why didnt anakin rescue shmi before?

All the explanations of how they could have freed Shmi are irrelevant until you provide a reason why they should want to.

Because their most gifted, unstable and potentially dangerous student fears for her so much that they almost turned him down in the first place? Were the Jedi just planning to ignore that problem?

 

"yet i remember han trying to leave to pay jabba in the begining of ESB, circunstances just didnt allow it.

anyway GL could have had the same plot without shmi on tatooine."

exactly, all it would of taken is a few lines about the seperatist forces being allied with the hutts and the jedi unable to go to tatooine as a result.

The other thing with Han is that while he did want to go to pay jabba, he wanted to stay with leia more, and we see this conflict in him of what should he do. With Anakin there were no real obstacles preventing him from going, it jsut appears that he didn't really care about saving his mom.

 

But they have to have a reason why, a motivation. So if you would be so kind, stop putting the cart before the horse. All the explanations of how they could have freed Shmi are irrelevant until you provide a reason why they should want to.

Shmi did quite a lot for the Jedi, she helped QGJ complete a vital mission by allowing her only child to risk his life in a pod race.
I'd say they owe her a favor, wouldn't you?

Also - they're well aware that Anakin's attachment to his mother is exacerbated by her continued enslavement, it would make sense to get her released to alleviate his worries.

g

 

"1. What do you mean am I just making it up? There was a clear line of logic being followed there."

Logic does not imply proof. Sorry.

"Just because you don't agree with the time management choices they make doesn't mean they aren't valid."

Wrong. I don't agree with the time management choices you claim they make. Again, you are arguing from the position that your logic is proof, which it is not.

"3. That's not even what my sentence says. That was a gross misinterpretation. The Jedi can very easily save someone that they know themselves to be related to. What they can't do is save someone solely because they have an attachment to them."

And your proof for this distinction is...? Are you saying that Shmi's chances for being freed would have been better had she not been Anakin's mother?

"The heart of this is the fact that by their logic they chose not to."

Actually, the heart of this is how and why Lucas decided to leave Shmi behind on Tatooine (The Jedi aren't real, remember?) My point was that it could have been done without leaving her as a slave.

"All the explanations of how they could have freed Shmi are irrelevant until you provide a reason why they should want to. That's something that, insofar as I can tell, none of you have ever seriously undertaken, and its a major flaw in your arguments."

So, now the Jedi need a "reason" to save someone (and an especially good reason if they are related?) There's got to be something in it for them? Interesting.

"Shmi did quite a lot for the Jedi, she helped QGJ complete a vital mission by allowing her only child to risk his life in a pod race.
I'd say they owe her a favor, wouldn't you?"

"Also - they're well aware that Anakin's attachment to his mother is exacerbated by her continued enslavement, it would make sense to get her released to alleviate his worries."

Agreed. Yoda would do well to alleviate Anakin's "fear" and "pain" from the attachment that he has developed. Keep in mind that, since all other Jedi are gathered as infants, such concerns would never arise. Anakin's case is unique. He need only know she's safe (at least, until AOTC.)

 

Good responses all around. However, I feel I need to make things as clear as possible. Thus, the following. Before I start, though, I have a side note for MeBe. It is as follows:

I'm not claiming they made those time managements choices. Those were the choices shown on screen. They were, walking around the Temple rather than rescuing Shmi. They were sitting around meditating. That's actual film footage. The only thing that's conjecture is the logic I proposed for why they made that choice. But by omission or commission, any action made is a choice taken. If we assume rational self-interest, then there choices are dictated by what they feel is the best use of their time. So if they chose (and they did) not to rescue Shmi, it would be reasonable to assume that they did so because they thought that what they were doing was more important than rescuing Shmi.

And now, with the meat of this thing.

Preamble: We are discussing why Shmi wasn?t rescued before AOTC. Specifically, some have brought charges that the Jedi should have done it. It is my position that based on their portrayal in the films to date, they should not have been expected to. This is my proof of that position. But allow me to clarify the terms of this. I openly admit that there was no physical, legal, or other barrier preventing the Jedi from rescuing Shmi. There is no ?proof? they could have done it. They could have had they chose to. However, by the same token, I will show that the Jedi were portrayed entirely consistent with their pre-existing nature by not rescuing Shmi. This is the point I will prove, and the truly relevant question here.

So then, here we go:

1a. If you are A Jedi, then you obey the Jedi Code. (Source: Lucas, PT.)

b. If you obey the Jedi Code, then attachments are forbidden. (Source: AOTC, Lucas)

c. If a person considers an action or relationship forbidden, then they would preclude endorsements of that action or relationship from their behavioral motivations. (Source: Def. of "forbidden")

d. If something is precluded from a person's behavioral motivations, then it could never be part of the explanation for their actions. (Identity)

e. If you are a Jedi, then an attachment could never be part of the explanation for your actions. (Source: Syllogism adjoining statements 1a & 1d).

f. If attachments can be part of the explanation for your actions, then you are not a Jedi. (Source: Law of Contrapositives, applied to 2e)

At this point, we should open up a parallel line of logic:

2a. If a sentient takes action, then it has some sort of conscious or unconscious motivation. (Source: Def of sentient)

b. If you are a Jedi, then you are a sentient. (Source: all SW materials to date)

c. If a Jedi considers rescuing Shmi, then he is considering taking an action. (Source: Rescue is a verb in the English language)

d. If a Jedi is considering rescuing Shmi, then he must have some sort of conscious or unconscious motivation. (Source: Syllogism joining 2b, 2c, and 2a, in that order.)

e. If a Jedi has a motivation (conscious or unconscious) for rescuing Shmi, then it cannot involve attachment. (Source: Restatement of 1e and 1f)

f. If a motivation cannot involve attachment, then it must involve something other than attachment. (Source: Would you really like to argue with this one?)

And now, our grand conclusion, which is all I?ve ever tried to say:

g. If the Jedi want to save Shmi, then it must be for some other reason than attachment. (Source: A Syllogism between 1d and 2f)

***
Currently, one possible motivation for the Jedi to rescue Shmi has been presented. I will now proceed to refute it.

Why the Jedi Don?t ?owe? Shmi: Individuals can operate on the basis of favors and friendships. However, when governments do so, it is frowned upon and called names like ?nepotism,? and ?cronyism.? In fact, the government is not even supposed to make judgments about morality as it goes about its duties. That is, whether the government ?l

 

"Why the Jedi Don?t ?owe? Shmi: Individuals can operate on the basis of favors and friendships. However, when governments do so, it is frowned upon and called names like ?nepotism,? and ?cronyism.? In fact, the government is not even supposed to make judgments about morality as it goes about its duties. That is, whether the government ?likes? or ?agrees with? someone has nothing to do with their duty to that person as a citizen. As an organ of government, the same thing applies to the Jedi."

First of all, this doesn't really address why the Jedi don't "owe" her anything. It's simply a rationale which works whether they owe her or not.

Secondly, for all the talk of freeing a slave from Tatooine being illegal, and yet Anakin is paraded in front of all of Naboo at the end of TPM, why should the Jedi be concerned about freeing yet another slave, and keeping her circumstances secret (assuming, of course, that subterfuge is necessary to begin with.)

People clearly don't have a problem seeing Anakin, a former slave, "bought" by a gamble, having had his life knowingly threatened by a Jedi, and being involved in a quite well-known battle to save Naboo at his age. Despite this, people are supposed to have a problem with his mother being freed, simply because she's his mother?

Bull****. That just doesn't fit. Of course, if Anakin's "circumstances" were kept secret, then so could Shmi's. Problem solved.

Of course, with the Senate so corrupt as to ignore an entire planet within the Republic being blockaded and attacked for no known reason, and ignoring the problem even when the head representative risks her life to fly to Coruscant, and yet you believe something as trivial as freeing one slave (much less the mother of that one slave) from a planet outside the Republic which has a city that condones slavery, an act that is despised everywhere else in the galaxy, is supposed to raise some eyebrows?

This is seriously missing the forest for the trees. What you would apparently call an international incident is barely a tempest in a teacup. You are completely ignoring the entire setting of the films in order to show that freeing Shmi is a bad thing.

"So then, although the Jedi should certainly be grateful for Shmi?s help, they don?t owe her anything. They have no obligation to go help her, and the fact that she helped them doesn?t push her problems to the top of the list of the ones they are responsible for solving. They help everyone, all the time, no matter what. They don?t do it because those people helped them first. That was never part of the equation. They do it because that?s their responsibility to the state and their religion. And the fact that Shmi helped one of their members doesn?t change that fact one bit. Please provide an alternate reason."

I can't get over how many times this reasoning contradicts itself. They don't owe her, but they save everyone, but they won't save her, but it's their responsibility, but her actions mean nothing to them, especially since she's related to Anakin? My God, man.

"Why the ?Anakin argument? fails: You talk about alleviating Anakin?s worries. However, the Jedi Code does not forbid worrying, it forbids attachment."

Uhm, fear leads to the Dark Side. Attachment does not. Yoda saw that Anakin was full of fear and anger, which effectively prevented him from becoming a Jedi at the outset.

"To validate that attachment would be counter-productive. The Jedi don?t just want Anakin to stop worrying, they want him to stop being attached altogether. And freeing Shmi wouldn?t help that one bit, as we?ve just said. So this would be an incredibly poor reason for them to free her."

You've still yet to show how "freeing Shmi" = attachment. Not to mention the fact that this reasoning never comes out of Yoda's mouth. Yoda didn't want Anakin to be a Jedi - period, so to believe that Yoda considered freeing his mom to be a bad idea is ridiculous, since there's nothing to indicate this though

 

Also, if "attachment" is such a "no-no", why was Anakin allowed to protect Padme in AOTC? Surely, Yoda has the balls (assuming Whills have such) to stick up for this belief that you claim is such an overriding concern of his, right?!?

Because it was the word of Obi-wan aganist Yoda and Mace. Yoda and Mace don't sense anything between Anakin and Padme.

 

Jabba-wocky, I admire your stamina.

The answer is obvious.

Before leaving Tatooine, Qui-Gon should have finished Shmi off with a pillow over the face. That way, Anakin could go on his merry way and not feel bad about leaving her behind.

If that sounds crazy, to me, so is leaving your mother in slavery when...YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

It's clear that there were options. We, the viewers were just not supposed to notice.

"So then, although the Jedi should certainly be grateful for Shmi?s help, they don?t owe her anything. They have no obligation to go help her, and the fact that she helped them doesn?t push her problems to the top of the list of the ones they are responsible for solving. They help everyone, all the time, no matter what. They don?t do it because those people helped them first. That was never part of the equation. They do it because that?s their responsibility to the state and their religion. And the fact that Shmi helped one of their members doesn?t change that fact one bit. Please provide an alternate reason."

Your argument seems to be that the Jedi don't free Shmi because they don't have a justifiable reason to.

For me, this raises the question, what would be a justifiable reason?

I suspect that if she was valuable to them in some way (say if she alone had information about the mysterious Sith) then they wouldn't have any problem with going to get her so the Council could retrieve the information from her.

So, Shmi's misfortune was that she was of no value to the Jedi, hence she was left behind.

So much for the Jedi being noble.

 

I openly admit that there was no physical, legal, or other barrier preventing the Jedi from rescuing Shmi.

Agreed.

I will show that the Jedi were portrayed entirely consistent with their pre-existing nature by not rescuing Shmi. This is the point I will prove, and the truly relevant question here.

Well the movies don't support this, I'll expand on this further on.

f. If attachments can be part of the explanation for your actions, then you are not a Jedi.

But this reasoning would make Yoda = Not a Jedi, since he saved Obi and Ani rather than take down Dooku.

Why the Jedi Don?t ?owe? Shmi: Individuals can operate on the basis of favors and friendships. However, when governments do so, it is frowned upon and called names like ?nepotism,? and ?cronyism.? In fact, the government is not even supposed to make judgments about morality as it goes about its duties. That is, whether the government ?likes? or ?agrees with? someone has nothing to do with their duty to that person as a citizen. As an organ of government, the same thing applies to the Jedi.

But you've already said that there's no legal or other barrier preventing them freeing her.

So then, although the Jedi should certainly be grateful for Shmi?s help, they don?t owe her anything.

Well that begs the question: what would someone have to do to for you to consider that the Jedi owed them some help in return?

They help everyone, all the time, no matter what.

Well obviously they don't, it would be impossible. They make choices.

. Anakin?s worry is only an outer manifestation of his inner attachment to his mother.

But it's exacerbated by the fact that she is still a slave. Obviously they want him to break the attachment, and freeing her would help. The same way they want him to become a Jedi - they help him.

g

 

Weak storytelling with no real reason (or excuse) for such lazyness.

 

"Because it was the word of Obi-wan aganist Yoda and Mace. Yoda and Mace don't sense anything between Anakin and Padme."

Excuse me? Where was this argument? Even Yoda didn't think it was a good idea.

More made-up scenarios to protect a bad argument.

"Why the Jedi Don?t ?owe? Shmi: Individuals can operate on the basis of favors and friendships. However, when governments do so, it is frowned upon and called names like ?nepotism,? and ?cronyism.? In fact, the government is not even supposed to make judgments about morality as it goes about its duties. That is, whether the government ?likes? or ?agrees with? someone has nothing to do with their duty to that person as a citizen. As an organ of government, the same thing applies to the Jedi."

"But you've already said that there's no legal or other barrier preventing them freeing her."

Precisely. It's this, but then it's that. Everyone will complain of cronyism, but no one cares about a planet under siege. The Jedi can't afford for people to know about saving Shmi, but Anakin is paraded in public.

No sense...

". Anakin?s worry is only an outer manifestation of his inner attachment to his mother."

"But it's exacerbated by the fact that she is still a slave. Obviously they want him to break the attachment, and freeing her would help. The same way they want him to become a Jedi - they help him."

Agreed. First, they don't want to help Shmi, then they don't want to help Anakin. It's amazing that ANYONE gets help from the Jedi anymore.

"Weak storytelling with no real reason (or excuse) for such lazyness."

Agreed. As a character, Shmi was completely ignored once Lucas had Anakin leave Tatooine. Good thing Lucas didn't show her face during the final celebration. Woulda put quite a dampener on the whole thing, eh?

 

Excuse me? Where was this argument? Even Yoda didn't think it was a good idea.

More made-up scenarios to protect a bad argument.

Right in AOTC Obi-wan say Anakin should not watch over Padme. Yoda and Mace told him not to worry. Why did they say that? Well because they did not know about Anakin's feelings for Padme.

 

"Weak storytelling with no real reason (or excuse) for such lazyness."

Well, that's not where I was going.

I think it's more about the problem of starting with the point you want to get to, and then trying to write backwards and cover all the bases.

I think most of the films I enjoy can be picked apart for the sake of discussion, but it doesn't ruin my enjoyment of them.

I think Lucas has made a great effort not to give us exactly what we were expecting and I'm enjoying the story he's telling.

I'm also enjoying reading the comments on both sides of the discussion. I think there are some interesting ideas being explored here.

 

"Your argument seems to be that the Jedi don't free Shmi because they don't have a justifiable reason to."

love-slave, that's exactly what I'm saying! You've made it all worth it for me. Now if you'll just take note of this final piece of the equation, you'll have my position perfectly (insofar as I can tell). It is important to have a justifiable reason because there is so much that the Jedi are responsible for. There is too much wrong with the Galaxy to help someone on a whim. There has to be a good reason to put Shmi ahead of all the other people that they have an obligation to help. And unless that's there, they can't do it.

But more than being valuable to them, there are other reasons. Like, for instance, if helping her could do more than improve her individual situation. She is unfortunate though, I'll agree.

"But this reasoning would make Yoda = Not a Jedi, since he saved Obi and Ani rather than take down Dooku."


gez-vader, that's a misapplication of my statement. I was talking in general, terms, as in habitual action. In other words, I was giving the modus operandi of the Jedi. So all the Yoda incident shows in that moment, he chose not to act like a Jedi is expected to. Nothing else. It certainly doesn't destryo my argument.

Now, both you and MeBe seemed to have some comments about my mention of cronyism. My explanation was admittedly confusing, so I'll clarfiy both points in a moment. But for reference, note that I said at the outside I was never talking in terms of legal barriers. I was never even talking in terms of outward perception. I was talking of the Jedi dealing with their own consciences on the basis of their religious tenets. There is sometimes a difference between what is legal and what is right. That is the kind of arugment I was trying to make. I maintain that there was no barrier outside their own minds that kept them from freeing Shmi, and yet that those self-imposed mental barriers are consistent with their characterization throughout the saga.

Clarification of "Owing Shmi": The Jedi have a responsibility to the Galaxy as a whole. They have taken it upon themselves to, inasmuch as they can, help everyone. This is regardless of those peoples creed or worthiness, or what they can do in return. Since the source of the Jedi's good act does not come out of what the people do for them, it can neither be affected by what people do for them.

What Shmi did was undeniably very noble. The Jedi would do well to be grateful. But that doesn't change the fact that in their Galactic obligation, they must address the greatest problems first, and lesser problems later. Unfortunately for Shmi, her plight--terrible as it was--kept coming up in the lesser category. It is a regretable circumstance. But it is the only way to be at all fair given the severely limited resources of the Jedi alongside the relatively unlimited needs of the Galaxy.

Arguably, this also has to do with the separation inherent in modern governmental structure (which the GFFA models). For instance, crimes aren't against people, their against the state. In the same way, Shmi didn't help the Jedi, she helped the state. By the same token, the Jedi aren't to help individuals, they are to help the Galaxy. Now all of this is done via helping individuals, but those individuals never become the focus such that one could "owe" something as is being suggested here.

Clarification of "Why Anakin Doesn't Work:" I never said freeing Shmi would be attachment. My argument is as love_slave summarized. They have to have a good reason to do this. I'm merely setting out to show that freeing Shmi wouldn't help Anakin any. Thus, it wouldn't be a good reason to free her. That's all I'm trying to say. Remember, I'm not trying to say anyone thought it was a bad idea to free Shmi, just that for the Jedi, it was never a particularly good one.

Now, fear does lead to the Dark Side, but that's irrelevant. Attachment is still forbidden either way. And that's what's

 

Jabba-Wocky, all your excuses are diminishing the Jedi, not helping them.

So they didn't lift a finger to return a monumental show of generosity because they're a bunch of high-and-mighty, ineffectual stiff-necks who never leave the house. Of course, once one of their own gets in trouble, they drop everything else and rush to help. Not only that, but that's the one time we ever see the Jedi Order do anything, and they botch it completely.

Sure, the Jedi are supposed to be in decline at this point, but how is any of this supposed to get us on their side? Are we supposed to feel bad when they bungle themselves out of existence?

 

"Now then, that Anakin's worry is exacerbated by her slavery is irrelevant. He shouldn't be worrying in the first place."

So glad to see the positive aspects of slavery. What was she thinking, getting her hopes up that Qui-gon could save them.

 

Again, let me remind you all that I never said that I agreed with or approved of the Jedi's decisions.

But however bad it is, its still workable. That was only ever really my only concern with the thing.

 

gez-vader, that's a misapplication of my statement. I was talking in general, terms, as in habitual action. In other words, I was giving the modus operandi of the Jedi. So all the Yoda incident shows in that moment, he chose not to act like a Jedi is expected to. Nothing else. It certainly doesn't destryo my argument.

You made a long list of ideas which you insisted proved that they never act in relation to 'attachment', and said that this was backed up by the movies. I merely showed that it isn't the case.

I maintain that there was no barrier outside their own minds that kept them from freeing Shmi, and yet that those self-imposed mental barriers are consistent with their characterization throughout the saga.

What mental barriers?
I know they're not supposed to feel hate nor love. But compassion - that is something they're supposed to feel.

Since the source of the Jedi's good act does not come out of what the people do for them, it can neither be affected by what people do for them.

Who says it can't be affected by what people do for them? JJ and Anakin help QGJ and he is obviously grateful for their help and tries to help them in return.

The Jedi would do well to be grateful. But that doesn't change the fact that in their Galactic obligation, they must address the greatest problems first, and lesser problems later.

Size matters not.

There are thousands of Jedi, they don't all work on what is considered the 'greatest problem'.

It is a regretable circumstance. But it is the only way to be at all fair given the severely limited resources of the Jedi alongside the relatively unlimited needs of the Galaxy.

Well it's not as if freeing Shmi would take up 25% of Jedi resources for the next 5 years. It's not a big job. They don't even have to do it themselves, they can just send someone with some money/goods to do it.

By the same token, the Jedi aren't to help individuals, they are to help the Galaxy. Now all of this is done via helping individuals, but those individuals never become the focus such that one could "owe" something as is being suggested here.

Individuals often become the focus. But this isn't the case with Shmi, it's not like the Jedi would have to abandon the galaxy to help Shmi, you're just setting Shmi against the whole galaxy, and it's a bogus argument.

I'm merely setting out to show that freeing Shmi wouldn't help Anakin any.

Well it would help Shmi.

Trying to soothe the feeling of worrying is an acknowledgement of that feeling. Further, it is a type of validation of that feeling.

By that logic you could argue that any help is a validation of the person's problem - if they can't use a lightsabre you mustn't help them because it will validate their inability.
No, it's a balance. Freeing Shmi is not a validation of Anakin's attachment.

On a more direct level, I feel obliged to point out that the burden of proof isn't on me.

Well this isn't a court of law, the 'burden of proof' is on each of us to support our ideas.

Unfortunately, however, my inability to come up with what would be a good reason is not evidence that the movie is illogical.

Well what about Padme? Is the movie logical concerning her inaction on this matter?

g

 

"you're just setting Shmi against the whole galaxy, and it's a bogus argument."

Agreed. By this reasoning, replace "Shmi" with any other character in the galaxy, and you've just "proven" that the Jedi can't help anyone.

 

"You made a long list of ideas which you insisted proved that they never act in relation to 'attachment'"

Therein lies the problem. That wasn't to show that they never do it. Just to show that they are never supposed to do it, and that when they act as Jedi should, its not the right choice. Habitual action, not every specific instance. If not, then my argument would have fallen apart from the get go, since Anakin breaks the Code while obviously still a Jedi. But when you view it as I meant, then it works. Although Anakin still had membership in the Jedi, when he broke the code he wasn't acting as Jedi should. Which is right.

"What mental barriers?"
That was the term I used for morals. That is, its their own consciences and lines of logic that are keeping them from freeing Shmi. Thus, those things are "barriers" to them freeing her. But since they all exist only in the mind, they are "menta" in nature. Thus, "mental barriers." And I would imagine they do feel comapssion, by the way.

"Who says it can't be affected by what people do for them? JJ and Anakin help QGJ and he is obviously grateful for their help and tries to help them in return."

I was speaking in principle. If something doesn't affect the source, it shouldn't affect that thing, either. However, we should note that Qui-Gon was helping Jar-Jar long before he was of any use to anyone. I suspect he would have done the same for Anakin, had the opportunity arose. Or at least in theory, anyway.

"There are thousands of Jedi, they don't all work on what is considered the 'greatest problem'."

First off, the intial Yoda quote was a misapplication. Size of the problem does matter. Do you think it would be wise for the Jedi to not fight in the Clone Wars, thus letting the CIS take over the Galaxy, because all of them decided to help some old lady throw a surprise birthday party for her son? Well alright then.

But as you said, they don't all work on the greatest problem. But at the same time, they do give some kind of priority to the problems that they take on. And I'm just not seeing a reason Shmi would fly up to the top of the list. Because frankly, whether you "owe" someone or not has nothing to do with an objective analysis of how bad or urgent a problem is. It's the same way with doctors. They can't let their father's murderer die of a gunshot wound just to treat their wife's hang-nail. They have to make an objective analysis of who has the most life-threatening situation, then treat people in that order. There's no "owing people" about it.

"Well it would help Shmi."

True, but again, we are in a Galaxy of hundreds of billions. How does her one problem trump all the other "one problems" out there? Isn't unfair to the rest of them that she get special attention when they don't?

"You're just setting Shmi against the whole galaxy, and it's a bogus argument [...]By this reasoning, replace 'Shmi' with any other character in the galaxy, and you've just 'proven' that the Jedi can't help anyone."

Untrue. There are always people that can be helped. For instance, in the TPM, the Jedi helped Padme. That's just one person. But as Queen of Naboo, they helped an entire planet with millions of citizens via their help of that one person.

Also, Jedi are always free to help people coincidentally. If they can take out two birds with one stone, that's even better for fulfilling the mission of the Jedi Order. Thus, it was perfectly good the Qui-Gon helped Anakin and Jar-jar while helping Padme. They did it without deviating from their primary objective, and thus did a good thing. Had they been able to help Shmi then too, it would have been great. However, what I object to is after that "coincidental moment" has passed, going back with helping Shmi as the primary objective.

Another thing to point out is that your right the Jedi aren't likely to help individuals with highly specific problems. However, they might very well help all individuals with one common problem. Like they might help rebuild a city a

 

Therein lies the problem. That wasn't to show that they never do it. Just to show that they are never supposed to do it

Granted - they have a rule which forbids attachment. But it was just the way you presented it as if it were some itemised legal document, the Jedi don't work like that IMO. Yes, they have rules, and these rules can be broken.
But anyway, the no attachment rule doesn't prevent them from freeing Shmi, just because they free her doesn't mean she's going to go and live with Anakin.

"What mental barriers?"
That was the term I used for morals. That is, its their own consciences and lines of logic that are keeping them from freeing Shmi.

But what are those mental barriers?

And I would imagine they do feel comapssion, by the way.

Yeah, that was my point, they have compassion, so where is it for Shmi?

However, what I object to is after that "coincidental moment" has passed, going back with helping Shmi as the primary objective.

Why?
I mean it's not a mission which would require a lot of resources. They wouldn't even have to send a Jedi.

That's really how I see it. The Order is an arm of government. Not so much quixotic heroes as practical bereaucrats.

Maybe. Maybe there is some legalistic knot which prevents them. If there is a reason it just would've been nice to hear it, 'cos as it stands it makes Shmi look like a plot device that Lucas is waiting to use but as a story line he never really figured out.
What I mean is - he wanted her left behind until she was important to the plot again, but he never really thought about the implications of not explaining it.
The implications being that the Jedi and Padme look heartless/inept.

g

 

"There are thousands of Jedi, they don't all work on what is considered the 'greatest problem'."

"First off, the intial Yoda quote was a misapplication. Size of the problem does matter. Do you think it would be wise for the Jedi to not fight in the Clone Wars, thus letting the CIS take over the Galaxy,"

First of all, he stated they don't all work on the greatest problem, not that they would ignore the greatest problem. That's an important distinction.

Secondly, this wasn't a threat at the end of TPM. There was a happy ending, remember? Jedi were standing around the Jedi Temple and Naboo, remember? The CIS was not a constant threat for 10 years,

"True, but again, we are in a Galaxy of hundreds of billions. How does her one problem trump all the other "one problems" out there? Isn't unfair to the rest of them that she get special attention when they don't?"

Once again, saving "one person" is unfair to everyone else. I guess you think there must be a minimum number of lives at stake before the Jedi will give a ****? What number might that be, please?

"Untrue. There are always people that can be helped. For instance, in the TPM, the Jedi helped Padme. That's just one person. But as Queen of Naboo, they helped an entire planet with millions of citizens via their help of that one person"

Did they? The trip to Coruscant was a flop, and she went back to Naboo against their wishes. I seem to recall Anakin being the real hero there.

BTW, nice to see that queens get exemplary protection. Isn't that unfair to regular people?

"No, not really so much. I admit defeat when I see it. And I don't see ny reason why Padme couldn't have. I think you guys are on the money here."

Well, at least we agree on that.

 

"But anyway, the no attachment rule doesn't prevent them from freeing Shmi."

First off, I just presented it in formal logic. That same progression can be made much more naturally and quickly. I just presented it that way since people had expressed concerns that everything I said didn't necessarily follow--I showed how it did.

Second, yes it is a rule. But its more than that, its a religious tenet for them. Further, they are a monastic religious order. Neither of those things bode very well for the "can be broken" part. Not to say that they still aren't, but its almost never a sanctioned thing like Shmi's rescue would be. I wouldn't expect the Jedi to break the no attachment rule anymore than I'd expect a devout Muslim to eat pork.

Thirdly, I never said the no attachment rule would be violated by freeing Shmi. I said it could be violated by freeing Shmi, depending on the Jeid's motivation for doing so. Which, insofar as I have shown, and you haven't objected to, seems to be true (or at least something we agree on).

"But what are those mental barriers?"

Perhaps it was a poor word choice. Allow me to rephrase. The only reason thing keeping them from freeing Shmi is that they don't want to. I avoided saying it this way because it has negative connotations. That is, I don't think they actively want to keep Shmi enslaved. Rather, I think that they keep having more important business to attend to. All my posts come from this angle, so its important that you understand this.

"Yeah, that was my point, they have compassion, so where is it for Shmi?"

You can't always act on your compassion. That would seem to be the case here.

"Why? I mean it's not a mission which would require a lot of resources."

What's at issue is not how much resources it would require. It's whether those resources might be more effectively used elsewhere. That's two completely separate things.

"Maybe there is some legalistic knot which prevents them. If there is a reason it just would've been nice to hear it."[i/]

I didn't mean there was an actual problem. Just that like governments, the Jedi operate on a kind of impersonal level in order to do their job to the best of their ability. As for what "the reason" is, I've been trying in all my posts to explain how the reason is already shown based on the Jedi's characterization throughout the rest of the films.

"He stated they don't all work on the greatest problem, not that they would ignore the greatest problem."

I was being a bit facetious with that example to prove my point. Which was that while they all don't work on the greatest problem, that's only because that would be poor management of resources. They certainly don't sit around and work on their "favorite" problems, or the problems of people who "they owe." They work on the more urgent problems first, less urgent ones later. Shmi is less urgent=Shmi is later. That's all there is to it.

Secondly, that there was a "happy ending" to TPM is irrelevant. Given, that means one major problem was solved. But there are still hundreds of thousands more. Children are being forced to work in sweat-shops on some Rim world. Death stick peddlers are destroying the lives of the youth on Coruscant. Famine is striking on ten different worlds at once. Some crime syndicate just tried to take over a town. Cultural tensions are flaring as an important religious monument of one people was desecrated by their neighbors. A town is turning into a slum because the big factory just shut down, and suddenly all opportunity has dried up. There is a plague of epidemic proportions near Chandrila. All these kinds of problems are still raging at the same time as TPM's "happy ending" and all of them are demanding the Jeid's attention. The way TPM ended is good and satisfying, but ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.

"you think there must be a minimum number of lives at stake before the Jedi will give a ****?"

That's not what I said. Go back to the paragraph about helping many individuals wi

 

"They certainly don't sit around and work on their "favorite" problems, or the problems of people who "they owe." They work on the more urgent problems first, less urgent ones later. Shmi is less urgent=Shmi is later. That's all there is to it."

Only if your first sentence is correct. PPOR.

"Although my ears are open and eyes are peeled for such a justification to come from one of you guys."

Justification to free someone from slavery......<sigh>......if it's come to the point where such is needed, why bother discussing it?

 

I could just point to modern governmental structure again. But for the sake of the discussion, I do have a kind of proof. What I'm proving, per your request, is that Jedi don't choose their assignments by whether they like the assignment or not. Case in point, Obi-wan Kenobi. He accepts direct orders from Palpatine (a politician) to guard Padme (a politician) even while he expresses disgust for politicians during said mission. Therefore, it wasn't a mission that he liked. Yet he took it nonetheless. Since he did this, it is therefore shown that Jedi don't go exclusively on missions that they like.

As to your other point, you have (perhaps unknowingly) side-stepped the issue by making it a discussion about my personal beliefs. I'll clear proceed to clear up both those, and the point I was trying to make. First off, let me say that I've never approved of slavery. What's more, I've never made any suggestion on these boards that slavery was a good institution. To anyone that doesn't know, I find slavery abhorrent, totally object to slavery, and am in real life a descendant of slaves. I don't endorse it any context, fictional or real.

Now, then, in order to put my statement back in context, I will quote the sentence that preceeded it: "But as it were, that's not possible, so helping just her in favor of just one of the other slaves hasn't really been shown to be justifiable yet (emphasis mine, but so was the quote)." Now, the grammar is admittedly a bit sticky there, so let me rephrase.

Given that only one (or at most a handful) of slaves can be freed, why is she more worthy of being freed than the hundreds of other slaves? That's the justification I'd like to see.

I've never really asked for anything more. The problems the Jedi have committed themselves to handling are innumerable. Why does Shmi merit attention over all the rest of those problems? For their organization to run efficiently, for any sort of resource management, there has to be a good answer to this question. As I've said before, it has nothing to do with how easy it would be for them to do it. It has to be a thing worth doing regardless (Ex. it is quite easy to leave your shoes untied, why don't you do that? It is easy enough to get drunk, why isn't everyone an alcoholic? et cetera).