PT "Obi-Wan Once Thought As You Do ..."

The issue is that some have a very detailed idea about what a Jedi can and can not do.
That a Jedi must not, under ANY circumstances, kill someone that is "helpless" or not directly attacking them. If they do, then they are no better than siths and will turn to the dark side.

So if for ex a Sith and a Jedi are in a fight to the death and the sith stumble and are open to an attack. If the Jedi take advantage of that then they act like siths and will on their way to the dark side.
A Jedi can never, ever blow up a base, ship or others if there is even ONE person on board that is not attacking them.
Hence why there is arguments about there not being any other prisoners on the DS, because if there were then Luke did something wrong.
Or about how jabba's barge was totally empty of non-combatants when Luke blew it up and so he didn't kill any of of them.

I don't agree. I don't think it is this black and white.
Luke blew up the DS, probably killing people that were not in the service of the empire.
But that was necessary as the alternative was to let the DS destroy the rebellion.
Luke blew up Jabba's barge, killing some guards that had stopped fighting and ran away from him. And some of the other people that worked for Jabba but weren't a direct threat.
And he did so to prevent the possibility for them to try and attack him and his friends when they leave.
So he destroyed it to make sure and if there were some collateral damage then so be it.

I don't think the Jedi code is this absolute, I think the Jedi are aware that sometimes the situation is not perfect and you only have bad options to choose between.
But if not acting leads to a worse evil than acting, then I think they will act, even if people will die.

Like Dr Who, he abhors violence but if the situation is dire and he has no other options, then he will take a life. He won't like it and he will try to find other options if he can. But if the choice is to stand aside and let billions die or act, then he acts.

As for Palpatine and Mace.
The Jedi didn't attack him, they came to arrest him.
He attacked them and killed three of them.
The Mace disarmed him and again tried to arrest him but Palpatine again resisted arrest and tried to kill Mace again.

And he had revealed himself as a sith to Anakin. The Jedi had not done any attacking at that point.
They had spied on him sure but they were fully justified in that regard.
Palpatine had been conspiring with the enemies of the republic and created a civil war that had killed many, including Jedi.

If some cops are sent to arrest a criminal and said criminal resists arrest and kills three of them.
If the sole surviving cop manages to disarm the criminal and tries to arrest him again and the criminal again tries to kill the cop. How many times must the cop try an arrest before he/she can try and kill the criminal?

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Re-watch the scene. After his admission to being a Sith Lord; the Jedi attempted to arrest him non-violently. He screamed and attacked them, killing 3. All the things you named Jabba doing, Palpatine had done 100x over. While Mace Windu's actions were not how you want law enforcement to act in a democracy; killing a super-human evil genius on the spot certainly isn't wrong. Palpatine had too much physical and political power Windu not to act in that regard.

The Jedi CAN and do have to kill; what they cannot do is kill in anger, fear or hate. Windu saw what needed to be done, and tried to do it. Without fear, without anger.

 

I hope you will excuse me, I often muddle up the novelization with the screen presentation and that makes for confusion.
In the ROTS novelization, the Jedi use telekinesis on the guards outside the Chancellor's Office, and so do openly make an attacking move before drawing their lightsabers on him to force his arrest.

The point is that the Jedi in this case make a first strike against Palpatine - they go to meet him. That is an offence, not a defence. It is a preemptive strike. You can argue either way whether this contradicts Yoda's rule: "for knowledge and defence, never attack".

Your comments are valid, of course - but I don't see how it relates to the issue of Jabba's death. Luke is attempting to free himself and other captives from Jabba. He can't do that without violence, he's already tried "You should have bargained". Nor could he have escaped without destroying the barge - he was in an entirely hostile environment. These were pirates with no notion of reasonable surrender.

On the other hand, Palpatine is an intelligent political figure who does (or at least should) recognize the notion of surrender, among other things. The dynamics at work are very different - on a rather more moral and fateful scale than the Jabba confrontation. This is not a one-directional battle, but a multi-faceted showdown between Force users.

 

Arresting a war criminal and terrorist conspirator isn't an "attack." It's complying with a moral code and the law, permitting they may have been acting against the law since Palpatine controlled all branches of government stupidest Senate/Judiciary ever).

I see an exact relation. Jabba and his crew were a menace to Tatooine and the galaxy, Luke ended them without hesitation. Palpatine was a menace to the galaxy, Mace moved to end him, with WAY too much hesitation in my opinion. He should have dealt the killing blow as soon as Palpatine was disarmed.

 

The idea of the Jedi striking preemptively when Palpatine had already orchestrated a phony civil war is pretty rich.

Palpatine shot first, not the Jedi. Palpatine fired the first shot before TPM even began. Palpatine struck preemptively at least a decade before ROTS, and the Jedi didn't even realize it until ROTS.

And, no, attempting to arrest someone is not an attack. It's not an attack when the police tell you you're under arrest.

Are cops using preemptive strikes when they learn the identity and location of a murderer and move to arrest him? No, the crime is the catalyst, the cops are just reacting to it, because it's their job to do so. Just like the Jedi in this situation.

 

But they don't do this in the film so they don't come off as agressive.
Instead Palpatine is the one who starts the attack.

But if we use this logic, can cops EVER go and arrest a criminal or a suspect?
If they know where an known murderer is, they can't go out and arrest him as that would be "offensive".
So what should they do?
Call him up and ask that he come to the station and surrender?

And Palpatine has been attacking them for years. He created the war that has killed many, including some Jedi. So he has drawn first blood.

How do you know they could not have escaped without destroying the barge?
Their small craft was not tied to it or something.
And the fighting was over, two guards had dropped their weapons and run downstairs.
No one else was coming up.

Is it possible that someone might try and shoot at them as they leave?
Yes and so Luke is destroying it just to make sure.
He isn't forced to, he just makes what he feels is the most prudent move.
But he isn't under a direct attack and he kills people so that they won't try and kill him.
I don't say that it is wrong and I get it.
But under the strict rule of "A Jedi must never, ever, kill someone that is not directly attacking them." Luke is wrong.
I don't subscribe to it but some here do.

[/QUOTE]

And Palpatine was offered the chance to stand down and come quietly but refused it on two separate occasions.
Instead he tried to kill the Jedi that came to arrest him and he did kill three of them.
But Mace is still giving him a chance.
But he resists again.

Luke gave Jabba chances, first with the message and then in person and lastly over the pit.
Jabba would not have it and so Luke used deadly force.
Mace gave Palpatine two chances and then tried to use deadly force.
So how many chances must he give him before he can use deadly force? Three, four, twenty?

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Vader can't roll out of the way, because he'll fall down the reactor shaft to his death. Also, Luke doesn't need to perform a chopping slice to kill him. He can just jab his blade into his neck or his eye and get it done.

When Luke is fighting Vader, if he did the same thing but without his anger and hate, he would be right all the way until he cuts off Vader's hand. At which point Vader is helpless and Luke would as a full fledged Jedi, shut down his saber. If, on the other hand, Luke doesn't sever Vader's hand and instead batters away Vader's saber without adding injury and then goes for a killing stroke right about here.



He knocks the saber away and then goes for a killing blow, without anger and hate, then he would be right. When Obi-wan kills Maul in both TPM and in "Rebels", he does it the right way. When Anakin kills Dooku, he does it the wrong way.

The Death Star is a threat that needs to be eliminated, so it is acceptable. What is in doubt is if there were prisoners on board. Luke destroying the Barge if Jabba's goons were on board, would be wrong.

Luke just took out Jabba's men. The Barge is no longer a threat and with Jabba dead, there's no reason to go after Luke and the others. Luke only destroys it as a symbolic gesture, nothing more.

"Mace was going to do the right thing by arresting him, but after Palpatine does the lightning, he changes his mind."

--George Lucas, The Making Of ROTS; Page 204.

He was going to do the right thing and then he does the wrong thing. Palpatine pretends to be weak and helpless, which the Code says is wrong for a Jedi to kill a Sith Lord then. That's why Palpatine pretends to be weak, in order to prompt Anakin into acting by showing that Mace is a hypocrite.

Palpatine just surrendered when he stopped blasting Mace and pretends to be weak and helpless.

"It made a lot more sense to have him stay loyal to the Jedi, which meant later on in this scene with the fight with Mace, we re-did that scene and at first there wasn’t the part where the Emperor gives up, he goes - “You got me! You got me!”. It was basically the scene without that where it gets more intense and Anakin finally breaks down and saves him, but it didn’t have the same feeling as that pause in there where you think…and it makes the Emperor a lot more slimy, it's really fun. it’s a dramatic thing to deal with."

--George Lucas, ROTS DVD Commentary.

 

You can argue that similar methods were being employed in each of the two scenes (Palpatine and Jabba) but the contexts are entirely different.
Luke didn't act to destroy Jabba in a moral sense, he acted to save his friends from peril. That is simply not the case with Mace's actions towards Palpatine.

You'll forgive me when I don't account for every tiny detail when it comes to how Luke and company could have escaped etc. I tend to go for general plausibility and common sense based upon what I see on screen. If we're widening the debate to hypothetical conditions then I'm more than willing to concede that yes, Luke could have prevented the barge's destruction. But this isn't about what could have happened, it is about what did happen. Can't we judge the merits of the actions without all the extra "possibilities"?

CT-867-5309 I'm not sure what you mean by 'catalyst' but I'm afraid I cannot see any relevance to the legal/law enforcement aspect here. It's irrelevant because Palpatine is the embodiment of the law. The Jedi are acting according to their personal doctrines (peace and justice in the galaxy is one of them, but do not construe that with law itself). The example of a murderer is very unhelpful - of course it isn't preemptive, because a murderer has already committed the crime!

With Palpatine, he hasn't committed a crime by definition, he has legally used the system to his advantage. The dilemma is therefore moral (Unlike the Jabba dilemma), the Jedi predict that the Sith will wreck chaos, they move preemptively to prevent this. I have a very hard time believing that the Jedi Order as embodied in Mace Windu would consider anything other than the Sith's destruction, even at the outset. Personally it seems implausible, but I'll concede the point if there is strong evidence to the contrary.

I will concede that it is not strictly a physical attack initiated on the part of the Jedi against Palpatine. On the other hand, Luke did attack Jabba's barge, with the intent to free the shackles of his friends' captivity. So this is just highlighting another difference between the two scenes we discuss.

 

No, he just says he is.

In the name of the Galactic Senate of the Republic, you're under arrest, Chancellor.
Are you threatening me, Master Jedi?
The senate will decide your fate.
I am the Senate.
Not yet.

Seems like Mace is acting legally on behalf of the Senate.

And Palpatine has already committed treason, among a plethora of other crimes!

This is sheer idiocy.

Palpatine has committed many, many crimes.

About a million examples of treason over the period of a decade, collusion with the enemy, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to assassinate a Senator, conspiracy to commit a kidnapping (among other conspiracies), he was involved with the illegal invasion of Naboo, embezzlement, bribing public officials, breaking his oath of office throughout the entirety, a number of cases of fraud, etc.

There is a laundry list of crimes to arrest Palpatine on. Your argument is sheer idiocy.

 

Then roll to the left.

Haha if he stood trial he would probably get 1000 years.

 

What if the FBI just rolled into the Oval Office on their own initiative and told the president he was under arrest for collusion with a foreign power?

 

Provided they have checked with Justice Dept and/or US Attorney General that action is necessary, and been issued a warrant, the FBI would be fulfilling their obligation to take action.

They would, like all law enforcement officers, be within their rights to arrest the President, in the office, in the event of a crime in progress or if they have probable cause to go in and stop a suspected crime in progress.

 

People are misrepresenting me here.

We are talking about the comparison between Jabba's scene and Palpatine. I've argued that the two issues are not the same. I'm not even sure what the counter-argument is, because all I've heard is that the correlation between the two scenes is somehow exact. To quote The Supreme Chancellor #329 "I see an exact relation". I've also seen some odd comments trying to refute my definition of a preemptive strike. Particularly CT-867-5309, #330 "Palpatine struck preemptively at least a decade before ROTS, and the Jedi didn't even realize it until ROTS." Palpatine never acted preemptively, he acted actively with coercion and duplicity to destroy an existing order, namely the Jedi and the Republic. Yes, the fact that Palpatine's evil was unknown to the Jedi until ROTS is important - and I'll come to that below.

We seem to want to focus on the idea of arresting criminals, and how that somehow debunks my argument on preemptive strikes. In most societies (the exceptions being totalitarianism, communism, dictatorship etc.) you don't tend to get arrested before you've committed the crime. As such, it has nothing to do with preemptive strikes, which are strikes (offensive moves, "offense is the best defense" if you like) to destroy/impugn before an attack occurs.

I think it's important to understand that I'm operating under the definition of 'law' within the Republic's legal framework. Palpatine changed the law, twisted it into something to use against the Republic. It is intensely political. Jabba's motivations and actions are not political. The whole dynamics of the scenes are different, as I've already laid out. If you want to argue that the "law" really means "what is right and wrong" in a moral sense - that's your prerogative, but it isn't really what is understood academically by the term. A law can be unjust, and a law can be wrong. That doesn't mean it isn't a law any more. Let's not go down that line, however, because it is really is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.

CT-867-5309 If you are going to use Palpatine's fraud, treason etc. against my argument, you're going to need to be very careful indeed. Firstly, the Jedi don't know he has committed fraud, they only know he is a Sith and perhaps assume by extension that he is capable of such things. Indeed, all they know politically is that the senate has voted him extra-ordinary powers. They don't know the full scale of his activities. Remember, we're discussing motive/intent, for Luke in the case of Jabba, for Mace in the case of the ROTS scene. Secondly, the Jedi are already committing treason by spying on the Chancellor - so I suppose at best you are exposing Jedi hypocrisy.

Which crime were the Jedi thinking of when they stormed into Palpatine's office? Did they have a particular set of crimes in mind to prosecute Palpatine? I presume they had evidence? (Luke, indeed the whole galaxy, certainly had evidence for Jabba.)

The whole idea is that the Jedi arrest Palpatine on the conception he is a Sith (which is not a crime), not with evidence of his 'crimes against the Republic'. Now, I suppose the counter-argument you could make is that the Jedi knew that the Sith were behind everything, i.e. because Dooku told Obi-Wan about Sidious' infiltration of the senate, and because they discovered and slew Maul etc. But the evidence of an enemy leader is hardly trustworthy evidence ("lies, deceit, creating mistrust are his ways now"), nor is the intuition of what the Jedi thought of Maul's identity. The Jedi appear to puzzle through it all by a process of generalization and induction, rather than concrete logic. That's either sufficient for you or it isn't. For me, it helps distinguish the ROTS scene from Jabba's scene. And it leaves open a host of ethical questions on the Jedi Order's methods.

Samuel Vimes I agree that there is scope for arguing that destroying the entire Barge wasn't necessary, but it requires such a close, over-analysis that it loses site of the wider issue. Luke is justified in his action here, and any notion of his 'overkill' is attributed to the unpredictable, unfolding nature of combat. If you offer to spare your opponent if he acts reasonably, then he tries to kill you, then you spare him despite your claim - why bother making the offer in the first place? There is no moral worth there, you haven't achieved anything - just a waste of life.

 

Actually, the sail barge doesn't need much analysis or over analysis. There were no escapees conceived written or shot for the film and Luke blew the whole thing up. You have to invent escapees and survivors to fit this in with Luke being a Jedi. Which means doing things the Jedi way, e.g. no killing of helpless enemies.

 

I agree with you.

However, the whole point is that there is no striking evidence that Luke acted in a callous manner towards Jabba and his lackeys.
The over-analysis part comes from people who attempt to pick apart the movements of all the extras, and deaths of each of Jabba's goons at Luke's hand to try and formulate an argument of his excessive violence.

Jabba's band was never helpless - Luke's actions moved his friends from a state of captivity to a state of freedom, that freedom was threatened as long as Jabba's henchmen were alive. There was no reasoning with them.

 

The reason why this is being picked apart is that others have an all or nothing approach to Jedi killing people.
To them, if a Jedi kills even ONE person that is not a direct threat then the Jedi is just as evil as a Sith.
There is the Jedi way and if you deviate even slightly, then you are a sith.
Nothing in-between.

I and others find this a bit too black and white and argue that the rules are not THIS absolute.
That Jedi have killed non-combatants before.
Hence why Luke is brought up.
He blows up the barge, killing people that were not actively trying to kill him.
But to those that are arguing these absolute jedi rules, that is a no no so we have made up stuff about how the barge was actually empty and the people had left it and all that.
Which, if you go with what you say, that Luke and the others were threatened as long as jabba's henchmen were alive. Then that means that IF any of them did leave the barge, then Luke should hunt down and kill them as well. If they are alive and have guns, they could try and shoot at their craft as they leave right?
So if Luke wants to make sure that they won't get attacked and some of Jabba's people left the barge, then blowing up the barge is not enough, he needs to hunt them down as well.
Or none of them did leave and so all Luke had to do was blow up the barge.
But that brings up the "Jedi must never kill non-combatants" rule.

And if you go with "There was no reasoning with them."
Wouldn't that argument work just as well against Palpatine?
That there was no reasoning with him, that he was never going to submit and be arrested and so there was no other option but to kill him?

I don't follow?
I offer to spare my opponents life if he submits, he does not and tries to kill me and yet I still don't kill him? Is that the question?
How is that a waste of life? I didn't kill anyone.
Maybe I am shown to be a pansy that won't follow up on what I say but waste of life, how?

Mace and co went and tried to arrest Palpatine.
If he had acted reasonably then there would have been no fight.
But Palpatine does not act reasonably and tries to murder the people that came to arrest him.
And does kill three of them. Mace then disarms him and tries again to arrest him.
Had Palpatine submitted, the fight would have been over. But again he does not.

So Mace gave Palpatine two chances to come quietly and Palpatine refused.

What crimes?
Let's see, there are only ever two sith Lords so since Dooku is one, then Palpatine has been working with him since before the clone war started. Dooku is a traitor to the republic. He built up an army and planned to attack the republic and enforce his demands. Palpatine is Dooku's accomplice and his master so he is just as guilty as Dooku is.

Dooku is also involved with the attempt of Padme's life, which did kill some republic citizens.
So Palpatine is an accessory to murder.
Also, Palpatine was the sith lord behind the TF's attack on Naboo. Which again lead to a number of deaths.
Palpatine has been conspiring with the enemies of the republic and made people attack members of the republic. That is treason.
He has been subverting the institutions of the senate and the republic to grab more power for himself.

Also, Palpatine is a sith and the last time the sith ruled, it was apparently a tyranny and oppression.
So simply being a sith is likely a crime in of itself.

So yes, the Jedi have a lot of crimes that Palpatine is guilty off.
So he is not just a suspect, he has committed many crimes.

If you want to argue solid evidence.
Yes Mace did not have anything more than what Anakin said and yes it is a bit dumb that Mace didn't not push Anakin for more details. Or that he didn't take a few minutes and contact Yoda and some other masters and try to make a better plan than "Let's go in, sword drawn."
Or at the very least warn them about the situation.

He could inform some senators that he trusts and ask their opinion.
Or he could invite them along to the office and he simply goes there to inform Palpatine that Griev is dead and the war is over and will Palpatine honor his promise to stand down once the war was done.
If Palpatine refuses, in front of witnesses, then the Jedi might have a stronger position.

So I can agree that Mace was not very smart in what he did and he acted rashly.
Immoral? Not seeing it.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

It would be a waste of life because of the likelihood of your being killed by the attacker if you didn't press your own attack to kill him as you threatened.
I also mean a 'waste of life' in more moral terms, as you suggest. Not committing to action doesn't add anything of value to society, nor to your own person.

I'm in complete agreement. The point I was making is that there are limited legal grounds for Palpatine's arrest - there are plenty of moral grounds.
The Jedi still have a limited idea of the extent of the Sith's involvement in galactic affairs, so they make assumptions - it isn't just Mace but the wider body of the Jedi Council as well.

 

He can't because it will go right into Luke's blade and seriously **** up his day.

Yes, there are absolutes for what is and isn't acceptable behavior as a Jedi. That's what separates them from the Sith.

Why would they try to kill them with Jabba dead? There's nothing in it for them now. What do they gain? Revenge? Are they that loyal?

Except what Anakin saw was a Palpatine who did surrender and stopped fighting, pleading for his life and saying that he was too old and weak. So at that point, it was very much easy for him to believe that the threat was over and Mace should let him live, per the Jedi Code and also for his own personal reasons. If Anakin really thought it was okay to kill someone who was a prisoner, he wouldn't have hesitated and said it was wrong to have killed Dooku.

 

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

Obi-Wan was wrong, it seems.

 

Obi-Wan's statement on Mustafar is a loaded one, and deliberately so.

Much is said of the irony that Obi-Wan's statement is absolute in of itself - I think it is better to view the statement as a summary or brief representation of a Sith's character.
Obi-Wan could well have argued his point on the Sith far more eloquently, probably with language similar to that which Yoda uses earlier - namely "Teach yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose..." etc. However, it would have been futile, and untimely, given the impending combat with Vader.

Remember, Obi-Wan isn't denying the existence of absolutism - he is rather illustrating that a Sith Lord will act ('deal') unilaterally, without consideration for others, only within the dichotomy that his views are right, and others' are wrong. Of course, the Jedi way intrinsically opposes such a view on the spiritual level - a Jedi's life is always one of constant exchange, of ideas, knowledge, feelings, with the Force.

 

I've always found the common objection to Obi-Wan's line about absolutes to be a be a bit facile. It reminds me of that attempted "gotcha" game of accusing someone of being intolerant of your intolerance.

I think everyone understands what Obi-Wan is saying: He's condemning black-and-white thinking (known as splitting in psychological terms). When someone expresses the quite reasonable and commonly accepted opinion that black-and-white thinking is bad, does it make sense to then jump on them for themselves engaging in black-and-white thinking? I don't think so.

 

Not at all.

As Vader says "Either you're with me or against me."

Obi-Wan believes in good and evil and Palpatine is evil. Good is the Jedi way of serving life through the natural flow of the Force. Evil is the Sith way of serving ones own selfish desires above all other life and doing so in an unnatural way that goes against the natural flow of the Force.

For Vader he will serve Sidious "the good" as long as he will help him to get what he wants.

Once Sidious is no longer of help then Sidious will be "evil" to him and then will be destroyed because what is "good" is what Vader wants and anything that prevents him from getting what he wants is "evil" to him.

So a Sith "deals" in absolutes.Good and evil are as Palpatine said at the opera "a point of view"

Obi-Wan actually believes in absolutes. In this example that being that there is good and there is also evil. Obi-Wan also believes that many of the truths we hold are point of view but clearly not what is good and what is evil when it comes to the Jedi vs the Sith.

 

But whether he believes them or not, he can't be dealing in them, if he's right about only the Sith dealing in them. Which is an absolute.

Is this an attempt to present a paradox in the hope that it will melt Anakin's logic circuits?

 

While clumsily stated, the statement does make sense in that only Sith believe in absolutes to such an extent as Anakin did-demanding complete loyalty and obedience and thinking everyone who doesn't is an intolerable enemy. Indeed very forced order and power/subjugation vs. the Jedi trying to get harmony mostly through negotiations and compromise.

 

The issue is that being "Good" i.e. a Jedi, does not mean one deals/acts in an absolute way. Being a Sith does. Therefore, there is no inherent "being absolute" in the Jedi teachings. The only absolute part is the Good/Evil which is more a theme than a conviction. Part of the reason Obi-Wan calls Palpatine and others "Evil" is because he recognises their characteristic of dealing only in absolutes. There is a subtlety there, I think.