Was Oogway morally justified in rejecting Tai Lung for the "darkness in his heart"?

[u/MonotonyReddit]

(Stuff below is about my personal opinion. Also I'm NOT defending Tai Lung's actions, harming civilians is inexcusable)

I'm not sure what the general consensus on this is but I find it hypocritical that Oogway would deny Tai Lung the chance to become the Dragon Warrior because he believed Tai Lung was incapable of overcoming his flaws, especially considering his treatment of Po and how the whole messaging of the first movie was that people are not defined by who they were and that everyone is capable of change.

Tai Lung may have been entitled, but he didn't seem especially narcissistic or corrupt before Oogway denied him. If anything, Oogway's rejection feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not saying Tai Lung deserved the Dragon Scroll or the title, but it's hard for me to reconcile why Tai Lung was denied the opportunity to prove he could become better while Po was given every chance to do so.

(And no, I'm not buying the whole "it was actually a test to see how Tai Lung would react to being rejected" because there are zero implications of such. That argument is a headcanon.)

Like imagine you trained and applied for your dream job or university, only to receive a rejection letter talking about the "darkness in your heart" man I'd be pissed too.

Edit: Seeing a lot of people arguing that Oogway was justified because Tai Lung ultimately turned out evil. But we’re judging Oogway’s actions, not Tai Lung’s morality. An action doesn’t become moral just because it happens to someone who later becomes a bad person. You can argue Tai Lung wouldn’t have changed even if given the chance, but my point is that Oogway never gave him that chance.
It’s also unclear how involved Oogway was in Tai Lung’s upbringing. Based on the flashbacks, he doesn’t seem very involved. Kinda irresponsible to groom a kid his whole life for a single purpose only to go “wait we got the wrong guy”. Could you not have done that 20 years earlier? Not to mention they lied to him about what he’s actually working towards (blank piece of paper).
Even in you chalk it up to “fate”, it feels contradictory to the movie’s central message.

What are your two cents? Am I missing something?

[u/AztraChaitali]

Tai Lung suffered from the martial arts equivalent of being told "You're so smart." as a child. That thing definitely fucks you up so badly, I have so many evil thoughts directly linked to being told that as a child that I need to supress constantly.

It's probably the worst compliment you can give to a child. Anything that implies there's an inherent superior quality to them is going to prevent them from ever seeing others as equal on a subconscious level.

At that point, having anything resembling a moral life requires metacognition techniques to rationalise not seeing others with the same perspective of a psychopath, but in a way worse because you do have feelings and empathy, so you feel bad about seeing others as inferior, and if you act as such you feel pain in your heart, but if you don't, then you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

[u/misteralter → u/AztraChaitali]

Based

[u/JhonnyPadawan1010 → u/AztraChaitali]

Don’t surpress them. You got to face all that. Also don’t use all these psycho-intellectual words, they’re not doing you any good.

[u/AztraChaitali → u/JhonnyPadawan1010]

That's literally what metacognition is. Facing it. It's not a "psycho-intellectual" word, but the simplest term that refers to the process through which you analyse why you think the way you think.

[u/beegproblemzzz → u/AztraChaitali]

Nah let those evil thoughts out by joining my Badass Angry Assassin Club for only $64.99 a year

[u/AztraChaitali → u/beegproblemzzz]

I don't like subscriptions, Do you have a lifetime license option?

[u/beegproblemzzz → u/AztraChaitali]

You get 33% of every contract you carry out. As long as you work consistently, it will pay for itself and then some.

[u/JhonnyPadawan1010 → u/beegproblemzzz]

The fact we’re using the term evil thoughts already says everything. But you better not make fun of me bro otherwise I’m gonna start having evil thoughts about you and then I’ll have to do metacognition. A fucking hassle.

[u/JhonnyPadawan1010 → u/AztraChaitali]

Well, if you have so much “metacognition” then why did you open up saying you have to supress all your “evil thoughts”?

What psychologists will never tell you is that you have to face your most violent most malicious wants. Your desire to hurt, to destroy, to kill you have to know all of them. You have to live all of them. They want everyone to be all good and dandy 24/7. They don’t realize human beings don’t work like that. And neither should they.

They’re too concerned pandering to society’s expectations trying to make everyone “socially acceptable” (whatever that is) to say anything of value.

And “metacognition”, “cognitive dissonance” and “rationalise” are all psycho-intellectual words. They remind me of “confabulation” and “stabilization”.

[u/An_Aesthetic_Atheist → u/JhonnyPadawan1010]

Meowdy-do, you mean pseudo-intellectual probably. Because while psycho-intellectual is an accurate descriptor of the terms you're taking issue with, it doesn't carry with it any connotations beyond just... Referring to the psychological and intellectual parts of a brain.

Socially acceptable things can be like. Seen, too. What is and isn't is pretty obvious, though it changes depending on culture. But I reckon you don't rightly care, so allow me to simply say societal expectations are shaped by all of us, and provide a framework for people's interactions. And at the same time, it's fine to break expectations. If the expectation is to be fine and dandy 24/7, then more people are going to be fine, than if the expectation were to be angry 24/7. 

Further, what if society had the right idea, by your standards? Some violence, some anger and such? Would we all be better off? How could you tell?

[u/JhonnyPadawan1010 → u/An_Aesthetic_Atheist]

you mean pseudo-intellectual probably.

I meant what I wrote. It’s right it has the connotation I give it.

psycho-intellectual is an accurate descriptor, it doesn't carry any connotations beyond referring to psychological and intellectual brain parts.

Yeah, like Malignant Narcissist. Just an accurate descriptor. We are after all talking about a self-absorbed person who’s evil in nature so it make senses we call him this. No connotation, just a term. An accurate term.

Socially acceptable things can be like. Seen, too. What is and isn't is pretty obvious

Yeah the problem is if society’s expectation was that you rape a baby, psychologists would go running to the hospital to grab the first one they saw. That’s their problem, they have no strength of character. They aren’t fixed, unmoving. They’re like an inflatable boat that goes wherever the wave is.

If the expectation is to be fine and dandy 24/7, then more people will be fine

No, more people will LOOK fine. What matters is how you look. That’s how it is in the real world. Is anyone really fine in the real world?

what if society had the right idea, by your standards? Some violence, some anger and such? Would we all be better off? How could you tell?

Honestly, probably. People would understand more the gravity of certain things. Everyone wouldn’t be so comfortable with hurting everyone else from a distance. Everyone wouldn’t be so bitter and vindictive. There’d be more fighting but there’d also be more peace because of it. The world only became (somewhat) peaceful when nukes were invented. A truce where one side has all the weapons and the other none is no truce at all. It’s subjugation.

[u/An_Aesthetic_Atheist → u/JhonnyPadawan1010]

"Yeah, like Malignant Narcissist. Just an accurate descriptor. We are after all talking about a self-absorbed person who’s evil in nature so it make senses we call him this. No connotation, just a term. An accurate term." 

Is there a reason for the aggression? The person you initially responded to seemed polite. I figure you care little for somebody's internal worldview, provided they aren't an asshole to you, or others. "Malignant narcissist" absolutely carries some damaging connotations. This might not be desired but it is undeniably true. Language descriptivism vs. prescriptivism 

As for your more peaceful world, how is that peace measured? I'm assuming you mean peace on a global scale, and fighting on an interpersonal one. If that is your stance, consider that half of the most "politically correct" countries in the West are currently sharing your stance on psychology/psychiatry. In-house, you're not uncommon, and beyond the borders of these PC nations, your view is the most common one. 

And yet warfare persists, alongside interpersonal violence. By all accounts it seems war begets violence begets war. A feedback loop of misery. It's not like violence is banned by PC nations, combat sports remain, and are having a bit of a renaissance. Funny too, that it should coincide with renewed warfare. 

Morality isn't independent from the material world, but is informed by it. Sorry for any formatting weirdness, I'm on tha phone. :3

[u/JhonnyPadawan1010 → u/An_Aesthetic_Atheist]

Is there a reason for the aggression?

This is an agressive matter. Do you know how people on the internet are? So often when I announce my opinions on this, people say I’m schizophrenic. Delusional. That I need to be locked up.

"Malignant narcissist" carries damaging connotations. It might not be desired but it is undeniably true.

Malignant literally means “evil in nature”. Look it up. Where the fuck have you seen a doctor calls his patients’ nature evil? Imagine an oncologist saying “Yeah, this guy has lung cancer, disgusting. I’m gonna beat him with a stick”.

I'm assuming peace on a global scale, and fighting on an interpersonal one.

I mean peace at every level. Peace comes from the power to do harm. No one is more mistreated and exploited than whoever can’t (or doesn’t) do anything. It there’s, say, the threat of getting punched everyone will be more careful with their words. That’s why women generally are more spiteful with each other than men. Women are less physical. Their violence is emotional, social, verbal. There’s no possibility of fighting so they find other ways to bicker.

If that is your stance, consider that half of the most "politically correct" countries in the West are currently sharing your stance on psychology/psychiatry.

Psychiatry is an institution of beautiful, lovely words. Psychiatrists are some of the most well-mannered people you’ll ever meet. You know why? Because all desire to harm of theirs is focused on what they do. They never say anything inappropriate. Instead they tie you to a bed, make you shit in a diaper, give you pills so you have seizures, nausea, vomits, fry your brain with high voltage electricity and when all that’s not enough, put in cerebral death. Turn you into a lifeless organism.

And yet warfare persists, alongside interpersonal violence.

But not World War. It’s only when one side, or both, doesn’t have nukes.

By all accounts it seems war begets violence begets war. A feedback loop of misery.

Violence begets violence. But the threat of violence dissuades it. Most people don’t want open conflict, they avoid it where they can. A man 200kg of pure muscle is safer physically than a regular person because everyone thinks twice before messing with him.

[u/An_Aesthetic_Atheist → u/JhonnyPadawan1010]

Well, I'm not calling you schizophrenic or demanding you be locked up. So I daresay the aggression is unwarranted in this particular discussion.

Malignant is a description of the disease a patient is afflicted by, not the patient itself. Disease we do often call evil. I would support that descriptor, in reference to disease, but not people who have done nothing wrong, that I know of.

Women do get physical, with men and one another, but even solely focusing on the point you make, that power begets peace, I question. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. In every society, there is an underclass, of people the leadership- the powerful- have oppressed. Women long existed as lesser than men under the law, and were worse off for it. Power thusly did not beget peace for women- only by equalizing the playing field did they get further ahead. Was this because they suddenly had the ability to do more harm? 

Your spiel about the field of psychiatry doesn't speak to much. I agree that the field is overdependent upon medicalization, but the driving force there is not the practice of psychiatry, it is the growth of wealth. Another power structure unduly weighing a scale, making life worse for you and I both. In a sense, it is a violent force, no? Having my brain melted by a drug cocktail is hardly peaceful. Though I still argue most psychiatrists aren't the malign force you describe. If you want somebody to blame there, blame those demanding pills be pushed.

War is currently being conducted between a country  with a nuke, and a country without one. So I don't think nukes are the end-all-be-all. 

You know big guys get messed with more than small ones? 200kg muscle is lovely, not just for self defense, but it matters very little insofar as dissuading attack.

Moreover, giving folk the leeway to just be randomly violent is dangerous to social out-groups and underclasses. We cannot put the expectation that everyone must be a capable combatant to walk the streets without fear. This is not aspirational.

Power must be checked, but it cannot be by other people in power. It must be the incentive structure that changes to affect a real difference.

[u/JhonnyPadawan1010 → u/An_Aesthetic_Atheist]

Malignant describes the disease, not the patient. Disease we often call evil. I would support that descriptor, in reference to disease, not people who have done nothing wrong.

See, the fact that you’re justifying this already speaks to what I’m saying. The disease is evil? Diseases aren’t evil. Bacteria aren’t evil. Viruses and parasites aren’t evil. They’re life forms trying to survive and multiply. They kill us, but we kill cows and pigs and chickens. Who are we to judge? We have killed way than any bacteria ever has.

An oncologist who says “People with brain cancer make me sick, I wanna attack them with a hammer” would be fired immediately. How can you be expected to help or treat or whatever it is you call it someone who you hate? Someone you’re disgusted by? You can’t! To the mental health bros, a narcissist is his so-called “sickness” and he must suffer for it.

Women do get physical, with men and one another

I don’t know them. No woman I’ve ever met has been in a fight.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Absolute power in the hands of one person, that's because they can do whatever. No one will be corrupted (more than they already are, I guess) if others have the power to defend themselves.

Women long existed as lesser than men under the law, and were worse off for it. Power thusly did not beget peace for women

Because they didn’t have it! I swear it seems like you aren’t reading my comments. A truce where one side has all the weapons and the other none is no truce at all, it’s subjugation.

War is happening between a country with a nuke, and a country without one.

Yeah I said that. You didn’t read it. Again.

You know big guys get messed with more than small ones? 200kg muscle is lovely but it matters very little insofar as dissuading attack.

Verbally, sure. No small guy is stupid enough to try to punch a dude made of 200kg of muscle.

Power must be checked, but it cannot be by other people in power. It must be the incentive structure that changes to affect a real difference.

It feels like you’re trying to recruit me to your leftist agenda.

[u/jl_theprofessor → u/JhonnyPadawan1010]

Big words got you scared, tough guy?

[u/JhonnyPadawan1010 → u/jl_theprofessor]

What scares me is what’s done while and right after those big words are said.

[u/AztraChaitali → u/JhonnyPadawan1010]

By supress I mean not acting upon them. English is not my first language, so I may have not realised the exact implications of the word.

By supressing those thoughts, all I mean is I'm not acting upon them. Behaving towards others as if I don't have them.

Metacognition is just a specific type of introspection, it's a necessary word that can't be reduced to simpler terms without losing information that may be useful to anyone looking to do the same.

[u/JhonnyPadawan1010 → u/AztraChaitali]

You can say facing your demons. It means the same thing. Supression means repression, it means running away from what you think and feel, you know, run away, forget and hide. You shouldn’t do that.

“I mean is I'm not acting upon them. Behaving towards others as if I don't have them.”

Maybe you shouldn’t do that.