Saga Inconsistent Morality In Star Wars

I understand. Just offering a point of information. Would've been nice if they'd included a quick scene of Qui-Gon doing something for her support, but that's the way it goes.

 

But when exactly that might be is open to some debate. Does the risk to the lives of others have to be imminent, or just certain? In other words, as Luke sat in the throne room of the second Death Star, was there any question at all that if Palpatine walked out of there alive, that he would end up being responsible for the deaths of many, many more people in the future? Of course not. So how would killing him not be justifiable? How would it lead to the dark side?

Someone obviously did - that's why they let the Jedi carry around laser swords that are capable of cutting people in half.

Order 66 was certainly not portrayed as a slave revolt that resulted in a righteous comeuppance against the Jedi.

But that's what all laws do - they force others to live by the beliefs of the people who make the laws. And that's true no matter who is making the laws; whether it's a King or a Generallisimo or 51% of your neighbors. Follow that logic, and there are only two types of people - anarchists and Sith.

If a Jedi Master and the finest padawan in the Order can't boost some spare parts out of a backwater junkyard, something is seriously wrong with the state of the Jedi.

 

Actually, the Jedi use child soldiers as a matter of policy. How old is Ahsoka when we meet her? 13? 14?

 

Remember, 2000 does NOT buy a ride to Alderaan, that costs 10,000. Or if you don't have 10,000, then it's 2000 for a down payment and 15,000 when you get to Alderaan. That's a whole lot more than the value of a used speeder.

 

Exactly. Which is why I find this etiquette for killing that the Force seems to endorse in ROTJ quite humorous. "Luke, kill all the throwaway baddies you want and blow up every living soul on the Death Star, but if you get mad at the Ultimate Space Despot and try to take him out and you'll be a Darrrrksider." Fortunately, it's still fun despite being kind of ridiculous.

 

It's only ridiculous if you think of the force as a human being. It is not.

Slaughtering Vader can also be justified. The man was also too dangerous to live.

But the force doesn't care for that kind of argumentation. It is a dangerous tool that must be used with the utmost caution.

 

That's what it costs to buy a ride to Alderaan when the pilot you are contracting knows you are up to something shady.

 

My thought is that Palpatine knew he had to goad Luke to anger and hatred. Luke was prepared to die along with Palpatine to save his friends -- he didn't believe he had to kill him, just keep him there until his friends destroyed the Death Star. Palpatine knows, though, that Luke needs to willingly embrace his anger and hatred of him and succumb to the Dark Side.

If Luke killed Palpatine merely to protect his friends, that would be a different thing. But Palpatine's goading means that Luke would be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

At least, that's one thing I took from the scene.

Not really, the Jedi still answer to the people. In the PT, through the Senate (although this has become problematic because the Jedi tend to act as a part of the government to be used as that government sees fit rather than as an independent organization that submits to the will of the people). Regardless, we do see that the Jedi undertake missions at the request of the Chancellor or the Senate. They aren't free to do exactly as they please. In the OT, Luke is still tied directly to the Rebellion's cause. And that's one reason that killing only to save others is so important since the Jedi have a great deal of power and must act accordingly to protect the denizens of the galaxy.

That wasn't really what I was trying to say, though. My point was simply that in agreeing to use the clones, the Jedi necessarily took the risk that the clones could be turned against them at a moment's notice because they must follow any order given to them. Had the clones been free individuals who could form bonds with the Jedi that would supplant their orders, the Jedi wouldn't have been wiped out. The Jedi's complicity cost them because had the clones not been slaves, they likely wouldn't have turned against their commanding officers who they had come to love and respect. Given that they were slaves, they had no choice.

I would say that the key difference is that the law is not immalleable and the formation of the law is -- at its core -- about compromise in a functioning democracy. Writing a law should, ideally, be about compromising the ideals of many individuals in order to build a society that benefits the most people possible. A law can be changed and challenged -- perhaps not by a single person alone, but groups of people certainly. That's the ideal of course, but when there's a King or Generallisimo, only one person has a voice with which to force others to live by their rules. The rest of people have no recourse. Additionally, in a democracy, the rule of "majority rules, minority rights" helps to protect the voices of those who aren't as numerous.

Even if they could steal it though, who says they could install it? This is a ship's core "engine" after all and there's no guarantee that the Jedi were able to grab an engineer when they fled Naboo. Furthermore, I imagine such systems would be computerized. You may need an access code. Or there could be dangerous components that have to properly be removed. The size is but one issue they could run into. It's not like they need to replace something simple, after all.

 

So stopping a tyrannical mass-murderer who has killed billions in his quest for absolute power and will without doubt kill further billions to keep that power if you let him go is wrong if said mass-murdering tyrant smack-talks you a little before you draw down on him?

To paraphrase Homer Simpson, it seems that the Force has more crazy rules than Blockbuster Video.

You asked who made the Jedi judge, jury, and executioner. It seems to me that you just provided your own answer.

True, and irrelevant. The Jedi, who claimed to stand against the evils of slavery, used a slave army. Therefore, their morality was inconsistent.

You remember what Ben Franklin said about democracy, don't you? "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". Sorry, but 51% of your neighbors can oppress you just as effectively as any dictator - ask an American Indian or a black person over 60.

And you still haven't gotten past the fact that, no matter what method is used to arrive at a law, all laws at their most basic level employ force to compel people to live by beliefs of others that they do not share (obviously not, because if they did there would be no need for a law to force them to abide by those beliefs). This may be the best thing ever or the worst thing ever, but it is most certainly absolute.

That's all speculation. Nowhere in TPM is it indicated that installing the parts is any great problem; the action revolves around acquiring them.

 

Can't we just agree that the force is crazy? Because it is supposed to be a mysterious magical force that is hard to understand and whose "will" is often impossible to decipher.

 

I think the important thing is that the Jedi need to avoid adopting a "Crusader mentality." That when you do that, you necessarily are setting yourself above others in deciding that you are righteous and other are flawed and deserve to die. Even if it's true, I think that motivations like that lead to the Dark Side because they are arrogant, selfish, and aggressive notions.

I think it reflects the mentality that even if you are the goodest, kindest man ever to live, that doesn't mean you have the right to kill the most evil man who walks the earth simply because he is evil. To protect others and save lives, yes. But it's like I pointed out earlier, a lot of people commit horrific crimes when they are convinced that they are good and others are evil.

Of course, but context matters. Killing someone because they made you angry is quite different from killing someone to protect others.

The Jedi's morality yes. The film's morality no. The Jedi compromised their ideals because they believed it was the lesser of two evils and they had a duty to protect the Republic by using the clone army. The film, though, shows the consequences of this action -- how in doing so, the Jedi ended up playing into their own destruction. The films themselves are solidly anti-slavery in that it portrays extremely negative consequences for the Jedi's acceptance of the clone army.

Yes and no. Yes, your neighbors can oppress you. But in a democracy, you are not completely powerless as a group politically. African-Americans were able to fight for their rights and succeed despite being a minority. Again, it comes down to "majority rules, minority rights." Also, you have to consider that no democracy is ideal -- all are flawed and that's simply human nature. The good thing is, they're subject to revision as necessary.

Of course. But I wouldn't say it is absolute. Laws can (and are) changed and challenged by ordinary people.

Well, that's only logical. You need to acquire parts before you can install them, no? So the Jedi would focus on acquiring parts first and foremost. Moreover, you are stating that this is a flaw in morality based on pure speculation. You are speculating that the Jedi could simply have stolen the parts and installed them and that the fact that they did not do so is demonstrative of inconsistent morality. I'm saying that your scenario is contrived -- there's no reason to think that the Jedi refused to steal the parts out of morality but rather because they couldn't.

 

Okay, but what is it that makes him evil? If it's the fact that he's killed billions in the past and will kill billions more if you let him go, then maybe you do have that right.

What if it's both?

The film would have to be much more explicit than it was in its condemnation of Jedi slavery for me to buy that.

Sure you are. The 51% rules, and the 49% just has to deal with it.

And those people still need to get 51% to support them, at which point they impose their views on the 49%, who just have to deal with it.

Sorry, you can't simply dismiss this basic inconsistency in what Obi-Wan said because democracy.

You're the one presenting a contrived hypothetical - that the problem really lies in the installation of the parts. There's nothing in the film that supports that idea so far as I can see. The burden of proof that that's the case lies on you, not me.

 

I've addressed this before but...as you're offering a prize example of how the 'chosen one/tragedy of Anakin Skywalker' story arc has mutated these scenes I'll say it again.

In ROTJ Luke's battle against Vader (and more importantly the darkside) is a personal battle, and Anakin's redemption is an aspect of that personal story. The battle waged by the rebels is a separate issue. This is important to understanding the issues facing Luke and his actions.

First things first. Luke was in no position to kill the Emperor. Unarmed? Yeah right. That's why he can blast Luke almost to oblivion with his fingertips. The darkside, in ROTJ, is not external, it is a pyschological state. It represents selfishness, powerlust. Like a bloodlust or addiction; once tasted only more will sate its appetite. Giving in to your anger or hatred will draw you in. Luke attacks and defeats Vader in rage, with hatred. Palpatine goads him into completing his victory; to kill vader then would be to taste the power of that anger and hatred. Luke throws down his weapon because all of his Jedi teachers' lessons come into focus.

He realises that Vader is not the enemy; as in the cave on Dagobah, it is himself he must defeat. His own rage and hatred, first and foremost. If he cuts down the defeated Vader in that state, how is he any different from him?

You might see this as narcissistic but, truly, how can one judge others if one does not first judge oneself? Are you sure that the justification you're giving yourself is all that is driving you? How can you be if you are simply giving in to emotions over which you have no control?

Another lesson, often forgotten here, is what Yoda says as Luke leaves for Cloud City. "If believe in what they fight for, yes". Luke is angry because he sees the rebellion as being in jeopardy - he takes it upon himself (as he did earlier) to 'save' his friends. Admirable, but also more narcissistic than caring about his motives. What does that action say? I have no faith in your ability to carry out your plans, I must save you. I am the fount of all good, of all positive action. It is the belief in one's own power, the need for power. He throws down his lightsabre because this re-affirms his faith in his comrades. He cannot defeat the Empire.

When Vader/Anakin saves Luke by killing the Emperor it is a personal redemption, awakened by Luke's actions. Vader does not save the galaxy from the Empire. The rebel force with the help of the technologically inferior but brave Ewoks (Uuugh...I know) win the battle, they destroy the Death Star and the greater part of the Imperial Fleet. The 'chosen one' arc conflates the two (the personal battle on board the Death Star and the battle fought by the rebels).

This. This is what I mean by, how do you know if you're justifications are really the reasons you are committing the act? If you act in anger, with hatred, then how can you be sure of your motives? That, surely, is important.

This is your understanding of democracy? No discussions then, just straight votes. Democracies require participation (and I don't believe, btw, that our current 'Western' governmental systems are in any way to be seen as democracies).

 

Hmmm... I would say exactly the opposite. The reason the issue of the clone's slave status is not addressed in the movies is because, quite simply, Lucas never gave it a seconds' thought. He delivered on the OT reference of the Clone Wars, and that's the long and short of it.

 

It's almost fodder for a Monty Python routine.

Palpatine: "Strike me down with all your hatred, and then your journey to the Dark Side will be complete!"

(Luke swiftly impales him.)

Luke: "I'm actually quite even-tempered, really." (turns to Vader) "Well, Father! Are you going to play nice, or do you want some of this?"

 

Not so much. Sorry, but as an average citizen of the GFFA, if a Jedi gets the chance to stick a laser sword through a genocidal, mass-murdering tyrant before he kills a few billion more people, I want that Jedi to do so immediately instead of taking a few weeks to navel-gaze about how doing so might affect his spiritual growth.

Sure, discussions. Then straight votes. And yes, the bottom line is that when all is said and done, the 51% get their way and the 49% gotta deal. That's majority rule, which is the most basic core principle of democracy.

Anyhow, you seem a lot more impressed by democracy than I am.

 

I subscribe to this one

 

Democracy is the worst possible form of government, with the exception of all other forms of government.

I'm trying to remember who said that. Was it Winston Churchill?

 

We can accept that or we can accept that SW is to some extent made up as it goes along, without a great deal of contemplation about what's happened before and what may happen in the future. When I stopped trying to find a universal, cohesive logic in the saga I started enjoying all of it a lot more.

Yeah, it was Churchill. A way with words that man had...

 

Whoever it was, they were wrong. Sorry, but if democracy is our civil religion, I am its Richard Dawkins.

 

Not saying you have to agree, but what I take from the scene is simply this: it isn't a Jedi's job to judge. It is a Jedi's job to save lives. And attempting to deal out death and judgement (even to those who deserve it) is a path to the Dark Side.

I would say that being a Jedi means being able to put aside your anger and doing what is necessary, but only what is necessary and not indulge in revenge or dishing out punishment.

Then don't buy it. It's not a huge deal. But I'd say showing the consequences to actions rather than outright stating them to the audience is often more effective. Show don't tell. The Jedi used the clone army. And it bit them in the ass.

Not necessarily. An early example of protection of minority rights against the majority in the United States would be 1786's Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom. Or there's the court system. The term "activist judge" exists for a reason. You're correct in saying that the minority must often submit to the majority, but they are not completely stripped of power, nor robbed of the ability to make their voices heard. Which almost always occurs in a dictatorship.

Errr...no I'm not. You're the one saying that Qui-Gon should have stolen the parts since he was willing to cheat on a bet. But you've yet to present any evidence to show that he was unwilling to steal the parts. For all you know, he simply couldn't steal them. You must contrive a situation in which Qui-Gon is both able and unwilling to steal the parts for your charge of inconsistency to hold.

You're free to think that. In general, I'm arguing that Lucas is advocating against using a clone army since it was a factor that directly led to the Jedi's genocide but if you would prefer for it to be explicitly stated, that's fine as well. I'm a big believer in "death of the author" though so regardless of whether or not Lucas thought of it, I did -- and that's enough for me.

 

Balderdash. If that's true, why do they carry laser swords?

Socrates (or Ayn Rand) would have a field day asking you to define the terms you just used there. "Necessary"? "Indulge"? "Revenge"? "Punishment"?

But I don't think it established that the consequences of Order 66 were the result of the hypocrisy of using a slave army, as opposed to another cause (losing their connection with the dark side, or not being sufficiently suspicious of Palpatine, for example). I think you're finding a cause-and-effect relationship where I see none having been established.

But the courts are a fundamentally undemocratic institution (even if they function within a government that has democratic institutions someplace else within it), which makes using them as an example of the virtues of democracy a non-sequitr.

I have the suspicion that there's some "No True Scotsman" involved in your definition of what a "real" democracy is.

They can make their voices heard all they like - unless they can find a way to become 51%, their voices don't matter. Want a concealed carry permit in New York City? Want to get a gay "marriage" in Alabama? Tough cookies - you can complain all you like, but it ain't gonna happen (certainly not without the intervention of an undemocratic institution like a court).

The central tenet of democracy is that the 51% gets their way, and the 49% gets to cry in their beer. You can gussy that up any way you like, with whatever flowery language you like, but that's the bottom line.

There's no other explanation for which there is any evidence and that makes any sense.

Again, if a Jedi Master couldn't gank a few spare parts from a backwater junkyard, then the Jedi Order is a joke. That's like saying that Seal Team Six couldn't figure out a way to steal a candy bar from a 7-11. Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

What form of government do you think is better?

 

That draws us down a path that's more "real-world" political than I'd like to get into here.

 

To defend themselves and kill if necessary to protect others?

That's nice. Good thing I'm not Socrates or Ayn Rand, though, and thus my opinion doesn't have to coincide with theirs.

Then don't think that. I've always found it to be pretty clear. If the clones had free will, then they wouldn't have been able to turn on the Jedi at the drop of a hat due to the emotional connection they had forged with their commanders. I'm not saying it's the only factor, but I would certainly say it's part of the reason they died -- especially since there was nothing to sense from the clones until it was too late.

Courts are part of the checks and balances established in a functional democratic government. Plus, I'm not advocating for pure democracy in and of itself. Otherwise, I wouldn't have brought up majority rules, minority rights. I'm saying that there's a big difference between Anakin's Empire and the ideal of the Republic that Obi-Wan strives to serve.

In your contrived scenario, yes you're correct. But there's no reason to believe that even if Qui-Gon had stolen the parts that he could install them.

It's the integral component of an engine aboard a spaceship. It's not a candy bar. If you don't know what the hell you're doing, you're more likely to damage your ship than repair it. I doubt Seal Team Six is capable of making repairs to the main engines of jets used by the air force, for example. That's why there is specialized personnel in the military.

Likewise, being that it's an engine, it could very well have unstable or dangerous components within it that would make stealing it unfeasible. They don't need a few spare parts -- they need a new hyperdrive.