In the end it's a matter of priorities and saving kids from living a lifetime as kitchen tools is much more important than Belle suffering as the beast prisoner. In his decision the Beast did the moral act.
sharePrince Beastie is not a moral person, and does not think in those terms. His actions were based on his feelings being hurt and lashing out in response, and having no clue what to do once his actions start to snowball and before he knows it he's got a pretty girl as a prisoner.
He doesn't give a rat's ass about the welfare of the servants who've been changed into furniture, he's to immature to care about anything but his own problems.
Tend to agree with your personality analysis of Prince Beastie.
However, I am looking at this case from Utilitarian approach perspective. An approach that considers the result of an action more important than the way we achieve that result. In contrast to Immanuel Kant moral law which focuses on the question "how should a person behave?" and not about the result of his or her act.
Does Kant's utilitarianism say that an action is good even if the good was, as in this case, completely unintentional?
And if so, does Kant's high-minded and undoubtedly verbose philosophical statement really boil down to ... "whatever works"???
Does Kant's utilitarianism say that an action is good even if the good was, as in this case, completely unintentional?
Apologies if I misunderstood, all I can say in my own defense is that I've never given a rat's ass about hardcore philosophy.
But as to my own philosophy, I suppose I could be called a utilitarian, I'm usually all for "whatever works" in real life! But when it comes to judging someone's character, or occasionally in deciding whom to vote for, I take both intent and utilitarian results into account. I guess makes me... mostly utilitarian.
when it comes to judging someone's character, or occasionally in deciding whom to vote for, I take both intent and utilitarian results into account. I guess makes me... mostly utilitarian.
Yeah, the situation for the staff absolutely sucks. They aren't officially prisoners, I presume they are free to leave, if a human who's been turned into a chair or a tureen has any place to go. So there they are, stuck in the castle with nothing to do, except being near the Beast when he loses his temper and starts breaking things...
And yeah, who doesn't adore Gaston, for all the wrong reasons? I love a good villain, my favorite Star Wars character may be Palpatine!
Belle wasn't abducted. Her father was after he entered the castle and she took his place. I do agree about the rest of what you say though. I do feel worse for the staff and children of the castle than I do the prince/Beast.
shareMaybe there are better words like "prisoner" or "captive" but my main argument is that 'the end justifies the means' in this case. In favor of the beast he treated Belle well.
BTW, If you love the story I suggest you watch the Beauty and the Beast movie from 1946.
He didn't kidnap her. He imprisoned her dad and she offered to trade places with him willingly so he would be free.
share