POINT OF DEBATE: IS IT ETHICAL TO IMPRISON A PTING?

I was a bit torn about which category to place this entry in. POINT OF DEBATE made the most sense, of course. As it would be a contemplation on the ethics of Pting entrapment. But then I realized I would be using terms like: "a contemplation on the ethics of Pting entrapment" and wondered if  COMPLETE AND UTTER SILLINESS might be a better heading to use! 

For a time, I even thought about doing a special "hybrid topic" and just blending the two terms together with a backslash between them. That would be fascinating. It would be the first time in the history of the blog that I would do something of this nature. This could almost be a bit exciting! Imagine the impact such a bold gesture might have on my readership...

And then I came to terms with the fact that the only one who might find such a merger legitimately enthralling would be me! So I just went back to my original idea and decided to label it a POINT OF DEBATE essay. I also realized that getting this excited about my blog might indicate that I need to get out a bit more!

Being one of the few fans that didn't seem to think The Tsuranga Conundrum was an atrocity to television probably makes me even more fond of the Pting than most. As a monster, I just think he's a great concept. This guy is a force onto himself. He could go up against Daleks, Cybermen, Weeping Angels - the whole lot. And all of them would fail! The Pting would literally consume them with little or no effort. He is one of the deadliest creatures in the Doctor Who Universe. 

And yet, he looks like a character from a Disney movie (and I actually mean that - he really does resemble that weird thing in Lilo and Stitch). I love the idea that one of the most powerful beings we've ever seen the Doctor encounter comes across as so cute and adorable. I thought it was a very fun image to play with: a terrible menace that you wanted desperately to cuddle! Other people didn't seem all that particularly thrilled with the Pting, but I really loved him. 

I was delighted to see him make a brief return during Revolution of the Daleks. I was also quite surprised by the number of fans that expressed a positive sentiment about his cameo. Perhaps folks didn't despise the 'ole Pting so much, after all. They might even be re-evaluating their overall opinion of Tsurango Conundrum! 

But once I was finished being happy about the Pting coming back, I realised that where we saw him did raise some interesting questions. Our little buddy had been locked up in a jail that he couldn't actually escape from. That's a Hell of a prison! 

But the very fact that he is incarcerated actually creates a philosophical quandary that I feel bears some deeper scrutiny. So much so, that I am devoting an entire entry to it!

THE ETHICAL DEBATE

Clearly, the Pting is a menace to all life in the Universe. His near-insatiable appetite means that he can, easily, devastate any civilisation he runs into. Eve Cicero actually mentions how a Pting took out an entire armada just because he needed a snack! So I can see why people might feel a need to incarcerate or restrain him in some way. 

However, there is one simple issue that clouds this whole situation quite heavily. As great of a danger as he might be to the Universe, it's not really the Pting's fault. To all intents and purposes, he is a creature of pure instinct. He's more like an animal than a proper sentient being. So, yes, he tears apart spaceships at his leisure - but it's not out of any genuine malevolence or evil intent. It's just how he nourishes himself. 

So the question becomes: is it right to punish such a creature for simply doing what they do? The other inmates we see in the prison make sense. They all possess a proper free will. They could have made better choices and not ended up behind bars. But throwing the Pting into such a place would be like making a dog serve time because he sniffed the butt of another dog. Technically, he violated that canine. But, really, that's just how dogs do things!   

The Pting, to me, is the same situation as our inappropriate dog. We can't measure its behavior by our own standards. We don't, as a rule, just approach strangers and stick our noses into their rectums. And laws are in place to stop those who might be inclined to do so. But we understand that we can't really enforce that same system of discipline on the canine species. They function in a very different way from us.

The same rule should apply to the Pting. He is, essentially, an animal. To place him in a legitimate penal system of any sort would be an unfair act. Perhaps even a bit cruel...

THE PRACTICAL DEBATE

As much sense as the Ethical Debate makes, there is still one problem that remains: the Pting is highly dangerous. While he does seem to spend a lot of time just floating around in space and causing no real harm, when he does come into contact with civilised beings - great amounts of destruction and loss of life can ensue. 

Again, the accounts of Eve Cicero back this idea up strongly. She really does sound horrified when she discovers there's a Pting on the Tsuranga medical craft with her. The vague descriptions she gives of her previous experience with one makes it sound like she was fortunate to get out of it alive. As "good" of a person that it may make us to not imprison a Pting, the fact of the matter is: if this creature is allowed to just run loose, people get hurt. 

The fact that the Pting does not seem to possess full sentience doesn't just imply that it's an animal. It may, in fact, mean that it is far more than just that. We might be able to actually label it as a legitimate force of nature. Everywhere the Pting goes, he wreaks havoc. In much the same way as a tornado or a forest fire does.

In this sense, then, incarcerating a Pting might be more akin to finding a way of preventing a hurricane or an earthquake. If we have the means to do it - then why not? Lives will be spared  and damage prevented if we do. 

SEMANTICS

That is, essentially, both sides of the debate. What you consider the Pting to be determines whether you're justified to put him in a maximum-security prison or not. If he is labeled as a proper animal, then he should not be incarcerated. Or, at the very least, he should not be in a penal system for criminals. But, if you see him to be something more elemental, then jailing him is merely the prevention of a catastrophe. 

Some would say the argument is easy. He is a living creature with thoughts and senses so he can't really be considered a force of nature. He appears to have a functioning digestive system and, although he is driven mainly by instincts, he does make conscious choices. All signs of a living creature. 

But there is so little we know about the Pting's nature. He seems to be indestructible. And, perhaps, even immortal. And, while he does seem to possess a free will of sorts, his appetite seems almost insatiable. If there is nourishment around him, he will eat away at it until it is completely consumed. Something you can't stop that will ravenously destroy everything around it definitely takes on a more elemental quality to it. 

So far in this debate, both sides seem to have an equal footing. Let's try to take a deeper cut...

ETHICS - LOOKING A BIT DEEPER

In order to better illustrate the ethical side of this debate, let's create a bit of a hypothetical situation: 

Imagine you are a firmly-convicted vegetarian. You're very proud of the fact that you sustain yourself without ever having to hurt any animal. You don't even do dairy or stuff that's been fried in oils. Strictly veggies for you. 

Now imagine that a sentient plant life-form comes along to see you. Something like the Krynoid or the Vervoids or the Trees from End of the World. They see you as an absolute atrocity, of course. You've killed endless amounts of their kin throughout your life. To them, you're a menace. 

So they take you and throw you in a special penitentiary where they keep all their other worst criminals. Murderous broccoli and treacherous ferns surround you on a regular basis. But do you deserve to be there? What deed did you actually commit that was so wrong? All you did was provide yourself with three square meals a day. But, in the eyes of the Plant People, you needed to be restrained. 

This is, essentially, what we've done with the Pting. As I've said before, he's just doing what he does. It's part of his life cycle. Do we have the right to throw him in jail for it? 

THE ULTIMATE PRACTICALITY

As much as I'm trying to create a sense of empathy for the Pting, the fact remains: when this thing roams free, people end up dying. Something has to be done about it. We can argue til we're blue in the face about the rights of a single living creature. But the fact that it takes out other living creatures just to maintain its own survival is an issue we have to face and deal with. 

In the end, not restraining the Pting when we have the opportunity to do so, would make us an accomplice to any future murder he may commit. Which, in many ways, makes this side of the argument just as ethical as the other. We can't allow a clear and present danger to continue raging on through the cosmos if we have the resources at our disposal to stop it. 

Clearly, something as powerful as the Pting needs a maximum security prison like the one the Doctor was in during Revolution of the Daleks. Anything less might not prove adequate. So, yes, putting him in with criminals might not be entirely fair, but it needed to be a place that could genuinely hold him. Every day that the Pting is restricted is a day the rest of the population of the Universe remains safe. 

As much as one may want to refute this, it's undeniable. For the sake of everyone else's safety, the Pting needs to be kept under wraps. 

FINAL VERDICT

In some ways, the last argument I presented has settled things. If we are to assume the ultimate moral high ground, then we have to concede that the Pting can't be allowed to continue rampaging through the galaxy. It's very similar to the reasoning the Doctor uses whenever he fights the Daleks. If he doesn't try to stop them at whatever it is they're up to, he is doing the Universe a disservice. 

But there are still a few layers to the debate that we can sort through. The biggest one being: was it necessary to throw what is, essentially, a simple creature that is slave to its own instinct in with dangerous criminals? It's like the poor vegetarian in the previous section being incarcerated with bad-ass begonias or creepy grapevines. Sure, he needed to be restrained for the protection of all vegetable life, but does it need to be under such harsh conditions?   

Some might argue that it doesn't really matter where you put the Pting in order to stop him. He seems quite impervious to just about any form of attack. So, even if his cellmates are a nasty bunch, they can't really do anything to harm him. But, while they probably can't hurt him, other prisoners could still try to make life difficult for the Pting in any way they can. He's still stuck in a hostile environment for doing something that's not really his fault (or, at the very least, he can't control). And that's not fair to the little guy.   

I think, if we are to reach a truly humane solution for the Pting, he should be given his own special prison. One that might be similar to the jail the Minotaur got in God Complex. Or even the way they incarcerated Kong at the beginning of the latest version of Godzilla versus King Kong. Or something to that effect. It should simulate an environment that leads the Pting to believe he is still in his natural habitat. When, in truth, he is being kept under lock and key.  

Perhaps such a prison demanded too great of a strain on resources and a cheaper solution was needed. So, instead, they just locked up that poor old Pting in a regular jail. But taking that route does mean that the question in the title of this entry can be answered with a resounding "No." It was not ethical to imprison the Pting. At least not in the manner that we saw in Revolution. If something had been done to enable the Pting to feel that it was still free but kept under restraint, I could agree with the sentiment. But sticking him in a Shada-esque prison was not right. 

So that's my take on what is, clearly, a very silly Point of Debate. Feel free to chime in with your own opinion on the matter. That's what the whole topic is about. 

I try to average, at least, two entries a month in here. But October is quite busy for me. And, with several months in Lockdown only shortly behind me, this flurry of activity has exhausted me immeasurably. So, unfortunately, I think I will only manage one entry this month. I'll try to pick up the pace in November!