Saga The Morality of Star Wars

Lucas has always stated that the Jedi in SW was a combination of all religions and moral views in the world since SW is mostly about the monomyth, and the concept that all humans are spiritually linked via our awareness and relation to the monomyth, it could be said that SW is an attempt to define and map out humanity itself, and our values, aspirations, flaws etc...
So, let's try and figure out what exactly the moral views of SW are

 

Hmm. I think that SW attempts to convey shades of moral greyness in what is essentially a story of good v evil. Anakin is I think supposed to be morally conflicted in the sense that his turning to the dark side was supposed to be done in the name of love . Obiwan is supposed to have been faced with a moral dilemma when he chose to lie to Luke about his parentage. Personally I tend to agree with anakinfansince1983 that SW is at its best when it employs the KISS method in such matters.

 

Selflessness vs. Self-centeredness. That's ultimately the thing I keep coming back to when I look at the saga's depiction of good and evil. Good is serving others, serving the greater good of the world, and recognizing that your desires do not supercede the needs of others. Evil is placing yourself at the center of everything you do, of seeking power either out of pride or for self-serving purposes. It is considering others lesser than your self, and ultimately treating them as such.

Where Star Wars gets really interesting, and where I think most of the "grayness" comes from if you'd like to call it that, is that the story very clearly shows that the potential for good and evil resides within all of us. We make the choice. There is no one in Star Wars who is implicitly or explicitly born one way or the other- except for perhaps Palpatine, who I believe may be George's idea of a mythological personification of evil itself, therefore he shouldn't be morally considered in even the same "territory" of morality as the other characters.

The morality of Star Wars is why I consider them to be the perfect family movies. They portray a model of morality that is easy and clear enough for even toddlers to perceive (I picked up quite a bit when I first saw the films as a 4 year old), yet you keep finding the wisdom in it well into adulthood.



This is a wonderful piece I discovered on the Star Wars website a while back. It's from a recent episode of Rebels, but has its origins in the Mortis episodes of Clone Wars, and given the nature of those episodes I have to assume that George had some role in the creation of these symbols, which the website claims are ancient signs representing the dark side and the light. Very interesting and very full of meaning.

 

Basically the morality of Star Wars is the core morality shared by all humanity before we filter it through dogmas.

 

I think the morality of SW proves Humanity is grey.

 

I like that you mentioned choice because, to me, the concept of choice is the crux of all the stories. The characters have a choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing at all times. Han chooses to come back and save Luke during the Trench Run. Luke chooses not to kill his father. Vader chooses to save his son. And so on.

In each, case, the wrong choice could have been made, and the galaxy would have turned out very differently.

 

That's a very good point, because what makes Vader become good isn't the fact that deep down he always regretted or disliked his actions, what made him good was when he made the choice to save Luke. Had he not saved him and continued to do evil things but deep down didn't want to and regretted it, he would still be evil. I think that's the symbolism of his suit, it doesn't matter what or who's beneath the suit, what matters is that he's wearing it, he may hate the suit, but he still chooses to wear it, what makes him stop being evil is choosing to take it off. The fact that he asked Luke to take it off for him emphasizes that it was Luke that led to him becoming good again.

 

Personally I think that the two most important messages I get from SW are that being good or evil is a choice, and it's a choice that you make yourself. People always blame their behavior or actions on outside factors, but in the end they made a choice, Vader might say that the Emperor manipulated him into being evil but in the end of the day he still let it happen and he still chose to do those things, Luke proved to Vader by not succumbing to his and the Emperor's manipulation that being good is indeed a choice. I think the other big message is that everyone, no matter how despicable, deserves a chance for forgiveness and redemption, because if you don't offer them the chance to change then you're just contributing to their actions, if Luke hadn't forgiven Vader then he would have kept on doing evil things, but offering him forgiveness allowed Vader to be redeemed and also to make amends by killing the Emperor. Adding to this is the belief that everyone has the chance to be good or evil and also has the chance to change their ways.
Not to sound like TOO much of an obsessive fanboy but SW's moral views have been extremely important in shaping my own views to this day.

 

Yeah. Darth Tyranus is deluded. He rationalizes most of what he does.

 

Which is precisely what makes Yoda and Ben more right about him than some people care to admit.

 

I 100% concur. I liked what you had to say about the suit. It truly is symbolic. I hadn't thought much about that in years, and I never thought about what you had to say about Luke taking it off. That will always be a moving moment for me.

 

Selflessness and selfcenteredness - Light and dark - Good and evil... Definitely!

One thing to consider: It is said that a Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never attack - yet, it is rarely considered problematic that Jedi do use the Force for attack during the Clone Wars. There's a lot of Force pushing and throwing in those battles and not a single Jedi, not even Yoda, says a thing about it.
Perhaps the Jedi see their part in the war as a form of defense? Perhaps that's how Lucas sees it as well? After all, they seem to do what they believe is required of them to restore peace and freedom to the galaxy.
At the same time, they're not willing to do just anything to win the war. It's implied that when you forgo your principles to win, you have already lost.
So what's with the Force pushing, guys?!!

What's more, they frequently kill creatures in battle. Creatures with varying degrees of sentience. They seem willing to sacrifice the lives of "vicious monsters" for the greater good. For their greater good...

I just don't quite know what to make of the Jedi and the lessons they teach us at this point.

 

Well, you said it.

My personal view is that, despite the apparent loudness and certitude with which some aspects of morality are apparently expressed in the Star Wars movies, there are strong notes of caution sounded, too.

In part, Star Wars is a black comedy -- it doesn't take itself or human behaviour that seriously (or only when it does). Consider a relatively innocuous motif like the use of the word "help". And it "helps" if you consider the prequels a critical part and parcel of the Star Wars saga *to* consider thus.

Accidents, calamity, and outright farce, on some basic level, rule -- or at the very least, (blindly) steer -- human affairs. TPM lays this concept out quite directly, in my opinion. But in addition to appreciating TPM, one also has to have a healthy dis-appreciation for the idea that morals are absolute, or that the world in some way caters to human affairs or (more pathetically still) that the cosmos was designed with us in mind.

Not only is it ridiculous vanity to conceive of one's existence and one's moral rectitude in this way, but it has led to the most depraved and casual expressions of violence and suffering: everything from the Holocaust to the justification of hunting rabbits (and killing and exploiting animals generally) because their white, fluffy tails make them easier to shoot. (The rather innocent notion that everything in the world is designed for a particular purpose -- e.g., "sharp rocks are there for animals to scratch themselves on" -- begins in childhood but is ugly when it persists, as it usually does, into adulthood).

Some of what's in Star Wars, or can be teased out of it with a minimal effort, is probably too radical for the relatively enslaved, fearful, and conceited Stone Age minds which we possess to really acknowledge or make much of. Much to learn we still have.

 

The alternative is the helpless pacifism displayed by the Lurmen... basically just letting the enemy kill you.

 

There are more than two options, my friends. The Jedi could defend themselves without mercilessly cutting down beasts and letting the clones burn Geonosians to death (that one is what I'm having a particularly hard time understanding). Going by what we know of Jedi philosophy, they should try to incapacitate without harming or killing, when possible. More often than not, though, they just kill when they could easily have knocked their adversaries aside/out, disarmed them, captured them.
Yes, on occasion, they have to kill in order to defend, but most of the time, they just seem to do it because it's convenient.

 

As said many times before, I don't have an issue with Han and Greedo, but I have an issue with Han in the "Hey, point that thing someplace else!" scene. The idea of blasting a primitive of a small mass with a stone-toped spear in his head is not cool.

 

Pretty much what everybody else have said but I'll put my two cents in. The whole Emperor throne room scene is dripping with moral grey. Scenes like these are why Luke and Vader are my favorite star wars characters as both face moral decisions that anybody would struggle to come to a deciding point. Should Luke kill his father? We all say we wouldn't but would we really not consider killing a man who threatens to turn a sibling of ours? With Vader, wouldn't we also might not help someone who revealed that you were all wrong to begin with? Just some thoughts I had.

 

It's war. Certain niceties go right out the window when you're fighting for not only your life, but the lives of the troops under your command and the fate of the Republic. I think it's extremely easy to say that they should have just knocked their enemies out or cut off their weapon hand(s), but rarely is that an option on the battlefield. Furthermore, if you try to limit yourself to just disabling your opponent, you may allow additional casualties on your own side.

Ki Adi Mundi's employment of flamethrowers in TCW Landing at Point Rain was certainly shocking, but if their use helped prevent further clone trooper casualties then isn't that fulfilling the mandate of protecting lives? My real question is: Why didn't he bring up the flame throwers earlier?

Would it be selfish if Master Mundi had a weapon that could help save the lives of his troops, but didn't use it because he was uncomfortable with doing so?

 

This is where I bring up George Lucas saying "they are after all a bunch of a large termites" and laugh right along with him.

 

Spoiler

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

It's war isn't an excuse to toss morality out the window. That makes whomever does just like whomever they oppose and it's hypercritical.

 

I never said morality was thrown out the window. I said certain niceties. If some separatist is pointing a gun at your face, it's perfectly moral to kill him. It would be nice if you could simply disarm him, but that's a luxury you may not be able to enjoy most of the time.

And if you leave that separatist on the battlefield and you've simply disabled his normal weapon hand, what happens if that guy picks up another weapon with his remaining good hand and shoots your buddy in the back? Well, I suppose it's okay that my buddy died, because at least I have a clear conscience. At least I did the moral thing, right?