Is It Cruel to Create Gems with Innate Rivalry in Steven Universe?

In the animated series Steven Universe, gems are portrayed as sentient beings with their own personalities, emotions, and desires. This gives rise to an interesting ethical debate: is it cruel to create gems with the innate purpose of hating or being the rival of a designated person?

Autonomy and Sentience

The series emphasizes that gems are sentient beings with their own unique identities. By creating gems with the sole purpose of being antagonistic towards another person, we undermine their autonomy and treat them as tools rather than individuals. This approach fails to respect their sentience and individuality, which could be considered an ethical and moral issue.

Nature vs. Nurture

The identities and behaviors of the gems in Steven Universe are heavily influenced by their environments and experiences. If gems are created to hate or rival someone, it could lead to a destructive cycle of conflict that perpetuates negativity and suffering for both the gems and the designated person. This could stifle the potential for personal growth and positive change within the series.

Moral Implications

From a moral standpoint, intentionally creating beings with the purpose of enmity can be seen as cruel because it inflicts emotional pain and conflict. Such actions reflect a lack of empathy and understanding of the consequences of such actions. In a world where the series promotes compassion and unity, forcibly making gems into rivals is a step backwards.

Narrative Themes

The series often explores themes of redemption, understanding, and the complexity of relationships. Creating antagonistic gems could contradict these themes by promoting division rather than unity and growth. If gems are predestined to hate or rival someone, it may detract from the characters' potential to develop meaningful and positive relationships.

Long-term Consequences

The long-term impact of creating gems with the sole purpose of rivaling another gem would likely be detrimental. Such a dynamic could foster resentment, fear, and hostility rather than healthy relationships or conflict resolution. This doesn't align with the series' core values and could have adverse effects on the plot and character development.

In conclusion, while the act of creating rival gems may serve a narrative purpose in some contexts, it is inherently cruel and problematic within the moral framework of Steven Universe. Gems should be able to choose who they become and should not be forced into roles that conflict with their autonomy and individuality.

However, there is a counterargument. Some gems, like jaspers and rubies, are built for fighting and war. If these gems have no purpose or cause to exist other than fighting, they may no longer be fulfilling their predetermined roles. This raises the question: is it cruel to make gems for fighting and war if they have no mission left?

The answer to this question is nuanced. Gems should indeed be able to choose their destiny. If they are made to be a rival or a fighter with no other purpose, they can no longer choose who they want to be. This lack of agency is inherently limiting and can be seen as cruel. It's essential for gems, as sentient beings, to have the freedom to explore and define their own identities.