Should Simon Have Saved Marceline?
MATTHEW MONTOYA
They run. Street after street, blind turn after blind turn, they run. But nothing stops the approaching horde. The monsters won’t stop. The forms of the things sputter and shift as their mutated bodies seethe with hunger. The few humans not killed immediately by the bomb were either mutated into those . . . monsters . . . or eaten by them. Glowing green pustulance oozes from their eyes, mouths, and noses, if you can call them that. And there, cornered, no street left to run to, are a middle-aged man and a little girl with pointy teeth. They are about to die. Desperate, the man tosses the little girl into a nearby car, closing the door. She presses her hands and face against the glass window, watching, helpless. The monsters close in on him. There’s no choice. The crown at his hip calls to him. It sings of power.
Muffled, he hears a voice. “You promised, Simon!”
The man can already feel himself torn by the rush of magic as he grabs the crown. The last vestiges of his identity become clouded and lost in a stream of ice and torrential frost. The Ice King places his crown on his head.
Making Your Way in the World Today Takes Everything You’ve Got
The Ice King is one of my favorite characters, if not my favorite character. He’s a memorably humorous villain with more hilarious moments than I can even keep track of. How can you not laugh as this “evil” man loves on a room full of penguins, and, then, as they all try to lick his tears away out of love for their “evil” master, he disciplines one for being on a no salt diet? Or when he comes out dressed up like Marceline singing to Gunter a new rendition of Marceline’s song in which the “Gunt Gunts his Gunter’s fries,” and Gunter goes starry-eyed out of admiration. I always lose it laughing.1
The Ice King’s antics are always different and hilarious. His constant search for love and the kidnapping of princesses from Princess Bubblegum to Hotdog Princess, despite her smell, has made him a lovable contrast to Finn and Jake’s constant acts of heroism. He’s undoubtedly a villain, but he is a relatable and loveable one. He is a villain that our hearts can reach out to and sympathize with. After all, aren’t we all a bit quirky?
While I love the Ice King, it seemed, at first, that he was a one-note character. He would go from episode to episode simply coming up with new ways to kidnap princesses. He was never a very deep character and he lacked a real background or motivation. But just when I was beginning to fear that this might be the case, I was blown away with the revelation that the Ice King used to be a normal human being.
The Ice King used to be a man named Simon Petrikov, and he was one of the few survivors of the Great Mushroom War, the cataclysmic event that mutated the world we know to the magical land of Ooo. The trials and choices that Simon had to endure in this post-apocalyptic wasteland are, in my opinion, some of the deepest and most tragic moments of the show. It was his history as Simon that showed me that the Ice King was more than I had previously been led to believe.
The string of events that transformed him from peaceful and caring Simon to the insane and lonely Ice King are extremely tragic. My friends and I honestly had tears brought to our eyes as our feelings had been punched in their metaphorical stomachs. We learned that within the post-apocalyptic wasteland caused by the Great Mushroom War Simon found a lost and crying little girl named Marceline. This is the same Marceline that we know as the vampire bass player who loves hanging out with our heroes, Finn and Jake.
In their travels together Simon and Marceline grew very close. They bonded and formed a loving father-daughter relationship. Unfortunately, their loving relationship was doomed to fail as Simon was determined to protect Marceline from all of the evolving toxic horrors of this post-apocalyptic world. Simon’s only means of protecting Marceline was to wear a magical crown that granted him powers over ice and storms. The inescapable horror of this is that we must watch as the crown corrupts his mind. It warps and changes him to the point that he’s no longer the same man, but he endured all of it in order to save Marceline. In all honesty, would you not do the same? A true hero would do anything to save a child, right?
Was this right for Simon? Was it right for him to sacrifice his own sanity for that of a child’s life? Normally we would say that saving a child is the morally acceptable thing to do, but is it still morally acceptable when an effect of saving the child is giving your mind over to evil? Simon knew the danger of using the crown, but he chose to do it anyway. He knew that he would no longer be the same man, and that he could potentially pose a threat to the very child he was looking to protect. But Simon believed that the choice to save her at the potential risk was an acceptable choice, and I’m inclined to agree with him . . . for good reason. Hold on to your minds, we are about to get mathematical!
To Save Marceline or Save Simon’s Sanity?
To solve this moral dilemma we must devote ourselves like Beemo, the sentient little computer, to finding the answers. We must pry and search until we reach a satisfying conclusion. The first thing we must do is look at the doctrine of double effect and how it affects our beloved Simon and Marcy.
The doctrine of double effect was first expressed by Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). We can see what it means by looking at a situation where your choice will produce the intended positive effect as well as an unintentional negative effect. Aquinas uses the idea of double effect to justify the unintentional negative effects, such as the death of another, as a possible result in a moment of self-defense.2 This is considered a double effect because the intended result was meant to be positive, but allowed for a negative result to also occur as a side-effect.
A big problem with the doctrine of double effect is telling when a negative outcome is intended out of a desire for harm or as a foreseen, yet unfortunate, side effect. The situation with Simon and Marceline is no different as Simon not only regrets that his decision will make Marceline cry, but he foresees that this will happen and still chooses to carry out the action. The question is whether or not Simon’s action can be justified by the doctrine of double effect.
Simon had to do what he could to survive in the wastes, and his life was only further complicated when he met eight-year-old Marceline. She was young and afraid, as any child would be. Simon met her crying in the ruined rubble of a city street, and helped calm her down with a stuffed animal, which she has kept to this day. Simon essentially adopted her and took care of her as though she was his own daughter. Sadly, the act of taking care of a child was made even more difficult when the world had been so severely altered by a mutagenic bomb.
Throughout their travels, Simon and Marceline had to look out for and care for each other. They helped each other laugh and find hope in the world. We saw as Simon made jokes to cheer her up when she was sad, and he even pantomimed being in a TV show to keep her childhood alive in the mutagenic hellscape.
Simon and Marcy had to brave the harsh weather of the world and avoid the newly emerging monsters and creatures that were beginning to walk the Earth. They had no weapons, and no combat skills. The only thing they did have was Simon’s crown and the magical powers that it gave him. Unfortunately, there was a very large drawback to using the magical crown.
Whenever Simon would put on the crown, he would become a completely different person. He was loud, cackling, and obsessed with himself—the complete opposite of Simon. In fact, he was so different that he frightened young Marceline. Sadly, he realized that this undesired change was necessary if he was going to protect her, but even he feared what he might become in order to save Marceline’s life.
Simon and Marceline Sing a Ballad
In the episode “I Remember You,” it’s revealed to Marceline just how much Simon feared what he would become due to the effects of the crown. Marceline discovers notes that Simon left her before he lost his mind, turning him into the Ice King. The two of them then perform the notes as a song and what they sing is as follows:
Marceline, is it just you and me in the wreckage of the world? That must be so confusing for a little girl. And I know you’re going to need me here with you. But I’m losing myself and I’m afraid you’re going to lose me too. This magic keeps me alive but it’s making me crazy, and I need to save you but who’s going to save me? Please forgive me for whatever I do when I don’t remember you.
We can see in these notes just how certain Simon was that he would soon be forgetting Marceline and that he would possibly perform evil acts in the future.
Tragically, Simon was left with two choices. He could choose to save himself and commit one evil action by letting a child die, or he could choose to save the child and possibly commit multiple evil actions as a result. These were the two choices that Simon was left with, and the doctrine of double effect would actually prefer the latter as the evil actions he feared are only possible ones. There was no certainty that he would commit evil actions. The doctrine is only concerned with the immediate negative effects not with the far off future implications of an action.
The fact is that the only immediate action Simon permitted in order to save Marceline’s life was the consequence of making the child cry. The doctrine would find this to be an acceptable exchange as the positive effect of saving her life far outweighed the negative outcome of her broken heart. Any negative consequence that came from this point on is not applicable to his choice to wear the crown. Only the immediate, or somewhat immediate, consequences of an action are applicable to the doctrine of double effect.
The Theft of Jake’s Everything Burrito
The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) said that all of our moral actions should be motivated by our duty to help others—something which Finn and Jake would agree with. It was this idea of duty that helped Kant to come up with the idea of the “Categorical Imperative.” The Categorical Imperative is a rule that allows for us to decide if performing a certain action is ethical or not ethical, which is why it is useful to apply it to Simon’s dilemma.
Kant argues that the Categorical Imperative is essential for moral choice. It is formulated in the statement, “So act that the maxim of thy deed may stand as universal law.” In other words, you act morally when you follow a rule that can be applied to anyone at any time or place. It must be acceptable for everyone to follow this rule, not just one person or a select few.
Suppose that Jake is cooking himself a breakfast fit for a hero, and today he has decided to make himself an Everything Burrito. This burrito is the most delicious burrito filled with all the amazing tastes one could muster. Jake loves his burrito. It is large, delicious, and he has spent a very long time preparing it. This is something that he has been looking forward to all morning. He even woke up bright and early to begin cooking it.
Finn, exhausted from monster slaying, slept in and does not have the time to make himself breakfast before embarking on his newest adventure. Finn has to make a choice. He can steal Jake’s burrito and eat it himself, or he can simply wait until lunch to eat. Finn decides to judge the situation according to the Categorical Imperative.
Finn asks himself, “Would it be acceptable for everyone to steal?” He imagines a universe in which moral law allows for everyone to steal. This would allow for the Ice King to steal anything he wanted from others, including princesses from their kingdoms! The candy people in the Candy Kingdom could steal from one another without a second thought. There would be no consequence and everyone would be allowed to steal from everyone else. It would be as bad as the City of Thieves!
Now, while that sucks, this isn’t what makes stealing wrong, according to Kant. Kant would point out that if everyone’s stealing, then the idea of stealing falls apart! How can we have an idea of “property” when we know everything’s going to be stolen all the time? So if we make it universal that stealing is okay, stealing becomes an illogical idea, because stealing can only take place in a world in which we can actually own stuff . . . and we can’t own stuff in a world in which everything is always being stolen!
So Finn decides that by allowing stealing to be morally acceptable on the universal scale it creates an illogical situation where everyone always steals from everyone else. This means that the Categorical Imperative has shown stealing to be immoral. And this, sadly, means that Finn will have to skip breakfast today while Jake eats his amazing Everything Burrito because Finn can’t make an exception to the rule of stealing just for himself. If he applies it to everyone, the whole thing falls apart, and if he says it’s okay just for him he isn’t playing very fair at all. . . .
We can apply the Categorical Imperative to the situation with Simon and Marceline. Simon was attempting to determine if he should save the life of a child despite the fear that doing so would cause him to lose his sanity and possibly perform future evil acts. Simon questioned if it was acceptable to let Marceline, die in order to save himself.
With the Categorical Imperative, we have to also ask if the rule, “I should use others just to get what I want” can be universalizable? Certainly, letting little kids die to save ourselves falls under the “taking care of my needs at the expense of the needs of others” category! And we are often encouraged to put ourselves before others. . . . But think about it, if we all are following the rule, “It is good to use people just to get what I want” (like letting children die) that means others will use us just to get what they want too! But that makes no sense, because we made the rule in the first place so that we could get what we want! And being used (often to the point of harm) is not what any of us want! So if we make “use other people a rule” the whole rule falls apart, again! So, Simon, if he is going to follow Kant’s recommendation, has to try to help Marcy because he can’t ignore her needs just to take care of himself since none of us, rationally, want to live in a world where everyone is taking advantage of us!
Drowning Candy People in Fountains
There’s at least one more way to defend Simon’s choice to go insane rather than let Marcy die. Utilitarianism is the idea that a moral choice is one that helps to improve utility, or happiness.
“Act utilitarianism” argues that an action is only morally acceptable if that action is the one that produces the most utility (roughly defined as “happiness”). Choosing an action that produces anything less than the greatest happiness is immoral according to act utilitarianism. The problem with act utilitarianism is that often in the decision making process there’s not enough time to calculate all of the consequences of our actions.
Finn is walking past a fountain in the center of the Candy Kingdom on his way to deliver very important plans to Princess Bubblegum. He’s in a rush because Bubblegum told him that these plans must be delivered to her as quickly as possible because they hold the secret to saving the world from the Lich forever. While walking past the fountain he observes a candy child drowning. The child looks to be a three-year-old candy cane named Carl. Finn can either continue on his way to deliver these extremely important plans and ignore Carl, or his can save Carl and risk ruining the documents on which the plans are written and be late.
Act utilitarianism would ask Finn to take the time to decide whether saving Carl or delivering the plans would create the most utility—in other words, which action would cause the greatest total happiness in the world?
Finn’s situation has a time limit! Finn may not have the time to add up all of the possible happiness. But if we ignore this difficulty, we see that Finn still has to calculate whether delivering the plans or saving Carl will create the most happiness overall.
By delivering the plans to Princess Bubblegum Finn would be saving all of Ooo from the Lich. Countless lives would be saved! On the other hand, saving the candy child named Carl creates happiness for Carl and his parents as they would not have to suffer the sorrow of his death. The utility in this situation is limited to three people initially, with room to grow as time passes. For act utilitarianism, leaving the child to die and taking the plans to Princess Bubblegum is the action that produces the greatest immediate happiness. Saving Carl’s life would be immoral according to act utilitarianism.
Rule utilitarianism takes a step beyond act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism says that the action that’s morally right is the one that, as a general rule, produces the greatest happiness. So yes, sometimes it might save the world to let a child drown, but as a general rule, it doesn’t. So we can develop rules before problems arise that help us decide what to do like, “Murder is wrong” and “Stealing is bad” because, in general, murder and stealing create a great deal of unhappiness, even if in a few very unusual situations they create more happiness. These already determined rules help Finn to decide almost immediately which action is moral.
Rule utilitarianism would argue that both the plans and the candy child named Carl are important and performing either would produce a great deal of happiness, but saving Carl is what takes priority because the rules value saving a child’s life. This means that Finn would be morally correct in saving Carl’s life despite the fact that delivering the plans to Princess Bubblegum would produce more utility overall. So what does this mean for Marcy?
The Happiness of a Vampire Child
If we look at Simon’s choice using act utilitarianism we must take into consideration all the happiness that was created or taken away from that choice. While this is essentially impossible to do in the moment, we are able to do it as we are looking back on Simon’s choice from the future.
We know that by saving Marceline, Simon has increased the happines of Finn and Jake (well Finn at least) as they now have a new friend with whom they can hang out, play music, and shoot hoops. The happiness of Marceline’s father is increased, as he is able to continue his evil efforts to attempt to make Marceline the new ruler of his kingdom in the Nightosphere. Even Marceline’s happiness is increased due to Simon’s choice.
Marceline was and still is saddened by the loss of her friend Simon, but over the years she has moved on with her life. She has created new friends, experienced romantic relationships, and come to terms with Simon’s change. Marcy has danced in the Fire Kingdom, ridden giant gold fish, and discovered untold mysteries in the Land of Ooo. And, as seen in the episode “Simon and Marcy,” she has come to some terms with Simon’s new and eccentric mindset as the Ice King. Her loss makes her sad, but she also, because she lived, has been able to experience a great deal of happiness, not to mention adventure!
When looking at Simon’s choice through the lens of rule utilitarianism it’s even easier to determine that his choice was moral. As we saw above when talking about the Categorical Imperative, our society has determined that saving children when they’re in danger is our duty. It’s essentially a rule of our society. This means that when met with the choice of saving Marceline or himself, rule utilitarianism would dictate that Simon save Marceline as that is what the rules of our society have already decided. Simon’s choice is once again shown to have been the moral one.
Simon and Marcy, Together Forever
Looking at these three theories, we have seen evidence that shows how Simon’s choice to save Marceline is a moral choice. The doctrine of double effect shows that it was morally acceptable for Simon to sacrifice himself as the negative consequence of Marceline’s sorrow is outweighed by the positive outcome of saving her life. The Categorical Imperative also supports that saving Marceline’s life is moral because a world in which it is universally accepted to sacrifice children is illogical. Finally, utilitarianism agrees that saving Marceline would not only produce the largest utility but is also supported by the rules of our society.
Ethics is debatable. No one theory is universally accepted. Because of this, we can’t just assume that Simon’s actions are morally correct. By looking at three different ethical theories, we’re able to come to a general agreement that saving Marceline is the ethical choice.
Ethics is never completely clear and these theories are not perfect, but they do give us a common basis for looking at how we live our lives. The ethics of any situation is always questionable, but most people do not take the time to analyze the morality of a choice as many of our choices are in the moment.
Simon’s no different as he chose to sacrifice himself for the innocence of a child that he loved. This choice was not really one of contemplation or even a hard choice for Simon. He was worried about what would happen after the consequences of his choice took full effect, but the choice to save Marceline was never in question for Simon. He acted from what he believed and felt was right.
Simon felt that sacrificing himself to save Marceline was the moral thing to do. Whether this choice is from a source of duty, appeal to utility, or something else entirely is for only Simon to know. It was his choice to make, and according to the three theories analyzed here, it was a morally righteous one.
We all face choices like this every day. And like Simon, we are, in some ways even faced with whether or not we should choose to let children die (say in underdeveloped nations, sweat shops, or abusive homes). The kinds of choices that we do make are about what’s right and wrong within our social interactions with one another.
We don’t always have the time to question or think about what is the right thing to do. We can only go with our gut reaction and what we believe is the right choice. By looking at these systems, we can see how making the right choice is never easy, but we can see that Simon was right in making his choice to save Marceline. The Ice King might be a villain to some people, but to me, and I’m sure Marceline, Simon Petrikov is the greatest hero the Land of Ooo has ever known.
1 “I Remember You.”
2 In Part 2 of Summa Theologica.