Thomas Hobbes stated that humans are, at our core, rational beings, and will always act in our own self-interest when the opportunity presents itself. Aristotle said that ethics are something you learn through experience, and that as we evolve we learn what our values and morals are. So following Hobbes’ outline, Prince Hans of the Southern Isles in "Frozen" can be considered to be acting in accordance with what is expected of him. So then why do we see him as a villain? Yes, he’s a major dick and deserved the punch delivered to him at the end of the movie, but if he's our guideline for a villain, then shouldn’t we all be punched off of a boat?
To be fair, I’m no philosopher or ethics guru, but I am a fan of "Frozen," and I can’t help but wonder why we all hate people acting in accordance with how we all do. So what was Disney’s aim? Was it to present a villain that we could love and hate in a span of 10 minutes? Was it to have a villain in a movie that was lacking a clear-cut “bad guy?” Or was it to give another perspective to the whole idea of a villain? Disney isn’t exactly known for their underlying themes, but this one character makes me question their whole foundation.
I am a firm believer in that people can be inherently evil as a result of their previous experiences. Take a look at another Disney classic: "Cinderella." The evil stepmother was in fact exactly that: evil. She was awful to a girl that didn’t do anything to her, to the one she was entrusted to, to love and raise as her own, and she broke that contract. I can say the same thing about Hans. Anna trusted him enough to let him rule while she was gone, and he did. We all believed in his good character until he let Anna die and almost killed Elsa.
But in the end we learn it was all in his own self-interest, whereas the evil stepmother was acting because she was a cruel woman with hatred for the girl that reminded her of her lost lover. And that’s what separates Hans: he was acting as any of us would do in similar situations. That’s not to say that any of us would act exactly like him, but instead that I can sympathize.
Let’s look at his background: he’s the youngest of 12, he was teased incessantly, and he’s a prince with pretty much no chance to actually use his title. That sucks. But when presented with the chance to actually live up to his title and to prove to his family that he’s more than scum, he took it. Hobbes also argued that any rational being would not choose competition if there were a better option. In this case, Hans saw the possibility of success without competition from his siblings and followed that. I think that a lot of us would do the same. He saw an opportunity to better himself and to make his situation better and grabbed it. Good for him.
So for Hobbes and myself, Hans did what any rational human would do: he acted in his own self-interest and thus doesn’t deserve a lot of the hate he receives. He may have treated the heroines of the film badly and abused the trust given to him, but he also chose the opportunity that he thought would work out for him. When do most of us not do something similar? We as an audience are trained to dislike him by societal standards because we label him as “bad.” Sure, he’s not really the most likable guy, he’s a little bit egotistical, his hair is somewhat questionable, he moves fast in relationships, and doesn’t think about others. But all of us have our flaws and make mistakes, so can we give him a break?
