I haven’t seen much of Avatar (after the first few seasons) or any of Legend of Korra. I’m reminded, however, of Batman. He also refuses to kill for what sound like similar reasons; however, this results in a never-ending cycle of the Joker breaking out of jail and killing more innocents. As a result, there are more innocents dead, with the benefit of Batman feeling like he doesn’t kill.
From my perspective, their blood is on his hands, for refusing to end evil.
I don’t know if Avatar teaches the same lessons, or if the Fire Lord Ozai or Kuzira are still threats after the end. Perhaps not. However, in the real world... Is it immoral to kill, or to use violence, in preemptive defense? There seem to me to be many times when imposing your will on others (even via violence!) leads to morally superior outcomes.
What do you, or other readers, think? I welcome discussion!
In Avatar, given the Avatar's ability to remove people's powers, I personally believe that both Aang and Korra made the right choice.
Batman, on the other hand, does not. He is hamstrung by the needs of his medium; comics run for a long time and keep being reinvented. He really ought to kill the Joker, or at least look the other way when someone else does it (in my opinion, of course). And if he really absolutely had to not kill the Joker, he should at least chop off all of the guy's limbs.
In reality we seldom possess the moral clarity of fiction - what exactly happened, who did what to whom, is rarely so clear. That being said, I believe the Joker should be killed (or de-limbed) specifically because he cannot be contained. Whereas the vast majority of people in real life can be successfully contained, leaving no need to kill them.
"Their blood is on his hands, for refusing to end evil."
That assumes that evil can be ended.
I'm with Solzhenitsyn:
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained."
This was an interesting post. Thank you for it.
I haven’t seen much of Avatar (after the first few seasons) or any of Legend of Korra. I’m reminded, however, of Batman. He also refuses to kill for what sound like similar reasons; however, this results in a never-ending cycle of the Joker breaking out of jail and killing more innocents. As a result, there are more innocents dead, with the benefit of Batman feeling like he doesn’t kill.
From my perspective, their blood is on his hands, for refusing to end evil.
I don’t know if Avatar teaches the same lessons, or if the Fire Lord Ozai or Kuzira are still threats after the end. Perhaps not. However, in the real world... Is it immoral to kill, or to use violence, in preemptive defense? There seem to me to be many times when imposing your will on others (even via violence!) leads to morally superior outcomes.
What do you, or other readers, think? I welcome discussion!
Great comment, thanks.
In Avatar, given the Avatar's ability to remove people's powers, I personally believe that both Aang and Korra made the right choice.
Batman, on the other hand, does not. He is hamstrung by the needs of his medium; comics run for a long time and keep being reinvented. He really ought to kill the Joker, or at least look the other way when someone else does it (in my opinion, of course). And if he really absolutely had to not kill the Joker, he should at least chop off all of the guy's limbs.
In reality we seldom possess the moral clarity of fiction - what exactly happened, who did what to whom, is rarely so clear. That being said, I believe the Joker should be killed (or de-limbed) specifically because he cannot be contained. Whereas the vast majority of people in real life can be successfully contained, leaving no need to kill them.
"Their blood is on his hands, for refusing to end evil."
That assumes that evil can be ended.
I'm with Solzhenitsyn:
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained."
Sure - Evil in general isn't the sort of thing you can vanquish entirely. But a specific person's evil can surely be ended.