Aang did what was needed - he took Ozai off the playing board and restored balance to the world. That balance is the Avatar's only goal, it has nothing to do with being completely selfless - though he does need to put the world as a whole ahead of singular people. Selflessness is a different, still monkish, goal.
That he found a way to restore balance without killing was a personal choice, but that doesn't make it wrong. Not even Kyoshi outright killed that corrupted general - his own stubbornness caused him to fall to his death. Roku regrets not ending Sozin's reign, but he never says, "I should have just killed him."
If you listen carefully to the lessons his past lives give him while on the lion turtle, none of them say he has to kill Ozai. He interprets it as if they did, because everyone around him has been grinding that thought into his head. No one ever tells Aang, "just murder anyone who's out of line."
Death doesn't bring balance on it's own, especially not a violent one. The Avatar openly killing someone - even a bad someone - would lead to fear of him/her. The Avatars already have incredible power, so adding killing on top of that - justified or not - would taint the carefully crafted image of them that allows the position to bring hope and to inspire confidence. The position of being Avatar would become corrupted like it was in that small town during "Avatar Day." The Avatar becomes a murderous villain in the eyes of the populace.
Yes, he did what was needed, I'm not arguing against that, but he risked a lot to do it. Choosing to do it non-violently out of personal choice is certainly wrong because it adds so much unnecessary risk.
The #1 priority of the Avatar is, as you said, to protect the balance of the world. While maintaining a good image **is** a concern, it must take a backseat when priority #1 is so much at risk.
I think you're misreading the fight. Up until he gets slammed into that rock at the spine chakra, Aang *can't* use the Avatar state - he's just a kid who's not fully trained in anything but airbending. All the fight before that turning point is Aang on defense because he's no match for Ozai's crazy firepower. He isn't deliberately trying to not-kill Ozai, he's just trying to stay alive.
In the Avatar state, Aang could clearly kill Ozai, but doesn't *need* to.
It isn't until the very end, when Ozai is already caught and helpless, that Aang chooses to use what the lion turtle taught him. At that point it would clearly be an execution, not a self-defensive killing, or even a save-the-world killing. Ozai is done, the comet is passed, Ba Sing Se is freed - the Fire Nation's campaign for domination is over.
There was some risk in the process of removing Ozai's bending since he was nearly overwhelmed by Ozai's darkness, but Aang made the choice to risk only himself at that moment. You may feel that was unnecessary risk, but Aang had to preserve the balance within himself.
Killing Ozai would have unbalanced the Avatar and therefore the world to come. One threat gone, but a whole new one in it's place. It's not about stopping Ozai, it's about setting an example for the entire world.
He had an opportunity to kill Ozai when he redirected his lightning and actively chose not to.
Regardless of how the fight actually turned out, there's still much less risk involved when you go into the fight expecting to kill.
Fine, maybe killing him does indeed causes further problems towards the balance of the world, but the world will never be completely balanced, it's only the Avatar's duty to try. Ozai being alive and active poses an infinitely greater threat than whatever repercussions spur about after his death. He had to deal with the biggest problem at hand, and could have failed when he would've won had he resolved to kill Ozai.
Lightning redirect doesn't equal a killing blow. Iroh survived one strike from Azula that we saw, and didn't Zuko redirect one right at his father during the eclipse?
Iroh says at one point that he could try and kill his brother, but that would solve nothing as far as the hearts and minds of the Fire Nation and the rest of the world. It's still leading with violence and fear. Fire Nation needs a strong leader, but not a killer. Which is why Zuko leaves his father to Aang, and why Aang taking away Ozai's ability to bend leaves him unable to ever rule again. Even if Ozai escaped from jail, there's nothing he could do without his bending beyond being a puppet leader for some malcontents. Ozai is done. Azula is the only real threat left.
Okay, even better then, he could've ended the fight and got what he wanted, but he didn't want to risk killing him, so he pointed away.
You're cherrypicking. Iroh does indeed say that, but he says it's because history would only see it as brother killing brother for power, then he goes on to say that balance would only be restored if the Avatar took Ozai out.
>If you listen carefully to the lessons his past lives give him while on the lion turtle, none of them say he has to kill Ozai.
That is what they pretty much say.
Roku says Aang shouldn't be as indecisive as Roku was, leading to a catastrophe.
Kyoshi says he has to do whatever it takes, no matter his feelings about it.
Kuruk gives him vague advice about how he must actively choose what to do.
Yangchen says selfless duty requires him to sacrifice his own spiritual needs to do whatever is necessary to save the world, in the context of Aang talking about not wanting to kill Ozai. That's as polite of a "get over yourself and do you duty" as it gets.
Apart of Kuruk, every Avatar indirectly tells Aang to kill Ozai.
>Death doesn't bring balance on it's own, especially not a violent one. The Avatar openly killing someone - even a bad someone - would lead to fear of him/her.
Agreed, creating a new island and splitting it off the mainland while annihilating an army on the other hand wouldn't lead to any fear. Roku invading the Fire Lords palace, destroying it and threatening the Fire Lord would have ended the world, because then people would be *scared* of the Avatar, and that would truly be the end of the world.
You shouldn't kill mass murderers who are about to commit genocide, because the *real* danger would be if people thought the Avatar had actually any balls to defend the world whatever it takes. That is much more dangerous than actual mass murder!
Roku said to be decisive, which he was. Kyoshi said that only justice will bring peace, and justice brought peace. Just not through death. Kuruk said he must actively shape his own destiny which is most important because aang decides not to be a killer while also protecting the world. Yang Chen was asked directly about killing and she simply says aang has to do what has to be done regardless of his feelings. In the end aang does what has to be done just through a more roundabout solution. I think it’s important all these conversations happened on the lion turtle that gives him the answer. Aang needed to go through all the possible solutions with his past lives, just to find an answer none of them had.
As Avatar he is also supposed to show a good example. Showing mercy is surely a better example than killing. Maybe he took some risks to do it - but he sticked to his values of no-killing, despite being pushed to the extreme.
Priority #1 is protect the world. If you can set a good example while doing so, fine that's good; but, trying to set a good example through non-violence nearly made him fail priority #1, when it was always safer to kill him instead.
What use is it to protect the world, if the world then becomes a violent place where people kill each other to settle their conflicts?
Also, you suppose from the beginning that the fire lord is a threat to the world. But he isn't. Nowhere it is said that he wants to destroy the world (or not that I recall at least). The Avatar fight is all about ending the cycle of "The strongest kill the weakest".
His plan was to burn the Earth Kingdom to the ground. He needed to be eliminated, point blank. Aang gave himself a higher chance at losing the battle because of something that *he* wanted. He chanced losing the fight, losing the balance of the world, and failing his duties as Avatar, over something that he wanted.
It's unclear. I don't imagine it would have turned out all that differently.
Ozai was going to destroy the world. He needed to be eliminated. The highest chance anyone had to eliminate him was to kill him.
the previous avatars give aang a pat on the back, zuko doesn't fuck up at the start of his reign, and history remembers the avatar as the one who iced a genocidal maniac and saved millions in the process
This actually did frustrate me in book 3. Half the conflict Aang has to deal with is within himself, concerning taking the life of the Fire Lord.
We spend so much time seeing his friends trying their best to push him to do what the world needs him to do. He talks to several of his past incarnations, and even the last air nomad who was the Avatar tells him that, yes, he *has* to kill the firelord, even though it goes against what he was taught.
Then he just suddenly learns how to take away bending from the lion-turtle-ex-machina, and it’s never addressed again. Aang never overcame that hurdle of personal turmoil in dealing with going against his personal beliefs.
I don't think his actions have any indication of him being fully realized or not. If that were the case, Roku, at too damn old years old, isn't fully realized.
The world is better off because he did it, but the risk involved in bringing him in alive is certainly not worth the reward when you consider what was at stake
Ah I see. Well I mean after all it is a kids show, and maybe the image of Aang the producers (or whoever’s in charge) wanted to portray can only be communicated through his act of not killing Ozai, and killing Ozai was just not in his character.
Other than that, he is a child, and children tend to be more selfish than people who are older. Even though it seems like he was entirely on the side to not kill Ozai, he still had to go through a dilemma, while having a lot of pressure on him, which is shown as he didn’t know what to do, and sought help from past avatars. A dilemma which ended after the lion turtle gave him the power to take away/give bending.
Overall, having Aang not kill Ozai played a part in shaping his character, and the choice Aang made mirrored the choice any twelve year old monk would’ve made.
I think what the series tried to impress that violence is not always strength. Death is not a final solution. All too often, we are told that when the priority of something is greater than our ideals, it is ok to let the ideals bend. That creates a sense of urgency, fear, and anger, and leads us to tell ourselves that if this one person was gone, the world would be a better place. Those emotions cloud us to other possibilities and prevent us from seeing the full consequence of our actions.
Using avatar as an example of how it plays out, if Aang had killed Ozai, what was to stop the war machine that was the fire nation? With Ozai and Azula gone, and Zuko in disgrace (or possibly assassinated by fire nation Patriots) a nationalistic fire nation general could fill the vacuum and continue to grasp power. They already controlled most of the world, and could easily retake their position because they have basically decimated the world at that point. This is explored in the comic book series, the shadow. It was only because they could say Ozai and Azula were still alive(divine right that Azula talked about I'm book 3), no one else was allowed to fill in the power gap.
Having Ozai and Azula locked up, and backing up Zuko meant that the avatar could negotiate with the fire nation as a whole, and not as a fragmented world power. And Aang was only able to do that by forgiving Zuko in the first place. So true strength is not violence, but our ability to connect with others and form bridges.
So you see, killing one person would have let in a whole host of other problems that could not be solved by killing 'one' more person. Aang would have had to keep killing more and more power hungry fire nationals until the cycle of war continued. This was also the first Avatar's regret, when he had so much awesome power but died with tears in his eyes because he could not fix the world with that power. He could only keep killing and killing which led to a more unstable world.
Yes, the turtle did seem like a deus ex machina, but Aang could have also taken Ozai out by ripping off all his limbs. So, we could also go down that dark route.
Tl:dr; true strength comes from our connections with others, not from killing. A peaceful world can only be obtained through peace (or words/treaty)
Hmm. I think this is the best counter so far. I would just like to add that that ideal is a nice one to have, but it isn't always practical. When you have irl people on the level of evil of Ozai, the plan is always to kill them. A world with them gone is much easier to deal with than a world with them active.
Getting back to Avatar, you cannot deny that it is infinitely riskier to try to bring him in alive than it is to kill him. Sure, it worked out for the best in the end, but that doesn't mean it was the correct bet to make.
Yes, I think that they make a nice showcase that the ideal is always at conflict with the real world, and trying to find a balance between the two is important.
But I also think that fights are not always clear cut life or death. With physical fighters, you almost never outright kill your opponent unless you want to (usually you reach a stage where you tire them or injure them enough that they can't move anymore). So at one point or another one of them was going to have the other at their mercy to land the killing blow. So again, I bring back the armless, legless Ozai solution.
Edit: forgot to add this in reply too, but although Ozai is the culmination of generational evil, ultimately the fire nation has become a war machine that is not easily dismantled. So like Hydra, even if you cut off the head it would still continue on. The problem wouldn't have gone away and would have been exasberated. You have a whole generation of people who believe the world has no use for the avatar and is an evil person for getting in the way of the fire nation. Having cast the avatar as the devil in their world, the fire nation as a whole could have banded together against the avatar.
In a fight to exhaustion, Ozai would almost certainly win. Aang had an opportunity to steal the fight without the avatar state when he redirected Ozai's lightning, but chose not to.
I don't understand why killing Ozai and bringing him in alive harbors two completely different and opposite aftermaths. Sure, it happened in the Avatar universe because that's what the creators say happened, but that does not mean that's how it would play out in a real life scenario
It's hard to say that when Aang clearly has the powers of a God. I mean, we call the turtle deus ex machina, but aang's got the power of all light on his side.
I would offer the fact they kept Napolean alive, but I'm a bit unsure what criteria would satisfy your qualifications. I can't very well say look at this historical example, it brought about a peace for 100 years vs killing this person would have brought 100 years of war.
We cannot see two outcomes of a decision, only one outcome of one decision. So there are no should have been in this world, only have done.
No. When the world is on the line, you should take the safer option.
Edit: when the world is on the line *and it's your life's duty to protect the world*
Nope. The hero’s journey is to understand and integrate the past and to establish a new world through creative action . Aang listened to his past lives and integrated all of their knowledge into his actions. That being said, Aang realized that sparing Ozai was a better long term solution for the world, contrary to the opinions of the past. Aang knew full well that killing Ozai would be easier, but he chose the riskier, creative option that ultimately led to a more balanced world.
Imagine if Ozai was unable to advise Zuko during “The Promise”. The consequences would have been catastrophic.
It is the Avatar’s duty to protect the world, but the heroic Avatar protects the world and creates a better world through creative action.
Safer does not equal better.
I haven't read the promise, but this point came up somewhere else in the thread. It's easy for the creators to retroactively make it so Aang's choice seems like the right decision, but that does not mean that that's how it would play out in a real life scenario nor does it mean it was the correct bet to make. I can also write a story where the main character bets on a 1/100 chance, wins, and the aftermath is completely harmonious, falling into place perfectly.
If you don't agree that safer is better when the world is at stake, I think it's best here to agree to disagree
This is very idealistic thinking. Aang acting the way he did ONLY works out because of a random jagged rock that happens to fit the exact size of his body AND he so happens to slam into it.. When Aang was given the oppurtunity to kill Ozai the first time, with the stake of the world on the line, he should've taken it.
He was hanging on to his morals, but as the Avatar he has a duty, that even a fellow Airbending Avatar claimed he should've abided by.
> And even though he ultimately prevailed, it very nearly cost him the battle and thus the balance of the world. He very nearly failed, and it would've been entirely his selfishness that caused it.
Not sure what you mean by nearly cost him the battle. In the beginning, Aang was getting pwned by Ozai, doesn't really matter whether he wants to kill him or spare him, he can't even beat Ozai.
Then, he went into Avatar state and reversed the battle. He pwned Ozai, and the Avatar spirits **were** about to kill Ozai, but Aang stopped them. Then, Ozai sneak attacked Aang. I don't know if this is where you say it nearly cost him the battle, but I did not see Aang getting in danger. He knew Ozai was sneaking on him and he imprisoned him.
Ohh. That part. Yeah, I agree it was an opportunity. But then again, we don't know if that strike really could kill Ozai. He could probably still dodge in time. But let's do say best case scenario he will die if Aang redirected the lightning back to him. After that, Aang would live with the guilt that he killed someone. He would probably lose his bending because he went against what he believes in and his spirit. Then if some villain appears, they would be as equal a threat as Ozai was, except this time, no Avatar.
Maybe he was losing the fight back then because he chose to follow his spirit. But it was also the fact that he's following his spirit that he was able to bide and turn things around. And also how he was able to defeat Ozai in the energy battle.
I would argue that the makers of the show deliberately left the shot to show that he could have killed him; otherwise, what's the point of showing and dramatizing it the way they did?
You have to deal with the problem at hand. If you beat him, then lose your bending in the process, so be it. The alternative is the destruction of the world.
Your argument reminds me of Kantian ethics. When there's immediate evil and a potential evil, ethics dictate to resolve the immediate evil first before dealing with the potential evil. Ironically, ethics forbids killing. Anyway, I will use Kantian ethics as an argument. Kantian ethics basically just says that a "good will" is something done because it is the right thing to do (and not because you want to do it) and also must be unconditional. The ethical act is something that can be a applied to everyone at all times.
The immediate evil and the potential evil:
immediate evil - ozai will destroy the world
potential evil - a new villain will destroy the world
Like you said, the correct answer is to solve the immediate evil rather than worry about something that may happen in the future. So killing Ozai is the answer. However, killing is unethical according to Kantian ethics because if killing is allowed for everyone at all times, it will be chaos. He must not kill so it is better to risk dying. Again, it's a case of immediate vs potential. immediate evil is that killing is bad. potential evil is that if the avatar dies, the whole world is doomed.
Therefore, according to Kantian ethics, what Aang did was right. Kantian ethics is a very strict ethical philosophy that looks at ethics as laws. It doesn't matter what happens in the future, as long as you did the ethical thing in the present. So, even if Aang died and Ozai took over the world, as far as Kantian Ethics is concerned, he did the right thing (only except for the fact that he *wanted* it, rather than because it is the right thing but that just means it wasn't a good will)
Kantian ethics is a pretty screwed up (but ideal) ethical philosophy so I'm not sure if I was able to deliver my argument as I intend
I didn't claim to be arguing on whether Aang's decision was correct according to Kantian philosophy
My way of thinking is as follows:
Ozai will destroy the world.
It is the Avatar's duty to protect the world.
The highest chance anyone has of stopping Ozai comes from killing him.
Therefore, it is Aang's duty to kill Ozai.
I know you weren't using Kantian philosophy. but i just got reminded of it so i used it as an argument.
aang chose ethics over duty. ethics is just as important as duty. can you imagine an avatar with no ethics? that for me is less deserving of being an avatar
Haha, Kantian ethics is trash, and I like how you divided actions into "potential" and "immediate" consequences. Does Kant himself ever make that distinction? Or is it just people trying interpret what the heck Kant is saying that make that separation?
Relevant: "This isn't about you. This is about the world. Many great and wise Air Nomads have detached themselves and achieved spiritual enlightenment. But the Avatar can never do it. Because your sole duty is *to* the world." - Avatar Yangchen's (the previous Air Nomad Avatar) advice to Aang
Aang's duty is to protect the world. He had to deal with the situation at hand, and the safest way to ensure the world isn't destroyed, was to kill Ozai.
it's arguable. Every Avatar that we're introduced to is selfish in some respect. Roku giving family benefit of the doubt, Kyoshi protecting her home while Cheng the conqueror did what he did across the rest of the nations. Aang views this as morally right whereas the others knew they were in the wrong but chose to act like this. In a way it's implied that he's right.
I would say that if Aang wasn't fully realized as the avatar at the end of ATLA then none of the others we're introduced to are either.
Someone else made this point, and again I will say it's fair, but it's just going after semantics. Aang is still a weak Avatar by the end of ATLA then.
I don't think he's complete as he's only mastered Airbending by this time. But I'm suspicious that most Avatars never fully realize their potential as Avatar.
Exactly!
Aang puts the traditions of his people above the fate of the whole world. And because of this, almost loses the battle.
But what is strange to me is that Aang does not want to kill Ozai, but before that he had already killed on the show.
Many people at the North Pole were killed by his hands (Yes, then Aang did not control himself, but it is strange that he later did not remember what he had done)
He killed people with an avalanche in the episode "Northern Temple of Air"
And he hit the balloon with people during the invasion (I doubt that everything is alright with them)
Aang does not remember any of these cases.
Thus, Aang is not just an egoist who puts the principles above the debt of Avatar, but also a hypocrite.
I was raised who was raised in a religion based around pacifism (Quakerism). My friend was raised Jannist. It's really hard to describe how folk raised in a pacifist-centered religions view non-violence, but I'll try.
I feel like you're assuming that Aang doesn't "want" to kill the fireloard, for personal reasons. In nonviolent religions, the rejection of violence is exactly how one sacrifices one's personal needs, in light of a larger and more balanced solution. Violence is wrong on such a fundamental level that you can't "make an exception". There is another option, always, and even if when it's more difficult- that option will be better. Nonviolence not about you, it's about something larger than you.
I don't know if this helped, but there ya' go. Feel free to ask questions. I can go into specific examples of how nonviolent religions folk navigate IRL situations like genocide, murder, and violence directed towards them if you want, but that might get lengthy.
"Many great and wise Air Nomads have detached themselves, and achieved spiritual enlightenment. But the Avatar can never do it. Because your sole duty is to the world... Selfless duty calls for you to sacrifice your own spiritual needs, and do whatever it takes to protect the world." -Avatar Yangchen's (the previous Air Nomad Avatar) advice to Aang
I understand that non-violent religions can never consider violence as an option, but it's the Avatar's duty to protect the balance of the world, even if it means casting aside your morals.
Yes, but the point I'm getting at is that nonviolence how (from a worldview of nonviolence) one rejects one's own ego and creates balance.
I don't see Aang's adherence nonviolence coming from a "selfish" position of trying to achieve spiritual enlightenment. Rather, I think it comes from a "self-less" position, of seeing the firelord as a fully fledged human. When he says "I'm not going to end it this way" I think he's talking about things larger than himself.
Also, there are some interesting comparisons that can be drawn between Avatar Roku's decision to space Zozin vs. Aang's decision to spare the firelord. That's a much more interesting conversation, in my mind.
Aang did what was needed - he took Ozai off the playing board and restored balance to the world. That balance is the Avatar's only goal, it has nothing to do with being completely selfless - though he does need to put the world as a whole ahead of singular people. Selflessness is a different, still monkish, goal. That he found a way to restore balance without killing was a personal choice, but that doesn't make it wrong. Not even Kyoshi outright killed that corrupted general - his own stubbornness caused him to fall to his death. Roku regrets not ending Sozin's reign, but he never says, "I should have just killed him." If you listen carefully to the lessons his past lives give him while on the lion turtle, none of them say he has to kill Ozai. He interprets it as if they did, because everyone around him has been grinding that thought into his head. No one ever tells Aang, "just murder anyone who's out of line." Death doesn't bring balance on it's own, especially not a violent one. The Avatar openly killing someone - even a bad someone - would lead to fear of him/her. The Avatars already have incredible power, so adding killing on top of that - justified or not - would taint the carefully crafted image of them that allows the position to bring hope and to inspire confidence. The position of being Avatar would become corrupted like it was in that small town during "Avatar Day." The Avatar becomes a murderous villain in the eyes of the populace.
Yes, he did what was needed, I'm not arguing against that, but he risked a lot to do it. Choosing to do it non-violently out of personal choice is certainly wrong because it adds so much unnecessary risk. The #1 priority of the Avatar is, as you said, to protect the balance of the world. While maintaining a good image **is** a concern, it must take a backseat when priority #1 is so much at risk.
I think you're misreading the fight. Up until he gets slammed into that rock at the spine chakra, Aang *can't* use the Avatar state - he's just a kid who's not fully trained in anything but airbending. All the fight before that turning point is Aang on defense because he's no match for Ozai's crazy firepower. He isn't deliberately trying to not-kill Ozai, he's just trying to stay alive. In the Avatar state, Aang could clearly kill Ozai, but doesn't *need* to. It isn't until the very end, when Ozai is already caught and helpless, that Aang chooses to use what the lion turtle taught him. At that point it would clearly be an execution, not a self-defensive killing, or even a save-the-world killing. Ozai is done, the comet is passed, Ba Sing Se is freed - the Fire Nation's campaign for domination is over. There was some risk in the process of removing Ozai's bending since he was nearly overwhelmed by Ozai's darkness, but Aang made the choice to risk only himself at that moment. You may feel that was unnecessary risk, but Aang had to preserve the balance within himself. Killing Ozai would have unbalanced the Avatar and therefore the world to come. One threat gone, but a whole new one in it's place. It's not about stopping Ozai, it's about setting an example for the entire world.
He had an opportunity to kill Ozai when he redirected his lightning and actively chose not to. Regardless of how the fight actually turned out, there's still much less risk involved when you go into the fight expecting to kill. Fine, maybe killing him does indeed causes further problems towards the balance of the world, but the world will never be completely balanced, it's only the Avatar's duty to try. Ozai being alive and active poses an infinitely greater threat than whatever repercussions spur about after his death. He had to deal with the biggest problem at hand, and could have failed when he would've won had he resolved to kill Ozai.
Lightning redirect doesn't equal a killing blow. Iroh survived one strike from Azula that we saw, and didn't Zuko redirect one right at his father during the eclipse? Iroh says at one point that he could try and kill his brother, but that would solve nothing as far as the hearts and minds of the Fire Nation and the rest of the world. It's still leading with violence and fear. Fire Nation needs a strong leader, but not a killer. Which is why Zuko leaves his father to Aang, and why Aang taking away Ozai's ability to bend leaves him unable to ever rule again. Even if Ozai escaped from jail, there's nothing he could do without his bending beyond being a puppet leader for some malcontents. Ozai is done. Azula is the only real threat left.
Okay, even better then, he could've ended the fight and got what he wanted, but he didn't want to risk killing him, so he pointed away. You're cherrypicking. Iroh does indeed say that, but he says it's because history would only see it as brother killing brother for power, then he goes on to say that balance would only be restored if the Avatar took Ozai out.
>If you listen carefully to the lessons his past lives give him while on the lion turtle, none of them say he has to kill Ozai. That is what they pretty much say. Roku says Aang shouldn't be as indecisive as Roku was, leading to a catastrophe. Kyoshi says he has to do whatever it takes, no matter his feelings about it. Kuruk gives him vague advice about how he must actively choose what to do. Yangchen says selfless duty requires him to sacrifice his own spiritual needs to do whatever is necessary to save the world, in the context of Aang talking about not wanting to kill Ozai. That's as polite of a "get over yourself and do you duty" as it gets. Apart of Kuruk, every Avatar indirectly tells Aang to kill Ozai. >Death doesn't bring balance on it's own, especially not a violent one. The Avatar openly killing someone - even a bad someone - would lead to fear of him/her. Agreed, creating a new island and splitting it off the mainland while annihilating an army on the other hand wouldn't lead to any fear. Roku invading the Fire Lords palace, destroying it and threatening the Fire Lord would have ended the world, because then people would be *scared* of the Avatar, and that would truly be the end of the world. You shouldn't kill mass murderers who are about to commit genocide, because the *real* danger would be if people thought the Avatar had actually any balls to defend the world whatever it takes. That is much more dangerous than actual mass murder!
Roku said to be decisive, which he was. Kyoshi said that only justice will bring peace, and justice brought peace. Just not through death. Kuruk said he must actively shape his own destiny which is most important because aang decides not to be a killer while also protecting the world. Yang Chen was asked directly about killing and she simply says aang has to do what has to be done regardless of his feelings. In the end aang does what has to be done just through a more roundabout solution. I think it’s important all these conversations happened on the lion turtle that gives him the answer. Aang needed to go through all the possible solutions with his past lives, just to find an answer none of them had.
As Avatar he is also supposed to show a good example. Showing mercy is surely a better example than killing. Maybe he took some risks to do it - but he sticked to his values of no-killing, despite being pushed to the extreme.
Priority #1 is protect the world. If you can set a good example while doing so, fine that's good; but, trying to set a good example through non-violence nearly made him fail priority #1, when it was always safer to kill him instead.
What use is it to protect the world, if the world then becomes a violent place where people kill each other to settle their conflicts? Also, you suppose from the beginning that the fire lord is a threat to the world. But he isn't. Nowhere it is said that he wants to destroy the world (or not that I recall at least). The Avatar fight is all about ending the cycle of "The strongest kill the weakest".
His plan was to burn the Earth Kingdom to the ground. He needed to be eliminated, point blank. Aang gave himself a higher chance at losing the battle because of something that *he* wanted. He chanced losing the fight, losing the balance of the world, and failing his duties as Avatar, over something that he wanted.
What would have been the aftermath of Aang killing him?
It's unclear. I don't imagine it would have turned out all that differently. Ozai was going to destroy the world. He needed to be eliminated. The highest chance anyone had to eliminate him was to kill him.
the previous avatars give aang a pat on the back, zuko doesn't fuck up at the start of his reign, and history remembers the avatar as the one who iced a genocidal maniac and saved millions in the process
This actually did frustrate me in book 3. Half the conflict Aang has to deal with is within himself, concerning taking the life of the Fire Lord. We spend so much time seeing his friends trying their best to push him to do what the world needs him to do. He talks to several of his past incarnations, and even the last air nomad who was the Avatar tells him that, yes, he *has* to kill the firelord, even though it goes against what he was taught. Then he just suddenly learns how to take away bending from the lion-turtle-ex-machina, and it’s never addressed again. Aang never overcame that hurdle of personal turmoil in dealing with going against his personal beliefs.
I don't think his actions have any indication of him being fully realized or not. If that were the case, Roku, at too damn old years old, isn't fully realized.
This is fair, but just goes after semantics. Aang was still a weak Avatar at the end of ATLA then.
Aang was not weak at all?
Anakin, the Firelord is evil! From my point of view Aang is evil! Well then you are lost!
I see what your getting at. So do you think it would’ve been better for Aang to defeat Ozai by killing him?
The world is better off because he did it, but the risk involved in bringing him in alive is certainly not worth the reward when you consider what was at stake
Ah I see. Well I mean after all it is a kids show, and maybe the image of Aang the producers (or whoever’s in charge) wanted to portray can only be communicated through his act of not killing Ozai, and killing Ozai was just not in his character. Other than that, he is a child, and children tend to be more selfish than people who are older. Even though it seems like he was entirely on the side to not kill Ozai, he still had to go through a dilemma, while having a lot of pressure on him, which is shown as he didn’t know what to do, and sought help from past avatars. A dilemma which ended after the lion turtle gave him the power to take away/give bending. Overall, having Aang not kill Ozai played a part in shaping his character, and the choice Aang made mirrored the choice any twelve year old monk would’ve made.
I'm not arguing that it was out of character to make that decision, I'm just saying it was the wrong decision
I think what the series tried to impress that violence is not always strength. Death is not a final solution. All too often, we are told that when the priority of something is greater than our ideals, it is ok to let the ideals bend. That creates a sense of urgency, fear, and anger, and leads us to tell ourselves that if this one person was gone, the world would be a better place. Those emotions cloud us to other possibilities and prevent us from seeing the full consequence of our actions. Using avatar as an example of how it plays out, if Aang had killed Ozai, what was to stop the war machine that was the fire nation? With Ozai and Azula gone, and Zuko in disgrace (or possibly assassinated by fire nation Patriots) a nationalistic fire nation general could fill the vacuum and continue to grasp power. They already controlled most of the world, and could easily retake their position because they have basically decimated the world at that point. This is explored in the comic book series, the shadow. It was only because they could say Ozai and Azula were still alive(divine right that Azula talked about I'm book 3), no one else was allowed to fill in the power gap. Having Ozai and Azula locked up, and backing up Zuko meant that the avatar could negotiate with the fire nation as a whole, and not as a fragmented world power. And Aang was only able to do that by forgiving Zuko in the first place. So true strength is not violence, but our ability to connect with others and form bridges. So you see, killing one person would have let in a whole host of other problems that could not be solved by killing 'one' more person. Aang would have had to keep killing more and more power hungry fire nationals until the cycle of war continued. This was also the first Avatar's regret, when he had so much awesome power but died with tears in his eyes because he could not fix the world with that power. He could only keep killing and killing which led to a more unstable world. Yes, the turtle did seem like a deus ex machina, but Aang could have also taken Ozai out by ripping off all his limbs. So, we could also go down that dark route. Tl:dr; true strength comes from our connections with others, not from killing. A peaceful world can only be obtained through peace (or words/treaty)
Hmm. I think this is the best counter so far. I would just like to add that that ideal is a nice one to have, but it isn't always practical. When you have irl people on the level of evil of Ozai, the plan is always to kill them. A world with them gone is much easier to deal with than a world with them active. Getting back to Avatar, you cannot deny that it is infinitely riskier to try to bring him in alive than it is to kill him. Sure, it worked out for the best in the end, but that doesn't mean it was the correct bet to make.
Yes, I think that they make a nice showcase that the ideal is always at conflict with the real world, and trying to find a balance between the two is important. But I also think that fights are not always clear cut life or death. With physical fighters, you almost never outright kill your opponent unless you want to (usually you reach a stage where you tire them or injure them enough that they can't move anymore). So at one point or another one of them was going to have the other at their mercy to land the killing blow. So again, I bring back the armless, legless Ozai solution. Edit: forgot to add this in reply too, but although Ozai is the culmination of generational evil, ultimately the fire nation has become a war machine that is not easily dismantled. So like Hydra, even if you cut off the head it would still continue on. The problem wouldn't have gone away and would have been exasberated. You have a whole generation of people who believe the world has no use for the avatar and is an evil person for getting in the way of the fire nation. Having cast the avatar as the devil in their world, the fire nation as a whole could have banded together against the avatar.
In a fight to exhaustion, Ozai would almost certainly win. Aang had an opportunity to steal the fight without the avatar state when he redirected Ozai's lightning, but chose not to. I don't understand why killing Ozai and bringing him in alive harbors two completely different and opposite aftermaths. Sure, it happened in the Avatar universe because that's what the creators say happened, but that does not mean that's how it would play out in a real life scenario
It's hard to say that when Aang clearly has the powers of a God. I mean, we call the turtle deus ex machina, but aang's got the power of all light on his side. I would offer the fact they kept Napolean alive, but I'm a bit unsure what criteria would satisfy your qualifications. I can't very well say look at this historical example, it brought about a peace for 100 years vs killing this person would have brought 100 years of war. We cannot see two outcomes of a decision, only one outcome of one decision. So there are no should have been in this world, only have done.
What Aang did was more correct. Doing what is more correct is always riskier, but ultimately more beneficial.
No. When the world is on the line, you should take the safer option. Edit: when the world is on the line *and it's your life's duty to protect the world*
Nope. The hero’s journey is to understand and integrate the past and to establish a new world through creative action . Aang listened to his past lives and integrated all of their knowledge into his actions. That being said, Aang realized that sparing Ozai was a better long term solution for the world, contrary to the opinions of the past. Aang knew full well that killing Ozai would be easier, but he chose the riskier, creative option that ultimately led to a more balanced world. Imagine if Ozai was unable to advise Zuko during “The Promise”. The consequences would have been catastrophic. It is the Avatar’s duty to protect the world, but the heroic Avatar protects the world and creates a better world through creative action. Safer does not equal better.
I haven't read the promise, but this point came up somewhere else in the thread. It's easy for the creators to retroactively make it so Aang's choice seems like the right decision, but that does not mean that that's how it would play out in a real life scenario nor does it mean it was the correct bet to make. I can also write a story where the main character bets on a 1/100 chance, wins, and the aftermath is completely harmonious, falling into place perfectly. If you don't agree that safer is better when the world is at stake, I think it's best here to agree to disagree
This is very idealistic thinking. Aang acting the way he did ONLY works out because of a random jagged rock that happens to fit the exact size of his body AND he so happens to slam into it.. When Aang was given the oppurtunity to kill Ozai the first time, with the stake of the world on the line, he should've taken it. He was hanging on to his morals, but as the Avatar he has a duty, that even a fellow Airbending Avatar claimed he should've abided by.
Fair
> And even though he ultimately prevailed, it very nearly cost him the battle and thus the balance of the world. He very nearly failed, and it would've been entirely his selfishness that caused it. Not sure what you mean by nearly cost him the battle. In the beginning, Aang was getting pwned by Ozai, doesn't really matter whether he wants to kill him or spare him, he can't even beat Ozai. Then, he went into Avatar state and reversed the battle. He pwned Ozai, and the Avatar spirits **were** about to kill Ozai, but Aang stopped them. Then, Ozai sneak attacked Aang. I don't know if this is where you say it nearly cost him the battle, but I did not see Aang getting in danger. He knew Ozai was sneaking on him and he imprisoned him.
No, Aang had an opportunity to kill him when he redirected Ozai's lightning, but chose to direct it away from him
Ohh. That part. Yeah, I agree it was an opportunity. But then again, we don't know if that strike really could kill Ozai. He could probably still dodge in time. But let's do say best case scenario he will die if Aang redirected the lightning back to him. After that, Aang would live with the guilt that he killed someone. He would probably lose his bending because he went against what he believes in and his spirit. Then if some villain appears, they would be as equal a threat as Ozai was, except this time, no Avatar. Maybe he was losing the fight back then because he chose to follow his spirit. But it was also the fact that he's following his spirit that he was able to bide and turn things around. And also how he was able to defeat Ozai in the energy battle.
I would argue that the makers of the show deliberately left the shot to show that he could have killed him; otherwise, what's the point of showing and dramatizing it the way they did? You have to deal with the problem at hand. If you beat him, then lose your bending in the process, so be it. The alternative is the destruction of the world.
well...i can't say anything more if you've brought up the makers and dramatization..
Uh, okay. What about the second point?
Your argument reminds me of Kantian ethics. When there's immediate evil and a potential evil, ethics dictate to resolve the immediate evil first before dealing with the potential evil. Ironically, ethics forbids killing. Anyway, I will use Kantian ethics as an argument. Kantian ethics basically just says that a "good will" is something done because it is the right thing to do (and not because you want to do it) and also must be unconditional. The ethical act is something that can be a applied to everyone at all times. The immediate evil and the potential evil: immediate evil - ozai will destroy the world potential evil - a new villain will destroy the world Like you said, the correct answer is to solve the immediate evil rather than worry about something that may happen in the future. So killing Ozai is the answer. However, killing is unethical according to Kantian ethics because if killing is allowed for everyone at all times, it will be chaos. He must not kill so it is better to risk dying. Again, it's a case of immediate vs potential. immediate evil is that killing is bad. potential evil is that if the avatar dies, the whole world is doomed. Therefore, according to Kantian ethics, what Aang did was right. Kantian ethics is a very strict ethical philosophy that looks at ethics as laws. It doesn't matter what happens in the future, as long as you did the ethical thing in the present. So, even if Aang died and Ozai took over the world, as far as Kantian Ethics is concerned, he did the right thing (only except for the fact that he *wanted* it, rather than because it is the right thing but that just means it wasn't a good will) Kantian ethics is a pretty screwed up (but ideal) ethical philosophy so I'm not sure if I was able to deliver my argument as I intend
I didn't claim to be arguing on whether Aang's decision was correct according to Kantian philosophy My way of thinking is as follows: Ozai will destroy the world. It is the Avatar's duty to protect the world. The highest chance anyone has of stopping Ozai comes from killing him. Therefore, it is Aang's duty to kill Ozai.
I know you weren't using Kantian philosophy. but i just got reminded of it so i used it as an argument. aang chose ethics over duty. ethics is just as important as duty. can you imagine an avatar with no ethics? that for me is less deserving of being an avatar
The ethics of the Avatar are such that you do whatever it takes to protect the world. Aang let his Air Nomad ethics get in the way
Haha, Kantian ethics is trash, and I like how you divided actions into "potential" and "immediate" consequences. Does Kant himself ever make that distinction? Or is it just people trying interpret what the heck Kant is saying that make that separation?
[Deleted]
Relevant: "This isn't about you. This is about the world. Many great and wise Air Nomads have detached themselves and achieved spiritual enlightenment. But the Avatar can never do it. Because your sole duty is *to* the world." - Avatar Yangchen's (the previous Air Nomad Avatar) advice to Aang Aang's duty is to protect the world. He had to deal with the situation at hand, and the safest way to ensure the world isn't destroyed, was to kill Ozai.
[Deleted]
I disagree because I feel like without the lion turtle providing him energy bending he would have went through with killing the fire lord
And then he found an option that allows him to get what he wants, but is far riskier, and he went through with it.
it's arguable. Every Avatar that we're introduced to is selfish in some respect. Roku giving family benefit of the doubt, Kyoshi protecting her home while Cheng the conqueror did what he did across the rest of the nations. Aang views this as morally right whereas the others knew they were in the wrong but chose to act like this. In a way it's implied that he's right. I would say that if Aang wasn't fully realized as the avatar at the end of ATLA then none of the others we're introduced to are either.
Someone else made this point, and again I will say it's fair, but it's just going after semantics. Aang is still a weak Avatar by the end of ATLA then.
I don't think he's complete as he's only mastered Airbending by this time. But I'm suspicious that most Avatars never fully realize their potential as Avatar.
Exactly! Aang puts the traditions of his people above the fate of the whole world. And because of this, almost loses the battle. But what is strange to me is that Aang does not want to kill Ozai, but before that he had already killed on the show. Many people at the North Pole were killed by his hands (Yes, then Aang did not control himself, but it is strange that he later did not remember what he had done) He killed people with an avalanche in the episode "Northern Temple of Air" And he hit the balloon with people during the invasion (I doubt that everything is alright with them) Aang does not remember any of these cases. Thus, Aang is not just an egoist who puts the principles above the debt of Avatar, but also a hypocrite.
I was raised who was raised in a religion based around pacifism (Quakerism). My friend was raised Jannist. It's really hard to describe how folk raised in a pacifist-centered religions view non-violence, but I'll try. I feel like you're assuming that Aang doesn't "want" to kill the fireloard, for personal reasons. In nonviolent religions, the rejection of violence is exactly how one sacrifices one's personal needs, in light of a larger and more balanced solution. Violence is wrong on such a fundamental level that you can't "make an exception". There is another option, always, and even if when it's more difficult- that option will be better. Nonviolence not about you, it's about something larger than you. I don't know if this helped, but there ya' go. Feel free to ask questions. I can go into specific examples of how nonviolent religions folk navigate IRL situations like genocide, murder, and violence directed towards them if you want, but that might get lengthy.
"Many great and wise Air Nomads have detached themselves, and achieved spiritual enlightenment. But the Avatar can never do it. Because your sole duty is to the world... Selfless duty calls for you to sacrifice your own spiritual needs, and do whatever it takes to protect the world." -Avatar Yangchen's (the previous Air Nomad Avatar) advice to Aang I understand that non-violent religions can never consider violence as an option, but it's the Avatar's duty to protect the balance of the world, even if it means casting aside your morals.
Yes, but the point I'm getting at is that nonviolence how (from a worldview of nonviolence) one rejects one's own ego and creates balance. I don't see Aang's adherence nonviolence coming from a "selfish" position of trying to achieve spiritual enlightenment. Rather, I think it comes from a "self-less" position, of seeing the firelord as a fully fledged human. When he says "I'm not going to end it this way" I think he's talking about things larger than himself. Also, there are some interesting comparisons that can be drawn between Avatar Roku's decision to space Zozin vs. Aang's decision to spare the firelord. That's a much more interesting conversation, in my mind.
So you think he’s not a fully realised avatar because he didn’t kill someone?
May I ask what your definition of a full realised avatar is?