Moral relativism in Star Wars

"What I told you was true, from a certain point of view."

A lot of people have gotten hung up on this line, insinuating that it leads to moral relativism and a failure to differentiate one of the main heroes (Obi-wan) from one of the main villains (Palpatine). However, I believe this stems from a failure to consider the following, and perhaps more important piece of dialogue:

"You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Obi-wan is explaining moral relativism, not promoting it. He is helping Luke come to terms with the fact that his father is one of the most "evil" men in the galaxy. He's explaining why Anakin did what he did in a very simplistic way. And then telling Luke to kill that man.

For the record, I believe that the prequels are somewhat relativistic, and I appreciate that. Is Palpatine clearly presented as evil? Of course he is, that's as black and white as anything in the OT. It's the morality of the jedi where relativism comes into play. The way I see it; Luke and Qui-gon are on one side, with Mace and Yoda on the other (with Obi-wan sitting uncomfortably in the middle). When Obi-wan says only a Sith deals in absolutes, he is being hypocritical. Not because the statement is an absolute, but because jedi dogma is riddled with absolutes: Attachment is forbidden, possession is forbidden, all jedi must be trained from birth, all sith are evil. Qui-gon realizes that jedi dogma is flawed, he understands that rules are important, but they can not supersede what one knows in their gut is right. Luke takes this philosophy a step further, he acknowledges attachment and love -which the jedi discard- and uses them as a means to an end. Mace and Yoda (in the PT) can not see past their dogma, and they don't trust their instincts. Yoda feels it is wrong to train Anakin, he feels it is wrong to fight a war, he feels it is wrong to take over the senate and yet he does it anyway. Each of these decisions leads to the demise of the jedi.

One might ask, how can Qui-gon be right for trusting his feelings and wanting to train Anakin, and Yoda be wrong for not trusting his feelings which state the opposite? In my opinion, this comes down to the way the jedi treat Anakin from day one. They are condescending, cold, and unwelcoming. When Anakin gets older, the council holds him back because they feel he is immature, but then use him to win battles because they know he is powerful. This, for lack of a better word, half-ass acceptance of Anakin made it easier for him to commit the crimes he did. If you believe in the prophecy, you know that Anakin would have destroyed the sith no matter what; trained or untrained, lightside or dark. Baring that in mind, if Yoda did not really want to train him, if the jedi were not truly ready to accept him, then they were better off not training him at all. The worst that could happen would be Palpatine finding and training Anakin, wiping out the jedi, and Anakin fulfilling the prophecy much later. Sound familiar?

Anyway, I've gone astray, but my point is that the jedi are constantly willing to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. Specifically, training Anakin, slowing Anakin's progress, fighting in the clone wars, and attempting to overthrow and later kill Sidious. All of these actions were logical, and yet wrong in many ways. Because we are made to question the heroes of our story, I would have to conclude that there is a relativistic streak in the prequel trilogy. The original trilogy has morally ambiguous moments but they are glossed over; mainly that the rebels could be construed as terrorists, and the destruction of both Death Stars resulted in the deaths of many innocents, not to mention the galaxy-wide chaos that would result when the iron grip of the Empire was released.

 

Hehe thanks Crygenic ..... like I said everyone wants to feel included; even me

I wanted to add to this discussion a bit of insight......

I think the exchange between Vader and Obi Wan is misunderstood to a small degree.

"If you are not with me, you are my ENEMY!" Vader
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes; I shall do what I must." Obi Wan

The focus seems to be on Obi Wan's use of the word 'absolutes'. But this is misleading and I don't think intensional script wise. Obi Wan is responding to Vader's ultimatum to go his way or be destroyed. The word 'deals' is the key word in his statement; not 'absolutes'. The word 'absolutes' is describing what a Sith 'deals' in; or more accurately what a Sith negotiates with. The Republic, The Jedi and democracy were based on the idea of diplomacy and choice. No one ever got their way 100%. They negotiated and got something close to what they wanted.

Obi Wan is stating that the Sith offer ONE resolution: the scenario that best suits the Sith. This ONE resolution is the 'absolute' that Obi Wan is refering to. Therefore knowing his own code has absolutes such as defending the Republic at the cost of his own life, protecting the innocent, etc; he will do what he must.

See he's never implying that only the Sith live by absolutes because everyone has absolutes in their life that they try to live by; such as not taking a life, raising their kids. He's talking about the negotiation tactics Vader is using. He's offering no solution for Obi Wan but to turn evil or betray his conscience and his mandate. So therefore; the negotiation is over "I shall do what I must."

 

It seems some here are quite right on what moral relativism is: it's not just the idea that there are shades of grey, but that there is nothing but one shade of grey with respect to questions of morality. There is no good and bad, just opinions and points of view. I don't think either of the Obi quotes goes quite that far, but hey certainly do open the door to it, and it's a rather slippery slope.

 

I think the reason we have these shades of gray is because one act we commit can have multiple motives behind it. A vigilante that kills a criminal may have done so out of self defense, to bring him to justice, or he could have done it for revenge. Since we are not connected into his mind, we will never know. Even he may never know.

When it comes down to examining your own actions however, it's probably best to assume the worst, that you did act on a selfish, evil motive, and that way you can avoid slipping down into the absolute black area.

 

I think that probably the greatest weakness of A NEW HOPE, in compare to the other films is that it deals and accepts moral absolutness. And because of this, the movie tends to drift into a kind of one-dimensional characterization.

 

That may keep you from becoming evil, but you don't keep a very high self esteem that way. If you are really unsure of what your motives were, you are probobly conflicted, and the best way to deal with it is have an honest conversation with yourself. Just assuming the worst doesn't really solve anything, it's finding out what is true, and the journy to finding it, that helps you know yourself better and makes you a better person.