The Frog Prince
Promises were made to be broken.
I’m back from my holiday, have had a week at school (ugh), and feel like resuming the series of ethical dilemmas.
Part I
Today’s dilemma is a fairy tale, The Frog Prince. You know the one. When the youngest princess loses her golden ball in a pond, a frog offers to retrieve it provided the princess promises to cohabit with him. Naturally the frog gets the ball, but the princess, who hasn’t been reading her fairy tales or she’d know without question that the frog is a prince, reneges on the deal and goes home.
But shouldn’t the princess keep her promise? Even to a frog?
Since talking frogs would appear to be nothing unusual in the princess’s world, we can perhaps overlook that the frog is not human and would, therefore, have no rights enshrined in law. A promise may be a verbal or written contract. The law may say that any promise, verbal or written, constitutes contract, which makes the princess liable to keep the promise she made to the frog. Or the law may have nothing to say about verbal agreements. The princess should feel bound by honour to do the right thing regardless of the legal situation, but she might want to avoid saying, “My word is my bond” in case someone remembers this incident. In other words, the consequence of failing to keep a promise is the mistrust of others. Without trust between individuals, society couldn’t function.
Interestingly, the book notes that Kant regarded the keeping of promises as very important. But from his perspective, the princess probably isn’t behaving morally because she’s motivated by the desire to recover her golden ball. Hume, on the other hand, wasn’t keen on promises. If the promise was good, it should be done anyway without the need for promising. On the other hand, if the promise were to result in something bad, then it shouldn’t be done at all. The princess might regard cohabiting with a frog as a bad thing and, therefore, feel no obligation to keep her promise.
My own view is that you ought to keep your promises, but that you should never make a promise that you’re not prepared to keep for whatever reason. In other words, the princess should’ve accepted the loss of the ball rather than make some promise to a talking frog.
Part II
Anyway, the next day the frog comes calling, and when the princess tells her dad the story, he absolutely insists that she should keep the promise. The princess is forced to let the frog share her tea, but when bed time comes, she’s had enough and dashes the frog against the wall – only for him to turn into a handsome prince.
The book notes that the dilemma has gone, but wonders where the moral is? Perhaps we shouldn’t be asking about a moral but rather looking at the symbolic meaning of the story. Because the girl cannot see the worth of the boy, he’s a frog to her even when he shows her some kindness. But through that kindness, he is, nonetheless, trying to exert some control over her, which she clearly resents. She can only see his worth once she has the upper hand – by throwing him at the wall. The role of the king is, I think, also trying to curtail the princess’s freedom by making his daughter keep her promise.
Thus I wonder whether this was originally a story told by women. The golden ball might represent the princess’s freedom, the loss of which leaves her indebted to the frog and pressured by her father to repay the debt. The princess has to get violent to reassert herself at which point the frog is then transformed into a prince. There’d seem to be some wish fulfilment here. The princess might have a companion, but she’s demonstrated that she has power.
Part I
Today’s dilemma is a fairy tale, The Frog Prince. You know the one. When the youngest princess loses her golden ball in a pond, a frog offers to retrieve it provided the princess promises to cohabit with him. Naturally the frog gets the ball, but the princess, who hasn’t been reading her fairy tales or she’d know without question that the frog is a prince, reneges on the deal and goes home.
But shouldn’t the princess keep her promise? Even to a frog?
Since talking frogs would appear to be nothing unusual in the princess’s world, we can perhaps overlook that the frog is not human and would, therefore, have no rights enshrined in law. A promise may be a verbal or written contract. The law may say that any promise, verbal or written, constitutes contract, which makes the princess liable to keep the promise she made to the frog. Or the law may have nothing to say about verbal agreements. The princess should feel bound by honour to do the right thing regardless of the legal situation, but she might want to avoid saying, “My word is my bond” in case someone remembers this incident. In other words, the consequence of failing to keep a promise is the mistrust of others. Without trust between individuals, society couldn’t function.
Interestingly, the book notes that Kant regarded the keeping of promises as very important. But from his perspective, the princess probably isn’t behaving morally because she’s motivated by the desire to recover her golden ball. Hume, on the other hand, wasn’t keen on promises. If the promise was good, it should be done anyway without the need for promising. On the other hand, if the promise were to result in something bad, then it shouldn’t be done at all. The princess might regard cohabiting with a frog as a bad thing and, therefore, feel no obligation to keep her promise.
My own view is that you ought to keep your promises, but that you should never make a promise that you’re not prepared to keep for whatever reason. In other words, the princess should’ve accepted the loss of the ball rather than make some promise to a talking frog.
Part II
Anyway, the next day the frog comes calling, and when the princess tells her dad the story, he absolutely insists that she should keep the promise. The princess is forced to let the frog share her tea, but when bed time comes, she’s had enough and dashes the frog against the wall – only for him to turn into a handsome prince.
The book notes that the dilemma has gone, but wonders where the moral is? Perhaps we shouldn’t be asking about a moral but rather looking at the symbolic meaning of the story. Because the girl cannot see the worth of the boy, he’s a frog to her even when he shows her some kindness. But through that kindness, he is, nonetheless, trying to exert some control over her, which she clearly resents. She can only see his worth once she has the upper hand – by throwing him at the wall. The role of the king is, I think, also trying to curtail the princess’s freedom by making his daughter keep her promise.
Thus I wonder whether this was originally a story told by women. The golden ball might represent the princess’s freedom, the loss of which leaves her indebted to the frog and pressured by her father to repay the debt. The princess has to get violent to reassert herself at which point the frog is then transformed into a prince. There’d seem to be some wish fulfilment here. The princess might have a companion, but she’s demonstrated that she has power.
Another fairy tale tomorrow. Once upon a time…
Comments