DarthDuckie posted:The whole give in to your anger or "go on hit me" thing was just the culmination of all the accumulated temptation and manipulation though wasn't it? Luke's attachment to, and desire to save his friends, father and sister and the frustration that arose from thinking he would fail to do so were what led to that end point. The same could be said for Anakin with Sidious. At the climax of all the build up, he basically just got Anakin to let loose on Mace as he did Luke with Vader.
MisterVader posted:I think that the PT is deeper than the OT by a long shot, but why must everything be so focused on a top-down hermeneutic system? Can the PT not also be defended for its surface? It's a difficult thing to accept, but searching for depth alone is, essentially, an arbitrary value judgment.
drg4 posted:The difference is that I don’t accept the moral universe of ROTJ. [...] We’re to believe that our hero will somehow turn to the Dark Side if he does something so abominable as to initiate an attack against a despot and his war criminal lackey. Buffalo chips! I say.
drg4 posted:There is nothing inherently wrong with Luke murdering his father
drg4 posted:Righteous indignation is a perfectly appropriate response in dealing with monsters.
drg4 posted:Had I been in a situation comparable to Luke’s, I’d have killed my tormentors, said a prayer, gone home to my family, and worked through my pain. I think I could handle it; people have taken this recourse since the beginning of time, and many of them managed not to become their enemies.
drg4 posted:Revenge of the Sith, by contrast, is a fairly sophisticated film, insofar as it doesn’t make presumptions on how Anakin should conduct himself.
drg4 posted:His world’s too hazy. Sure, he could follow the Jedi-way, but then…the Jedi themselves are so arrogant, so compromised; he could stand with democracy, but then…it’s so messy, so corrupt. Too many uncertainties, and in the absence of appropriate guidance and moral clarity, he takes the path of least resistance—-Palpatine’s cult of personality. This is all very real to me.
Cryogenic posted:It's if he initiates an attack for attack's sake, rather than an attack in self defence.
Cryogenic posted:Yes, there is. In accordance with many philosophers, theologians and people throughout history, Lucas' morality decries that murder is wrong.
Cryogenic posted:Not in SW. Note: "Not in SW", not "Not in ROTJ".
Cryogenic posted:Right -- and Anakin directly kills dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of people (so does Luke, actually), but doesn't (ultimately) remain evil.
Cryogenic posted:You just summed it up: he takes the path of least resistance. Ergo, there were other, morally better options open to him (at least theoretically), but he chose not to pursue them when the chips fell. He was tricked by Palpatine because he allowed himself to be tricked. Palpatine may be more mendacious with Anakin, but his deceptions are designed get to the heart of father and son in equally salient ways. Luke had the bonus of seeing the like-for-like quality between himself and Anakin, which is what saved him from the Dark Side and ended the circle of violence.
drg4 posted:drg4 posted:The difference is that I don’t accept the moral universe of ROTJ. [...] We’re to believe that our hero will somehow turn to the Dark Side if he does something so abominable as to initiate an attack against a despot and his war criminal lackey. Buffalo chips! I say. Cryogenic posted:It's if he initiates an attack for attack's sake, rather than an attack in self defence. And what of defense-of-others? When Luke brings his sword down on Palpatine, he’s defending a value system against a malevolent head-of-state; when he attacks Vader, he’s defending his sister against a monster who’s threatening to torture her for a third time. As far as I’m concerned, Luke’s final assault on Vader is an expression of love, the only emotionally honest moment in an otherwise sentimental, cloying film.
drg4 posted:drg4 posted:There is nothing inherently wrong with Luke murdering his father Cryogenic posted:Yes, there is. In accordance with many philosophers, theologians and people throughout history, Lucas' morality decries that murder is wrong. I can't meet Lucas on his terms. Murder isn’t always wrong—-it depends on whom you target. Georg Elser was in the right for planting a bomb at Hitler’s podium on the eve of World War II. Certainly, the assassination wouldn’t have cleansed Germany of its appalling nationalism and anti-Semitism, but it may very well have forestalled the invasion of Russia and the Final Solution. Context matters.
drg4 posted:drg4 posted:Righteous indignation is a perfectly appropriate response in dealing with monsters. Cryogenic posted:Not in SW. Note: "Not in SW", not "Not in ROTJ". I dunno. Righteous indignation seems to be a motivating factor in Kenobi’s decision to engage Anakin. You can see a trace of it on his face, as he watches Padme crumble to the ground.
drg4 posted:drg4 posted:Had I been in a situation comparable to Luke’s, I’d have killed my tormentors, said a prayer, gone home to my family, and worked through my pain. I think I could handle it; people have taken this recourse since the beginning of time, and many of them managed not to become their enemies. Cryogenic posted:Right -- and Anakin directly kills dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of people (so does Luke, actually), but doesn't (ultimately) remain evil. Well, Luke’s a swashbuckler; Lucas doesn’t frame the boy’s rebel exploits in ambiguous terms as he does with Anakin. We’re not meant to balk from the sight of dead Stormtroopers like we are Sandpeople and Jedi. That aside, I’d aver the PT offers a more sophisticated view of evil. Though Anakin commits many transgressions, his descent is gradual, to such an extent that his fate wasn’t really sealed until Mustafar. But in ROTJ, we get the ol' Light-Switch conversion, where Palpatine assures us that the moment Luke slays his father, he’s doomed to become his apprentice. (Presumably, he’ll be knighted Darth Blondie and his eyes will glow like the twin suns.) Doesn’t ring true to me.
drg4 posted:drg4 posted:His world’s too hazy. Sure, he could follow the Jedi-way, but then…the Jedi themselves are so arrogant, so compromised; he could stand with democracy, but then…it’s so messy, so corrupt. Too many uncertainties, and in the absence of appropriate guidance and moral clarity, he takes the path of least resistance—-Palpatine’s cult of personality. This is all very real to me. Cryogenic posted:You just summed it up: he takes the path of least resistance. Ergo, there were other, morally better options open to him (at least theoretically), but he chose not to pursue them when the chips fell. He was tricked by Palpatine because he allowed himself to be tricked. Palpatine may be more mendacious with Anakin, but his deceptions are designed get to the heart of father and son in equally salient ways. Luke had the bonus of seeing the like-for-like quality between himself and Anakin, which is what saved him from the Dark Side and ended the circle of violence. Thing is: I’m not sure Anakin had better options. The film, to its immense credit, doesn’t set those sort of parameters. Was there a happy ending to this story? Had Anakin allowed Mace to kill Palpatine, is it certain the Force would’ve been brought into balance? Would the Senate have even believed the “Sith Lord” allegation? Would the Jedi have taken a much-needed self-appraisal? Would the crumbling Republic have been restored to its former glory? What of the Separatists? Would they have carried on the war, without Sidious’s guidance? What about Palpatine’s cronies? How many of them would remain in government?
Drg posted:When Luke brings his sword down on Palpatine, he’s defending a value system against a malevolent head-of-state; when he attacks Vader, he’s defending his sister against a monster who’s threatening to torture her for a third time... I can't meet Lucas on his terms. Murder isn’t always wrong—-it depends on whom you target. Georg Elser was in the right for planting a bomb at Hitler’s podium on the eve of World War II. Certainly, the assassination wouldn’t have cleansed Germany of its appalling nationalism and anti-Semitism, but it may very well have forestalled the invasion of Russia and the Final Solution. Context matters.
Cryogenic posted:No, let's not be selective in this. You cannot have a society built on vengeance. "Murder is wrong" applies universally -- to me, to Lucas, to many others. I saw some graffiti on a wall earlier: "Tory Corruption! Vote SLP!" It struck me as a violent act. To so carelessly, but, at the same time, so consciously, do something like that. In the grand scheme of things, a little bit of illicit white lettering on a wall isn't a big deal, but it's still not entirely right. And it's in the "not entirely right" part that I see aggression. Just a small bit of aggression, but aggression nonetheless. The person or persons probably thought they were justified to condemn one party and endorse another, even if meant breaking a law and writing on someone's property, however trivially. Now extend that anger to a proportion where killing a tyrant is somehow right. Again, to the people doing it, it might be an admirable expression of "righteous idignation" or whatever against a corrupt political system, but it's still morally unacceptable. I'm not saying graffiti and murder are equivalent, but anger is insanely destructive, and it can begin in a surprisingly small way, then grow into something surprisingly big. In the Science Fiction satire "Galaxy Quest", Alan Rickman's character has a mantra: "By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, you shall be avenged." Now, why is that satirical? Is it just because Alan Rickman is saying it? Or is it maybe to do with something else? What if vengeance is an outdated concept? I say it is. And I say "Star Wars" is a blueprint for the 21st Century.
zombie posted:This illustrates the essential difference between the OT and PT. I agree with you here; context matters. In real life, things are not this simple, but we always use the Nazi's because its one of the few examples of near-comic-book levels of simplistic, straightforward "evil". The PT challenges us to re-evaluate are entire criteria for morality but then the OT's resolution is a complete cheat that resolves the issue of where to go from there by framing things in terms of moral absolutism (aside from the brief "food for thought" moral grey-zone introduced on the side in ROTJ). In the order they were made its an interesting progression because you have the simplified OT absolutism and then a total deconstruction of it in the PT, but as far as one coherant story, George Lucas' Star Wars saga is an imcompatible mess, which is why you always find debates like this here. The philosophy of the OT cannot possibly work based on the philosophical construct the PT sets up.
zombie posted:But in terms of good and bad, it is simple and absolute. Theres a surprise in that Vader does a good deed in ROTJ, but in terms of morals he does the "right" thing by killing the Emperor. Therein lies the issues. Why is that "right"? Why is it "right" when Luke destroys the Death Star? I'm not asking for an answer because these are rhetorical questions. But clearly the OT portrays these things as morally correct; it makes the judgement for us.
Cryogenic posted:I don't think the attack on Vader is an expression of love. Aside from the ominous music playing during the final engagement itself, we can also look at the pre-final-engagement of Vader for clues. After Luke has battled Vader seemingly to no avail, he retreats under the staircase to gather his composure. Film is a visual medium and the fear and doubt is written across Luke's face. We see the stoical Jedi of the entire film coming undone in a single moment. His thoughts spill out and Vader has an opening and takes it. The rest is Luke's anger on autopilot.
Cryogenic posted:No, let's not be selective in this. You cannot have a society built on vengeance. "Murder is wrong" applies universally -- to me, to Lucas, to many others.
Cryogenic posted:I saw some graffiti on a wall earlier: "Tory Corruption! Vote SLP!" It struck me as a violent act. To so carelessly, but, at the same time, so consciously, do something like that. In the grand scheme of things, a little bit of illicit white lettering on a wall isn't a big deal, but it's still not entirely right. And it's in the "not entirely right" part that I see aggression. Just a small bit of aggression, but aggression nonetheless. The person or persons probably thought they were justified to condemn one party and endorse another, even if meant breaking a law and writing on someone's property, however trivially. Now extend that anger to a proportion where killing a tyrant is somehow right. Again, to the people doing it, it might be an admirable expression of "righteous idignation" or whatever against a corrupt political system, but it's still morally unacceptable. I'm not saying graffiti and murder are equivalent, but anger is insanely destructive, and it can begin in a surprisingly small way, then grow into something surprisingly big.
Cryogenic posted:I don't think Kenobi's actions are a "perfectly appropriate response" in dealing with Anakin. In fact, Kenobi seems to inflame the situation by appearing when he does. Then he draws his lightsaber first, inflaming things again. Finally, he causes Anakin to literally burst into flames when he tells him he "loved him", past tense.
Cryogenic posted:But who says that Luke slaying Vader means he'd have been doomed to be on the Dark Side forever?
DarthDuckie posted:I think the term moral relativism is overstating the PT's stance. There are clear forces of good and evil in the PT (certainly in terms of the film maker's intent), just as there are in the OT. The point the PT looks to make, in my interpretation, is that very rarely is there pure good and pure evil. The Jedi are clearly intended to be more morally worthy than the Sith, but we see that the Jedi can become arrogant, complacent and inflexible and that this can lead to great suffering. We also see how people like the Sith / Empire can be appealing and seductive to those frustrated by the inherent flaws in the political and social institutions of a time and place, even if those institutions are essentially worthy. Making these points isn't going so far as to say that both sides are equally good and evil.
