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

Edited on 07/30/2008 1:55am Edited 2 total times.

A society, and a person in a society, cannot function without morality.

Edited on 07/30/2008 2:07am Edited 2 total times.

Would it? How so? Do you really, really want to live forever, for millions and billions and trillions of years, long after the earth has been swallowed by the sun, and the sun has burned out, long after universe has collapsed into nothing or frozen over? Would you never grow bored? Weary? Unable to find something new to learn or to enjoy? Do you really believe eternal life would be the fantastic dream that film vampires claim it is? And let's talk a little more practical; birth would continue with no death. People would continue to consume food and energy and resources. The growing hunger of the human race would devour more and more species, ecosystems and the land itself. More and more space would be developed and used up for houses, agriculture and various other things. Soon, there wouldn't be enough food for everybody resulting in famine, and not enough space for everybody resulting in overcrowding. In order to have enough for everybody there could only be, say, a tennis court per person, then half a tennis court, then a quarter, etc. Theoretically, our bodies would become unable to function without a steady source of new energy to consume, we'd grow weaker and weaker, perhaps until we can no longer move. We'd be alive, but it'd be comparable to a state of living death. But that's just a theory. Anyway, I'd love to live for hundreds of years, or maybe even thousands or millions, long enough to watch new species evolve, continents collide and tear apart and reshape, and the andromeda galaxy collide with the milky way. That would be cool. However, I can't think that after a while life would get boring. At some point I would've done everything I'm interested in doing and learned everything I'm interested in knowing. Life would become boring and pointless after long enough. And so, if I were offered an elixir that would make me invincible and immortal, I would reject it. And besides, if our life span could be tripled, or multiplied ten or twenty fold . . . would that really make anyone's lives better and dreams come true? Several hundred years ago the human life span was, on average, about 30-ish. The average person's live consisted of growing up, going to school, then working until they die. Now we've tripled the average life span for people in developed nations and what does it consist of? People go to school, then go to work until they retire or die. The average person doesn't get all their dreams accomplished with that extra 50-70 years, people just live at a third the speed. We go to school longer, become legally adults much later, and spend a lot longer in the rat race. An increase in the quantity of life did not create an increase in the quality of life. I'm not saying people should be stopped from having it; just that it's not all it's cracked up to be.

Undead_Prince wrote:

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"?

Again, this question is similar to asking "If people were to healthy, should they have to balance out between health and disease?" or "if people's health becomes to balanced should they find balance between balance and imbalance?". But I'll humor you anyway. Seeing as they're not forcing this "imbalance" on others, I think they have the individual right to choose. However, if it becomes a problem, the Avatar should probably interfere by educating people, promoting birth control, and convincing people and government alike to control the use of such a drug/technique. As I said in my previous post, because good people are more rational and well-intentioned then bad people, one does not not need force to deal with them because with them, unlike bad people, diplomacy and reason actually works on them.

Undead_Prince wrote:

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.

I think if before a government makes a decision about a certain thing, they asked "Is this too much personal freedom or too much government control?" instead of "Is this right or wrong?" the results would be about the same so it doesn't matter which system you use. If you prefer to think in terms of "good and bad" rather then "balance and imbalance/too much or too little government vs. individual freedom", good for you. They're both the same question to me so it's up to preference which one you ask.

Undead_Prince wrote:

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.

Then the Buddhist population can just starve to death because it's much more then a "maxim", it's just plain fact. A gazelle dies and a lion feeds, a body decomposes and a tree grows from the fertilized soil, a forest ecosystem is destroyed and a suburb is built, a tomato plant is killed and a person is fed, a carcass rots and the soil is nourished, an animal dies from disease and a bald eagle feeds herself and her babies. To nourish your own life, you must consume and destroy others (or at least feed off the destruction of others, or partial destruction). As far as food is concerned, that's just the carbon cycle. And as far as economy is concerned, you must take your wealth from other people (through a system of trade, preferably.) To take a position of power in politics you must deny it from someone else. You don't need to absolutely pulverize and decimate the lives of others for prosperity, but you do need to take a little bit of their prosperity away from them. This little bit could be anything from the cost of a computer sold to someone for a few hundred bucks, to a fruit ripped from the branch of a tree.

Undead_Prince wrote:

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 as far as I know, China and Japan are still separate countries. And there are still other countries available for those who don't want to live in either country.

Undead_Prince wrote:

But that would have been upsetting the balance, right?

The school in the headband looked like an oppressed propaganda machine and if anyone else like Sozin or Ozai became fire lord it would turn into a corrupt dictatorship with no other country to flee to. But assuming the education and government were indeed good, then no it would not be upsetting the balance. Not if the other countries were imbalanced toward hardship, and not if the government is too oppressive and the citizens have enough individual freedom.

Undead_Prince wrote:

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).

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If, for example, the whole world were North Korea then people floating on rafts out of North Korea would have nowhere to go . . . but North Korea. People would have nowhere to go when their own government turns nasty.

Undead_Prince wrote:

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).

True. I just meant the system of voting on laws and bills rather then on leaders who are free to pass their own laws and bills. Would it be a Greek democracy or, as America has, a democratic republic?

Undead_Prince wrote:

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.

Now when you say assimilation, for me that immediately conjures up images of native americans in the 1700s being kidnapped from their homes and families, forced to go to english schools and speak english, not allowed to speak their native tongue, forced to dress as the colonists did and cut their hair, their land and culture taken away from them, etc.

Undead_Prince wrote:

Independence, for a tribe of savages?

Well that sentence and wording sounds strikingly racist

Undead_Prince wrote:

Not likely, in today's world.

You can find tribes allowed to persist with their own culture as their own tribes in Australia, Africa, and South America.

Undead_Prince wrote:

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.

And what about royalists who would prefer a monarchy? And how would this government's economy be run? Capitalism? Or socialism? And would it be more liberal or conservative? Would it favor the democrats or republicans? And what of the green party or the libertarians? Would the government reflect the wishes of the libertarians? The religious right? Who? And who would be in power? Iraq is one country and it's filled with internal conflict from the different groups that refuse to be ruled by someone other then themselves, otherwise they raise hell. And good luck to this hypothetical government on getting Scotland or America to no longer be its own country but become ruled by another countries government. Often, people just need to be ruled by their own people, by their own country, and they just won't have it any other way. A world government is similar to having a world religion . . . you're not gonna get agreement on which government should be the world government and if you force one government on all the people, even if it's a good government, there will be rebellion and conflict. And what of the many cultures around the world? Wouldn't one government create one majority? A majority culture, religion, etc. that pushes all others to the fringes? With multiple government you can have some countries that are majority Christian, some that are majority Buddhist, some majority Hindu, some majority Muslim, etc. And then there are all the other cultural aspects; unique rites of passage and customs and ceremonies, etc.

Undead_Prince wrote:

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.

No it doesn't because that wasn't an application of my maxim. I re-read what I wrote and I can't even envision what I said being applied. To apply what I wrote in the way you implied it being is like saying "People learn from their mistakes and therefore it is justifiable to sabotage everything they do so that they make more mistakes because they'll learn from it in the end." People learning from their mistakes is just the way things are and is not meant to be or supposed to be used as an encouragement of mistakes. That's silly. Yes, people learn from mistakes, and people learn and adapt and invent from hardship, but if they can learn and adapt and invent without hardship, that's all the better. It's a scientific fact that muscles and bones grow back thicker and stronger after healing from damage but it's ludicrous to take that as a justification to go around breaking people's bones and tearing their muscles.

Undead_Prince wrote:

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, .

I never said it was.

Undead_Prince wrote:

and that chaos must always be tempered by law.

Well yeah, isn't that part of what I've been saying with this whole "balance" thing?

Undead_Prince wrote:

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.

Although, in hindsight, I didn't need to. The series finale was an example right there. I could argue Aang WAS intervening on the side of chaos. Ozai wanted control . . . total control. He wanted to live in a world in which all lands were fire nation, all lands were under his rule and where he was, in HIS words, "RULER of everything". Ozai was a control freak who wanted to shift the balance toward his control and the control of the FN government and Aang came in as an agent of chaos. His whole "burn the world" thing was motivated to counter-act disorder, the disorder of earth kingdom rebellions, and he wanted to bring order, HIS brand of order. He wanted the world ordered by him, he wanted to order everything. Aang came in and ensured the relative disorder and non-coordination of four separate nations doing their own thing. He's acted even more obviously against control in Ba Seng Se. The Dai Li and Long Feng had their "peaceful, orderly utopia" of happy bliss. Chaos had been removed in terms of the information people were able to have and matters they were allowed to discuss. No chaotic exchanges of information where anybody can just talk about and find out about anything just willy-nilly. Just serenity and peace of mind. Then Aang comes in with his friends, taking what to Long Feng were matters of national security and saying "We'll tell them, we'll let everyone know!" They wanted to allow people to learn and speak with lawless, reckless abandonment, no control or dictation or government regulation ensuring they don't learn things that cause tensions and "threaten the stability" the Dai Li have "worked so hard to achieve." And again, in the season 1, episode 6; Imprisoned they sneak into a prison, where everything's under control and in order and they bring disorder and lawlessness, breaking people out of the prison. And they do it again in The Boiling Rock. And then in episode 17 of season 1; the Northern Air Temple they openly incite rebellion against the asserted authority of the FN who had everything under control and they struck out violently, inciting a battle against the FN's order and control, so that those of the Northern Air Temple may do their own thing, unregulated by the law and no longer in order by the control of the FN. All of that is, indeed, acting as an agent of chaos. Yes, not chaos as you imagine it, because when you hear the word chaos you imagine chaos in an extreme, in an absolute. There is "chaos" in america; people can say whatever they want and follow whatever religion they want without conforming to order and uniformity in these matters. Any citizen over 18 can vote willy-nilly with no further regulation or background checks or anything. People's thoughts are not ordered and uniform, nor should they be. The US constitution is an agent against an imbalance toward order, uniformity and control.

Undead_Prince wrote:

Subconsciously, you're still using the moral criteria of good and evil. .

No, it's not subconscious at all. Trust me. Personal morality is a conscious aid in determining the correct proportion of balance. And just for the record, I don't consider a thief "evil" nor law "good" as an inherent property. I just mention that because I don't like the words good and evil, it's too black and white and absolutist. (although I will use the phrase "right and wrong" even though it isn't nessacarily any less black and white or absolutist)

Undead_Prince wrote:

Whereas what I'm saying is that since the Avatar is not concerned with good or evil, but only balance, .

Where do you get that he concerns himself ONLY with balance, and not with good and evil? Why do you believe the two can't be part of the same system? Forcing imbalance on others is evil, helping others find balance is good. Where does it say the Avatar only concerns himself with one and not at all the other?

Here demonstrates the difference between your and my concepts of peaceful, happy, serene, goodness. You think such a utopic vision is the result of all its components being absolutes and purities and other such things whereas I believe it is a result of all its components balancing each other, eliminating extremes of freedom (anarchy) or control (dictatorship) You imagine you can't have too much of a good thing, and think certain things are inherently good or bad, and that you can't have too much of the inherently good things or too little of the inherently bad things. In your view of things you seem to percieve things in extremes and absolutes, and in doing so you miss degrees and moderation. Or at least that's how I percieve you and I apologize if I'm wrong about that.

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.

Actually, my silence had nothing to do with my long post. I had that post whipped up in a total time of a few hours. Before I got to read your post my internet connection failed and I couldn't get it back up until Saturday, but, while I found the time to work on the post for a couple hours in the morning I had to be called away on a trip until late monday night/early tuesday morning and didn't finish my post until today.

If I ever did reach full page replies, I think I'd win the arguement simply due to you being unable to find the time and dedication to respond to it all. I think it would mark the first time in message board history that someone was defeated in an internet debate due to sheer PHYSICAL exhaustion.

Not that I'd ever have the energy and dedication to do a full page reply . .. that's a 20 parter

No. What you're saying is that we cannot judge AT ALL, because there are no universal moral criteria and thus no villain can be considered immoral.

That is a standpoint of Nihilism.

Which is what I am trying to prove regarding the avatars.

So all you've done so far is prove my point.

BTW, good to see you've finally reverted to using quotes. Next step is making them more readable. For ease of use, I'll be marking "my quotes" inside "your quotes" with italics.

MauricXe wrote:

2. "I was addressing your question of "what makes you moral" by emphasizing that I'm not just expressing my own views here; my views are shared by a great part of humanity. And I specifically said: "Not that I claim majority makes morality, just to prove my views are widespread".

And I will say to you again: The Majority is not always right.

I see you have not learned to read. Read my quote again. Just read it.

I am not the only one with these moral values. These are not "my personal" values. These are the values that are widespread in the entire humanity.

And I will repeat myself for good measure (never enough repeating with you, it seems): the spread of beliefs does not automatically make them right. We must make our choice in what we consider right. The choice I offered as a set of criteria for measuring the morality of the avatars is based on values enshrined in our religions and laws, as well as widely adhered-to ethics.

If you consider these criteria wrong from a moral perspective, prove it.

So far all you said was that we cannot make a choice at all, because everything is equally moral/immoral.

That is a standpoint of Nihilism.

MauricXe wrote:

3. "Hitler and the Nazi Party were in great majority in Germany; "
They were and are the minority vs. the world.

Irrelevant. The morality of Hitler's deeds did not change because of the number of his supporters.

MauricXe wrote:

"But following your world view, Hitler cannot be considered "amoral""

But the quote you just used against me disproves that...

Just to show. This is the quote in question, I presume:

MauricXe wrote:

Of course that leads to the question: was Hitler right? Obviously his forces were in the minority and the majority was against him. But each issue needs to be considered individually or someone like Hitler could make a run in Britannica under the label as "Hero to the people."

How does this quote disprove the established fact that you're a follower of moral relativism and consequently nihilism? It says nothing against your opinion that every villain can be morally justified as long as he believes himself in the right. No, the only thing it says is that even Hitler might be considered a hero.

MauricXe wrote:

4. "How long will it take... For Aang, "any way possible" was NOT A PRINCIPLE TO FOLLOW. He followed something like "any way possible AND HUMANE". Some actions, though POSSIBLE, were NOT AN OPTION for him due to MORAL CONSIDERATIONS. "

LOL! Again, read the post you used against me. They don't even conflict with each other, besides your bashing.[/QUOTE]

What does not conflict with what? Be more specific, otherwise readers can't make heads or tails of your comments.

I cannot believe we are wasting so much time arguing about something so obvious.

Any way possible means ANY WAY POSSIBLE.

For Aang it WAS POSSIBLE to kill Ozai.

But he WOULD NOT use this way even when his own life was at stake.

So even though KILLING WAS POSSIBLE, Aang WOULD NOT USE IT.

For Aang: NOT ANY WAY POSSIBLE; BUT ANY WAY POSSIBLE AND HUMANE.

Let's try a lesson in logic:

A = Acceptable actions

B = Possible actions

C = INHUMANE actions (i.e. killing).

Approach 1. The Avatars:

A(1) = B

// i.e. all actions that are possible are acceptable

Approach 2. Aang:

A(2) = B - C

// i.e. only actions that are possible and not inhumane are acceptable

Ergo:

Since B =/= (B - C); B > (B - C)

then A(1) =/= A(2); A(1) > A(2)

//number of actions acceptable for avatars is greater than number of actions acceptable for Aang, because Aang won't accept actions that are possible but inhumane

Simple enough for you??

MauricXe wrote:

"Learn to read, honestly! I am NOT arguing that he was not scared. Read again: "It is irrelevant whether Ozai was scared or not". "

But your statement doesn't say if he was actually scared or not, it just says that his level of fear has no relevance. However, you did say he wasn't scared by rejecting that he is scared, you called it ridiculous and said Ozai is strong willed:

"Now don't try to claim that Ozai was so scared that even though he could hurt the Avatar/break free, he didn't, because he was too scared. That would have been totally ridiculous. Any man would fight for his life like a cornered rat at that point, and particularly a man as strong-willed as Ozai"

Repeating becomes a bad habit here. But no other choice, I guess.

Ozai may have been scared. Or he may have been not scared. It is IRRELEVANT. Because even if he WAS scared, it would NOT stop him from trying to evade the death blow of the Avatar, and otherwise avoid his own death (by attacking the Avatar or fleeing).

This is precisely what was shown. Ozai was scared of the Avatar the entire second part of the battle. But he was not paralysed with fear. Right up to the end, he did everything he could to stop the Avatar and escape his own death. The first thing he did when Aang released him from the earthbending hold was to attack Aang. When Aang approached him with Spiritbending, Ozai tried to breathe fire on him, even being held tight by earthbending. So it is clearly shown that whether Ozai felt fear or not (and he definitely did), it did not preclude him from using all possible means of escaping death.

In other words, Ozai was held helpless not by his own fear, but by the Avatar. That is why Ozai's fear was IRRELEVANT.

MauricXe wrote:

6. I think killing him by redirecting his lightning, using his own attack, and what we almost saw at the end would have been the same.

No. The first two would have been done in combat, in self-defence, and to protect the Earth Kingdom. The execution of a bound prisoner is another thing entirely, especially when you can also "restore balance" by taking his bending away and then putting him to jail.

MauricXe wrote:

Neither are murder in my eyes.

I'd like to see you trying to prove that in a court of law.

MauricXe wrote:

What I am saying is the scene that you describe and I describe are two different scenes. I picture a fight between two powers were one lost. And you picture a helpless about to get whacked. I think your picture is okay if I didn't the rest of the episode much less the series.

I do not leave out the rest of the series out of perspective. Ozai was a villain, no doubt, and he deserved to be beaten, stripped of his bending and put to prison for life. It was also necessary to protect the Earth Kingdom and prevent future crimes on his part.

However, precisely the execution of Ozai by the Avatar, with Aang's hands, is what I consider wrong, particularly taking note of the rest of the series (Aang's lifelong aversion to killing, other ways of taking Ozai down without killing him, the moral choices of Aang's friends (i.e. Katara regarding her mother's killer; Zuko & Katara regarding Azula; etc.).

MauricXe wrote:

7. At the very end, when Aang spares Ozai's life, what exactly do you think would have happened if Ozai did not try to attack Aang while Aang's back was turned?

Nothing would have changed. Aang would still take his bending and send him to prison. It was never a matter of personal vengeance, so it was irrelevant whether Ozai attacked Aang personally or not.

MauricXe wrote:

8. "Because the Allies were too weak/disjointed. It took them 6 years to defeat the Axis, and it took the Avatar 3 seasons to defeat Ozai."

You could almost say it took the Avatar 101 years to defeat the Fire Nation lol.

Anyway, whether the allies could do it or not is irrelevant.

I never said the allies couldn't do it at all. I said they were too weak and disjointed to do it. But if they suddenly decided to gather their combined strength for unified, cooperative, decisive action against the Nazis in 1939, WWII might have been a great deal shorter.

MauricXe wrote:

If Hitler had been stopped before, or even after going into Poland things might have been different. Considering that the allies just appeased him and sat on their hands they might of been able to have done something greater in or before 1939.

That's what I said - they were too disjointed and weak. What are you arguing against here?

MauricXe wrote:

9. "In fact, once again, he would have just killed off the entire royal family back in Sozin's days."

I don't think so. I think he would have neutralized them as they committed crimes.

No, you said "Roku's wisdom comes from experience. If he had killed Sozin, there would not of been a war." => it's OK to kill people to prevent them from committing crimes in the future. Stop contradicting yourself.

MauricXe wrote:

10. "That's way too much of a copout. Even if it was true, Aang could have specifically "told" the Avatar about Spirit-bending - unless you also think that they cannot communicate at all, and the Avatar is completely separated from Aang, which would go against the definition of united spirits."

The Avatar state has never truly been explained in this regard, at least to my knowledge. But from Roku's speech back in season 2, it sounded as if Aang knows everything they know but not the other way around. How closely they watch Aang could imply they might know about his spirit bending. But since it was never explicit, we will never know.

I'd say we have to accept by default that the Avatar had knowledge of Aang's Spirit bending capabilities by the moment of attempted execution. Everything we know about Aang and the Avatar points that there must have been some way of communication between them, and Aang would not have neglected telling the Avatars of his new powers. Unless proven otherwise, we should accept it by default.

MauricXe wrote:

11. I disagree about Azula and Ozai. You bring up good points, but you forget that Hitler and his generals have a different value. To end the war, Hitler must be captured.

o_O Neither Hitler nor Ozai needed to have been captured to end the respective wars. Hitler was not captured, and WWII ended with Allies victorious. Ozai could have been killed, and the war would still have ended with the good duys winning.

Also, after the Wehrmaht has been defeated and Allied armies were occupying the entire Germany (and also Italy and later Japan), it would not have made any difference if Hitler even escaped. After the Fire Nation was defeated and had a new ruler, it would not matter if the bending-less Ozai made an escape. The most he could ever do was to rally up some rag-tag resistance group that would have easily been defeated by the Avatar.

MauricXe wrote:

What happens after, such as the punishing of the generals, has no impact on how the war ended because that can be dealt with afterward.

Yes, and NOT KILLING OZAI also had no impact on how the Avatar war ended, so long as he was defeated and rendered harmless.

Edited on 07/30/2008 12:28pm

In a sense, Ozai himself was an instrument of Azula's evil in scorching the Earth Kingdom. But there really is nothing to argue about here. If not for Azula, the war would never even have reached the "scorching" stage. By the Avatars' standards, it is obvious she deserves death just like Ozai.

In fact, it occurred to me that the Avatar's execution of Ozai was not even INTENDED as an act of bringing balance to the world. Balance was already returned by stopping Ozai and incapacitating him. No, what the Avatar was trying to do, using its own words as a reference, was to exact REVENGE upon Ozai for his crimes, and also (sic!) the "crimes of his forefathers".

MauricXe wrote:

Back to Iroh's plan. There is one particular point I didn't like about it: He waited till the comet to take back the Earth Kingdom capital. Outnumbered by all those firebenders, he sure as heck didn't make it any easier. That wall can be brought down by Boomy (sp?) so access to the city isn't completely restricted.

Yeah, it was just a dumb thing to do. Don't think the Comet changed it too much though, since the Old Masters were obviously superior anyway. It was simply a humongous waste of force.

MauricXe wrote:

12. "Aang was obviously inferior to Ozai because..." The two of them were equal in power.

Interesting to see you making such a bold assertion without bothering to provide my full quote, which disproves such assertion easily.

Aang was DEFEATED by Ozai, and if not for the accidental unlocking of the Chakra, would have been KILLED by him. The only advantage Aang had, and the only chance to win, was to redirect Ozai's lightning back at him. And Aang has continuously voiced objections against killing the Fire Lord. So by all effective means, Aang was clearly inferior to Ozai at the start of the battle.

MauricXe wrote:

Also, Iroh doesn't know about Aang's Avatar state problems.

Well in that case he's an idiot because he doesn't know the critical weakness of his most powerful combat unit which he intends to send against their most powerful enemy. It's the equivalent of sending a submarine fleet to capture Beijing. Or cavalry to sink an enemy dreadnaught.

MauricXe wrote:

We have seen Katara take down multiple enemies and Zuko is no slouch himself. Perhaps they anticipated the home front would be depleted?

No, they had no reason to believe Azula went crazy, much less so crazy that she disbanded all her forces. Remember, Zuko took Katara along precisely because he feared he couldn't take Azula 1-on-1. He had to actually look Azula in the eye to see that she's lost it. And they had no intelligence regarding the banishments, else it would have been mentioned.

MauricXe wrote:

I scratched my head here too. I thought these kids have to be crazy if they expect to beat all those Fire Benders aided by the comet. Now maybe if they took Toph it would be okay

I dunno. Toph is tough, but the Dai Li, the comet-enhanced elite firebenders, and Azula's strategic wit would have probably still triumphed. Remember, Azula managed to outmaneuver the entire gAang during the Eclipse, I wouldn't even want to think what sort of trap she might have prepared for her beloved brother under Sozin's Comet.

MauricXe wrote:

13."The kid has duties in terms of morals and justice like any member of our society. It is a viable example of doing something to uphold justice and morality."

He isn't saving the world or battling the forces of evil.

He's doing real life stuff that amounts to the same thing. He's upholding justice and combating evil. And once again, remember that regardless of their fantastical form moral lessons are intended to be applied in real life.

MauricXe wrote:

14. I haven't seen Seven or Die Hard lolz! I always feel left out on Die Hard references, and here it comes again lolz!

Both are really good movies. I hope you didn't read the paragraph and Seven was not spoiled for you - its an amazing flick, and has some very close moral parallels to what we're discussing here.

MauricXe wrote:

15. The entire letting go of love and mastering the Avatar state is a mystery. The show presents contradicting solutions to the subject. Someone needs to ask the creators in an interview.

I doubt they'd care enough to elaborate a comprehensive retconning theory. My working version is that there's a Dark Side and Light Side to Avatarism: one preached by the Guru and the avatars as they are now (become a heartless machine bent on "upholding balance" by all costs), another offered by Aang and the Lion-turtle (retain earthly attachments, show mercy and compassion). Some of the past avatars, while they were alive and still cared for things like love and friendship, probably wobbled inbetween these two extremes.

In fact, the reason the Avatar was such a heartless monster could be that it was composed of spirits of long-dead people, who no longer had any love or friendship in the material world.

BTW, seeing how Avatar is a human body animated by spirits of the dead, would that make him... undead?

MauricXe wrote:

16. "The simplest example would be "balance" between good and evil themselves - if good is prevailing, should Avatar start destroying it to return "balance"?"

The term balance in the case of this TV series might refer to the peace between the four nations. If one nation begins conquest then the Avatar steps in.

As I have already demonstrated in this thread, conquest is often an instrument of civilization and progress. All great nations of modern times were formed through conquest one way or the other. For some, forced unification was the only way for survival and evolution.

However, you might have a point in determining the Avatar's goals. After all, the intro says "four nations lived together in harmony, until one day the Fire Nation attacked". So it might be construed that the Avatar's only goal is stopping war.

Nevertheless, I personally fail to see a world entirely without war for all history. And what if one nation rose not due to open warfare, but due to superior economy, technology and science? It could hold everyone else helplessly addicted to drugs, medicine, food, energy, machinery that it produced. The entire world would just be slaves to this "golden billion", and yet there would never be any open invasions or annexation of land. Would such a world be considered "balanced" by the Avatar?

MauricXe wrote:

You said: "But it does claim to be a savior of the world and all its people." But the anti-christ is lying when he/she says that. They intend to damn the world and its population.

I would venture that the Avatar (as envisioned by the past avatars and the Guru) could damn the world and its population by destructive meddling into the progress of human civilization. Again, the concept of a god-like impassionate being set to deliver justice at all costs may seem alluring, but it's really a road to Hell. The Christian God himself - the very Archetype of an all-powerful judge - is said to be not only just, but also merciful.

Edited on 07/30/2008 11:50am

Not really.

I think their conduct was amoral in that they:

1) Tried to convince Aang that killing Ozai was the right thing to do, WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVES;

2) When the Avatar had Ozai pinned at the end of the fight, Ozai was helpless and couldn't get away. At this point, the Avatar could have Spirit-bended him, or transported him to a prison to be chained up and contained like Azula. Instead the Avatar (that is, the combined consciousness of the past avatars) tried to execute the helpless Ozai. WITH AANG'S HANDS.

The entire moral standpoint of the avatars and the Guru is wrong because they say that to restore balance, Avatar must use any means necessary (i.e. the ends justify the means), and that the Avatar must shed all earthly attachment (i.e. destroy love and friendship within himself). In this the Avatar becomes the embodiment of Machiavellism (do anything it takes to achieve your goal) and Nihilism (there are no laws and morals, only your own wishes count).

In their lives, some of the past avatars did not adhere strictly to these principles (Roku spared Sozin, Kuruk was soft-hearted and loving, etc.). However, when Aang is concerned, the past avatars, both separately and combined in the Avatar State, behave as amoral bastards. Both Aang and Iroh have been shown to reject the Avatars' and the Guru's judgments. And I believe it was the right thing to do.

Edited on 07/31/2008 9:36am Edited 2 total times.

I misspoke; that is not the reason why I do not apply the word evil to Hitler The reason is; well, you told me to be more succinct and short so the simplified version is that I think he's better described as insane in that I don't think he knew what was right and wrong. Granted, he was indeed callous, hateful, cruel, dispicable and all those things. Anyway, this good & evil word usage thing is a side thing and not really to the point, therefore not worth having such a prolonged, indepth side arguement about as I had in my last post

Undead_Prince wrote:

•a) Because it was your point of reference;

•b) Because it seems to be the basis for much of the show's philosophy, ethics, and mysticism;

•c) Because it interested and amused me.

Fair enough

Undead_Prince wrote:

Too bad the killing of immobilised Ozai would not have been out of self-defense or defense of others. It would have been an execution of a prisoner-of-war.

I wasn't referring to Ozai when I spoke of defense. That was just a hypothetical scenario in which killing wouldn't be wrong. Anyway, Ozai was not a prisoner of war. An armed criminal with a net thrown over him is not yet a prisoner just because he's restrained, and nor was Ozai. I do not consider someone a prisoner until they are actually being held in designated place of captivity.

Undead_Prince wrote:

Teranef wrote:

if a criminal is successfully extorting, stabbing and killing other inmates, well, I think the death penalty is more humane then solitary confinement.

O_O No kidding? Who would prefer death to a life of reasonable comfort, safety, not having to work, having opportunities for education, entertainment, artistic expression, even limited communication with your relatives/loved ones?

Reasonable comfort? I wouldn't describe 23 hours a day in a 6 by 8 foot cell with only thin window to offer a sliver of the world outside as reasonable comfort. And in supermax prisons, in which all prisoners are kept in solitary confinement, they are not really allowed the luxries of an in-cell TV, artistic expression, education, and all that stuff. Only a fraction of prisons even have education programs. Prolonged exposure to solitary confinement degrades mental health with inmates experiencing hallucinations, practicing self-mutilation, and other signs of onset into insanity. I don't consider any prison life style "comfortable"

Undead_Prince wrote:

Teranef wrote:

They never specifically told Aang to murder (although it did sound as if they did in context)

They told him it's all right to kill Ozai if it's necessary to restore balance. That's what they said , and that's what they meant, and that's how Aang understood them.

Yes, if it's "nessacary", not if it's "convenient". Doing what is nessacary is not a trigger-happy maxim. It means violence ONLY when it was nessacary. Do you believe Aang shouldn't have killed Ozai even if it was nessacary to save lives? If the only way to stop Ozai from blowing up a kindergarden with one of his comet-enhanced fire blasts was to hit him with lightning instantly, right then and there, would you disagree with that?

Undead_Prince wrote:

You should take into account not only their dodgy final words, but the entire dialogues, including Aang's questions (which were crystal clear) and examples given from their lives.

Okay, I've done enough of the re-assurance act. Under the condition that the other Avatars saw killing Ozai as the only way, so what? Do you stand outside prisons on the night of an execution screaming "You're all evil, mechavellian nihillistic bastards, all of you!" ? Do you consider those who support the death penalty vile and disgusting monsters? Did you mourn for Suddam Hussein? Why don't you mention Zuko and Sokka as evil for expecting a poor child to murder the fire lord. You're claiming it's evil to kill a tyrant when it's expected that the final confrontation will be a life or death battle with no chance of the enemy admitting defeat or showing honor. I see that as a bit of an over-reaction. And what about Harry Potter? Isn't every "good" guy in the Harry Potter universe evil by your standards for expecting a mere teenager to kill a powerful, notorious psychopath with hoardes of evil followers. To force a teenager into so much physical, emotional and spiritual danger whether he wants to or not, well they must all be VILE, DISGUSTING, FILTHY MONSTERS, right? To say "If they're not total pacifists they're mechavellian bastards" is seeing only two extremes with no gray areas.[QUOTE="Undead_Prince"]

Undead_Prince wrote:

Also , do not forget that the Avatar tried to execute Ozai when the Fire Lord was bound and helpless, and Aang could have just taken his bending away and put him to prison.

Avatar Aang did consider doing that, but changed his mind. And even if it was the past Avatars, well, that saves Aang from having to do it himself.

Undead_Prince wrote:

Teranef wrote:

With spirit bending it wasn't nessacary to kill Ozai.

Once Ozai was immobilized, it wasn't necessary even without spirit-bending (he could have simply been put to chains like Azula).

Yes. If I didn't have spirit bending, personally, I would've had his hands and feet crushed like they were gonna do to Iroh in Season 1 ep 7 The Spirit World to ensure that he'd be unable to bend again. Nick would probably have considered that even more graphic then killing him, though. Besides, I thought Azula's defeat was unrealistic. In the Day of Black Sun she was restrained to a cave wall with rock in a similar manner Ozai was and once she got her firebending back she escaped with EASE. And that was WITHOUT the comet. And now Azula's restrained for good by a few measly chains? Iroh also easily escaped from cuffs and chains in The Spirit World. And besides, if want a show where the good guys are never killed and always locked up, don't watch Y7 and stick to Disney movies.

Undead_Prince wrote:

Nonetheless, the Avatar decided to execute him (spirit-bending & everything else notwithstanding). And it shows perfectly the past avatars' moral outlook.

The other Avatars did not know about spirit bending. Even you admitted it was just an assumption. There is no evidence anywhere in the show that suggest Roku or anyone else knows everything Aang knows in the Avatar state. The Avatars may give Aang knowledge in the Avatar state, but not vice versa. Provide evidence to the contrary if you're going to keep insisting otherwise.

Undead_Prince wrote:

Teranef wrote:

he applies the force nessacary to restrain a criminal; no more and no less. If a criminal is still able to threaten people, not enough force has been applied, but if the criminal is restrained and rendered harmless and you continue beating and hurting him then that's obviously more force then is nessacary.

LOL. I see you haven't been reading the thread at all.

How not? What are you refering to specifically?

Undead_Prince wrote:

Teranef wrote:

They weren't even there, not personality-wise at least. It'd be tremendously schitzophrenic if the personalities of all the past Avatar's joined into one during the Avatar state.

And yet that's exactly what we've seen occurring. All past avatars are shown in a row, one by one, culminating in the Avatar State.

That was to show the power and skills of all the past Avatars awakening inside him, not their personalities combining with his

Undead_Prince wrote:

And the voice of the Avatar State is a combination of several male and female voices

You also heard that voice in The Desert mid-season 2 saying "Tell me where Appa is!". Were all the past Avatars, Yangcheng and all them just desperate with concern to know where Appa was to?

Undead_Prince wrote:

(obviously intended to demonstrate a combination of all past avatars). And the DECISION taken by the Avatar regarding Ozai, the DEATH SENTENCE it proclaims upon the firelord as payback for his crimes and the CRIMES OF HIS FOREFATHERS. Everything points towards the Avatar being a combined consciousness of the past avatars in one super-being. It's not schizophrenic, it's melding.

I don't see it as so far-fetched that it was Aang saying that in the heat of the moment. I see that final part as the same as when Aang pointed at Ozai when he was re-directing lightning. He made a move to kill Ozai, considered it, and changed his mind. I think you're reading too much into it. It was just a cool build-up line to add drama. And once again I say, even if it was the past Avatars sentencing Ozai to death, that does not make them evil mechavellian bastards. I don't consider people who support the death penalty vile and reprehensible people, simply because they support the death penalty. I don't see things as that black and white.

Undead_Prince wrote:

Teranef wrote:

Every single time it has appeared in the show, the motivations and decisions of the Avatar State have only been reflections of extreme emotion; grief, anger, etc. It was never Roku, Kuruk, Yangcheng, Kyoshi, etc. decision and actions that made Aang hurt those people when General Fong threatened Katara, or to whip up a windstorm at the Southern Air Temple. It was always Aang, all the time, but when his emotion and fury overwhelmed his better judgement, making him act without thinking.

Again, watch the death sentence scene. There is hardly any emotion there. There is definitely a great amount of thinking and memories of the past when the crimes of the entire line of Fire Lords are invoked, and death sentence is passed upon Ozai.

Well in the first episode of season 2 The Avatar State Aang did say he only reaches the Avatar state when he's in "genuine danger". And besides, Aang was feeling a lot of emotion immediately before the Avatar State. And simply because Aang didn't look all emotional and irrational in the Avatar state, doesn't mean he wasn't caught by the heat of the momen.

Undead_Prince wrote:

In the other cases you mentioned, the Avatar State was not yet fully developed in Aang (prior to the Guru episode), and/or the targets were just too insignificant to call for any verbal statements from the Avatar. The Avatar just squished them like the bugs they were, in perfect accord with the line that in the name of balance anything can be sacrificed.

The Avatar State DID make a verbal statement prior to the Avatar state. As I mentioned earlier. And the Avatar State didn't squish anybody like bugs. He threw some people around, sure, but he didn't disregaurd their lives. And the guru episode only involved Aang going into and out of the Avatar state at will. It did not change the nature of the Avatar state in any way

Edited on 08/04/2008 11:56am

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

Avatar: The Last Airbender Forums

Avatars: Machiavellian/Nihilistic Bastards?

Teranef

Teranef

Teranef

Undead_Prince

Teranef

yogi_tulsii

Undead_Prince

Undead_Prince

Murraymuzz

MauricXe

Undead_Prince

Teranef

Teranef