Moral relativism in Star Wars

Yet in the Lucas "saga" approach to the universe, "evil is a point of view"--so when Palpatine orders Anakin to kill the younglings, this is, from a "certain point of view", ok, as it might help insure no resistance to Palpatine and thus "bring peace to the world"--by this standard when the Hootus tried to kill all the Tutsies in Rawanda, this was ok, because after the extermination of the Tutsies, there would be no more tribal strife in Rawanda. This is genocide, this is wrong, and this is evil, "point of view" doesn't enter into it. A "philosophy" that looks at this as a valid system is certainly bankrupt.

It is ridiculous to define SW morality from the VILLAINS point of view. He is a villian. What did you honestly expect him to say?

 

I'm sorry.

This thread is very 'politcal' (being that "Moral Relativism' is a topic about which some/most of our leading, current, talking-head pundits tend to go hog-wild).

This, really, discussion belongs in "The Politics of ROTS & The Saga".

I would think...

Mods?

 

*gasp*

Winston_Sith said politics!

don't try to kill threads :/

 

It staggers me that moral relativisim could be read into a tale that uses some VERY flagrant imagery and motifs to suggest the divide between good and evil. Now granted, there are numerous shades of grey in the prequel trilogy, but Lucas still cut a relatively clean path through the thicker "soup" of ambiguities. Case in point: the depiction of Palpatine/Sidious. While Palpatine could be misconstrued as fundamentally "good", the depiction of Sidious leaves one in little doubt that he is rotten to the core. It's written in the music, in the face, in the eyes, in the voice, in the rampant aggression and glee the character employs and exhibits against Mace and Yoda and in the despicable smile he makes to himself when Vader learns of Padme's death. Then we have Anakin's Sith eyes, the stark visual coding of Mustafar as hell, the black of Vader's armour, the dark and stormy Courscant skies, and last but by no means least, the souless exteriors and interiors of the Imperial ships at story's end. I'm sure the irony of Anakin choking the very person he claimed to have gone to the Dark Side for was not lost on children and adults alike, either.

A popular suggestion I've seen floating around is that Palpatine should never have been deformed. Some people felt that the theatricality of Sidious didn't fit the movie and that Palpatine should have carried on as normal. Now, if something like this had actually happened, then the topic starter would have a case: how would children (and adults looking for pure escapism) have been able to tell the difference? Suddenly, the attractive package of Sith-hood wouldn't have seemed so bad. Thank goodness Lucas chose to show Sidious for the repugnant monster he is! I think that Lucas knew exactly what he was doing with the film he crafted, and I, for one, am very happy with the way he crafted it. Of course, this topic is not confined to Revenge of the Sith, but considering that Revenge of the Sith is the "bridging" movie, I think my feelings on it adequately sum up my attitude towards the entire issue. That said...

How else might Lucas have given such a broad story the same level of thematic resonance and dramatic power without employing shades of grey? Some form of relativism was inevitable from the moment he decided to make Anakin a figure capable of abandoning his evil ways and turning back to good. When Star Wars stopped being Buck Rogers, it grew up - and all for the better.

 

I think GG really hit the nail on the head with this thread, the "point of view" silliness has bugged me since 1983. Obi has pretty much said it's ok to do whatever you want as long as you are doing it for "good", basically the ends justify the means. This doesn't really become too problematic, though, until the PT, where everything can be chalked up to "point of view" and the door is opened to justifying Palpatine's and Anakin's actions from "his point of view", which is simply absurd. ROTJ basically ignores the idea, sticking to the straightforward good v. evil clash, and is all the better for it.

 

Awesome post.

But how can we explain Obi-Wan's "What I told you was true.... from a certain point of view", and Palpatine's "Good is a point of view" statements?

Throughout this debate, I haven't figured out if the argument is for "Star Wars is morally relativistic", or "Star Wars is about Good vs. Evil".

Help me out?

 

Everything depends on your point of view. From Anakin's point of view, the Jedi are trying to take over the Galaxy, just like Palpatine warned him about. Anakin's failure is to recognise that there's always more going on that any individual's point of view can encompass. Which is why his "you're with me or you're my enemy" line reflects that he is utterly lost.

Obi Wan has a choice to present Luke with a point of view about his father; the point of view that his father is Anakin, or the point of view that his father is Vader. He makes an informed choice, for obvious reasons.

The "moral relativism" comes from the prequels, as Anakin's decisions are explained (not[/]i "justified.")

Think of it this way; the OT is like a "dangers of drugs" film. You can see that drugs are bad, and you can see the consequences, but there's no real suggestion of why someone would choose to take drugs. There's nothing about the great feeling you can have when you take drugs, the rushes of stimulants, the relaxing effects of tranquilizers, the mind expanding effects of hallucinogens, the fun of sitting around with your friends playing games and giggling for half an hour. But that part of the story tells you nothing about the 30-something year old who is still sat on a sofa giggling while the world has passed him by, leaving him unable to get a decent job, form a decent relationship, and too lazy to do anything about that cough that won't go away (but gets even worse when he stops smoking for a couple of days...)

You have to look at the whole picture to see both sides of the story. You can't just take a single line of dialogue like "only a Sith deals in absolutes" and then wonder why it doesn't seem to apply to everything in all six films.

 

I haven't read all the posts here, so sorry if this is redundant!

I think GaryGygax has a point in what he's saying. Moral relativism is as dangerous as facism or absolutism! If we apply relativism to a society we end up somewhere along the limits of post-modernism. Then we do not believe a truth exists. There are no moral codes that supercedes others. How can you, with such a concept regulate society? who is to say that killing, murdering, whoring, raping etc is wrong? it will all be just another discourse... a discourse void of meaning...

The extremes of absolutism and relativism are quite dangerous! Palpatine lures Anakin with relativism mind you...

 

So do the jedi believe in absolutism about things? Even though Kenobi says only sith deal in absolutes.

 

Difficult to say... it seems they hav an absolute view of what is good and what is evil - especially what is evil...

Otherwise, I think OBW sums it up nicely: "it all depends on your point of view" - that is their ideology at least...

 

I didn't really see any of the movies as being totally relativist. The PT may not be as absolutist as the OT, but that doesn't mean that it is purely relativistic. Rather, it seems that they try to paint a more realistic moral picture. Lucas acknowledges moral ambiguity, but he doesn't deny the existence of morality altogether. The movies do have a villain, after all.

 

i agree Pantsman, they do have A villian.

 

Why must people believe in either total absolutes or no absolutes? I believe in moral absolutes but i also believe in some shades of grey. For example stealing is wrong BUT if you are starving and can get no other help than stealing is moral because it avoids a greater evil.

Murder is evil BUT if you have a dangerous psycopath and no way to confine him ( imagine you're an african nomad or living on that Island in LOST) you would have to execute him because to do otherwise would be indangering everyone else.

That said i do not believe that the ends justifys the means. Infact i saw ROTS as a movies saying just that. Anakin is fooled by Papy into thinking that it's alright to become evil and kill a whole bunch of kids and sepratists - without trial so long as you are doing it to save Padme and the Republic. It's the thought that counts and we all know where that gets him.

Looking at it as a saga i think the Jedi had to be at their weakest in order for the sith to take over. If Yoda had given Anakin better advice he would not have gone to Palpy. In the Novel Anakin replys to Yoda " but why do we even fight master?"
A very good question we would all ask.


If there were no absolutes at all.If its's all reletive then why would Anakin need to be redeemed? Why would there even be a devide between the Sith and the Jedi?

 

DZ, you're exactly right, and that's our point: the point of view and absolutes lines are completely out of place in the saga.

 

The lines themselves were worked in with increasing awkwardness, in my opinion (Palpatine's line is fine, Obi Wan's is passable and Anakin's final line is extremely clunky) - but I don't see anything wrong with Lucas employing the concept of moral relativisim to tell his tale. He did it correctly and responsibly from my perspective. As Jealously_Guarded judiciously noted, it is ridiculous to "define SW morality from the villains point of view" - which the quotes pertaining to relativism come from. Sidious knows he's evil to the core, but for the purposes of turning Anakin, he had to "twist his mind" and pollute his soul with lies. That Sidious and Vader are the bad guys is hardly a matter expressed, as I noted in my last post, with anything approaching subtlety. The first half of Revenge of the Sith is all secrets and lies; the latter half is the ugly truth. One may initially be "suckered in" by the superficial allure of the Dark Side, but after watching the complete work, it is hard to regard the attrocities committed by Sidious and Vader as anything less than despicable.

It is obvious to me that GaryGygax is merely baying for Lucas' blood. His opening post was not an honest attempt at discourse but a self-sealed provocative taunt. He never has anything good to say about Lucas and often posts frivolities (several threads, including one entitled, "If George Lucas was Pinocchio, how long would his nose be?", were rightly closed). He has also flat out called Lucas a racist. Yes, I know: attack the argument, not the person. But the matter of how one presents themselves and presents the issues they are publically airing are of paramount importance. I don't sense a genuine desire to learn here - just a primal urge to pound other people on the head with one's limited world view and vent his hatred of all things post-1980 Lucas. I shall eat my words if I see evidence to the contrary, of course, but I seriously doubt such evidence will transpire.

 

Going back to the original post in this thread, there is another important side to this issue. By introducing some degree of uncertainty into this morality play, we (the audience) are forced to actively decide who we agree with, or more accurately which of the characters' decisions we agree with. In A New Hope we are spoonfed the morally-certain good vs evil story, but in all five subsequent films that certainty is gradually eroded until we're in a position which could be confusing, if we haven't been growing and evolving with the story. In my opinion this makes the saga much stronger in terms of moral teaching. Understanding how Anakin is manipulated and the mistakes he makes may lead us to sympathise with him more, but ultimately it leads us to resolve never to make those same mistakes, as we have the opportunity to see the path his decisions lead him down - something we can never have in real life.

 

I agree that relativism is morally justifiable. However, not in it's most extreme form. Palpatine exploits the rules (or non-existing-rules) of moral relativism. And, what he tells Anakin turns out to be true, in a sense. It's all relative. The Jedi were afraid to lose powers - otherwise they wouldn't have fought. They were planning on taking over the council... Now, the Jedi contemplated all this for the greater good - but Palpatine is arguing that he did all that he did for the common good as well - at last we shall have peace!

There is a great degree of relativism there... and, it is not solved until the OT! But that is pwerhaps what makes the OT even greater?

 

Considering that "peace" involves the killing of Jedi children, the annihilation of the entire Jedi Order, the slaying of the Separatist leaders and the killing/oppression of millions of beings throughout the galaxy, only the very dimmest of people would fall for Sidious' distortion. I think the tale is epic and grandiose enough in its construction and execution for even children to understand.

But... you know that?

Fine. People are free to hate Lucas' guts. I can't see how anyone who seriously reviles the saga in this way wouldn't - and that hatred is the chicken giving birth to the egg.

 

Well, hell, then I've given the wrong impression! I love the films! I also think that only a fool would go for the relativism offered by Sideous - however, there were many fools under Hitler then, wasn't there? there's a film about that - "the Wave" I think - haven't seen it myself though.

Plainly: the relativism point I've been making is more general than what I can find in the movies... simply because even if you find relativism in the PT's, it's clearly shown in the OT that it was wrong - and the ideals held by the Jedi were morally superior! And that's why it's a saga

Oh, and Cryogenic: good thread about the mods... I was rather p***** off when they closed my thread about the hero/jedi thing...

 

The Star Wars Saga is a tale to me personally , of how a person (Anakin) can choose his path in life , a path in his mind that doesn't represent evil , but a path to save the one true thing he cared about (Padme') , it's a story of how far love could push you. , but yet even after you have suffered for the evil you have done a represented that same love can bring you back to the person you once were.

 

I will do what I must...

Oh, and...

P.S. After watching ROTS the first time, I began to feel *guilty* about how I live my own life.

*Every*... *Single*... *Time* I watch ROTS, I begin to feel *guilty* about how I live my life.

And, *EVERY TIME* I watch ROTJ, I cheer as Anakin finally drops the Emperor into the reactor shaft (even if I have my doubts that it's actually the DS II's "reactor shaft", at all)

You see, Anakin's conflict, while I am not the "Chosen One", is *my* conflict - I can totally relate.

Does that make Star Wars a tale of "Moral Relativism?"

I think not.

IMO, and I could be wrong, a tale of Moral Relativism would make me want to accept Sidious for his good side, as Palpatine, and look at the Moralistic, Dogmatic Jedi as the reall a-holes.

Well... some people *have* done that, and all I can say is...

Moveone.sidious

 

You can't win them all with any sort of propaganda. In Sideous or Palpatine's case, he only had to convince some - the important ones, in his opinion!

Although, I'm starting to think that I'm just gonna abondon the whole relativistic approach - although it's present, it's not strong enough - it's too strongly countered

 

WAY too strongly countered.

I think this is a way of people trying to "out think" and degrade Lucas - honestly. It's one thing to assert you think the prequels are artistic failures; it's another to deem an entire branch of morality as essentially wicked and feeble. If criticisms are to be made, then they need to be made with honest context. I don't like it when someone makes out they've found something morally abhorrent; they're usually overstating the case and blowing things out of all proportion. How can someone sit there and imply that Obi Wan's line, "from a certain point of view", sets a dangerous precdent just because Palpatine, soon to be revealed as the most vile and cruel being in the saga, tells Anakin that "good is a point of view". By film's end, even the youngest of children who are capable of sitting through a two hour film should see things for how they are.

Starting with Episode IV and surging forward, then ultimately backwards to the prequels, the saga can also be read an interesting way. (Note: If one starts at Episode I and watches in a linear fashion, my last paragraph is not negated). And it is quite simply this: If starting at Episode IV, then that chapter forms the beginning of your journey through the saga. Thus, you're seeing things as Luke sees them. Luke himself is a sheltered kid who, paraphrasing Obi Wan, ends up taking his first step into a larger world. Kids invariably see the world in relatively simplistic terms - and this matches with the explanation that Obi Wan gives Luke of his father. But, as kids grow up and mature, their perception alters and they see a more shaded and textured world - and this matches with Luke learning that his father has turned to evil and may ultimately be redeemed. Luke doesn't lose the absolute perspectives that he previously had; they simply get modified and made more flexible. I think this is a large part of the reason we lament the passing of our childhood as adults: that earlier time is unique and our simpler worldview cannot be gotten back to; we have greater moral obligations, as Luke does, once the childish adventures and rescuing of princesses is over, to go out and do greater things. Episode IV doesn't really have to grow up; it is what it is. But the subsequent episodes DID grow up and accurately reflected Luke's maturation.

There's no need to dig into Lucas so recklessly. This is one of a few threads that's genuinely p****d me off. Sorry: it's brainless and deliberate hatemongering. What was Palpatine supposed to say? "Hey, Anakin... fancy turning evil and killing off everyone and everything you hold dear?" Hardly. I think that mandragora has cast sufficient doubt on the idea that moral absolutism is infallible and moral relativism is worthless, too. A proper philosophical discourse would be interesting - but clearly wasn't the intended aim of this thread. It's "case closed" as far as I'm concerned.

Good day to you people.

 

I think at the end of the day it all boils down to motivation.

Obi wan's motivation for what he tells Luke is to see the good in what Anakin was and separate the evil deeds and make them part of Vader. Because the two as one is far too complex for Luke to understand at this point in the story. He has yet to grasp what the force is let alone reasons to fall to the darkside.

Palpatine's motivation is to build a sense in Anakin that good is defined by politics or more accurately power. The difference between Palpatine's line and Obi Wan's line is that Obi Wan is telling Luke that thi

 

*stands in awe, nods reverentially and adds YYZ-2112 to his "Watched Users" list*