The Moral Ambiguity of Star Wars

Do you believe Star Wars is black and white, or morally ambiguous? Are the Jedi truly good? Are the Sith truly evil? Is it all shades of gray?

 

In my humble opinion, neither the Jedi nor the Sith are correct. Clearly the dark side is a corrupting force, but the 'good side' is in error because it denies the efficacy of all strong emotion, both positive and negative.

Anger, according to the dogmatic Jedi, can never be morally sanctioned. Apply this to our own world. Blind anger is harmful, yet obviously righteous anger is a concept that exists in reality, and is aggreeable.

Righteous anger buttresses an otherwise decent person from rising above fear and diffidence to do what is necessitated to destroy evil men. Righteous anger is a response to moral depravity. Anger is not 'bad' per se.

The Sith, on the other hand, allow anger to overtake them to the point where they're pretty much always 'seeing red' and behaving irrationally. They are the other extreme and, like the Jedi, mark no distinction with rage.

Aggression is another example of an emotion the Jedi wrongfully neglect. Aggression in the face of barbarous and wicked enemies is a vigorous and swift justice. Passitivty is not 'moral' but self-immolation.

I understand the Jedi fight when they need to, yet they try not to use aggression even when doing so. That is a quick way to get others and yourself killed. Aggression in the defence of the defenseless is good.

<[-]> Saber

 

The original 1977 film seemed for the most part to depict a stark contrast between good and evil, with Darth Vader appearing to represent pure, unrelenting malice, while Luke and Leia were unshakably decent and moral. Even Han, while initially shown as existing in a kind of shadow-world between the two poles, came around by the end of the first film to the side of the righteous and honorable.

But as the OT progressed, subtler shades of gray were introduced, with the hero (that is, Luke) walking a thin line between doing what was morally correct and simply following the momentary dictates of his heart. (I mean here that on Dagobah, at first he was selfish and impatient, and even later he cared more for his friends than the all-important training to control his potentially dangerous powers.)

Ultimately, at the climax of ROTJ even the villain came around to the good side, sacrificing himself for the sake of the galaxy and inverting our notions of what villains and heroes, antagonists and protagonists, are all about.

The PT has gone on to show us a far more complex and variegated picture of evil -- the means by which it develops, the specifics of what drives a good man to become bad -- than we could have previously guessed at. How a selfless little boy, so full of love and light, can become a destroyer of worlds and a merciless warlord, is made painfully evident in the new films.

So, to answer the question from my own perspective, Star Wars shows us the black and the white, and it also shows us the shades of gray in between. It is not, however, morally ambiguous, for the themes of the Saga are quite clear: Loyalty, sacrifice, love and friendship: these are the aspects of life that truly matter, not power, material acquisition or control of others.

 

This is as good a summary of my own position as I could have written, so now I don't have to...

 

Same here.

 

Yep. That pretty well sums it up.

 

Sacrifice is not a good thing. Exchanging something of value for something of lesser value out of a vague sense of duty is not morally pure. This is is were Star Wars goes wrong. With both Anakin and Luke.

According to a philosophy of sacrifice, the morality of an act is determind by how much vested interest we have in keeping it. If something has value to us, and we want to keep, it is shameful and evil.

For example, it is most moral to sacrifice for a stranger, less for an acquaintence and even less for a loved one. Sacrifice does not exist for a rational man, nor between rational men. Only merit and the earned.

In the hierarchy of his values, he simply chooses to keep what he values most for what he values less. It is not a sacrifice, for example, to die for a loved one. An individual can mark as important the other's life at his expense.

Sacrifice has been responsible for every atrocity imagineable in human history. It is a disease. This is one area, at least, where the Sith rightfully disagree with the Jedi. Too bad Lucas was a Buddhist.

<[-]> Saber

 

Completely untrue. What's at stake in the "Star Wars" saga is liberty -- and people who "honour" it most (to quote Yoda) have fought and died for it; it would be incredibly offensive and wrong of Lucas to imply otherwise. The saga is about putting aside selfish desires and "doing the right thing". Hence the change not only in Anakin, but also Han and Lando in the preceding films. Han represents the lone man ("Solo"), completely indifferent and answerable to almost no-one, while Lando represents the indifferent man gone respectable, only for that respect to be built on lies. Yet they change their ways and dedicate themselves to helping their fellow man. The change in these characters is a microcosm for a larger, galaxy-wide change. And this is conveyed as a good and moral thing.

But Lucas also plays "Devil's Advocate" to this philosophy by showing us the rocky road of carrying it out -- hence Anakin's fall to the Dark Side in the PT and Luke's defiance of Obi-Wan and Yoda in the OT. In some sense, he suggests that selfishness is essential. In the latter, which is so nuanced that it's almost missed, Luke openly contravenes the advice of his mentors and departs Dagobah in a bid to rescue his friends, thinking he can save what he personally values, missing the moral -- let alone physical -- trap of his actions. But Vader is waiting for Luke and Luke almost destroys himself, threatening to spoil the loyalty and faith that Han, Leia and Chewie have placed in him. However, Luke also learns the truth about his parentage, and were it not for his arrival at Cloud City, Artoo would never have been present to open the main door or fix the Falcon's hyperdrive, allowing Leia, Chewie and Lando to successfully escape, and setting the scene for the final installment.

The hierarchy you've drawn up is completely arbitrary. Lucas doesn't distinguish between strangers, acquaintances and loved ones -- only in terms of a potential geometric attachment across those categories. His point is that we should move beyond parochialism, but parochialism is also a powerful driving-force in our lives. Ergo, while Anakin lays down his life in a manner that is emblematic of a major change in his entire belief structure, he is catalysed into doing this by a paternal connection to his offspring. Lucas is idealistic, but also pragmatic -- this is what his critics miss.

Interesting interpretation. Sacrifice is rooted in the very idea of marking what's important and then giving up an aspect of yourself or something else for that thing or those things.

No, sacrifice has not been responsible "for every atrocity imagineable in human history". The sort of sacrifices I can imagine you lumping into that statement would qualify, at best, as brain-washing, and, at worst, as murder. The sort of sacrifice we see demonstrated at the end of "Star Wars" is a rare and pur

 

Morally ambiguous, on the whole, with the lesson being that black/white views are too simplistic. In the films, Qui-Gon, Palpatine, Padme, Luke, and even Han all show us that "good is a point of view", and likewise, evil, loyalty, and so on. Obi-Wan, Yoda, Luke and Anakin all learn this in one way or another, and so it's fitting that we follow them. TPM/AOTC show a morally ambiguous world, ANH/TESB show a polarized view, but the overall lesson is that moral absolutism breaks down. ROTS and ROTJ show the results of choices made, not the absolute values of beliefs. Throughout, we see that making the right choices for the wrong reasons (Sith ruling the galaxy to secure peace and end corruption) isn't any better than making the wrong choices for the right reasons (having a holier-than-thou Jedi Order ensuring their "White Knight" point of view and micro-management). It is Padme and Luke (among others) who tend to make the right choices for the right reasons, not through ego, or for power, but simply to do good as best they can. Their weakness is in their loyalty to Anakin, but more importantly, it illustrates they learned the lesson, it shows their strength, rising above the moral simplicity of characters like Obi-Wan (AOTC/ROTS), Yoda (TPM/AOTC), Maul and Vader (ROTS/ANH/TESB).

 

Will you please explain how sacrificing one life for the sake of liberating the galaxy from tyranny, oppression and the danger of planetary genocide constitutes 'exchanging something of value for something of lesser value'?

The above agrees with the idea that attachment -- the fear of losing something, the desire to keep it -- is an error. Are you opposing or agreeing with what you've written here?

This equation is rendered moot if one embraces and loves all of humanity, removing one's familial attachments (see above) and rendering every person equally meritorious and deserving of whatever one has to give.

Following this equation, Vader has chosen to 'keep' the freedom of the galaxy, which he values more than his own life. I fail to see the error here.

You may be overstating your case just a smidgen, don't you think? 'Every atrocity imagineable in human history'? To use a convenient and readily available historical atrocity as an example, do you think you could explain what object or concept of value the Third Reich believed it was sacrificing when it perpetrated the Holocaust?

 

I don't think SaberGiiett7's point is entirely moot, and while I don't agree with all of his conclusions I think I can in a sense understand where he's coming from.

There was an article in the e-zine ferretbrain a few months ago, on "acts of sacrifice", http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-156.html , that this discussed that topic remarkably well - recommended reading IMO. It essentially states that not all sacrifices are selfless, and that the meaning (and morality) of a sacrifice is determined by what you are expecting to gain from it versus what you are willing to give up. It cites this little speech from one of my favorite writers:

How do you know the chosen ones? No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his friend. Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame... for one person. In the dark. Where no one will ever know or see. I've been in the service of the Vorlons for centuries, looking for you. Diogynes with his lamp looking for a man willing to die for all the wrong reasons.(B5, 2x21, Comes the Inquisitor)

Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame - sacrifices can be selfish, and thus meaningless, if they are done for post-mortem glory, if one simply values glory more than one own's life.

I do agree that with both Vader and Luke, it is a mixed picture. In the case of Vader, the "blood is thicker than water"-implication has been criticised previously. An additional problem is that Vader by ROTJ has all but given up to expect anything from his future, and has for the most part, as I see it, accepted his life in slavery. His decision to die for Luke is thus somewhat stained by his resignative state previously. As for Luke, the fact that saves the case to me is that he was prepared to die for his values, not "for millions and for glory", as he didn't expect his death to accomplish anything. From his perspective, the decisive question concerning the fate of Palpatine was whether the fleet managed to take down the death star or not. By the time he threw away his lightsaber, he had all but accepted their failure, and still, he wasn't willing to let go of his morals. So while Vader's case is a mixed bag, Lucas succeed with Luke, I think.

 

I also think that in light of the Prequels it's fitting that even Darth Vader's final act is one that could be interpreted as having at least a twinge of selfishness involved(though that's not how I see it.)

One thing that I think is interesting about the Saga is that as has been said good and evil in the abstract sense are very clear. However, that with people it's not always clear to see where they fall on the spectrum and that the vast majority of people are not on one of the poles but somewhere in the middle. Lucas is definitely make a critique on society as a whole and one that I think ironically is eschewing viewing material wealth as the measure of success.

I'll have to check that out.

 

That's how I see it. Good vs evil - both being separate entities.
It's storytelling, not post-modern naval-gazing.

 

It does and it doesn't. Anakin's final act is both in defence of his son, the offspring of himself and Padme, the very person he ostensibly turned for, and a sacrificial gesture for another human being, which has the collateral effect of destroying a tyrant and ending the reign of the Dark Side, freeing people all over the galaxy. It's the eucatastrophe of the saga and it represents many things. I think pondering this is useful for understanding, and better pereceiving of, the myriad motives and outcomes that underpin every gesture and every action in human society. It's one of the reasons I think "Star Wars" is important, when all is said and done.

 

I think the focus and moral points that GL is directing the plot too are black and white. There are some gray areas, like clone usage, the short sightedness of the Jedi, and what-not, but these are not the focus. The focus of the moral plot-line is how the lies and the schemes of evil destroy and how love and perseverance overcome the evil.

 

From the Oxford Dictionary, 1996:

sacrifice 1a the act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else more important or worthy.

Would it be smug here to say 'I rest my case'?

 

The saga is not black and white, it is more different shades of grey but i don't think it's ambiguous either.

Vader's sacrifice at the end, for many of the more casual fan just watching a good flick, it's he got shown mercy by luke, who was his son and Palpatine had betrayed him so Luke could take his place. So just basically revenge and blood thicker than water. Another words, he's still just being a sith for all intense purposes.
But other people more into pathos of the saga, like myself, might see it as the way Lucas probably intends it, as actually Vader sacrificing himself cause through luke he realizes that being a sith was wrong and he's compelled to accept some kind of responsibility for this even though he can never make up for what's happened, and it's going to ruin him, and he will die a sad pathetic figure...but he does the hero act anyway.

 

The saga is very interesting when it comes to how gray it is. I do firmly believe that the saga was meant to be morally absolute, but the gray in life is usually what you put into it and I can't help but watch and see all kinds of gray, even if Georgie doesn't want me to.

 

What's the difference between shades of grey and ambiguity?

 

I'm not quite sure what you are meaning here, it's a bit ambiguous since it doesn't question the quote you are referring to.

Anyway, what i was meaning is that shades of grey shows one size doesn't fit all and a good fit sometime can also be the complete opposite at another, which is further muddied by what a "good fit" is, as this changes to polar opposites for Anakin/Vader in the series. But Star wars why showing this also seems quite un-ambiguous in what type of good outcome is the best fit.

 

Yeah, it would be.

Your point would be meaningless for someone who does not recognize as supreme collective benefits. There is no such thing as a collective. Only a group of individuals. There can be no glob of identity shared between egos.

I challenge that definition on the grounds that if an individual makes a sacrifice, they're given up value. Otherwise it wouldn't be a sacrifice. If your premise is collectivism, I can't argue with you.

<[-]> Saber

 

It would help if you could define your terms for those who are perhaps familiar with the concepts you pose, just not the specific terms you employ. Nevertheless, I'm going to try to make sense of your post as best I can.

You seem to be saying that my point would be meaninful for someone who does recognize as supreme collective benefits. Okay. Yet since you assert your opinion that 'there is no such thing as a collective', you must fall into the category of those who do 'not recognize as supreme collective benefits.' Therefore my point is meaningless to you. I'm still trying to understand why you used the conditional construction 'would be meaningless' when in fact it simply is meaningless to someone such as yourself, who emphatically rejects the concept of a collective. Moving along...

Since you reject collectivism, why can you not argue with me if my premise is collectivism? And what do you mean by 'they're given up value'? I fail to make sense of your grammar, your apparent self-contradictions and your vague word choices.

We can progress no further in this discussion until you define your terms -- 'collectivism', for a start -- and write with a greater degree of lucidity.

 

You seem to have wasted a lot of time on something that didn't necessarily warrant it as far as your above statement goes. Obviously, you understood the implications because you moved past the 'would be.'

Hypothetically, if you do see utilitarianist, self-sacrificial morality as supreme, I can't argue with you because my premise is entirely different: individualism, a.k.a. egoism. It is a disconnect.

If that is your premise, so be it, yet I don't see how we are going to get much done inasmuch as you have a presupposition and I have a presupposition. We could argue for those particulars, but not much else.

It isn't terribly hard to make sense of what I said. 'They're giving up' value refers to the one who is sacrificing. If they weren't giving up value, it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice, now would it?

Define collectivism? I'm sure you could go on pretty much any Internet encyclopedia site and find a definition. It is the same philosophy of Marx, Lenin, Hitler and all those other morally upright beasts.

It stresses human interdependence and a moral duty to climb up on a red altar and stab a knive into your heart so your fellow man can lap up all your blood. That's all it produces: blood. Oh, yeah. And drudgery.

<[-]> Saber

 

Individualism could be defined in exactly the same terms.

What's needed is BALANCE between collectivisim and individualism. That's what "Star Wars" advocates.

If you need that put into a term, then call it co-operate individualism -- the tenets of which already exist.

I think you're just verbally bloodletting in here. The saga stands. Your argument falls.

 

My failure to comprehend your position led to my critiquing your grammar, hoping to prompt an elucidation. Since you offer one below, allow me to extend my gratitude.

I'm not certain 'supreme' is the right word. I'm skeptical as to whether moral acts require categorizing into 'lesser' and 'greater' (or 'inferior and 'supreme') acts.
I certainly preceive self-sacrifice as an act that derives from love, and if pressed to assign relative merit I would place it 'on par' with all other acts that derive from love.

Okay, I follow you now. (Again, incorrect grammar -- in this case faulty verb conjugation -- interfered with my capacity to comprehend you. Thanks again for the correction.) I see that whereas the definition of sacrifice includes 'giving up something valued', you contend that the individual making the sacrifice is also surrendering his ascription of value to the thing being offered. Thus, since s/he has 'given up value', it is no longer a sacrifice.

To that assertion I have two rebuttals. The first is that your point is addressed in the second part of the definiton itself. Oxford goes on to say 'for the sake of something else more important or worthy.' Thus, by definition, the thing/object/concept being sacrificed is of lesser value than that which is gained.

My second point is that this inversion of values -- something valued is seen to be of lesser value than that which is gained -- derives from selflessness and compassion. In the matter under discussion -- that is, the death of Darth Vader -- Vader, like most living beings, labors under the perception that his life is very important, perhaps more important than anything else. This is evident from his defense of himself in the previous combat, and from the fact that he has never before risked his life to destroy the Emperor and so restore justice to the Galaxy. However, in risking his life to save his son Luke, he inverts that value system, and so comes to see his own life as less important than that of his son. This new perception derives from love -- from selflessness and compassion.

Ouch. Wow, Hitler and Lenin, huh? I guess I'm in pretty bad company if I swallow this collectivism balogna! I hesitate to lump any other 'morally upright beasts' into that gang of ne'er-do-wells, but I would mention that Christ spoke of loving one's neighbor as oneself; and Tolkien extolled the virtues of those prepared to lay down their lives for a greater cause. The examples, from world mythology and heroic literature, of love-based action being prized as essential to human interrrelationships, are far too numerous to list here.

If your supposition is the supremacy of the individual, I would agree that we have a di