PT Morality of the clone army

He never does that. The Jedi don't celebrate taking a life.

Petty squabbling stopped the Senate from even being able to agree on the use of the clones. What makes you think they would be able to coordinate their individual planetary militias and essential details such as who defends where, who takes command from who etc. If Corellia has a large military should they leave their interests undefended to go defend unarmed Alderaan?

That's why a combined Republic military would never work.

 

The movies leave it vague just how much "true individuality" they have.

 

They could be threatened to be expelled from the Republic if a planet at peace with an army refuses to aid another Republic army-less planet in conflict. A sort of Republic contract or something. And in the scenario you've proposed, they could leave half their army in Corellia and send half to Alderaan if they don't want to leave their planet vulnerable. As to how competent would their coordinating be...well, that depends on the people involved. If we look at the average person in the PT, probably not much...

anakinfansince1983,

There are absolutely no words to properly express how imprudent and just...stupid it is for Reps to not have an army 'just in case'. Peace is unfortunately never permanent and leaving citizens vulnerable with the technological potential for weaponry in this galaxy, not to mention the number of planets accessible...incredibly naive of them.

I don't consider TCW Canon but it is possible there was financial concerns in the Republic. A shame THAT was not explored in the movies as well. Seriously there was three options for GL IMHO if he really wanted the Clones to be programmed.

1)Either have principled Senators and Jedi make complaints, have them unsuccessfully attempt a few alternatives whilst still using the clones(with shown constraints like tight budget, lack of resources,etc) and attempt a deeper Kamino investigation with no success(maybe Kaminonians could be murdered by Dooku/Palpatine as to 'shut them up' or something), finally giving up on the Clones. Showing them resigning themselves to continue using clones.

2) Or, have principled world leaders with senators threatening to leave the Republic if Palpatine does not make clone usage illegal with Jedi also threatening to disconnect with the Republic. Then having Palpatine threatening to portray them as Separatists supporters in the media/ordering their execution/making threats about criminalizing Jedi activity in the Republic or just making it plain to them he'll make sure they would no longer be able to function if they proceed. So senators/Jedi shown as resigning themselves to clone usage for their own protection and to continue to have the power to do good in the republic.

3)Portray Jedi & Padmé & other Senators as a mixture of cowardly, immoral, lazy beings since TPM, making them no better than the Seps. And show them as completely indifferent to the idea of clone usage, uncaring about them.

I am not a fan of option 3) as all characters would simply not be the same and I don't think I could enjoy a movie with no characters I like but at least that would fit with the 'no protest' assumption. 1) or 2) would do a decent job at keeping everyone in character, of well-intentioned people feeling they are stuck. But as I've said in my previous post I'd rather the clones not be programmed at all.

Well given they are programmed to obey they don't have a chance to have their own opinions about political things. So they do their duty, they obey, but it doesn't come from them, it comes from their programming. I suppose they could have their own personality outside of orders and just become 'hypnotized' when time comes to follow orders, but the movies don't show that. I think Cody has one line in ROTS but that's it and the others have, what, none? So yeah they're not at all well fleshed in the movies. That we don't know how much they are programmed, or if that extends to no personality is ambiguous, yes, and I fault the movies for that.

 

The phrase used was something along the lines of "we modified their genetic structure to make them less independent than the original host".

In TCW's first episode, Yoda says "In the Force, very different each of you are" to a squad of clones, during a break in the action (they're hiding in a cave).

 

'Less independent' does make it sound like they had a degree of independent thoughts outside their orders. Not a TCW follower but that's a great line from Yoda. I wish that had been said in the movies to show different 'flavors' from identical bodies.

 

Gee. There is a galactic war between the Republic and the CIS. If the Republic kicked a system out of their government because they didn't follow the "rules" I wonder what organization they would join to ensure their safety...can you think of any?

Also, I'm not sure how effective half a planetary militia would be at defending a planet against one of the CIS droid armadas.

 

Lol, yeah, I was more thinking in the context of a pre-war arrangement-of something that they'd maybe sign BEFORE joining the Republic. Terms of aid at all cost and whatnot to ensure a solid alliance. But you are absolutely right that planets could easily defect for the Separatists if they felt they were being unfairly pressured.

But yeah, the best solution for everyone would be for each planet to have their own military. AND for the Republic to have one big army defending their galactic interests. Like I said previously, I find it very foolish that they would not have armies even in peace time just in case.

 

I thought it was wonderful because Star Wars showcases the futility of warring and compromising one's morals in the first place. Might doesn't solve people issues.

 

OK, since it was me that has brought up the selfish angle, I will elaborate...

First of all, let me start by saying, once again, that I am not trying to create a narrative that Cliegg was a bad man, or doing something bad. I feel that Cliegg loved Shmi and she loved him. Cliegg just doesn't buy Shmi because he "wants" her, and is willing to resort to keeping her a slave if that's what it means. I never even came close to presenting Cliegg in that light. I feel Cliegg is a good man, but that doesn't mean every single one of his actions has to be moral, he is allowed to do things that are selfish and still be a good person. We all do, have done, and will do things that can be considered selfish, and we can still be good people. I think because people see the word selfish, automatically the gut reaction is negative negative negative.

My point, once again, and a point that continues to get proven, is that morality (and immorality) is often judged by gut reaction and not looked at past that initial gut reaction for deeper moral dilemmas. Cliegg Lars is the perfect example. By my bringing up the possibility that Clieggs actions aren't moral, but selfish, peoples gut reaction is to come to his defense, by calling him a hero, and calling my opinion ridiculous. So let me expand further...

My thoughts on Cliegg's action being selfish result from that Cliegg is just a moisture farmer. He is not rich, he is in fact just living and making his way the best he can. We know there isn't any money in farming because the families postion hasn't changed in the 20+ years from AOTC to ANH. We can easily assume that Cliegg is not some abolitionist that is in the practice of taking what little money he has and freeing slaves because it's the right thing to do. I have no doubt that Cliegg and Shmi were in love, it was a mutual and real love. I also believe that Cliegg didn't believe in slavery.

However! Cliegg Lars still took part in the immoral behavior of buying and selling a human being. He still took part in the transactions of slavery. His actions help keep the cycle of slavery going. Yes, his intentions were good, to free the women he loved, if we use the same standards that many in this thread want to apply to the Jedi, the Senate, to the overall Republic when it comes to the Clones (good intentions of ending the war fast and saving millions of innocents), then intentions don't matter. Cliegg bought a human being, he engaged in a transaction of slavery. What could Cliegg of done differently? He could of started an abolitionist movement, he could have been that guy that leads the movement to free the slaves of Tatooine, thus freeing the woman he loved, Shmi.

However, Cliegg did not do that, he took the easy path, he bought her (with good intentions in mind). He did not want to put the hard work in to make a change in his world. He took the easiest path available to him, which is the easiest path to freeing Shmi, which was not the most moral path, he was being selfish, only thinking of what he (and Shmi) wanted. I am not blaming them, however, that doesn't absolve Cliegg of being selfish in only thinking of himself in that he didn't want to put in the work to make positive change, he wanted the easiest, and fastest path to Shmi. For the record I would do the same thing, and I would be selfish as well because I am only thinking of myself and my loved one, and not the other slaves on Tatooine.

Furthermore, what if that spark of love never kindled between Cliegg and Shmi? What if, when Cliegg and Shmi meet, Cliegg feels something, but, Shmi doesn't? They meet, exchange pleasantries, then that is it, it never goes past that, they go their separate ways. Does Cliegg take his limited resources and still come back and free Shmi? I don't think he does because Cliegg is not in the business of freeing slaves. Cliegg frees Shmi because he loves her, it is an act of love, but also an act of selfishness, because he gets something out of it as well.

So again, I am not trying to paint Cliegg as some monster. However, the bigger point I was trying to make is the gut reaction aspect of applying morality to people and actions. Cliegg is labeled a hero and defended when he engaged in a slave transaction. He took the fast and easy path to getting to the one he loved, because he isn't willing to wait (selfish). Where as the Republic, Senate, Jedi, by many in this thread, are judged as being immoral for engaging in something that can be seen as promoting slavery, using slaves, with their good intentions of saving millions of innocents.

 

One way of looking at it - if you don't have the power to free everyone - free those you can - and if the only viable way (given you lack of ability to Lead Revolutions) is to buy the slaves then free them - then doing this doesn't necessarily qualify as "condoning slavery".

But that applies more at the individual level than at the government level.

 

But I would argue that Cliegg's actions are even a situation of freeing "those you can", because he is freeing a specific slave, for a specific reason. If Cliegg was really of the belief of freeing those you can, wouldn't a child be a better option? Instead, as I said, it is a specific slave for a specific reason.

As I said in my previous post, I think the Lars family doesn't approve of slavery. However, it also seems they aren't in anyway trying to stop it either. They are simply doing their own thing, which is the easy way of doing things without "getting involved". So instead of at least trying to to do the right thing (abolish slavery), it is just easier to buy Shmi and free her. Which isn't a bad thing, but it isn't this huge moral win either. He had specific reasons for doing it, and if those reasons weren't there, he would never had freed Shmi, or bought her for that matter...

 

True enough.

In the Heinlein book Time Enough For Love - while the protagonist is ferociously anti-slavery ("A slaveowner is subhuman") and has been a slave in the past - that doesn't stop him from buying and freeing a slave couple out of pure curiosity (they were advertised as "twins, yet not genetically related, so a safe breeding pair".

He spends the next decade or so educating them to become as independent as ordinary free people.

 

The problem with the Republic using droids is that the war now turns into a war of attrition. Basically what you would have are two exactly same armies, two armies of droids being led by sentient beings.

The Clone army is a vastly superior army, which would lead one to believe that using the Clones leads to a quicker end to the war, thus saving more lives.

The Republic, whether it be the Senate, the Jedi, or the Chancellor have a moral responsibility to protect the people of the Republic. By not using Clones and going to droids or inexperienced civilians armies, they are turning their backs on the superior army. Are those organizations now making an immoral decision that would lead to the death of millions more of their people?

If they do not use the Clones, are they not making one moral decision, that leads to another immoral one?

Obviously the problem is that the Sith are manipulating events behind the scenes that cancels out the advantage of the Clones, and leads to a prolonging of the war...

 

In a droid vs droid war(basically) both sides would have to keep modifying their droid-making as to produce droids better than the other side. If disadvantaged I've already suggested the idea of giving 'genetic boosts' with Kamino science to otherwise normal soldiers so they could be just as efficient as clones. So there'd be potentially be droids and boosted humans fighting on behalf of the Republic.

If we are envisioning a scenario in which there's really a lack of resources to make droids and/or genetic boosts, well I guess it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. I agree the Republic has a moral responsibility to not be negligent, lazy, incompetent in their protection yet as a Galactic Republic they also have to keep their integrity & not engage in immoral matters like using programmed clones with no intent to eventually produce an alternative if they want their government to be one worthy. Comes down to whether we think it is better to take immoral actions to achieve better results or if it is better to settle for less top notch results to keep moral standards. Pretty much a no-win scenario.

Palpatine is obviously the one holding all the cards and the clairvoyance to turn any situation to his advantage.

 

Huh? Buying a slave to ensure their freedom is not "keeping the cycle of slavery going." By your thought process Qui-Gon was a slave trading kingpin. It was also not his repsonsibilit to "lead an abolitionist movement," because Tatooine was not a government, it's basically every man for themselves. The people in power who profit from slavery, would have killed him.

 

"It's controlled by the Hutts".

"Would you like to take this to the Hutts? I'm sure they can settle it."

So, even if the control is loose, it's still there.

 

Any transaction involving slavery (in the grand scheme of things) keeps the cycle going because it keeps the cash flowing in that circle. Watto now has money, if he feels he needs a slave again then he can go buy another one. Freeing Shmi only affects Shmi, it does nothing to stop the cycle of slavery on Tatooine, it only keeps it going by potentially putting someone else into slavery to take Shmi's place!!!

Qui Gon never bought a slave. he may have wagered on it, but, once again, Qui Gon has selfish reasons for saving a slave... As Qui Gonn put it himself, "I didn't actually come here to free slaves."

He changed his mind because of his own reasons, not because he was actually wanting to save Anakin from his situation!

It's everyone's responsibility to be anti-slavery!!

I would die for my wife.... If that meant dying to free her from slavery by leading a revolt... Well so be it!

Cliegg took the easy path, the least dangerous path, the path that was about self-preservation.

Thank goodness that here in the U.S.A., in the 1860's there were people that were willing to take the hard path to end slavery!

 

Take however you see it bro. There is nothing wrong with freeing slaves. There are still slaves in the US btw. I think you should start an abolitionist movement if you are truly the saint you claim to be.

 

Holy Smokes... where did I say I was a saint...?

Furthermore, I never said there was anything wrong with freeing slaves, and I never said that what Cliegg did was wrong. You continue to prove my point about gut reactions and morality, because you fail to see that Cliegg did what he did because he loved Shmi, not because she was a slave.

If you can't see the broader point I am trying to make past the obvious "freeing slaves... good..." then I don't know what else to tell you..

Just to reiterate... From my previous post:

First of all, let me start by saying, once again, that I am not trying to create a narrative that Cliegg was a bad man, or doing something bad. I feel that Cliegg loved Shmi and she loved him. Cliegg just doesn't buy Shmi because he "wants" her, and is willing to resort to keeping her a slave if that's what it means. I never even came close to presenting Cliegg in that light. I feel Cliegg is a good man, but that doesn't mean every single one of his actions has to be moral, he is allowed to do things that are selfish and still be a good person. We all do, have done, and will do things that can be considered selfish, and we can still be good people. I think because people see the word selfish, automatically the gut reaction is negative negative negative.



Cliegg is not basing his decisions on morals or the morality of slavery. He is basing his decision on what is best for him and the woman he loves. There is no doubt that the end result of a slave being freed is good, but, the path that gets them there is not based on morals, but based on what is best for him, which is selfish!

 

Each planet keeps its own Planetary Defense Forces to protect itself against invaders, and the Republic has a sort of policial force, the Judicial Forces, to fight piracy.

If a planet started to attack its neighbours, an amalgam of Planetary Defense Forces, Judicial Forces and Jedi were supposed to go there and bring them under control.

The system worked because the richest, most technologically advanced, most powerful worlds, like Coruscant, Empress Teta, Alsakan, Corellia, Duros, Sullust, Mon Calamari,...etc., supported the Republic, and because the worlds willingly stayed within the Republic. There weren't external enemies, force wasn't used to keep anybody in, and if somebody wanted to play conqueror and annex its neighbours, the other worlds would lend a part of their forces to stop them.

The Alliance to Restore the Republic is a good example of the kind of force that a traditional Republican Army would be: The Mon Calamari and the Corelians lend their fleets, the Alderaanians and the Chandrilan lend money, pilots were recruited across all the Galaxy, starships were bought from the Verpines.

The system broke because the Republic had grown stagnant, inefficient and corrupt, many worlds were dissatisfied and wanted to go at the same time, and a group of powerful interplanetary corporate power blocks (the Techno Union, the Inter Gallactic Banking Clan, the Trade Guild...etc.) came together and tried to take advantage of it to carve a large chunk of the Galaxy for themselves. The Republic was ready to crack single planets or little interplanetary empires going conquerors, but not to fight a Galaxy-wide power block.

 

Slavery = immoral
Freeing slaves = good

Gee I wonder what would have been financially better for Lars, having a slave that will work for him unpaid until the day he dies, or having a free woman as a wife that can leave anytime if she wants.

 

Cool discussion!

I think the clone army actually presents some interesting moral questions that should be explored in the EU or a spin-off.

The Republic didn't ask for the clones to be made, so they can't be blamed for their creation. The Kaminoans are to blame there. I don't think it's wrong to make clones (which is basically just a twin born at a different time). However, it does seem pretty questionable to make designer clones meant to serve a specific purpose, especially when that purpose is so dangerous. What makes it even more questionable is that the clones are designed to be obedient, thus making them want to accept whatever role they are given.

So, that's how the clone army is before the Jedi and the Republic even discover that they exist. I don't think it's ever explained whether the clones have the right to refuse to enlist. (We see clones being treated with disciplinary action for going AWOL, but this may be after they have chosen to enlist, so at that point, they have to serve their tour of duty.) However, even if the clones have the right to refuse to enlist, the question remains whether a clone would ever exercise that right; they have been bred to fight and they are designed to be obedient, so psychologically, it seems like the clones would inevitably "choose" to serve. This brings up the issue -- should the Republic/Jedi use fighters who really can't choose not to fight?Furthermore, if the Jedi/Republic don't use the clones, this creates a problem. What do you do with all these clones who are bred to fight and are designed to follow orders? How would a clone fit into regular society? And being bred to be fighters and obedient, would not using them open up the possibility that some other group -- the Separatists or the Hutts, etc. -- would get a hold of them and use the clones for non-peaceful goals or treat them even worse? Also, there's the problem of losing the war if they don't use the clones -- well, losing the war is bad in itself, plus the clones would likely be used to enforce Dooku's new presumably oppressive order if the Republic loses the war.

Regarding the Galactic Republic, I think they did have armed services before the clones. I think it was just organized the way NATO is now. Almost entirely, a NATO fighting force is comprised of member nations contributing their own troops. The US contributes, the French, the Brits, etc. NATO doesn't really have a shared fighting force. It's clear that individual planets, like Kashyyyk, have trained armed forces, and they would have worked together if they had to defend the republic. What makes the clones unique is that they are a fighting force that can shared between all the Republic planets. They also allow for better central planning of the war, and ultimately, they ultimately serve Palpatine's goal of centralizing power in his own office.

The Galactic Republic probably had no shared fighting force probably for the same reason that they UN hardly has a fighting force today. Each country/planet would fear that that fighting force could be used by a centralized world government/galactic government to intimidate single nations/planets.

 

Well I haven't called him a hero, I just think that there can be a middle ground between moral actions and selfish ones. Some actions are neither moral nor immoral.

Cliegg freed a woman from slavery. He did this because he loved so yes he didn't free her primarily out of some distaste for slavery. He then asked her to marry him and she could have said no or have said yes but left him at some later point. So he might benefit from his actions but Shmi also benefitted. So I don't view his action as entirely selfish. He also took a risk that Shmi would turn him down but he was willing to take that chance. He wanted Shmi to be with him out of her own free will.

But this argument presupposes that this alternative was in any way practical. Tatooine was run by gangsters. Trying to stir things up could have landed Cliegg in jail or worse. And how would that make anything better? Shmi is still a slave, Cliegg is dead and his son now an orphan. His farm might even be confiscated.
So if the options are; free Shmi by buying her or stir things up, Shmi remains a slave, Cliegg is dead and his son and daughter in law are now slaves and the farm gone. Is this really better?

And suppose that Cliegg was faced with the two options I outlined above. Now Cliegg doesn't want to die so he doesn't stir things up. However he won't have anything to do with the slave trade to he tells Shmi. "I want to free you but the only way I can do that is to buy you and I won't do that." "So sorry, but you have to remain a slave." Wouldn't that also be kind of selfish? By refusing to compromise an inch on his principles, he lets a person he cares for suffer in slavery.

But this reasoning assumes that the number of slaves in a system is constant. That one slave freed would immediately cause one free person becoming a slave. This need not be so. And the movie showed that Watto apparently didn't buy an other slave as he looks rather poor in AotC.
And as you said, Cliegg was poor and Watto was in a financial bind after the race. So he might not have gotten a lot of money from Shmi and that money didn't go to more slaves but to pay his debts.
So the net result might have been one less slave.
So Cliegg freed Shmi because he cared about her but he also reduced the number of slaves on Tatooine. Not too bad I feel.

It could be the same with homeless people or beggars. If you build houses for 100 people, that doesn't have to mean that 100 other people would become homeless. If you give money to 100 beggars so that they won't have to beg anymore, that doesn't have to mean that 100 new people would take their place.

[/QUOTE]

But, to quote Spock, "your argument seem to preclude the possibility of a no-win scenario."
That there might not be a way out of a situation that doesn't involve doing something less than good.
That doing a lesser evil stops a greater evil and refusing to do that lesser evil ensures that the greater evil will happen. In the DS9 episode "In the Pale moon light." Captain Sisko does questionable things to try and win a terrible war. And they work, his actions saved billions of lives.
He is aware that he lied, cheated, covered up the crimes of other men and was an accessory to murder. But he could live with that and would do it over again if he had to. Because a guilty conscience was an easy price to pay to save all those people.

Last thing about Cliegg. Can't his act of buying a slave, freeing that slave and marrying her, also be a symbol, a statement? That he, in how ever a small a way, makes a stand against slavery. Watto knew what he had done. So maybe others knew too. You can change attitudes in more ways than just preaching to people. You can live as an example.

As for the Jedi, they didn't order the clones or ok their use. Before labeling them immoral I would want to look over what their options were. Could they refuse to use the clones? Sure. Would this cause the clones not to be used? No. If they fought alone against the droids they would get themselves killed. Would this help the republic/galaxy? No.
Could they refuse to fight at all? Sure. In addition to the above, this would also probably label the Jedi as traitors and not help the situation.
Not using the clones would in all likelihood, at least as far as the Jedi knew, lead to a seps victory.
With who knows how many dead, the republic destroyed, them either killed or locked up.
So using the clones was the least bad alternative out of the really bad ones they had to choose from.
And to me, refusing to act when you know how bad the consequences of that inaction would be, is not moral.

The option that I think existed was to use the clones for now and try to build up a regular republic army, based on volunteer recruits. So the clones could gradually be faced out. This options makes sense, not just because of the slavery aspect but also because of all the fishy things the Jedi know about the clone army and why they would have ample reason to suspect foul play. Plus the fact that 1,2 millions clones is totally inadequate for waging a galactic war. Did they suggest this or did the Senate do anything of the sort? The films never say.

Also, why the focus on foot soldiers? In a space war, having superior ships would be far more important than having better foot soldiers. So it would be more important to build up a powerful fleet of ships in order to win the war.

In closing, the clones as slaves aspect is something that I think should have been addressed in the films. It offers up a lot of interesting and dramatic story possibilities. Alas we get nothing.
But is the lack of mention by the Jedi by design or simply that the writer didn't think about it, didn't have time to deal with the issue or thought it unimportant? Either is possible. So this is another reason why I am hesitant to label the Jedi as immoral because their silence might just be because Lucas ignored this issue. Had this been brought up, say that Anakin argued against this or said that the Jedi/the senate was promoting slavery with this and the Jedi told him to shut up. Then yes.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Absolutely spot on post. I've underlined the section where you really manage to hit the target - in terms of highlighting the emptiness of 'ideal' (which the whole post does effectively, but this really gets to the point), non-situational ethical standards. And what does it, ultimately, come down to? What power does an individual or group have to change things. If you only have the power to change the circumstances for the better for one person, is it not right that you do that? Is it wrong (immoral) because you can't change the principle of slavery(or poverty, or homelessness)?

And...in terms of the discussion that the Jedi are 'responsible' (for the use of the clones and for the wider problems that they are 'punished' for) that non-situational ethical standard is what is used to hold them to that responsibility.

Part of that is the idea that 'war not make one great' - a very true statement, but not the same as 'fight one never should'. Sometimes, you have to fight. The Jedi can't make everybody love each other, they can't stop weapons from harming; they can't stop the clones from being sent to fight the war for the Republic. They have to operate in a 'real' world (in as much as it is a fictional work.