Truth Seeker

Glass is made of sand and earthbenders can bend sand (Book 2, Chapter 10, “The Library”) and furthermore earthbenders can bend the earth particles in metal (Book 2, Chapter 19, “The Guru”) so it stands to reason that they can bend the sand particles in glass. There is a question of whether or not they can still bend it because it is a very purified form of earth and another pure form of earth, platinum, is unbendable (LOK Book 1, Chapter 7, “The Aftermath”). However, when the sand is turned into glass it becomes crystalline (sand is mostly quartz particles after all) and we know earth benders can bend crystals (Book 1 Chapter 5 “The King of Omashu” when Bumi bends the creeping crystal).

Yes, airbenders can bend sound. This is shown when Aang bends sound by using his Appa whistle and extends the range of the sound (Book 2, Chapter 15, “Tales of Ba Sing Se”).

I recently set up a Go Fund Me account after learning of some pretty upsetting developments concerning my mom and I. While by no means is my campaign as dire as some of the others out there, even the smallest amount of money could help and would leave me incredibly grateful.

You could say killing someone is inherently wrong. But then, what if that person committed a crime themselves? What if it was part of a religious sacrifice? Killing someone then becomes more ambiguous on the right/wrong scale.

You can argue about almost anything in this manner.

For example, Orthodox Jews will wear their hats into a synagogue. Reverent Catholics will take their hats off. It’s not that their morals differ. They are both practicing a universal value of reverence/piety. Natural moral code is still there.

In some cultures, lets say a cannibalistic one, to could argue that it’s evidence there is no natural moral code since they so easily accept the killing of people. But you see, they still have a natural moral code. They still view murder as wrong. They may not view every death by their hands as murder, and cannibals may not object to the man they kill as a victim of murder, but certainly cannibals would not kill their own family or clan or whatever, because they can at least recognize murder is intrinsically wrong.

Is killing bad? Such an open ended question is almost always answered with “yes” OR “it depends”. But “it depends” should lead to one believing that it is “subjective” rather than “objective.” Some people will say it’s okay to kill an intruder, whereas others will say that it is still immoral.

That being said, moral reasoning is a consequence of physical evolution. To quote Ted Cruz during Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearings “if what’s good for the goose is what’s good for the gander”, then morality will very much be driven by what’s “best for the pack.” Despite whatever anyone has to say with respect to politics and government, virtually all moral codes revolve around what’s best in context of society. Whether or note certain moral principles are “out of date”, is certainly up for debate – but “debatability” leads me to believe that something is “subjective” over “objective” especially when it is so difficult to measure.  

In any event – I would be inclined to suggest that “objectivity” of moral questions lies in how the question is asked (is it specific, or broad)? There’s too many ways to “justify” any action as to almost make mute of any “moral” standard. But morality is very much driven – albeit silently – by how it affects society. If society – and it’s perpetuation – was not a factor in this equation, I dare say that it would be perfectly fine to do many things we deem as against the law.

More importantly, if morality was objective would we not assume that it would function that way – much like math and logic? When Schiaparelli crashed on Mars on November 23rd, 2016 – it did so for very objective reasons. The devise collected bad data that resulted in the parachute releasing and the brake thrusters engaging – one second too soon. This resulted in the lander free falling for almost 2.5 miles. This was a mathematical error. It wasn’t because the scientists lacked moral reasoning. It’s very precise, very objective, it’s not swelled up by many different perspectives. Then again, it’s not a moral issue, but that’s not the point.

Does anyone -really- believe that there aren’t truly evil acts? If morality is subjective, then nothing is actually good or evil. Do any of you really, actually believe that?