chromecausation

[chromecausation]

why atla’s ending is bad

so this post has likely already been made before, but I’m new to tumblr so what the hell. I recently finished watching atla, and I thoroughly enjoyed the series. This post is in no way about how the series itself is bad; I really did enjoy the series. Rather, it is about how the ending does a grave disservice to aang and the philosophical theories in question.

One of the reasons I love atla is that it is willing to ask the hard psychological questions: the scene in the library about how everybody thinks their war is justified? That is an amazing scene, it recontextualizes the entire series up until that point and forces us to ask: is fighting the fire nation really as justified as we claim? This question is brought up even more as we actually meet people who live within the fire nation: we see that they are not taught history as it actually happened and they are often ruled by fear. They are not the monsters that they seem to be. However, and this is the huge however, atla refuses to actually address the biggest question of the series: is it morally correct to kill someone in the service of a greater good? 

Up until this point in the series, atla mainly avoids this question by making all forms of bending essentially the same: sure, they all have different animations and such, but at the end of the day they all serve as different ways to knock people backwards until everyone is far away enough that they seem defeated. Obviously, this is a children’s show, so it makes sense that they would do this. But, while its ok to knock around enemy henchmen, no one (even kids) is going to buy that one of the greatest firebenders of all time is properly subdued by a kid, especially when aang is shown to be clearly weaker in some of the bending forms than he would like. So, the philosophical question of killing has to be brought to the forefront. However, while the writers seemed to get that killing had to be brought up at some point, they narratively structured the story to prevent the question from actually being brought up at all. 

At the core of this question is the push and pull between consequentialism and deontology, the two major schools of thought on what defines a moral action. Consequentialists (broadly speaking) argue that an action is right if the consequences brought about by that action are right. Deontologists argue (broadly speaking) that an action is right if the action itself is right, regardless of the consequences. This post is not going to go into a full-throated analysis of either philosophy, but will simply state that despite what everyone on the internet likes to claim after having read the trolley problem briefly, there are some legitimate benefits to deontology (and consequentialism can often lead to some things that we would think of as morally dubious.) 

Anyway: suffice it to say, aang is a deontologist. He is focused on doing right actions because they are inherently right, and he doesn’t believe in bending his principles just because it would be convenient or because it could lead to a better outcome in that specific instance. Principles are principles for a reason, goddamnit, if you bend them all the time, how useful are they? And despite the fact that a lot of people here on tumblr would definitely describe themselves as consequentialists, we applaud aang throughout the series for his decisions to be morally upstanding, even when it makes his life harder. 

Here’s the issue though: deontology, even though it has some serious benefits (I am somewhat of a deontologist and pacifist myself) it also has some serious downsides. Sometimes, when you stick to your principles, bad things will happen. Sometimes, those bad things will happen because you weren’t willing to stop them. And while there is a larger argument that can be made about how sticking to what is right leads to a better world overall, that doesn’t help the fact that in the moment, deontology can seem like a really sucky philosophy.

The writers of the show never actually make aang face that issue with deontology, and they trivialize it as a philosophy. Throughout the second half of the third season, aang is portrayed as not having the stomach to kill ozai, or not wanting to do what needs to be done. It is implied that aang is weak for his beliefs, that he must overcome his weakness and pacifism to become the strong avatar the world needs to undo the horrible damage of fire nation imperialism. The issue with this, though, is that it never confronts the actual issue at play? What if (ignoring energy-bending entirely for a second) aang is entirely right to not want to kill ozai? 

I posit that a non-murdery approach to the final battle is the actually correct decision for the world. The fire nation has been steeped in fear and anger for over a century, and their leaders have based all of this division and fear and nationalism on the idea that might makes right, that if you are strong and just and powerful enough, it is your right to spread this glory to the rest of the world. If aang were to beat ozai handily and murder him, all that he would prove is that the firelords were right all along: it is the right of those who have power to control those who are powerless. Aang killing ozai just proves that ozai was right all along. The only way to break the fire nation cycle of fear is to prove that there are other ways to approach conflict, to prove that a non-violent approach is not just preferable to killing someone, but is actually what is necessary for the world to heal and grow?

It is at this point that the readers who have read this far into this abominably long post say, “but wait chromecausation, aang didn’t kill ozai. That was the whole fucking point of the final episode!” And to those of you still reading: kudos, you have my gratitude. My issue is not actually with the ending of the story (despite the title of this piece) but the way that it was presented. 

Because I just recently watched avatar (and I had seen some spoilers earlier on tumblr so i knew that something called energybending was coming), I realized that energybending was introduced AS A CONCEPT in the last 2 episodes, and it was explained as aang was using it to defeat ozai. This is literally the definition of a deus ex machina, a plot device that solves a previously insurmountable problem that arrived out of basically nowhere. I really really hate that the entire conflict of the series is solved through deus ex machina. It cheapens all of the struggles, and it makes the conclusions of the story that much weaker. 

Think of how all of the arguments aang had with sokka, zuko, katara, the other avatars, and like a billion other people would have gone if it were known that energy-bending were a possibility. Instead of being “hey I don’t want to kill the firelord because it is morally wrong, even if that is a more dangerous path to take, but I think it will be better for the world as a whole” it becomes “hey instead of killing the firelord, I would like to take this equally easy option to not kill him but subdue him instead.” (The reason I say equally easy is because killing the firelord is shown to be fucking difficult to do). The existence of energy-bending renders the whole point of the argument moot, because of course in a vacuum it is better to not kill people. (I say of course here because the moral discussion at play is not whether retributive punishment is better than rehabilitative punishment, or whether the death penalty should exist. Those moral discussions rest on the premise that the victim is helpless and we in the position of power must decide their fate. The moral question here is whether aang should try to kill the firelord, because if he tried to hold back with bending so that he didn’t kill ozai, aang might actually lose the fight). Energybending does not exist with enough screen time for us to learn if it has drawbacks or is difficult to do. We are told that it is difficult, but so is killing the firelord during sozin’s comet; we need to actually see it in action first or discuss it ahead of time to actually know what the stakes are. Instead, with it being presented at the last minute, it seems like aang is given a cheat code out of his moral dilemma. He is never forced to confront the actual consequences of pacifism, and is never given the chance to prove why it is a good idea to stick to your principles even when you don’t have a deus ex machina up your sleeve. 

I believe that aang was right to not kill the firelord, but because the mechanism was energybending, it means that aang is never forced to confront the idea that pacifism and deontology require a difficult route and that there is a good chance he will not succeed. Conversely, he is never given the chance to prove how his way of thinking is better for actually breaking the fire nation cycle of fear. Imagine, instead of energybending, aang was forced to learn all of the techniques taught to him by his teachers. When fighting ozai, he must take a heavy blow that he must heal through waterbending he is taught from katara. He is only able to dodge attacks because of the seismic sense from toph, and he must become comfortable enough with fire that he can redirect ozai’s lighting, as shown by zuko. This techniques are shown to be incredibly difficult, and by clearly setting up a path where aang is forced to take the more difficult route in order to stick to his convictions, it would strengthen the moment when he actually does, as well as provide a nice way to remember the journey along the way. If it were shown that aang had a way to kill ozai and chose not to, instead choosing to rely on his skill, it would show that he is committed to his convictions. Instead, the use of energybending almost implies that all of the knowledge up until this point was useless. What is the point of learning to bend if the only way to defeat ozai is through energybending?

Finally, I will say this: aang needed to defeat ozai in a way that did not rely on murder so that he can finally join the ranks of the avatars before him. When conversing with the previous avatars, it is clear that they think that aang should kill ozai. However, the actual words they speak matter too: aang must make a decision, he must serve justice. The other avatars do not actually speak on whether or not aang should kill ozai, but rather they speak to his conviction. Up until this point, aang is a kid who has the world thrust upon his shoulders, and he is trying the best he can, but at the end of the day he is still a kid. He doesn’t want to kill people because the monks told him it was wrong, and while he feels deeply that he wants to uphold that, he also doesn’t want to kill people because he is young and it would scar him. I choose to see the meetings with the avatars not just as them arguing for aang to kill ozai, but them also having a meta discussion with aang: he must make an actual moral commitment, and stick to the path he has chosen. In order to claim the mantle of avatar, he must strike out on his own and become an independent person with independent beliefs who is willing to talk to the avatars as an avatar. When aang walks back from the battle with ozai, he is able to talk to the other avatars on an equal level because he has committed to his own path and succeeded. He is no longer dependent on guidance; even though he is young, he is a fully realized avatar. By introducing energybending, the writers rob aang of that ability. They prevent him from joining the ranks of the avatars as someone deeply committed to pacifism even when there are no more tricks up your sleeve, and this is a damn shame.