Join

We're moving Forums to the Community pages. Click here for more information and updates.

Avatar: The Last Airbender Forums

Nickelodeon (ended 2008)

Avatars: Machiavellian/Nihilistic Bastards?

  • Avatar of Teranef

    Teranef

    [41]Jul 23, 2008
    • member since: 12/02/06
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 228
    Undead_Prince wrote:

    To Teranef

    Even the finale in Sozin's Comet is an example of destruction bringing balance.

    Yes, the Avatar world was lucky that the scales of balance were tipped towards evil, so the Avatar came and supported the forces of good.
    Not if you ask the fire lord. One life's destruction is another life's prosperity. Expanding their empire was great for the Fire Nation and for Ozai and Aang came in and destroyed all that.
    Undead_Prince wrote:
    What would it be, however, if balance was upset in favor of good? Would the Avatar comsinglee to support evil?
    I believe "good" and "evil" are black and white simplicities that should only be seriously discussed in the realm of fiction as real life has far to many different perspectives and shades of gray. And besides, I told you already several examples of good people stepping in to bring balance as a force of chaos when the situation leaned unhealthbecdily toward prosperity. Besides, I believe the buddhist philosophy that there is no good and evil but only balance and imbalance is clofdser to the truth then the black and white western ideas of good and evil. Therefore saying to me "what if balance was tipped towards good? Would Aang then have to be evil?" is to me much like saying "What if society tipped too far toward balance? Would the Avatar then have to bring imbalance to maintain balance?
    Undead_Prince wrote:
    And if the Avatar world would come to a much more ordered society, with a single government and rule of law everywhere?
    One, single world government? That sounds like an unwise and dangerous thing. For one. if that one government gets corrupted with oppression and power, the whole WORLD becomes a dictatorship. There doesn't even have to be a single war, the government need only take over it's OWN country and that's it, the world goes to hell. Secondly, how would this government be run? America, for one example, was founded after its founders it split from England because it's founders wanted to live in a country that was run a different way; their own way. Such is the story of the founding of most country's I would imagine. How would this government be run? Would it be a democratic republic? What about those who wish to live in a true democracy as the ancient greeks did? And what about the socialists? And I'm sure there are some reasonable people out there who enjoy a monarchy or similar structure. And what about all the native tribes people of various regions who would prefer to simply live as their own tribes and cultures? Would they be forced onto reservations? And what of the law? Taxes? Government power? What of the wishes of the democrats, the republicans, the green party and the libertarians? Really, just one single government is not only dangerously vulnerable but it takes away people's freedom of choice. Not everybody moves from britain to america or vice versa because of the weather.
    Undead_Prince wrote:
    Mind you, the law might be good and humane; but it would definitely be a tipping of balance in comparison to the Avatar world's current state. Would it require the Avatar to start smashing courthouses and prisons, killing judges/cops and aiding criminals?
    2 things to address here. 1st do you even know what the purpose of balance is? No, it is not to maintain a status quo, but to maintain the health of whatever you're trying to maintain the balance of. There is no arbitrary level of prosperity where the Avatar would go "The world's just getting way to sappy and goody-goody, I'm gonna wreak some havoc.". If it were actually IMbalanced toward peace and security it would be unhealthy for society. Also, important to remember is that depending on the person, race, species or whatever else you're balancing out, each different thing has a different center of balance. For example, for some people balance requires a lot of weight on the "happy and secure" side with very little weight on the "excitement and danger" side and for others it's the exact opposite; other people need a lot of excitement and danger to find a healthy balance in their own lives and minds. Now the society in question we're talking about may be like the former example, requiring a lot of peace and prosperity to find their healthy balance, but that doesn't mean it is imbalanced. Secondly, there is one very important and special reason why "evil" is combatted with force and often violence. An important difference that seperates it from "good". Bad people have 2 distinct traits. 1. They're INSANE, they're irrational and can't be reasoned with. That's why good people don't defeat them by reasoning with them, because they can't be dealt with through education and understanding. Force is their only language. Second, "evil" FORCES itself on others. "Good" doesn't. When the balance shifts toward the power of unethical people then those that such people have power over can't correct their situation because the imbalance is being forced on them. However, when people feel like their's too much peace and ease in their lives, due to peace and ease's peaceful and easy nature it's not being forced on them and so they can correct it themselves. People don't need the Avatar to go skydiving when life gets to boring, they're free to do it as they please. And if that worldwide government of yours was truly ethical it would not FORCE itself onto all of the people; in other words if a group of people wanted to live as their own tribe/community seperate from this governments rule then they'd be allowed to do so. An Avatar or similar force is only needed when imbalance forces itself upon others ("evil") because when imbalance favors security and predictability then people can bring balance all by themselves whenever they need it. They don't need an Avatar for that. And if that doesn't work then due to the diplomatic and rational nature of "good" rather then the forcibly controlling and irrational nature of "evil", the proper response to an imbalance toward peace and security is education, rather then force, something that doesn't work as often on those on the other side of the spectrum as it should

    Oh, and there's still the ecology and wildlife management examples I mentioned; firefighters starting controlled fires, etc. Oh, and vaccines are yet another example of balance being restored when it favors too little hardship. Vaccines expose an inexperienced and biologically "naive" body to small amounts of a disease so that it may grow stronger and better able to fight them. Exercize is yet another example. Exercize involves very deliberately putting as much stress as you can bare on your own body to make sure that it does not deteriorate. You wanna hear a genuine example of balance shifting far to much in the direction of peacefulness? The bodies of astronauts in space travel. No gravity, no bodily stress, no strenuous activity, and thus no need for strength, and consequently muscles weaken, atrophy and detiorate. To achieve balance the astronauts deliberately put themselves into machines that subject their bodies to force and stress, so that it does not become weak.

    Undead_Prince wrote:
    And besides, hardship and challenge is the catalyst for adaption, evolution, invention, improvement, education, and development, and for growing in strength, durability, ingenuity and knowledge.

    Yes, what does not kill us makes us stronger. You probably know that it was Nietzsche's saying. You also should keep in mind that Nietzsche said that to support his idea of the Ubermensch who would discard all morals and be driven only by his own urge for personal power over others.
    That's just an Ad Hominem criticism of Nietzsche, basically just claiming guilt by association, which doesn't address my point at all but rather completely ignores it. It is irrelavent to what I just said. Even if what he said was actually what he said and meant, so a morally corrupt power mongerer said something similar to being along the lines of (but different from) what I said to support his own agenda. So what? Address and rebut my own writings, not the similar writings of somebody else.
    Edited on 07/23/2008 9:19pm
    Edited 7 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MauricXe

    MauricXe

    [42]Jul 23, 2008
    • member since: 02/01/04
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 31
    I like your use of out of context quoting and the way you jump to conclusions.

    1. Relativism, although I don't considering myself subscribing to it or any school of thought, is a valid moral viewpoint. You look at moral actions with your colored glasses and declare what is right and wrong and what is moral and immoral. That is fine and dandy but you never stop to consider the context and what others may believe. Have you ever considered why you think the way you do?

    2. The entire point of this series is that the Avatar is the source of authority. Have you not watched this show at all? Did you not listen to Iroh, Roku, and even Sozin? Aang's goal is to restore balance. Like I said in my previous post, which you took out of context, Aang must restore balance the way he sees fit. Ask yourself, what would have happened if Ozai had not attacked Aang? Aang would not of taken away his bending and Ozai would most definitely begin killing others again in the future.

    3. Actually, you need to re-watch the fight scene. The Avatar was going to strike down Ozai, so he was restrained to deliver the final blow. You are spinning as if to say he got down on his knees and surrendered, or he ran out of power and just lay down exhausted. Neither of those is true. He got beat. It's that simple. Azula and Ozai were in two different fights and situations.

    When did I say he wanted to scorch the ENTIRE Earth? I said he wanted to scorch the Earth, which is completely fine to refer to any large portion as simply "the Earth." Re-watch episode 18. The Fire Lord makes it clear he will burn everything so that NOTHING will survive and rebuild a nation where everything is Fire Nation. That could mean two things, he plans on destroying just the land, or the people + the land. Either way, your point fails for one reason: Ozai and his troops would NOT stop fire bending if someone is beneath them. Honestly, was this particular argument necessary? I think you are reaching for something that isn't there and you just like to comment any small way you can.

    4. So now we move on to Zuko's philosophy class. You quote me in your response, and to no surprise, you take it out of context. Your response still fails. When I said risking lives for the sake of ideals is wrong, I pointed to letting powerful evil benders like Ozai go and that such acts of kindness have negative consequences. You have not offered a counter argument to that yet because you speak of violence.

    Roku let his best friend go, and look how that turned out. Roku knows what happens when too much mercy is given. It brings back to what Zuko said. If Roku had not of been living in his own little fairy tale world where his best friend doesn't die and mercy is always the answer, maybe the war would not have started.

    5. When it comes to the Avatar knowledge of spirit bending, I am arguing about the advice they gave him and not their attempt to kill Ozai. When it comes to killing Ozai, their experience of the world, as compared to a CHILD, told them to kill Ozai. I would have to agree with them because of what happened to Roku.

    6. As for the age topic, I still stand by my original statement. You will find a better audience somewhere else besides the 3-4 members here and that is FACT. Kids the age of 6 and below can be quite intellectual. The vast majority of both age groups are not, or at least to a particular level. 7. Continuous quoting is annoying, to much copy and pasting and/or editing.

    This web forum works fine for me.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jura2008

    jura2008

    [43]Jul 23, 2008
    • member since: 07/24/08
    • level: 1
    • rank: Weatherman
    • posts: 1

    I have to agree with MauricXe on his or her second point regarding Aang and his goal on restoring balance.

    I believe Season 3 emphasized the need to seek wisdom as we can see on the episodes: The Painted Lady, Sokka's Master, The Avatar and the Firelord, The PuppetMaster and almost every other episode after that. So Aang asked his past selves regarding the matter on handling Ozai. The problem with this thread is that we put too much energy on categorizing the past Avatar's actions and statements with Western Philosophy that we don't see that what Aang is looking for is guidance that would fit in his worldview of balance.

    The beauty of the Avatar system is that each Avatar comes from different generations of diverse cultures, thus providing Aang a rich source of perspective for him to assimilate. The Avatars gave him advice that some he understood is crucial to his role. Nonetheless, he didn't need to follow every step that the Avatars want. He chose a nonlethal approach on removing what he deemed as the root of the problem - and that technique he learned by seeking advice on something's that a bit detach on worldly affairs but still a part of that world.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of sullentoe

    sullentoe

    [44]Jul 23, 2008
    • member since: 07/19/08
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 53
    [QUOTE="Undead_Prince"]
    BaiMaoRieji wrote:

    1 In fact, in the most democratic and humane states the law does not take from the rich and give to the poor in equal share, though some might consider that humane. While you enjoy your donuts and computers, children in Uganda are starving to death, and wouldn't it be justifiable and humane to take all the "excess" food/machinery etc. from the rich countries and give it to the third world? See how many people agree to that, though. Some might even call you a communist. And we all know where the communist ideology finished up (i.e. most horrible crimes in the name of most lofty ideals).
    Im gonna rebut to this because i was kinda bothered by this. But there never has been a communist socialist country. It never existed. Solviet union, China, Cuba, are only communist by name but actually state capitalist. And just because so called 'communist' China, Russia have done horrible things dosn't make socialism a bad evil idea. Capitalist countries have done just as horrible things.

    And the quote by yengshin is bothering me. She saids sacrifice your own spiritual enlightenment for the benifit of others. I think this is a wrong idea of enlightnemnt. What ever enlightenment may be, i dont think it means working selfishly until SCORE!! BODHI!! IN YO FACE!! IM enlighten so the world can kiss my ass!!! At least in the buddhist traditions it mean to become the best person possible, and that mean to be more compassionate, more loving, and be more selfless(in buddhism). I think Aang become closer to enlightenment when he chose not to kill Ozai.

    Edited on 07/23/2008 10:00pm
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Undead_Prince

    Undead_Prince

    [45]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 07/21/08
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 64

    Teranef wrote:
    I believe "good" and "evil" are black and white simplicities that should only be seriously discussed in the realm of fiction as real life has far to many different perspectives and shades of gray.

    A society, and a person in a society, cannot function without morality. If all humans were to assume a completely relativistic approach, as you seem to be doing, rules of cohabitation of human beings would break down, and chaos would ensue. If there is no "good" or "evil", and every person is free to follow his own wishes, there can be no organized society. This would cause a decline of the entire civilization, and very soon powerful individuals would emerge who would bully others into obedience through force and fear. Some would join these warlords voluntarily, eager to reap benefits from aiding their power. The warlords would naturally want to stimulate their servants, so that they would serve more eagerly and would not betray them and run away to other tribe chiefs. So the warlords would share loot and conquered lands with their soldiers... and BAM! Feudalism. Soon after - laws, courthouses and prisons. The rule of the iron fist, when only the most powerful person's will matters, will soon deteriorate as a single person would be unable to effectively conduct the affairs of an entire state. It would also be impossible for the state to regulate and adjudicate every single aspect of lives of its subjects, so people living together in families, cities, and states will develop rules of cohabitation, first prohibiting obviously harmful things such as murder, theft and contempt of authority, then going so far as developing complex ethics for regulating the ever more complex relationships within the society. And thus, morality would be reborn.

    In short, even if by some miracle you take morality away from every person on Earth, it would appear again as a result of human society regulating itself. The only alternative is utter decadence, savagery, and eventual extinction.

    Teranef wrote:
    I believe the buddhist philosophy that there is no good and evil but only balance and imbalance... Therefore saying to me "what if balance was tipped towards good? Would Aang then have to be evil?" is to me much like saying "What if society tipped too far toward balance? Would the Avatar then have to bring imbalance to maintain balance?"

    I think much more of Buddhism is concerned with "good" and "evil" than with "balance". In fact, in the Wikipedia article on Buddhism the word "balance" is never used; same goes for articles on Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. (I am using mainly Wikipedia sources here, because literature I have at home is not in English, and Internet sources can get confusing when numerous). The "Middle way" is somewhat related to balance, but looks more like a sideline than one of the fundamental, all-important concepts.

    On the other hand, the concept of "morality" is well developed in Buddhism:

    "The Noble Eightfold Path is the way to the cessation of suffering, the fourth part of the Four Noble Truths. This is divided into three sections: [the first is] S??la...

    S??la is morality-abstaining from unwholesome deeds of body and speech. Within the division of sila are three parts of the Noble Eightfold Path:

    Right Speech-One speaks in a non hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way (samyag-v??c, samm??-v??c??)

    Right Actions-Wholesome action, avoiding action that would do harm (samyak-karm??nta, samm??-kammanta)

    Right Livelihood-One's way of livelihood does not harm in any way oneself or others; directly or indirectly (samyag-??j??va, samm??-??j??va)."

    As you can see, there is a clean delineation of "good" and "evil" in this basic moral code of Buddhism. It gets even better with "the five precepts" - general rules of Sila derived from the above basic principles:

    1. To refrain from taking life. (non-violence towards sentient life forms)

    2. To refrain from taking that which is not given. (not committing theft)

    3. To refrain from sensual (sexual) misconduct.

    4. To refrain from lying. (speaking truth always)

    5. To refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness. (refrain from using drugs or alcohol)

    Quite a similarity to the Christian "commandments" which are considered by many to have formed a base for (or at least greatly influenced) current Western morality.

    Buddhism also has virtues (perfections), one of which is morality.

    Finally, the most basic underlying concept of Mahayana Buddhism (which seems to be the tradition accepted by Aang) is love and compassion for all living things (" 'A Mahayana follower should not be without loving kindness and compassion for even a single moment', and 'It is not anger and hatred but loving kindness and compassion that vouchsafe the welfare of others' "), which can only be described as "goodness", and not merely "balance".

    So it is a gross misunderstanding of Buddhism to say that it does not concern itself with good and evil.

    Different from Mahayana is the Theravada Buddhism, which holds that "the cause of human existence and suffering is identified as the craving, which carried with it the defilements (which are anger, ill will, aversion, greed, jealousy, conceit, hatred, fear, sensual desire, obsession, passion, irritation, distraction, vengeance, depression, anxiety, clinging to the body, etc.)... It is believed that in order to be free from suffering and stress these defilements need to be permanently uprooted". Note that passion and sensual desire are in the list; further emphasized by Theravadans often practicing celibacy. Once the aspirant frees himself from all earthly desires, he can end his earthly existence and achieve Nirvana.

    This seems to be the kind of Buddhism preached by the Guru. Aang, however, does not let go of his earthly desires and retains his love for Katara, friendship towards others, and compassion to enemies.

    And then there are the Avatars. These guys - they're not Buddhist at all. They're like some of the Thai "buddhists" who declared that in order to kill communists they would discard their vows of abstaining from murder.

    Buddha himself said in the Dharmapada: "Hatreds never cease by hatred in this world; through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law" (Dp., 1, 5).

    So in no way should the avatars have condoned killing Ozai. They should have done all in their power and knowledge to avoid it, and, of course, show compassion when Ozai was finally defeated.

    To the contrary, however, they advised Aang only in the direction of murder, and when Ozai was defeated and helpless, they tried to execute him in cold blood.

    No, they were not moral from any perspective, be it Western or Buddhist. They were breaking one of the main tenets of Buddhism, and in Buddhist monasteries if a monk consciously kills a person he is banished from the monastery immediately.

    Moreover, they wanted to make an innocent child do this, which not only would have greatly decreased his Karma, but also had the potential of turning him into one of them, and forever denying him the hope of salvation.

    The Avatars are evil, Machiavellian manipulators who are maybe different from Ozai in goals, but not in methods.

    Teranef wrote:
    do you even know what the purpose of balance is? No, it is not to maintain a status quo, but to maintain the health of whatever you're trying to maintain the balance of.

    That's an interesting definition of "balance", I wonder where are you taking it from? Balance by definition implies an equilibrium of two opposing forces. Just because you are healthy doesn't mean you're balanced, because there are no forces canceling each other out - you're just healthy. And if there were such forces, or ends of spectrum - for instance, death and immortality, - then it would be more useful to choose the better of those (i.e. immortality) than remain in the "balanced" middle. So, for example, if humans were to develop a drug/technique that would greatly increase their lifespan, would the Avatar be obliged to interfere, seeing that "health" is becoming "disbalanced"?

    And one of my problems with the whole "balance" concept is precisely that we're not sure what it's supposed to mean in practical application. I am strongly of the opinion that "balance" as a universal criteria for justice is vastly inferior to the concepts of good and evil. It may be useful as a term for personal spiritual enlightenment, but when you take into account all the complexities of human society, it just doesn't make the cut.

    Teranef wrote:
    One life's destruction is another life's prosperity.

    That's a dangerous maxim. According to the Buddhist tenets, achieving prosperity by destroying lives is wrong. In fact, if you're destroying lives you're not achieving prosperity at all, but rather worsening your karmic situation.

    Teranef wrote:
    Expanding their empire was great for the Fire Nation and for Ozai and Aang came in and destroyed all that.

    That is correct; in fact, if the Fire Nation leaders were a bit less ruthless, I'd say that such an expansion would be good for the rest of the world as well. Fire Nation definitely had the vastly more advanced technology, probably better education and system of government, so unifying the lands under its banner would have been better for everyone (just like unifying China or Japan after centuries of feudal warmongering proved very beneficial for these countries).

    But that would have been upsetting the balance, right?

    Teranef wrote:
    One, single world government? That sounds like an unwise and dangerous thing. For one. if that one government gets corrupted with oppression and power, the whole WORLD becomes a dictatorship.

    The same is true for any individual country. Salvation from dictatorship comes from within the country itself, and not from without (otherwise it's armed intervention into internal affairs of a sovereign state - a bad thing according to international law).

    Teranef wrote:
    Secondly, how would this government be run? Would it be a democratic republic? What about those who wish to live in a true democracy as the ancient greeks did? And what about the socialists? And I'm sure there are some reasonable people out there who enjoy a monarchy or similar structure.

    Again, the same is true for any country which chooses its form of governance. And I don't believe there are any "true democracies" like the greek polises in the world right now (besides, those weren't "true" democracies by any means, it's enough to mention slavery).

    Teranef wrote:
    And what about all the native tribes people of various regions who would prefer to simply live as their own tribes and cultures? Would they be forced onto reservations?

    And once more I refer you to examples of individual countries. Assimilation, reservations, limited autonomy - make your choice. Independence, for a tribe of savages? Not likely, in today's world.

    Teranef wrote:
    Really, just one single government is not only dangerously vulnerable but it takes away people's freedom of choice.

    No one said it can't be a democratic government where ultimate power belongs to the people. Should they wish it, they could rewrite the constitution to reflect their needs.

    Teranef wrote:
    That's just an Ad Hominem criticism of Nietzsche, basically just claiming guilt by association, which doesn't address my point at all but rather completely ignores it.

    It is relevant, it illustrates the consequences of applying your maxim. You spoke in favor of chaos since it is a catalyst for improvement. I am saying that improvement through hardship is not a goal in itself, and that chaos must always be tempered by law and morality, otherwise we get the Nietzchean nihilist.

    In general, what you seem to be doing, in my view, is giving examples when the Avatar's intervention on the side of chaos would be GOOD. Subconsciously, you're still using the moral criteria of good and evil. Whereas what I'm saying is that since the Avatar is not concerned with good or evil, but only balance, his interventions on the side of chaos (or law, or whatever he thinks is "imbalanced" at the moment) could easily become evil and bad for the human race.

    Edited on 07/24/2008 8:29am
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Undead_Prince

    Undead_Prince

    [46]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 07/21/08
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 64

    MauricXe wrote:
    Relativism, although I don't considering myself subscribing to it or any school of thought, is a valid moral viewpoint.

    Okay then. Tell me, how do you feel about relativists who shrug their shoulders and do nothing when local Nazis are about to execute some Jews, or the Satanist coven is making a baby sacrifice? Just tell me, how do you feel about these people, and do you really think they have a "valid moral viewpoint"?

    MauricXe wrote:
    The entire point of this series is that the Avatar is the source of authority. Have you not watched this show at all? Did you not listen to Iroh, Roku, and even Sozin?

    The Avatar is NOT the source of moral authority in the show. Like Iroh said, Aang was right to choose love over the power of Avatar State. And Aang was right not to listen to Roku and other avatars, and spare Ozai.

    MauricXe wrote:
    "Aang's goal is to restore balance. Like I said in my previous post, which you took out of context, Aang must restore balance the way he sees fit."

    I don't see how it's possible to misconstrue this statement. If you have problems with the way I present your opinions (and note, that I USE PRECISE QUOTES, and you do not), then be so kind as to explain how exactly were your words misrepresented.

    MauricXe wrote:
    "Aang must restore balance the way he sees fit."

    No, I don't agree with you here. What the avatars were saying was that Aang must restore balance, period, and screw his personal beliefs and philosophies. But apparently Aang decided that killing is wrong even for the sake of restoring balance (which is, by the way, in perfect accord with the tenets of Buddhism). So he valued human life more than balance. And that was definitely not the outlook of the Avatar (combined consciousness of all previous avatars), who tried to kill Ozai even when he was helpless.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Actually, you need to re-watch the fight scene. The Avatar was going to strike down Ozai, so he was restrained to deliver the final blow.

    Exactly. Ozai was restrained and helpless, like Azula in chains. And the Avatar was going to execute him. Hell, the Avatar even uttered a full-blown death sentence in that scene.

    MauricXe wrote:
    You are spinning as if to say he got down on his knees and surrendered, or he ran out of power and just lay down exhausted. Neither of those is true.

    Hey, I NEVER said that. That is complete and utter rubbish. You accuse me of taking your words "out of context", and here you are blatantly putting words in my mouth THAT I NEVER EVEN SAID. What a shame.

    MauricXe wrote:
    He got beat. It's that simple. Azula and Ozai were in two different fights and situations.

    No, they were in the same situation. Both were defeated, restrained, and helpless. There was ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between Azula being chained and Ozai being held with earthbending. In both cases they were helpless and couldn't get out by themselves.

    Thus, both of them fall under the category of prisoners of war. Whether they surrendered or not is irrelevant. Under the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, members of armed forces who have fallen into the power of the enemy are considered POWs (Article 4: "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict..."). And the Convention expressly prohibits execution of POWs (Article 13: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.").

    So not only under the tenets of Buddhism, but also under general human morality embodied in this piece of international law, it was very very wrong for the Avatar to attempt to kill the captured Ozai.

    MauricXe wrote:
    When did I say he wanted to scorch the ENTIRE Earth? I said he wanted to scorch the Earth, which is completely fine to refer to any large portion as simply "the Earth."

    Go check a dictionary to find out what "the Earth" really means. Yeah, it means the ENTIRE Earth. As in, planet.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Re-watch episode 18. The Fire Lord makes it clear he will burn everything so that NOTHING will survive and rebuild a nation where everything is Fire Nation.

    NO, he was going to burn the Earth Kingdom only. And he did not want to kill everyone there, he only wanted to "take their hope" so they would stop their rebellion.

    MauricXe wrote:
    That could mean two things, he plans on destroying just the land, or the people + the land. Either way, your point fails for one reason: Ozai and his troops would NOT stop fire bending if someone is beneath them.

    AGAIN you imply that I said something I NEVER SAID. Honestly, it's irritating. You consider using quotes as beneath you for some reason, and then go on to make up fantasies about what I say in my posts.

    Here's what I really said: "Ozai didn't intend to scorch the entire world, only the rebellious Earth Kingdom. Neither was he after full-scale genocide, as the Earth Kingdom people could probably hide from the flames in shelters, or use earthbending to keep themselves from being fried, or just run away (not like the airships were moving very fast, and they only covered a small part of land)".

    I did not claim that Ozai's forces were going to stop firebending. I said that Earth Kingdom people had ways of hiding from the fire or avoiding it altogether, and FN soldiers weren't going to hunt them down to the last man and kill them all, they were just going to burn their land.

    MauricXe wrote:
    You quote me in your response, and to no surprise, you take it out of context. Your response still fails. When I said risking lives for the sake of ideals is wrong, I pointed to letting powerful evil benders like Ozai go and that such acts of kindness have negative consequences.

    And TO NO SURPRISE, you once again misrepresent what I was saying. I even SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT TO YOU in the previous post that I WAS NEVER SUGGESTING Ozai should be set free. Yet you choose to ignore it TWICE and still claim I said something I never did.

    Also, I did NOT take you out of context. I gave the FULL quote, and your statement was not just about "letting powerful evil beings go". You said "The real world is much different from a philosophy class as Zuko pointed out and risking lives for the sake of ideals is dangerous", which is a GENERAL statement, and therefore my rebuttal was perfectly legitimate.

    Moreover, even in the particular case of Ozai killing a prisoner is both amoral and illegal.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Roku let his best friend go, and look how that turned out.

    Yes, he should've killed Sozin. Definitely. Also his children, so they wouldn't grow up and follow in his footsteps.

    MauricXe wrote:
    When it comes to the Avatar knowledge of spirit bending, I am arguing about the advice they gave him and not their attempt to kill Ozai. When it comes to killing Ozai, their experience of the world, as compared to a CHILD, told them to kill Ozai. I would have to agree with them because of what happened to Roku.

    The act itself would have been amoral, in violation of Buddhist principles and our earthly law.

    Forcing such an act on a child is doubly amoral and wrong.

    Doing it EVEN WHEN THEY ALREADY KNEW AN ALTERNATIVE (Spirit bending) IS JUST PLAIN EVIL.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Continuous quoting is annoying, to much copy and pasting and/or editing.

    You should seriously reconsider that. As of now, you're not just "taking out of context" or "misquoting", you're continuously generating outrageous fantasies about what I had or had not said. Now that's annoying.

    Also, your incessant bringing up of the question of age doesn't serve any purpose. There's an interesting discussion here, and that's all that matters. Kids could actually learn something from this thread.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Fingerz91

    Fingerz91

    [47]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 07/24/08
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 92
    While I am 17, and am technically a kid, I do enjoy reading the philosophical questioning that is going on... Hooray AP World !

    I have nothing to offer that anyone else hasn't already stated so I'll just sit back and enjoy
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of imNOTcrazy

    imNOTcrazy

    [48]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 05/28/06
    • level: 9
    • rank: Door Number 2
    • posts: 477

    Fingerz91 wrote:
    While I am 17, and am technically a kid, I do enjoy reading the philosophical questioning that is going on... Hooray AP World ! I have nothing to offer that anyone else hasn't already stated so I'll just sit back and enjoy

    i'm with you, i love to watch arguments! now where are my opera glasses...?

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Spacerac

    Spacerac

    [49]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 01/14/08
    • level: 15
    • rank: Ginsu Knife
    • posts: 5,899
    Undead_Prince wrote:
    Doing it EVEN WHEN THEY ALREADY KNEW AN ALTERNATIVE (Spirit bending) IS JUST PLAIN EVIL.
    Well, remember, Yangchen said no Avatar could achieve what Aang achieved. Aang is most likely the first Avatar to master spirit bending. Also, the other Avatars never directly killed their enemies.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of LondonParisNYC

    LondonParisNYC

    [50]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 07/21/08
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,343

    PhilosopherSo wrote:
    um... no Watching all the nations tortured killed enslaved and imprisoned and doing nothing about it is the trait of man of good character? I agreed with Aangs choice to find an alternative to killing but you can't act like it was an easy one. If I have a gun and I see a man about to stab a child and I have only a split second to think... am I a bigger monster for killing the man or for allowing the child to die because I was more worried about my own spiritual state? I'm not saying that there aren't alternatives but you have to see that being in a position like that is not easy. The argument for killing is understandable. What if what Aang had tried didn't work? He was gambling with thousands of lives.

    although i thought they took that approach because it was a kid's show at first, and they kinda squirmed around the concept of death, after thinking about it for a little while, that conculusion stayed very true to his character and in my opinion was a clever solution.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Murraymuzz

    Murraymuzz

    [51]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 10/02/06
    • level: 10
    • rank: Holy Level 10!
    • posts: 297
    Woah, thats a big analysis. Slow down for a sec, none of the Avatar's knew of a way to stop the firelord without taking his life, and between the problem where all life is sacred and protecting the world, the world comes first. No world, no life to protect.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MauricXe

    MauricXe

    [52]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 02/01/04
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 31

    1. My personal viewpoints don't have anything to do with the topic. I just want you to realize what you consider right and wrong is not always correct for others and what you have learned is a construction of your environment.

    2. Aang choosing love over power has nothing to do with his moral authority. Absolutely nothing. In fact, your quote of Iroh serves my point, which was the next 2 pieces you quoted. The Avatars role is to restore balance. Aang has to restore it his own way. Iroh somewhat hints at this concept by telling him he can choose power or love. BUT, the Avatar's duty does not change. The other Avatars prefer killing, but Aang found a different way. The KEY concept, pay attention to this, is for the Avatar to restore balance anyway he can. For the previous Avatars, that meant killing, for Aang, it was the new founded spirit bending.

    3. When it comes to burning the Earth, have you checked a dictionary? Search Earth on m-w.com. Some definitions: a.the fragmental material composing part of the surface of the globe c. areas of land as distinguished from sea and air

    4. Ozai was not defenseless. Actually, it just occurred, no fire bender is defenseless if their mouthes are not restrained. So one, he is not defenseless. And two, it was a fight. Ozai lost. You can't deny it was a fight. I stand by what I said when I accuse you of making him seem like a helpless bender. This is what happens in fights to the death, one person losses and that person dies. Being defenseless implies one of them was an aggressor with no provocation.

    5. Azula and Ozai were in different situations. Azula's death means nothing. One because she is crazy and two her death does not restore balance. Third, Zuko and Katara are not the Avatar. The Geneva Convention does not exist in the world of the Avatar.

    6. Re-watch the episode about Ozai's plan. Also, I never said Ozai would kill everyone in my previous post. Lets go back to where this started

    . I said: "Not to mention he intended on scorching the Earth and anyone on the ground."

    Then you said: "Neither was he after full-scale genocide, as the Earth Kingdom people could probably hide..."

    Do you get your error here? Your response was incorrect from the start. I never said his plan was to destroy the people of the Earth Kingdom much less target them. But he sure as heck would kill anyone below his flames is what I was saying there and what I said afterwards in response to your above statement. After re-watchin his plan, he did say he wanted to rebuild the world as nothing but fire nation. As previously stated, that could mean one of two things. Honest to goodness, just re-watch the episode. I did.

    7. Sure, you quote my exact phrase, but maybe you should look up what out of context means. Basically, you can quote me exactly, but by divorcing those words from the subject, you can have them serve your agenda. I did not claim you wanted to let Ozai go. You misquote and claim that you aren't right as you are doing it, now THAT'S a shame.

    Listen closely. Because I am only going to say this one more time. I said to you, in my very first post, that Zuko is correct about Aang's philosophy being out of touch with the real world because letting evil benders go is dangerous. Then you responded by taking on portion of my text out of context:

    "The real world is much different from a philosophy class as Zuko pointed out and risking lives for the sake of ideals is dangerous. " You then brought up an examples of wars fought for peace and freedom. That has nothing to do with letting powerful evil beings live or not being violent enough to stop them. Not once did I imply that you wanted to let him go. Also, you took my quote of context there. That is not a "general" statement. It goes along with the subject I was addressing. You divorced it from its intended delivery and applied it to a completely different subject.

    8. Roku's wisdom comes from experience. If he had killed Sozin, there would not of been a war. Should Roku punish Sozin for his crimes, sure. But his children, no. Don't try going down that road because I never did or implied it. Sozin started his bid for world domination during Roku's time AND he tried to kill Roku. Even if he wasn't going to restore balance, he could of killed him in self defense.

    9. Aang is the Avatar. It is is duty. He may not like killing now because as a child he does not understand the world. Lucky for him there was an alternative. The Avatar is above the law of regular men. Once you get too this concept, maybe you will start to understand the fallacy of your argument.

    10. I am not misquoting you at all. I think you are wrong in all accords and you can't grasp, no intentional bashing there, my view points.

    11. When it comes to the age of the posters of this forum, all I am saying is that you can get a better audience. Why can't you admit that? I told you why I said that in my second post. Don't ignore why I said it. I think you are being more defensive in this case than reasonable. I wanted to consolidate some of the feelings of a few of the other posters about why they had negative feelings towards you or why one of them said he/she didn't understand you. THAT'S IT. You continue to bring it back up lolz. This part of the discussion should have died in my second post when I explained myself the first time and apologized for being offensive.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MauricXe

    MauricXe

    [53]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 02/01/04
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 31

    Also, You need to realize the Avatar is not a normal being like you and I. Your arguments are somewhat valid if and only if Aang was a normal human boy. But he is not just a child that can bend all 4 elements. He is the Avatar.

    The Avatar's existence is different from ours. The Avatar is not sent on the Earth to lead a normal life. He has a duty. Why do you think it was his responsibility to face the Fire Lord? I will point back to what Iroh said, which you never seem to acknowledge or respond to for whatever reason:

    Paraphrasing here:

    Zuko: Uncle, you can take my father.

    Iroh: No. It would serve no purpose than go down in history as another act of violence as brother vs brother. The Avatar must restore balance.

    Now why is that? Why must the Avatar face the Fire Lord? Because the Avatar is above the normal human being. It is no more apparent in that scene than any other.

    I believe one poster attempted to equate the Avatar as a sort of demi-god equated to the Hindu religion. While I don't agree entirely, I believe the Avatar is a guardian given those rights and abilities by something supernatural. Your arguments are stemmed on a belief that the Avatar does not hold this supreme position. The evidence is against you. You are too focused on the "killing" aspect of the Avatar. The Avatar must restore peace because it is his or her duty. With all the knowledge of THEIR world, the Avatars have kept balance one way or another. I believe if you understand that, you might change sides.

    @jura2008

    I'm a dude.

    Edited on 07/24/2008 1:56pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of confucioussayhi

    confucioussayhi

    [54]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 11/23/06
    • level: 15
    • rank: Ginsu Knife
    • posts: 6,908

    "There was no alternative to killing the Fire Lord, as the previous Avatars saw..." "...Luckily for Aang, there was a way out that none of us, or the previous Avatars, had known before."

    Someone posted this a while back. It almost completely kills your argument on how all Avatars are evil because four of them condoned killing Ozai. It's not enough on it's own. This is situational. You've forgotten this. In this one situation, the past Avatars knew only one way to permanently stop Ozai from continuing with his plans. It was death. He couldn't escape from a jail cell if dead, he couldn't stage a revolt when banished if dead.

    Roku spared Sozin. He had more than enough cause to kill Sozin for starting the war and attacking him. You say he is evil? You say Kuruk is evil? He killed no one during his time on their earth. He was a layabout, it seems.

    What I'm trying to say is, the past Avatars are not evil simply because of this one situation. It was the only way they knew. You're trying to judge them by today's laws and standards, which is faulty. Do you think that if they had known about the lion-turtle's "spirit bending" that they wouldn't have sympathized with Aang's internal struggle and advised that? I'm sure they would have. Do you think that they would always kill their enemies? I doubt it. Ozai had too much power to be left alone in prison, which means a permanent end.

    And, at the end of the fight, when Avatar State Aang was about to kill Ozai. Don't think that he was going to kill a defenseless man. He was going to kill a dangerous, restrained man. When Aang let him go, what's the first thing Ozai did? Attack again. This is why he could not be left alive, or could not be left with the strength to fight(bending gone). *EDIT* I should elaborate on the difference between helpless and restrained. A violent dog that's been muzzled and chained to a tree is restrained. A violent dog that's had it's legs broken and it's teeth removed is helpless.

    You assume that the past lives would know about "spirit bending", but how? Aang had to call each of them out to tell them of his plight. It could be more than possible that they were not aware of this ability. Equally as possible that they were.

    Now, I'm not well versed on the religious aspects you've been discussing, but I'd like to say what I've gathered from the show. If I understand correctly, the Avatar is spirit of the earth in human form. He is not a ruthless perfect power monger, but a steward of the earth. His job is to protect it from threats such as Ozai.(Which relates to what I wrote above, the only way past Avatars knew of stopping a threat of Ozai's magnitude was to kill it) This means that he can not be detached from the earth and life because he carries the spirit of the earth and is charged with the protection of life. It seems also that the Avatars can not be detached from love, since Roku and Kuruk both had women they loved. Guru Pathik even said that love and compassion were important to an Avatar.

    And, I think I've figured out your "cop-out" Avatar state transformation. In the CRoD, Aang achieves the Avatar state. He lets Katara go like the Guru said.(yet is still allowed to love, like Roku and Kuruk) He enters the Avatar state. We all saw it. He walks into the celestial ball of energy and rises into the air. He's definitely in the Avatar state. He has released the final chakra. But, Azula interrupts it right before the end, trapping the released chakra. In the Awakening, Katara mentions energy that is bound up inside of Aang. This is the chakra. And, when Aang is struck in the scar, that energy is released, causing him to enter the Avatar state.

    I'd like to not comment on anything else you've said. Especially the one about a Fire Nation one-world, one-people ideal. I hope that was just an example or something.

    Edited on 07/24/2008 1:42pm
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MauricXe

    MauricXe

    [55]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 02/01/04
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 31
    "It almost completely kills your argument on how all Avatars are evil because four of them condoned killing Ozai."

    Do you mean it almost completely kills the argument that the Avatars are evil? Or did you mistakenly misquote one of us?

    And as for what the Avatar is, I think you are correct. I can't remember who said that, but I do remember someone saying he is the spirit of the Earth.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Undead_Prince

    Undead_Prince

    [56]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 07/21/08
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 64

    confucioussayhi

    You assume that the past lives would know about "spirit bending", but how? Aang had to call each of them out to tell them of his plight. It could be more than possible that they were not aware of this ability. Equally as possible that they were.

    I assume this because Aang went into Avatar State, when the consciousness of all Avatars is united. Therefore, the Avatar must have known about Aang's encounter with the Lion-turtle, and yet it chose to execute the restrained Ozai.

    Maybe they were afraid Aang couldn't spirit-bend Ozai's powerful evil soul. But I think - they're just too ruthless and inhumane to even consider letting Ozai live. The Avatar's "more machine than man now" (another Dark Side parallel), and it just doesn't care about killing.

    * I should elaborate on the difference between helpless and restrained. A violent dog that's been muzzled and chained to a tree is restrained. A violent dog that's had it's legs broken and it's teeth removed is helpless

    Well, there's an image kids wouldn't want to visualize. It's bad enough to do this to a dog (even a violent one - I believe, if this was done after the dog was restrained, it would count as cruelty to animals and incur punishment under the law). But we're not talking dogs here - we're talking people.

    And once you have even the most violent person restrained (i.e. chained up, or buried under piles of rock), killing him would definitely be considered excess of self-defence and probably entail a charge of voluntary man-slaughter or even murder. Executing a prisoner of war would entail international responsibility of the detaining state.

    And, at the end of the fight, when Avatar State Aang was about to kill Ozai. Don't think that he was going to kill a defenseless man. He was going to kill a dangerous, restrained man.

    While restrained, the man was defenceless. He also could not struggle free of the restraints by his own volition. Avatar/Aang could have held him there indefinitely. And with the Avatar powers, he could have transported him in this restrained condition anywhere in the world.

    When Aang let him go, what's the first thing Ozai did? Attack again. This is why he could not be left alive, or could not be left with the strength to fight(bending gone)

    That's a very vicious approach to justice. We know that many criminals may revert to the path of crime if they escape from prison. And yet, the death penalty is entirely abolished in many countries (all of Europe, for instance). Even in the United States in the last thirty years how many criminals have been executed? Around 1000, I believe. Out of MILLIONS of criminals. And most of the U.S. states abolished the death penalty altogether.

    So, even from the legal aspect (and law is the common denominator of human morality), killing the restrained Ozai was wrong. If we look at the situation from the Buddhist standpoint, killing him would have been UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE and a complete disregard of all that Buddhism stands for.

    Roku spared Sozin. He had more than enough cause to kill Sozin for starting the war and attacking him. You say he is evil? You say Kuruk is evil? He killed no one during his time on their earth

    Roku is not evil for sparing Sozin. He is evil for refusing to see alternatives to killing in Aang's situation, and for forcing this vile act on an innocent child. Same for Kuruk and all others. Their attempt to execute the restrained Ozai was bad enough as it is, but it could still pass for a form of vicious justice (still wrong for Buddhists though). However, doing it with Aang's hands is what pegs them as evil in my book.

    past Avatars are not evil simply because of this one situation. It was the only way they knew. You're trying to judge them by today's laws and standards, which is faulty. Do you think that if they had known about the lion-turtle's "spirit bending" that they wouldn't have sympathized with Aang's internal struggle and advised that? I'm sure they would have.

    But they didn't, even though they must have known about the Spirit Bending by the time Aang confronted Ozai. See above. There were also other ways of dealing with Ozai, without both killing and spirit bending, as I have repeatedly elaborated.

    You're trying to judge them by today's laws and standards, which is faulty.

    It is NOT faulty, as this is a children's show broadcast on national television worldwide. If it teaches children the moral values of Attila the Hun or Joseph Stalin, I don't care how historically accurate it is, it's still majorly wrong. It's good that in the end "Avatar" teaches compassion and humanity, and not hatred and bloody revenge.

    And, I think I've figured out your "cop-out" Avatar state transformation. In the CRoD, Aang achieves the Avatar state. He lets Katara go like the Guru said.(yet is still allowed to love, like Roku and Kuruk) He enters the Avatar state. We all saw it. He walks into the celestial ball of energy and rises into the air. He's definitely in the Avatar state. He has released the final chakra. But, Azula interrupts it right before the end, trapping the released chakra

    The Guru's teaching about the Avatar State clearly states that Aang must let go of Katara, and if that wasn't enough, the show itself repeatedly demonstrates that it would mean detachment from her, when love would be impossible (image of Katara disappearing into a black void, Aang's angst, Iroh's words that Aang was wise to choose love over power, etc.).

    There is no evidence, IMHO, that Aang's transformation in CoD was complete, and that he did fully let go of Katara. There is evidence to the contrary: the transformation was interrupted by Azula's lightning, Aang retained his feelings for Katara, and he could only enter Avatar State again after the encounter with the Lion-turtle, which did something to him in order to enable Spirit-bending (remember, when it touched Aang at the points of the Crown and the Heart chakras). The idea we pursued in one of the other threads is that the turtle Spirit-bended Aang and showed him a way to enter Avatar State without letting go of earthly attachments. Of course, this still left the issue of the blocked energy, but that was released by hitting the rock.

    I'd like to not comment on anything else you've said. Especially the one about a Fire Nation one-world, one-people ideal. I hope that was just an example or something.

    Apparently you didn't read it all that well. We were talking about a hypothetical world government, which could have been formed on the basis of a country similar to the Fire Nation but not as ruthless. There was never any support for the Fire Lords' crazy genocide/scorched earth schemes.

    Edited on 07/24/2008 2:56pm
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of rockon45

    rockon45

    [57]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 10/03/07
    • level: 15
    • rank: Ginsu Knife
    • posts: 6,929
    Okay, I got most of the arguments, and I need a dictionary for most of the words used... But this is a really good argument! Now, can someone explain what the 2 confusing words in the title mean?!?!? I'm 14, I get these type of things, just really bad at vocab....

    May I suggest you guys also visit the Death Note forum?

    There's a lot of good discussion there. I love reading it, but I can't contribute like you guys. I'm not that philosophical. I even spelled philosophical wrong. I fixed it with spell check.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of the_wet_mop

    the_wet_mop

    [58]Jul 24, 2008
    • member since: 08/10/06
    • level: 1
    • rank: Weatherman
    • posts: 8
    Undead_Prince wrote:

    The final point here is that once the Avatar sheds all his earthly attachments, he'd probably stop caring about "balance" as well. Moreover, what if the "balance" starts shifting towards goodness, peace etc.? Would the Avatar be required to serve as an agent of chaos and destruction in order to restore the "balance" of Yin/Yang/Good/Evil/Whatever?

    this is an interesting question. i think the answer is: the avatar keeps a balance of power, not necessarily between good and evil. his goal isnt to keep an even number of good and evil people, but to keep balance between political powers so that none of them overtakes the other.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Undead_Prince

    Undead_Prince

    [59]Jul 25, 2008
    • member since: 07/21/08
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 64

    MauricXe wrote:
    My personal viewpoints don't have anything to do with the topic. I just want you to realize what you consider right and wrong is not always correct for others and what you have learned is a construction of your environment.

    No, wait, you just said "Relativism, although I don't considering myself subscribing to it or any school of thought, is a valid moral viewpoint". Okay, so killing Jews is alright from a Nazi standpoint. Sacrificing babies is all right for a Satanist. Blowing up buildings is alright for terrorists. A MORAL RELATIVIST SEES NOTHING WRONG WITH NAZISM, SATANISM OR TERRORISM, AND THAT'S THE THING WRONG WITH MORAL RELATIVISM. That's why it can't be considered a "valid moral viewpoint".

    Seriously, moral relativism cannot be a practical position. We may speculate about how certain inhuman philosophies evolved as a product of particular environmental conditions, but it'll be a purely academic exercise. We cannot justify these inhuman philosophies in practice. If all of a sudden Marilyn Manson would want to practice his satanic creed on your neighbour's pregnant wife (I'm quoting the Polanski case here), you wouldn't sit back and enjoy the show, you'd call the police and, if need be, pick up your shotgun and try to stop the madman. If the local sect started pouring poison gas into the subway (AUM Shinrikyo case), you wouldn't say they had a perfectly legit moral ground to do that, right? In the end, the PERSONAL VIEWPOINT and its PRACTICAL APPLICATION is what matters in real life.

    Moral relativism is not something human society can be based upon, and it is not a "valid moral viewpoint". It is a destructive principle that, if applied consistently, will destroy all basis for civilized human interaction. It leads to the conclusion that if all morals are relative, there is no "right" and "wrong", everyone is entitled to do whatever they want, and this can only lead to chaos.

    The only way moral relativism can be applied is merely as an accessory to morality. It can soften the edges of morals, so that people are more tolerant towards each other. But it can NEVER replace morality.

    MauricXe wrote:
    The other Avatars prefer killing, but Aang found a different way. The KEY concept, pay attention to this, is for the Avatar to restore balance anyway he can. For the previous Avatars, that meant killing, for Aang, it was the new founded spirit bending.

    No, "for the Avatar to restore balance anyway he can" is the creed of the past avatars, who, as you have agreed, prefer killing. They are the ones who stop at nothing to achieve their goal. But for Aang, it was not "any way he can". He could have restored balance by killing Ozai, and it would have been much easier. But he chose not to. He was very restrained in ways he would allow himself to use to restore balance.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Ozai was not defenseless. Actually, it just occurred, no fire bender is defenseless if their mouthes are not restrained.

    Azula had her mouth free, and I'd say she was defenseless, tied up in chains like that. All three of them - Zuko, Katara, and Azula herself - seemed to understand perfectly well that there was nothing more Azula could do (that's why the hysterics on her part). And when Ozai was restrained with earthbending, he couldn't break free, couldn't harm the Avatar, and couldn't avoid the Avatar's death blow. In short, Defenseless.

    MauricXe wrote:
    And two, it was a fight. Ozai lost. You can't deny it was a fight.

    I never denied it was a fight. What made you think up that particular piece of nonsense?

    MauricXe wrote:
    I stand by what I said when I accuse you of making him seem like a helpless bender.

    He was not a "helpless bender" (again, utter nonsense that I never said). I repeat for the umpteenth time: he was helpless when the Avatar caught him with earth bending. He was helpless, and defenseless, and that's it. I don't understand why you can't get your mind around it.

    MauricXe wrote:
    This is what happens in fights to the death, one person losses and that person dies.

    It was NOT A FIGHT TO THE DEATH, whatever gave you that idea?? The entire "Avatar" was devoted to showing how Aang COULDN'T make a conscious decision to "fight someone to the death". I am amazed at how you seemed to have completely missed the main moral of the show.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Being defenseless implies one of them was an aggressor with no provocation.

    In a way, the Avatar trying to execute the defenseless Ozai was aggression with no provocation. As long as he was restrained, Ozai was not a direct threat, i.e. not a provocation. The Avatar had Spirit bending at his disposal to make Ozai completely powerless, or he could have transported Ozai to a prison where he would be bound up so as to deny him any capability of bending. Despite all this, the Avatar decided to execute a bound prisoner. Quite an aggressive thing to do, and again, at this point Ozai was not provoking him any longer because he was not a threat as long as he was restrained (am forced to repeat myself for fear of being misinterpreted again).

    MauricXe wrote:
    Azula and Ozai were in different situations. Azula's death means nothing. One because she is crazy and two her death does not restore balance. Third, Zuko and Katara are not the Avatar.

    One, don't see how being crazy changes things (Ozai might have been a maniac himself, that wouldn't have changed the situation, right? And did you see him grin when he was scorching the earth? A few cards short in that deck, for sure).

    Two, Azula was pretty dangerous and in time could become as dangerous as Ozai, if not more so. "Balance" required her defeat, did it not? And "Balance" did not require Ozai's death either (it could be restored by other means).

    Three, Zuko most certainly had a "fight to the death" with Azula, at least by the rules (personally, I don't think either of them was willing to kill the other). The two situations were similar in that the heroes faced powerful foes in a potentially deadly encounter, and had those foes defeated, restrained, and helpless by the end of the fight. Both Aang and Zuko/Katara decided against killing the restrained foes. The Avatar, on the other hand, wanted to execute Ozai.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Geneva Convention does not exist in the world of the Avatar.

    Also the Criminal Code (or whatever you have in Common law), and Buddhism, and any of our other systems of law and ethics. Whether these rules exist in the world of Avatar is irrelevant. We are judging the show here according to our moral standards, and in particular, with a view of children watching the show and learning morals from it. A show should not be teaching something that goes against the law in real life. In particular, children should not be learning that executing prisoners of war is the proper thing to do.

    MauricXe wrote:
    I said: "Not to mention he intended on scorching the Earth and anyone on the ground."... I never said his plan was to destroy the people of the Earth Kingdom much less target them. But he sure as heck would kill anyone below his flames is what I was saying there.

    •1) You said: "The Fire Lord makes it clear he will burn everything so that NOTHING will survive". This statement is WRONG. It was not Ozai's goal to make it so that "NOTHING will survive" in the Earth Kingdom.

    •2) Then you said: "That could mean two things, he plans on destroying just the land, or the people + the land. Either way, your point fails for one reason: Ozai and his troops would NOT stop fire bending if someone is beneath them." My point does NOT fail simply because I was NEVER assuming that Ozai's troops would stop firebending. On the contrary, I was DIRECTLY PROCEEDING FROM THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WOULD NOT STOP FIREBENDING ("...the Earth Kingdom people could probably hide from the flames in shelters, or use earthbending to keep themselves from being fried, or just run away..."). So your rebuttal fails completely because it is based on something I never said. This is the THIRD time I repeat it; time to finally grasp the idea, don't you think?

    MauricXe wrote:
    When it comes to burning the Earth, have you checked a dictionary? Search Earth on m-w.com. Some definitions: a.the fragmental material composing part of the surface of the globe c. areas of land as distinguished from sea and air

    Are you for real? "The Earth", The Earth with a capital E. The article at Mirriam-Webster you're quoting is for "earth", small "e", no "the". When you say "The Earth", it would refer to "4. often capitalized : the planet on which we live that is third in order from the sun". See the difference between Earth (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Earth) and earth (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/earth) in Wiktionary.

    Seriously, we shouldn't even waste time with this, it's kindergarden.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Sure, you quote my exact phrase, but maybe you should look up what out of context means.

    Coming from a guy who thinks "the Earth" means a piece of land.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Basically, you can quote me exactly, but by divorcing those words from the subject, you can have them serve your agenda.

    No, they serve my agenda all by themselves. No need "divorcing" them from anything; they just clearly illustrate my point. Let me show you:

    MauricXe wrote:
    I did not claim you wanted to let Ozai go... Not once did I imply that you wanted to let him go

    vs.

    MauricXe wrote:
    When I said risking lives for the sake of ideals is wrong, I pointed to letting powerful evil benders like Ozai go.

    There really isn't anything I need to add here...

    ...however, I'll reiterate just to make sure that you don't miss the point again: neither I, nor anybody in the show was advocating "letting powerful evil beings like Ozai go". So your point was completely moot.

    Still not convinced? Here's another one:

    MauricXe wrote:
    I said to you, in my very first post, that Zuko is correct about Aang's philosophy being out of touch with the real world because letting evil benders go is dangerous.

    Just for good measure: Neither Aang, nor anyone in the Avatar cast, nor I, have EVER expressed a desire to "let evil benders go".

    MauricXe wrote:
    Also, you took my quote of context there. That is not a "general" statement. It goes along with the subject I was addressing.

    In that case it was completely and utterly pointless since the "subject you were addressing" - I assume you are referring to "letting powerful evil beings go" - was nonexistent because, third time's a charm, no one wanted to "let powerful evil beings go".

    Now, if what you wanted to say was not what you actually said so many times, but rather "letting powerful evil beings live or not being violent enough to stop them" (is this your final position or are you planning to change it again in the future?), then I'd say this: "letting powerful evil beings live" in confinement after defeating and capturing them was and is widely considered humane and proper. Napoleon, who was viewed as a monster by the ruling classes of the entire Europe (and presented a grave threat to all of them), was never executed, but sent into exile - even after he managed to escape from his first exile, stage a great revolt, and almost retake supreme power in France. Of all the Nazi and Imperial Japanese commanders and functionaries, only a small number was ever executed. One of the glaring examples was Emperor Hirohito, supreme ruler of Japan during World War II - not only was he not brought to any kind of responsibility, but he actually stayed in power after the war (though, of course, this was not due to particular humanity of the Allies - something they consistently proved they didn't have heaps of, what with Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, - but still). Of recent examples, Slobodan Milosevic was never going to be executed (though his treatment in prison could be better, and some attribute his death to poor medical attention). Of opposite examples, the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein seemed to this poster nothing more than a tragic farce.

    Once again, the way the Avatar attempted to execute the restrained Ozai, even though there were other options, was wrong from the current moral and legal standpoint. It COULD be somewhat justified if this was not a killing of a prisoner, but a trial and execution of a war criminal (with the Avatar being judge and jury) - still wrong from the standpoint of Buddhism and general humanity, however. But the way the Avatar dragged Aang, an innocent child whose beliefs precluded him from performing this act, into committing the deed - now that was really vile from my point of view.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Roku's wisdom comes from experience. If he had killed Sozin, there would not of been a war. Should Roku punish Sozin for his crimes, sure. But his children, no. Don't try going down that road because I never did or implied it.

    If Roku had killed Sozin's children, there would've been no Ozai and Azula, and no scorching of the Earth Kingdom. A small price to pay for "restoring balance", isn't it? Really, what difference does it make - one or two lives when compared with the well-being of an entire continent?

    Yet, Roku chose not to kill Sozin. And you seem to even be appalled by the suggestion of killing the Fire Lord's children, even though it's a perfectly legitimate follow-up to your logic.

    And if Roku was really willing to put some wisdom into solving Aang's problem, he would have 1) suggested ways of taking down Ozai without killing him (perfectly possible, as I have already elaborated), 2) seized the possibility to use Spirit bending once it became available. He did none of this, instead forcing a child to commit a bloody murder of a helpless man in violation of that child's strong moral beliefs.

    MauricXe wrote:
    Iroh: No. It would serve no purpose than go down in history as another act of violence as brother vs brother. The Avatar must restore balance.

    Not really smart on behalf of Iroh. One, Azula was supposedly the Fire Lord, and the title was wrenched from her by "another act of violence as brother vs." sister. Can't see what would've been the difference in Iroh vs. Ozai. Two, the fight between Aang and Ozai was witnessed by Sokka, Toph, Suki and a handful of Fire Nation mooks (all of whom were probably going to jail as accomplices to a war criminal). Even if Iroh lent Aang a hand, it would have been easy to put down in history books as "Avatar defeats Phoenix King". And it would have greatly improved the chances of defeating Ozai (also, the chances of doing it without killing).

    MauricXe wrote:
    Aang is the Avatar. It is is duty. He may not like killing now because as a child he does not understand the world.

    THANKFULLY, Aang understands the world enough not to like killing, and to see that there are alternatives to killing.

    MauricXe wrote:
    The Avatar is above the law of regular men. Once you get too this concept, maybe you will start to understand the fallacy of your argument.

    Well, we've come to the moment of truth, then. Here it is, in all its glory. "The Avatar is above the law of regular men." If you fully, sincerely believe that, then there is nothing to discuss anymore. You agree that the Avatars follow the Machiavellian principle of achieving the goal by all costs, and the Nihilistic principle of being above law and morals. That's right - they're Machiavellian/Nihilistic Bastards. Q.E.D.

    P.S. Oh, and I think we can count as proven that there's genuine interest in this thread even from the lower age spectrum.

    Edited on 07/25/2008 1:22pm
    Edited 3 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MauricXe

    MauricXe

    [60]Jul 25, 2008
    • member since: 02/01/04
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 31

    This is getting old fast. I almost don't want to respond because it is pretty old and we aren't getting anywhere except inventing more ways to flame each other.

    1. Whether killing Jews is right or wrong is not the issue and neither is my personal opinion. You are failing to see the concept of what I am telling you and what I originally sought to get across. Originally, you brought up some issues that according to your moral standard, are amoral for whatever reason. My only intent is to inform you that from another viewpoint, and guess what, not everyone agrees with you, you can validate any action. What is moral for Bob may not be moral for Alice. Who is right or wrong is irrelevant in the scope of my point.

    2. The duty of the Avatar is to restore balance any way he can. LOL. I don't know how you can argue that. If you even read your response: "He was very restrained in ways he would allow himself to use to restore balance." So what you mean to say is, he restored balance any way he could?

    3. Ozai vs Aang was not a fight to the death? Really? So Ozai was only trying to tickle Aang with his lightning or maybe he was trying to dry him off or keep him warm with all that fire? Ozai was not defenseless. He had a means of attack, his mouth, but cowered in fear. If he was defenseless, he would have 0 physical weapons at his disposal. Since that is not the case, he is not defenseless.

    You said:

    "I never denied it was a fight. What made you think up that particular piece of nonsense?"

    Let me help you here.

    *You can't deny it was a fight* is not the same as *You denied it was a fight*

    You don't claim he was a helpless bender? You don't need to say the exact words to mean it. Ozai is a bender. What is someone that is defenseless? Helpless. Helpless Bender. Would you prefer defenseless bender? Oh wait, then you say:

    "I repeat for the umpteenth time: he was helpless when the Avatar caught him with earth bending. He was helpless, and defenseless, and that's it"

    So he is helpless after all. But I guess Ozai is not a bender so maybe I'm wrong. Oh wait, he is.

    4. Something interesting you bring up. Is Ozai crazy like Azula? Towards the end of the series, no. But during, yea. Azula lost her mind, literally. Ozai, like Azula's normal mindset, is just sadistic. The difference between Ozai and Azula is that Azula is just the servant and not the cause or driver of the war. That isn't to say she wouldn't happily continue it if given the chance. Right now, she just isn't. I would say Azula would have killed Zuko with her lightning if given the chance. Zuko probably would have spared her... but I'm not sure about that either. If he had reflected her lightning back at her, then what? Would he divert it away on purpose? Would he continue doing that until she fell down exhausted? The sad thing is, we will truly know because a certain water bender got in the way

    5. I agree that we can judge the show with our moral standards. But I think you place too much emphasis on particular instances and your own belief of right and wrong. And I don't think the Geneva Convention applies to the situation you used it for because of what we discussed before.

    6. "•1) You said: "The Fire Lord makes it clear he will burn everything so that NOTHING will survive". This statement is WRONG. It was not Ozai's goal to make it so that "NOTHING will survive" in the Earth Kingdom." Dude, he does say that. I told you I went back and watched the episode. He says those exact words. Just re-watch it. If you need a link or something, I will send you one. As for your second point, the belief that they would run or hide is moot. Why? If you go back to your first response, you said the Fire Lord does not intend to conduct a mass genocide. That was a direct response to my earlier statement about the Fire Lord killing anyone in his path. But I never said he would attempt a mass genocide. Me saying that the fire benders would not stop bending was a clarification of my earlier statement and nothing more. Your point, as it was written, took a shot at something you incorrectly assumed I stated and is therefore invalid. Does that make sense? Really, no joke or bashing because this is getting old.

    7.You think the "Earth" discussion is kindergarten? Why did you bring it up? It's pretty sad that you argue about punctuation on an internet message board. You attacked it incessantly and for what? If you saw that it was a mistake, I didn't but my response should of cued you I didn't notice, you should of stopped it there. Instead you let it drag on. I actually looked back at my original post just now and I see the capital E. zOMG the world is gonna end. If we are to argue about such small differences, it says on m-w.com that it is OFTEN capitalized which does not mean ALWAYS. Pretty pointless really.

    8. Your next couple of quotes and responses can be summed up in one word... fail.

    First off, what do you think Aang had in mind for Ozai? If he was not going to kill him, then what? The only other possible solution is to let him live or to let him go. When I say let him go, this is the same as saying to let him go on with his life knowing he can hurt others again ie. not killing him. Letting him go can cover putting him in prison, or just letting him walk away. I think my word choice stems from watching the typical "let him/it go" scene after fights in which the protagonist debates about seeking vengeance on his enemy but is persuaded by his friends to spare their lives. Not enough clarification on my end sure. I'll take that. But it does not need to be an explicit statement from Aang for us to know his intentions.

    Second, I never said in that particular frame of the argument that you wanted to let him go. Your quotes don't even disprove it. I never mentioned that YOU wanted to in either of them. You FAIL.

    Third, its an irrelevant point? Then why did you argue for so long? Obviously you understand what I saying. Now your strategy is to attack every small tidbit you can, just like the "Earth" discussion.

    Fourth, are you trying to take this out of context?: "MuricXe wrote: When I said risking lives for the sake of ideals is wrong, I pointed to letting powerful evil benders like Ozai go. There really isn't anything I need to add here..." When I say I pointed to letting powerful evil benders like Ozai go, are you saying that I "pointed" to something you said? If that is the case, clearly this is a good example of taking things out of context. My "pointing" was to a statement I made and not one that you made.

    9. You said:

    " Really, what difference does it make - one or two lives when compared with the well-being of an entire continent...And you seem to even be appalled by the suggestion of killing the Fire Lord's children, even though it's a perfectly legitimate follow-up to your logic"

    Incorrect. That is not a follow-up of my logic. The difference is that there must be justice. His children, at that time, committed no crimes against the world, but he did. My points do not imply that those who have not committed crimes today but will in the future should be punished. Never have I said that or implied that.

    10. Iroh's choice was the correct one. Because Ozai had caused so much trouble and disrupted the balance by leading the war, the fight with Ozai had to be the Avatar's duty. If Ozai goes down, the war is over and balance is restored. The same can not be said for Azula's demise. It must be the Avatar to restore balance to the world and Zuko to restore the Fire Nation since he is the prince.

    11. I have seen you say that Aang is just a child and that making him kill is wrong. I disagree. Aang has the mind of a child but he is the Avatar. Under normal circumstances, Aang would be an adult that had time to master the elements and mature in a safer world. But that world does not exist.

    12. So we come back to the original point of your post. I would agree that the Avatar does share some of the qualities you mentioned. But not all so I do not consider them complete MNBs.

    For instance, the Avatar does not condemn existence nor are they pessimistic. They love and hate just like normal humans.

    The Avatar does not commit amoral actions to get what he wants so he does not achieve the goal by all cost. You are probably thinking but MauricXe said "Any way he can." That strictly refers to bringing Justice to those that have done wrong and not to the innocent. The Avatar deals justice that is solely supported on his being the Avatar.

    13. LOL at your last statement. That does not interfere with what I said: You can find a better audience somewhere else.

    Edited on 07/25/2008 1:26pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
Shows | Movies | Web | People | News | Videos | Community
Listings | Photos | Forums | Closed Captioning | Rating Guidelines
CBS Entertainment About CBS Interactive | About TV.com | Contact Us | Jobs | Advertise
© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. TV Guide Digital Network | Privacy Policy | Ad Choice | Terms of Use