• Mustakrakish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I dunno, I think that take lacks a bit of object permanence. Just because you don’t have to see the killing directly, doesn’t mean you’re any less morally responsible. Shielding soldiers from the direct outcomes of the violence they cause is like the defualt way of programming them and getting them to continue. A big reason why the US uses drones so much because its easier to get someone to press a button behind a screen than shoot someone in front of them.

    Causing many many deaths not consciously or deliberatley is worse IMO if you wanna judge the two against each other, it shows a flippance with lives and a lack of consideration of consequences of ones’ own actions. Killing Ozai woulf have been pointed and deserved, one death with a direct positive effect, which in my eyes is much more valid and less morally questionable than hundreds of offscreen deaths.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      My argument isn’t that Aang didn’t see the killing directly, it’s that he was possessed by a very powerful and angry spirit, so he didn’t have control over his actions.

      Also, Aang managed to achieve the same effect - arguably an even more positive one - by not killing Ozai. Sure, killing him would have been simpler, but the show directly shows us that it would not have been better.