Analysing Azula Special Edition: moral philosophy and metaethics!
As I'm sure you know, especially if you remember my post dissecting the morality of Buffy's action in Chosen, I like to develop my philosophical reasoning by applying what I've learnt to TV shows.
And Azula is perfect for morality. A lot of people would consider her an immoral or even a moral person. I'm going to argue that this is not the case, by answering the question "is Azula a hedonistic egoist?".
OH WHAT FUN lol
Is Azula a Hedonistic Egoist?
Let's define the term first. A hedonist is someone who defines value through pleasure or pain: please = good, pain = bad. An egoist is someone who defines good as good that happens TO THEM. This is a branch of consequentialism, so for an egoist the best action would be that which brings about the greatest amount of pleasure for them (ignoring effect on others).
It seems pretty obvious that this is what Azula is: she constantly thinks of what's best for herself, both acting accordingly and manipulating others to achieve the best outcome for her. I could cite examples, but I'm sure you can think of them yourself and also I've just realised I'm writing an essay when I don't have to omg whut.
But I don't think it's that simple. Azula, after all, is the Fire Nation princess. Doesn't this mean she values duty to her country? Does she put the good of her nation before herself, or is it just that actions to the good of her country and the good of herself often coincide?
Example time!
In Ba Sing Se, Azula put herself in danger by allowing herself to be captured. This was a ploy so that she could speak to Long Faang and eventually gain control of the Dy Lee, but she was still putting herself in danger to do so. This is a great example of when the good of the fire nation and the good of Azula coincide, making it hard to determine who Azula is acting for. The Fire Nation benefits from the long term consequences of this action: the capture of Ba Sing Se. Azula also benefits because she gains the favour of her father and, subsequently, more power.
Moral ambiguity of such examples aside, I believe Azula to be a hedonistic egoist. Every time we think she acts for someone else (for example: letting Zuko take the credit for killing the Avatar) it turns out she's actually got her best interests at heart (in this case she was bouncing the responsibility onto Zuko, so that if the Avatar were alive, which she suspected, the blame would fall on Zuko).
However, there are some examples when she doesn't need to act to ensure good outcomes for herself, and yet does. When Azula discovers Zuko has been visiting Iroh in prison, she warns to be more careful, as his actions could be misconstrued as conspiracy. She doesn't seek to control him, demanding that he stop seeing Iroh, but instead says she's concerned for him. This could be seen as a compassionate act which contradicts the definition of Azula as a hedonistic egoist.
Despite this reasoning, even in this case it's possible that Azula's ulterior motive is passive aggressive. She might be warning Zuko on the surface, but actually she's revealing that she knows a potentially dangerous secret about him, which gives her a level of control over him. Knowing Azula, it's possible that the compassionate act is merely a disguise in order for her to exact positive effects on herself (in this case, power over Zuko).
In conclusion, all examples and Azula's character traits seem to point towards her being a hedonistic egoist. Yet I hope, maybe in vain, that she might someday be able to extend her morality to encompass others' pleasure too.
Anyway, all this does prove that Azula ISN'T IMMORAL. She HAS a metaethical standpoint, and acts according to her morals, it just happens that her moral compass is pointing directing at the benefits to herself.
---
Up next: is Azula a sociopath? Stay tuned! And at some point I'm going to argue that it makes no sense for Sokka to be sexist, contintuity-wise.
~Lili
And Azula is perfect for morality. A lot of people would consider her an immoral or even a moral person. I'm going to argue that this is not the case, by answering the question "is Azula a hedonistic egoist?".
OH WHAT FUN lol
Is Azula a Hedonistic Egoist?
Let's define the term first. A hedonist is someone who defines value through pleasure or pain: please = good, pain = bad. An egoist is someone who defines good as good that happens TO THEM. This is a branch of consequentialism, so for an egoist the best action would be that which brings about the greatest amount of pleasure for them (ignoring effect on others).
It seems pretty obvious that this is what Azula is: she constantly thinks of what's best for herself, both acting accordingly and manipulating others to achieve the best outcome for her. I could cite examples, but I'm sure you can think of them yourself and also I've just realised I'm writing an essay when I don't have to omg whut.
But I don't think it's that simple. Azula, after all, is the Fire Nation princess. Doesn't this mean she values duty to her country? Does she put the good of her nation before herself, or is it just that actions to the good of her country and the good of herself often coincide?
Example time!
In Ba Sing Se, Azula put herself in danger by allowing herself to be captured. This was a ploy so that she could speak to Long Faang and eventually gain control of the Dy Lee, but she was still putting herself in danger to do so. This is a great example of when the good of the fire nation and the good of Azula coincide, making it hard to determine who Azula is acting for. The Fire Nation benefits from the long term consequences of this action: the capture of Ba Sing Se. Azula also benefits because she gains the favour of her father and, subsequently, more power.
Moral ambiguity of such examples aside, I believe Azula to be a hedonistic egoist. Every time we think she acts for someone else (for example: letting Zuko take the credit for killing the Avatar) it turns out she's actually got her best interests at heart (in this case she was bouncing the responsibility onto Zuko, so that if the Avatar were alive, which she suspected, the blame would fall on Zuko).
However, there are some examples when she doesn't need to act to ensure good outcomes for herself, and yet does. When Azula discovers Zuko has been visiting Iroh in prison, she warns to be more careful, as his actions could be misconstrued as conspiracy. She doesn't seek to control him, demanding that he stop seeing Iroh, but instead says she's concerned for him. This could be seen as a compassionate act which contradicts the definition of Azula as a hedonistic egoist.
Despite this reasoning, even in this case it's possible that Azula's ulterior motive is passive aggressive. She might be warning Zuko on the surface, but actually she's revealing that she knows a potentially dangerous secret about him, which gives her a level of control over him. Knowing Azula, it's possible that the compassionate act is merely a disguise in order for her to exact positive effects on herself (in this case, power over Zuko).
In conclusion, all examples and Azula's character traits seem to point towards her being a hedonistic egoist. Yet I hope, maybe in vain, that she might someday be able to extend her morality to encompass others' pleasure too.
Anyway, all this does prove that Azula ISN'T IMMORAL. She HAS a metaethical standpoint, and acts according to her morals, it just happens that her moral compass is pointing directing at the benefits to herself.
---
Up next: is Azula a sociopath? Stay tuned! And at some point I'm going to argue that it makes no sense for Sokka to be sexist, contintuity-wise.
~Lili