certain behaviours are established in a more developed person, I still think that anyone of any age can redeem themselves and become a better person.

As for Lampwick's reaction being motivated more by anger (sort of "How dare you turn me into a donkey!"), it would explain his kicking the mirror and the table over. That was something I never quite understood. It would be an interesting and refreshing take to see one of those donkey boys fight the Coachman, sort of having the attitude of "What, you think that I'm just going to give in and be a good little donkey for you? I may be a donkey but I'm still me. Go ahead, try and get me into that crate." I went with the assumption that Lampwick was more the type that just wanted to have fun then anything. He wasn't a bad kid per say, he just did things he felt like, things that seemed fun at the time without thinking of the consequences and/or whether or not it was right. As an example, remember the squirrel scene in "The Sword in the Stone"? If Lampwick was in Arthur's position with that female squirrel (and there was at least some level of consent when it came to becoming a squirrel) and his body was saying yes, I can see Lampy giving that female squirrel exactly what she wanted. He wouldn't care that he's underage or that she's a squirrel, if it seemed like it'd be fun and feel good, he'd go for it.

As for the donkey boys resisting as one might think they would, I could see a crack of the whip and a threat along the lines that if they don't behave that there's just as much demand for donkey meat and donkey hides so they'd better behave. While they might have been too scared to fight and maybe hopped that being good donkeys would mean someone would rescue them, it did seem odd that none of them even tried to fight or run. That could imply some mental changes.

It's a shame they never really explored what became of those boys and what went through their minds as and after they became donkeys. Granted, given Lampy's fate in the original Pinocchio story, perhaps it's best we don't know. One could argue that the boys were 'judged' and found to be donkeys, thus that's what they became and were not meant to change back. Still, it is one of those famous plot threads that feels unresolved.

As for the difficulties in changing back, I went with the idea that there is a curse on the island and that once you're a complete donkey, the curse keeps you from being able to change back. It's sort of insurance to keep the Blue Fairy or some other magic user from pulling a bibbity bobbity boo and changing any donkey back that he or she is able to find and realize isn't a natural donkey. The Coachman being the source of the curse, well, no Coachman, no curse, if you get my drift.

Ah, but who is The Coachman? A male version of Circe? Or is he just an ordinary, if crafty guy who has turned what the island does to wayward youths to his own advantage?

Of course, in Collodi's version, it's not an island at all, and the boys' transformation into donkeys takes weeks, if not months. But it's still a place run by adults who profit from the kids' misfortune.

I didn't mean to imply, by the way, that I think that asinine/delinquent young males over a certain age can't change their ways. It's The Coachman who might think that unlikely.

I'm not sure they ever said who the Coachman is and whether is a curse he placed or if it's the island itself that's the source of the curse. I went with him being the source of it for my tale "A Donkey in Human Clothing."

I admit that the island is more fun as we get to the donkey tf quicker. Although the land of toys was more logical as it takes time for a boy to get into that donkey way of thinking. I think they had to get into that mindset to only want to play and have fun all day but also had to get truly used to it. Please Island was more of a trap, although it does have the guilty pleasure of a quick and easy donkey tf.

Although, I don't think it's fair to say donkeys have that mentality as one could argue that a lot of animals have that attitude. Though, I know it's donkeys because the original story was Italian. In Italy (from what I've heard), a donkey is symbolic for the sort of person that's uneducated, doesn't want to work and just wants to play all day and I think also just does things without thinking. I.e., more or less like the island encouraged the boys to do, to just do what seemed like fun at the time without considering the consequences.

In a way, turning them into donkeys was as much symbolic as it was literal. Their altered forms are a sort of sign of what they are on the inside as much as in a literal sense. It's sort of not being able to hide it as their very forms are a giveaway of it. I can see some protesting (if able to speak) saying they're not really donkeys, but with it being kinda hard to deny with the idea being if you're not a donkey symbolically then why have you become one for real. It's also a sign of their actions, which they might be so ashamed of that they might not want to go home, lest their parents find out.

I didn't mean to imply, by the way, that I think that asinine/delinquent young males over a certain age can't change their ways. It's The Coachman who might think that unlikely.

That's cool, I understand. I've had people express to me the opinion that adults cannot change their ways and even imply that it's okay to use draconian punishments for adults because of that.