To continue meta-ing a little, for the fun of it (just tell me if it annoys you) -- # We read a book that tells us what the characters do. # The book also (sometimes) gives reasons for these actions, it evaluates these actions (e.g. describing a deed as "reckless" or "brave") and offers direct characterization (like calling someone "scheming"). # What we do, then, is to take the characters' actions in a given book and substitute our own reasons and evaluations for those given in the text. Which is interesting, because it means treating one aspect of the text as more "real" than the others. We're treating the books (and comics etc) like historical texts in the way that we try to separate "fact" from "stuff the author just says because of his or her skewed perspective" -- only that we don't usually doubt the accuracy of the events described, rather the mode of description and the logic ascribed to them. Also, unlike historians, we have no way of confirming where an author is "right" or not because the characters and events never existed outside of the book -- though we might get multiple different accounts of the same event through IU or OOU secondary works, complicating things even further. (Coming to think of it, it might be funny sometimes to treat all EU lit as in-universe fiction, and try to figure out when and where the author would have lived, under what circumstances he/she wrote that book, judging from the amount of information he/she has -- retcons -- and from the slant they give their stories. When in the history of the GFFA would a Karen Traviss have lived and written? A frustrated would-be lover of Boba Fett stranded on Mandalore post-Inferno after some really horrible experiences with hypocritical Jedi?) Yes! So let's get into morality... What you're doing (and I think you're doing it great, never would've though of most of that) is # construct hypothetical "social norms" in the GFFA by expanding on the few "clues" the texts give us, using inductive reasoning and analogy (with "real" places like Somalia), # and then say we should judge the Solo parents' behavior on the basis of these hypothetical norms rather than on our own. Now IMO there are two ways to look at this: # For descriptive purposes, your approach is probably the best one. If we ask, "How could Han+Leia do that, leave her kids in the care of a droid nanny at an age like that?", that question is best answered by a) saying "it's inevitable if they want to save the galaxy" (like Ceiran does) or b) saying "it's common practice in the GFFA, so they wouldn't even think of it as weird" (like you did) -- both of which are good explanations for Han+Leia's actions. # When it comes to expressing our own moral stance on these actions, however, I think we're perfectly within our rights to say that some of their decisions are morally questionable. They might not be to them -- as Robimus said, of course they were not "intentionally" bad parents -- but cultural relativism aside (and no matter how historically/culturally contingent my own moral compass may be) I can say that even if this is common practice in the GFFA, it's still wrong. I can understand why they do it, but understanding it doesn't mean I have to approve of it.