The Republic and Jedi are Evil

But in all fairness: Hitler thought that he was doing good to a very selected few. He was creating an elite as he saw it - although the Olympics in 36 surely pissed him off
The Jedi were not racial, as it seems they had many different races themselves. We do hear OBW mention some rather unnecessary remarks about primitive lifeforms though. But in essence, it seems that Jedi helps all - not just the strongest. And I didn't see the Jedi suppress people.

I have no quarrels with Mandragora either. I actually think her posts are very good and perhaps the ones with most work put into them - but I think we should all speak our minds should either of us use condescending tones. It's rather unnecessary

 

er, was this directed at me?

 

Umm, my post?? Nope. Didn't even have you in mind for that post. Will try to remember you next time

 

oh, no need. just wondering.

 

He was referring to me, frared, since he found my remark that jvvb might want to do some backup reading when engaging in a discussion on initiation rites "condescending". Actually I've wanted to leave it at that but since people keep referring to this I feel that some comment on my part might be in order. I very rarely engage in discussions when I've no idea what I'm talking about (other than asking questions, that is) and you might have noticed that I usually talke some care when it comes distinguishing what part of a post is just my personal opinion and what I'm inferring from the works of others - and when I'm not sure whether this is commonly accepted you can expect to find some reference like "in the opinion of this author" or "as far as I know" in it. When I'm actually postulating something to be true or common knowledge this is mostly is quite well researched and in no way based on one book or website only. This also applies for the link I've posted above: I've read Campbell as well as other material concerning initiation rites quite thoroughly, and I can assure you that this indeed reflects Campbell's take on initiation rites, as well as that of a vast number of other approaches on the subject. In a forum devoted to "in-depth, analytical discussions" I simply expect people who join the discussion to put a bit more effort in it than in a common small talk forum and not just throw some random post that states the some opinion as a fact into it (and usually the posters on Saga Board do put a lot more effort in it). However it's quite possible that I'm expecting too much - but now I'll really leave this issue at this.

In this context I'm having a problem with the use of mind tricks on the so-called "weak minded" (whether due to race or character) to acquite hyperdrive generators or Bongos etc. - to me this amounts to exploiting other people's weaknesses in a way that is ethically questionable at least. It is no less manipulative than Palpatine's schemes, it is just more crude and since it involves direct intrusion into the mind of the victim I find it even more objectionable than psychological manipulation schemes. Often it is justified by the argument that is was done "for the greater good" but then we are back to the "ends justify means" position, and I don't agree that the ends justify the means to the extent of justifying mind control, even if it is directed "only" at the "weak minded". It is not racist in the strict sense, but it implies an attitude that there are some people whose fundamental personal rights like the integrity of mind need not be respected, because they are somehow "inferior". I'm having a bad feeling on an attitude like this.

 

I agree that it was highly questionable to use mind-manipulation on him - ironically it did not work either. However, Qui-Gon does not reflect the Jedi as an order. He was a rogue in many ways. Do you suppose that Yoda would have done the same, or even Mace? I doubt it. In all fairness, Qui-Gon should have trusted in the will of the force. However, the dice they used was most likely a fake one, and hence Qui-Gon only fooled the fool.

Sometimes you have to do things you would rather not like to in order to succeed in your mission. QG was protecting the queen. If you were protecting someone, would you not use all means to do so? If you are fighting a war, you can't win unless you kill someone? At least not in the kinds we know of.

Ethically many things are questionable, but sometimes you just have to look at the greater scheme and accept that some things have to be as they are. If possible, would you not be willing to bribe or manipulate someone to get hold, or kill, terrorists who have kidnapped your own family?

 

The hyperdrive generator incidence was before the situation with the dice - it was right at the beginning in Watto's backyard.

Qui-Gon wasn't the only one to use mind tricks. We saw Ben Kenobi use mind tricks on the imperial soldiers in ANH, and Luke on Jabba's guard in ROTJ. So I'm not sure in how far the use of mind tricks was common with the other Jedi. And as much as a rogue Qui-Gon Jinn was, he was a respected Jedi master - he had a different outlook and often "bended" the code or called for exceptions, but I don't suppose he would violate the code in such a blatant and everyday manner without even consulting the council if there was a strict rule on this matter. I also don't recall Obi-Wan commenting on his use of mind tricks - normally when Qui-Gon deviated from the accepted behaviour Obi-Wan did. So I don't think there was an agreement in the order proscribing mind-tricks.

Well, they didn't use all means possible ("we can't fight a war for you"), that is to their credit, even if at the end of ROTS they came very close to it. Even terrorists have human rights, which is acknowledged in modern constitutional states - there are strict rules binding the powers of the executive. And well they should be, because without such rules we are back to the wild west or even worse examples of what might happen when all means available are allowed to be used against the supposed enemy can be found in regimes that use physical or psychological torture to acquire information or exert control on behalf of some "greater scheme". The files of Amnesty International are full of examples. If one opens that box all comes down who is accepted (or imposes themselves) as the authority to define what "greater scheme" is worthwhile for breaking ethical codes or even the laws of nations. So no, basically I don't agree that ethical codebraking is justifiable by the argument that one serves "the greater good", at least not if it isn't the ultimate resort in the face of total catastrophy (which I would argue it wasn't in any one of the cases the Jedi used mind tricks). The Nietzsche quote in my signature basically sums up my take on this.

As with the clones, the thing that disturbs me most is the "matter of course" manner and the lack of reflection and discussion with which these violation of ethical laws occur. Just to compare: The possibility of violating the age limit for taking on a new student or taking a second padawan or admitting a representative of Palpatine to the council was worthwhile of comments by Obi-Wan as well as a council discussion that was explicitly shown in the movies - while there was never a comment or discussion on the appropriateness of using mind tricks or of leading the clone army. The first group are about rules specific to the organisation of the order, the latter however, are issues that have to do with universal personal rights - obviously the first group was more important to the council which leads me to conclude that concerning the most ba

 

But I'm not denying that it does, I just don't think it's the way it had to go.

Oh, no doubt

I agree, though I always took Obi-Wan's "pathetic lifeform" line as a joke directed at Qui-Gon because of Qui-Gon's tendancy to pick up beings that seem to be fairly insignificant.

There's also Obi-Wan using a mindtrick on the drug dealer in Episode 2.

I personally never viewed the mindtrick as the Jedi taking over someone's mind for a limited time, but it certainly does seem that way, so I don't have much to say on it currently, just had wanted to add that even Obi-Wan when he was at his staunchest in following the Code used it, which would imply it's fairly common among Jedi.

I need to think about this more before I really have an answer worth anything.

 

Mandragora: I think we have to agree to disagree with the ends to justify the means situation. I agree your ethical take on it is better - in a utopia that is to say. When faced with a terror you can't allow yourself to think like that. I'm sure England and America did some very unethical things to defeat Hitler in WWII, but should we not be glad for it?

OBW was not present, as I remember, when QG used the mind-trick on Wattoo. Could be he was present with the dice - I can't recall.

OBW used a mindtrick to rid himself of someone who might have obstructed his mission - it was not something that gave a lasting effect on the person - not a bad effect anyhow. He used mindtrick on a clone - it is highly discussable to which extent that could be bad. Furthermore, that was a clone bred to kill - a pawn in the hands of Palpatine. I can't see how that was wrong...

 

Not sure about the dice situation either - I don't believe he was there. However, he was definitely present when Qui-Gon used/tried to use the mind trick on Boss Nass.

Whether it actually did damage or not in this particular instance to me isn't the question. Interfering with a person's free will by means of direct intrusion in one's mind is a violation of personal rights and as such it is ethically objectionable. To use an example from daily life: Wiretapping of telephones is illegal safe for certain very specifically defined conditions and it isn't rendered legal on the grounds that "no damage has been done" in a specific case. Mind tricking is a severe violation of a person's integrity and as such is ethically objectionable, no matter whether there's damage done or not, and no matter whether the person in question is considered as a pawn of Palpatine. By defining a certain group of people (like clones, junk dealers, imperial soldiers... ) as a clientele for which mind tricks are eligible one is well on the way of splitting society into those who have full and those who have only partial personal rights. This kind of discrimination isn't based on race affiliation but the result is the same as in racism: There are groups of people who are considered inferior and thus doctrines about fundamental personal rights aren't applicable to them.

I'm very reluctant when it comes to accepting any kind of absolute postulates on what is "good" or "evil", as you've probably noticed. There are some sort of postulates, however, that for me count as ethical absolutes. They relate to the human rights charta of the United Nations and they include the inviolability of thought, the right of free will, and the prohibition of any kind of slavery. Compromising that kind of basic personal rights to me this is opening a can of worms that can only lead to a situation in which there are no limits to what is justifiable provided the person justifying it exerts a convincingly enough authority.

I don't think I'm talking about utopia - this is why I was talking about possible exceptions in situations of imminent catastrophe as a means of ultimate resort. Even in such situations I still expect people to carefully reflect on whether these exceptions are unavoidable and absolutely necessary. Most importantly, I expect the authority responsible to be willing to acknowledge that they did violate basic personal rights and that they take full responsibility and accept whatever punishment for this violation is assigned to them.

I'm positive that, provided using mind tricks or the like were available in our world, anyone resorting to it in a war would have to stand their trial in front of an international court martial - and they wouldn't easily get away with it. Not to mention situations that are perhaps difficult but not life threatening in the remotest sense of the word. Violating personal rights just because it is the more convenient solutions isn't an option under any circumstances for me. The absense of reflection is exactly what I'm missing when it comes to the Jedi. Using mind tricks because it's a conventient way to acquire hype

 

I wonder, if we ever see a Sith Lord using mind-tricks? Or do only Jedi use it? I am not quite sure about that fact. Does anybody know?

 

It may be due to filmatic style and not disturbing the flow of the picture, but I doubt it. First, there were no scenes in the shooting script either. Second, he found ways to include the scenes about discussions concerning Anakin's age etc. - he could have found ways to at least throw in a comment pointing to the ethical problems involved. I do agree that Yoda was kind of an exception, since he was the only one who expressed concerns at all (in the novelization Obi-Wan was the one who expressed the most concerns on the course of the council). Still, as the council's Eldest IMO he didn't voice his opposition convincly enough and he wasn't able to provide a viable alternative. "Failed, I have".

I've never heard of a Sith using the mind trick, at least in Canon. Palpatine's skills of manipulation probably rendered mind tricks unneccessary.

 

I've never heard of a Sith using the mind trick, at least in Canon. Palpatine's skills of manipulation probably rendered mind tricks unneccessary.[/quote]

Oh, he definitely failed and he may have been able to voice more concern, but it really seemed to me that Mace was the leader of the Council, regardless of the fact that Yoda is his elder. Lucas did find ways to include the conversations on Anakin's age etc., but most of them had something else and were key things that he really couldn't get away with leaving out. The Council discussing a moral dilema while I'd love it, would likely get panned in the same way the political debates in TPM did, so he could have gotten a little gun-shy and decided to leave that stuff out. The reason it wasn't in the shooting scripts could have been that he simply decided from the start that he wanted it to be "faster and more intense" so, he left out many of the slower things that would have added to the story, but hurt the pacing from the get-go.

I can't think of a Sith using mindtrick either.

 

Editouble post.

 

I see your point and regrettably it might hit the nail on it's head - I'd just hoped that the "faster, more intense" doctrine was a thing of the past. Same as the "keep it simple and stupid for 'most people' doctrine" it doesn't help to gain Star Wars the deserved appreciation. I'd just thought he'd direct more importance to the storyline as opposed to "faster and more intense" in the more recent films...

 

Oh, I do too. I honestly would have loved to see the Jedi debate it. One of my complaints about the Prequels is that I wish they had gone more in depth on what the Jedi were like in the Old Republic including training.

 

That's the reason why we are having all these discussions on ethics and the like, isn't it? We just lack information on what the Jedi were like in the Pt, and on the Jedi code itself, so we have to draw on the scarce information the movies provide. And since he's not exactly the talkative person on these subjects I'm afraid that isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. I'd really love to question him on these ethical issues, as well as some political ones, or to see one of the scholars writing on SW questioning him on it - but it's not going to happen. He's just to reclusive for that kind of thing.

 

Oh, that's exactly why, I just think it would be interesting to hear where Lucas stands on it, but you're right of course that I don't think he'll ever come out and say it, with the closest being his stuff in interviews, but he doesn't mention many of the things that are most controversial.

 

it's indistinguishable and impossible to tell since it's the way it went. apparently for anakin alone it had to be this set of circumstances, time and people to have him come to the conclusion that he came to.

it's his story.

for another person, it'd have to be a different story.

 

It's his story for sure. It however wasn't the only way his story could have gone. He could have died on Mustafar(and likely would have if he'd been defeated by a Jedi other than Obi-Wan or Luke.) I just don't think that because it happened the way it did, it had to(in-universe of course, out of universe the second half was set up 30 years before the first so of course it did) just like Luke could have become Vader's replacement, Vader could have become Emperor, the Jedi could have never been purged, the Sith could have one, etc. and I think that's in keeping with the stress Lucas has placed on Anakin's fall being a choice and not pre-destined.

 

we can argue until we're blue in the face (i'd prefer to get out of this before that)... there is no way you can distinguish his destiny from what happens alongside, with, and through him. just like you cannot distinguish the destiny of the jedi order from what they choose.

their destiny is what happens, otherwise it's all pretty inexpliquable.

in other words, anakin could no way have died on themustafar banks there because there was still stuff held in store for him. and he has to be the person of vader's experiences and grievances and loss to become anakin again. it'd be shortselling the tragedy (outside the universe also) to just have him perform and not be involved as a person.

that's what it's about for me. that you take up a responsibility once you recognize it. he did and so it happened. before he didn't, therefore he could in no way recognize his destiny.

or something like that.

 

It's his destiny to destroy the Sith, it's arguable that he had to join them etc. in my opinion, but you're right that it's not something that's proven either way.

I agree with parts such as that as Vader he was in no way taking responsibility for his destiny.

 

11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

i've been running this through my head a lot.

er, it renders the story shallow if you just see that it's palps' death that is supposed to be happening and nothing much else. it renders everyone's life pretty meaningless. of course you can see it this way. i'm not inclined this way. i believe that destiny is what we do and how we react and i cannot explain it very much. karma springs to mind.

c'est ca!

 

I don't know, I don't see it as shallow that one can completely turn away from their destiny such as Anakin did until the end of his life. It just makes Anakin's fall more tragic in my mind if Anakin didn't have to do it and in doing so is turning away from his very reason for existance. It also places Luke in the role of the catalyst for Anakin to finally achieve his destiny, as well as Luke being able to become what Anakin would have if he'd never become a Sith Lord.

 

it makes it shallow in the sense that it was a simple action.

it renders luke's actions silly because it is just about palps' death right? so, anyone could have done it. but, no, i think you adhere to the belief that it was supposed to be the man who did it (another thing pointing towards predestination) no one else. and he had to do it not out of revenge or greed or any base feeling, it was to do with discovering love again, what the corinthians speak of, what luke possesses.

if all these things come into play (and not to mention that the story would be very short) then, yes, it would be an average action flick without any sense of scale and depth, had anakin simply killed palps there in his office. without his fall from grace, no one knew what fall from grace actually means. and there'd be no need for all the other jazz and side characters.

so, in essence, i think we appreciate the same thing, the character arc, but we somehow end up arguing about it