Moral Code of the Jedi

Do the Jedi have a moral code? Ethics?

Obviously they would be against murder or theft (anything that leads to gain or materialism, especially since they seem to be above possessing much beyond necessity...food, clothing, and lightsaber).

But what else do they believe in? If you delve beyond the six films, then please make note of that since I'm strictly about the movies.


I used to guess that the Jedi were supposed to be like Superman and fight crime, but I don't believe that anymore. The Jedi only seem to be concerned with anything that would upset the balance of the force and would ignore other concerns (unless the Republic asked for help on a matter).

 

Well, there is the Jedi Code. They have the version from KOTOR which is like a manra and the one from the New Order.

Mantra like code and most common one:

There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.
?The Jedi Code (Based on the meditations of Odan-Urr)

Then the version Luke wrote for the New Order.

Jedi are the guardians of peace in the galaxy.
Jedi use their powers to defend and to protect.
Jedi respect all life, in any form.
Jedi serve others rather than ruling over them, for the good of the galaxy.
Jedi seek to improve themselves through knowledge and training.



I hope this helps.

 

Master 1511 certainly lays the groundwork. I think the jedi have ethics, but they vary from jedi to jedi. Obi wan would be very consequentialist morally and when it comes to metaphysics i think he would be very subjectivist. he believes that truth is all about a "point of view" and is constantly bending what he believes to be right relative to the situation he finds himself in. Such as in ANH when he uses the mind trick, he did it cause the situation called for it, not as a matter of justice. he wasn't brainwashing the stormtroopers cause they are evil, he was brainwashing them so he could reach his goal. similarly in AOTC when he uses the mindtrick on the drug dealer, this might be the perfect moment to sum up his take on morality.

This drug dealer has done nothing to harm obi wan or anyone else as far as we can tell. Based on the evidence in the movie, this is a perfectly peaceful guy just trying to make some honest money. and yet, obi wan uses the mind trick. it's all about the utility of that action. Obi clearly sees drug dealing as not the most virtuous behavior, and believes on humanitarian grounds that this guy, and those around him, would probably be better off if he quit dealing drugs. so he uses the mind trick. relative to that situation, Obi deemed that the moral action as it would lead to the best consequences.

I think most of the jedi we see are on a similar moral relativist trip. They are all about the greater cosmic, unifying force. their outlook is heavily based in metaphysical determinism. The universe is like one giant being with a bunch of moving parts and the jedi counsel is trying to best see how to keep that machine on tract so it can run as efficiently as possible. while politically speaking they are very libertarian since they only act defensively, i wouldn't say justice or rights are high up there on their list of moral priorities. slavery exists, they know it, but they won't interfere. to them it's all part of a giant equation in need of solving.

On the other side would be Qui-Gon Jinn. being attuned to the living force, his ethics are very different. whereas most other jedi would be consequentialist, Jinn is without a doubt deontological. This means that he believes certain actions or types of actions are right or wrong within themselves and it is our moral duty to do what is right. I would venture to say that he's pretty close to being a moral absolutist. he's definitely extremely individualistic. He cares about jar jar when no one else does. why? cause he is a living, sentient being and therefore has rights. so while obi is concerned about the greater good of fulfilling their mission, Jinn is concerned about the rights of the gungan. whereas obi's morals are kinda loose, Jinn's are fixed and absolute. consequences be damned, he won't sit by and let an injustice happen.

Sadly, Jinn;s greatest weakness might be that he was not extreme enough. because he wishes to be a jedi there are certain limitations to what he can and can't do. he understands this though, and as a clear believer in contractual order, he sticks to his guns. a subtle but key difference between Jinn and Obi would be the mind trick qui gon plays on watto. this guy is slave owning scum. Jinn is gonna steal an engine from him. why? because he's a slave master. by taking away his slave's rights, he has forfeited his own. beyond that, justice would demand he be punished and forced to restitute his victims. you can see it in qui-gon's eyes. whereas obi wan is cooly detached every time he uses the trick, you can feel the righteous anger in qui-gon's gaze. he's annoyed that he can't steal from watto. he feels a sense of satisfaction in cheating watto out of a slave. you can here the smile when he asks watto, "well should we contact the hutts?"

Probably the greatest representation of this morally absolutist jedi would be Luke come ROTJ. what does he do when he appears on screen? start killing bad guys. that entire opening is one giant retribution, fittingly doing what Gui-Gon should have done, cleaned house on Tatooine. He chockes

 

Yes, you both answered the question. Great responses. I was mostly just aiming to generate discussion, but you guys really laid it out well.

Yeah, I used to have a view of Jedi as more of your archetypical good guys/police force from seeing Luke going all out to defeat Jabba and the Empire and restore peace in ROTJ. Then I saw the PT and felt that the Jedi weren't nearly as active as I thought they should be. So that (and other issues encountered in other threads) led to the question. Thanks again. I won't attempt to build upon what's here already.

 

Great point Wolvo, before I answer your questions though, there's a few more points I wanted to highlight that I glossed over last time: the role of teleology, and the role of attachment in Star Wars

Teleology is a large part of deterministic philosophy. Being teleological basically means believing that existence is a closed system with a definite end. In other words, the galaxy is just one giant organism, one giant machine, and this machine is working towards a point. This would be the style of determinism that guides the more utilitarian Jedi. In fact, teleology is often used as a synonym for utilitarianism. I mentioned last time how these consequentialist styled Jedi views the universe as one giant equation, that would be a teleological view. the end in sight of coarse would be reaching balance in the force.

Here however is where the major difference exists between the more leftist/objectivist and the more right wing/subjectivist Jedi. This schism is essentially over their views on teleology. Strictly speaking, a teleologist simply believes that their is a "final cause," or telos inherent in nature/the galaxy (Aristotle believed there were only four types of causes, with Telos being the fourth and final type). It is how far one takes this line of thought that largely differentiates Qui-Gon and luke from obi wan and yoda.

Qui-Gon clearly believes there is a purpose or end goal to reality, which would be balancing the force. Teleology basically comes down to believing there is some kind of intentional design to nature, that everything serves a purpose. Read narrowly, this coincides with Qui-Gon's absolutist natural law: that every entity has a unique nature. of crucial analysis here is the concept of the chosen one. He believes that due to the nature of existence in the star wars galaxy, such a chosen one must exist, and upon finding him, does everything in his power to fulfill his nature in balancing the force. This can be seen as an extension of his ethical egoist beliefs

To sum up, Ethical Egoism is based on the subjective theory of value. The STV is the concept that every individual has their own unique values (some believe this is because G-D made us this way, others believe that as a random fact of nature we have our unique value preferences, it doesn't really matter how you see it) and at the basis of this is the belief that every individual has it's own nature. Happiness is merely the fulfillment of this nature. So when an egoist speaks of acting in your own self interest, they don't mean acting like a selfish ass, tellingly most selfish asses out there are miserable shells of being (anakin being a perfect example). They mean acting in your long term self interest, towards self actualization. In basic terms, if you find yourself really enjoying carpentry and having a natural affinity towards it, you should pursue these creative impulses as it will lead to deep fulfillment and happiness as you are acting in your nature. For some this means making art, for some it means experimenting with drugs, others it means having sex with those of the same gender, for anakin it means balancing he force.

It's fitting that the further he gets away form this goal, the more miserable anakin becomes. It is only after embracing his "destiny" and killing palpatine that he finds inner AND THEREFORE outer peace, for the galaxy, as well. So in this sense, the qui-gon/luke style jedi is somewhat teleological. Due to the nature of reality, and anakin in particular, they see this as a goal worth pursuing. There is a major difference with the obi wan/yoda mold of jedi however; their beliefs are an all consuming belief in teleology whereas qui gon/Luke believe in teleology to the extent that it is correct based off the objective facts of reality surrounding them.

Obi wan and Yoda's concept of teleology is more all consuming however. They believe that everything has a unique purpose, or destiny. The major difference however, is the amount of determinism they bring in to their ideology. Whereas Qui-Gon believes in teleology to an extent

 

and one more thing about the jar jar interaction, everything with qui-gon is about the truth. His beliefs are based in the fact that truth exists and it is his duty to do what's honest. sentient beings are individuals, not merely cogs in a collective, so he treats them as such. so in a brutally honest way, he's kind of summing up Jar Jar as an autonomous being. Poor Jar Jar is not very smart, he's kind of a dumb ass. ethically, natural law absolutism is all about the truth, and that is what Qui-Gon brings to the table in this exchange. It might come off as kind of mean, certainly rude, but as the saying goes, the truth hurts. Caring about other peoples feelings or societal customs such as etiquette has no moral standing in natural law. These concepts do not objectively exist, they were made up by people, therefore Qui-Gon has no qualms about sounding like an ******* when he uncompromisingly points out that jar Jar is stupid.

 

Based on your analysis, I find myself liking Qui-Gon more and more. I have always liked Luke for his moral beliefs, but Obi-Wan's relativistic view bothered me on a deeper level, despite my personally liking his style.

Like you, I have been enjoying Star Wars for a long time, so being so close to it makes it hard to analyze objectively. I think my biggest issue with the PT is that it paints the Jedi as being moral agents but gives them no moral backbone. It is like Lucas decided to be more of a relativist in the PT than taking the moral absolutes presented in the OT. Vader is bad, but he chose to be so. Luke goes back and forth, but chooses to be good. The fact that they are both Jedi shows that while Jedi are powerful and start with a moral code, their lives are still their own, to choose one path or the other.

 

There are several things in the PT that makes the moral code the jedi seem odd to me.

1) Taking children at birth. While the movies never say exactly how this done either a potential jedi baby is simply takne by the jedi or the parents have to give their ok.
Either way the child in question is never given a choice, they are simpy taken away and raised to become jedi and they live their whole life within the order. Sure they might have the option to leave but really how easy would that be? To turn your back on everyone and everything you have known in your whole life? And can you go back to your parents, you have memory of them and might not even know who they are. Excpet Anakin, none of the jedi in the PT ever made choice to become a jedi, they were just told to be that.

2) The jedi's inaction with Shmi. Qui-Gon tried to free Shmi but was not able to at the time and later he was dead. Young Anakin must have asked Obi-Wan if they could help his mother and Obi-Wan must have refused him. Why? Shmi is a slave and she also is a person who helped the jedi when they needed it. And the jedi are aware that Anakin is worried about her. So free her, one less person suffering as a slave, the jedi settle their debt to Shmi and they put Anakins mind at ease. No downside as far as I can see.

3) Using a slave army. Nevermind about the MANY iffy things about the clone army, doesn't any of the jedi think about the fact that they are using a whole army of slaves? That they are ordering living beings that have no free will into death.

4) Obi-Wans actions on Mustafar, he has cut of Anakins arm and both legs and he just leaves Anakin to burn to death. That is a very horrible way to die and very cruel on Obi-Wans part. If he cared one bit about Anakin he should have put an end to his misery.
Even if he did not, why should he WANT Anakin or anyone to suffer horribly before dying.
I've had this discussion before and some have said that a jedi must not kill one who can not defend themselves. But what about putting and end to suffering, would it be against the jedi code to give a dying enemy a quick death instead of a long painfull one?

Regards
Nordom

 

There isn't so much an issue with the latter part of the scenario you propose. If the parents get a say, its no big deal for me. I doubt they are taken without permission. I imagine its a privelege and an honour to have a child given up to serve in the Jedi Order. We cant compare it so easily to how we'd react - its a fantasy, almost fairytale world. You might think it odd one could so easily give up their child. But the usual rules need not apply. Morally, in the GFFA, it might be deemed completely selfish and improper to keep such a promising child for yourself when it could better serve the galaxy in the Jedi Order. It could be put down to "the will of the force", thus meaning any parent unwilling would be accused of being in breach of such a thing... a bit like being against "God's will". I'm not saying it would be considered a sin, but y'know, there are similarities. If you're taught from birth that giving up a child under such circumstances is the done thing, you would probably accept it as your duty. Of course the child gets no say. But the child gets no say in its parents either. If they were being given to slavery or something I might see it as immoral. But in essence they are being given a privelege and/or being given up to practice/study/do the things they were born to.

Well he does say he "loved" him... past tense. I think Obi-Wan sees him as a very different person by then. The person before him is, by all accounts, very different from the person he loved. The person before him has just declared hatred. Perhaps he feels Anakin deserves to suffer, however hard it is for him to see that happen. Even if thats not the case, to strike a killing blow is a hard thing to do. Obi-Wan leaves Anakin's fate in the balance. If he is to die, he will die. If the force deems his fate to be something different, Obi-Wan must trust that. In the end, his decision proves justified. Had he killed Anakin right there and then, there's a case to be made that The Sith would have stayed in control for even longer than they eventually did.

 

In the novel, this is how the situation is painted. However, I tend to agree with Nordom in that it seems to be a fairly amoral reaction. However, Obi-Wan's own description of Vader in ROTJ as being "twisted and evil" shows that he resigned to the fact that Anakin is lost.

 

Considering the above points, who would you say was the most moral of the PT Jedi?

 

There's not many to choose from, since very few have substantial roles.

The list is basically: Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Anakin, Yoda and Mace.

Anakin is obviously the least moral by a large margin imo.

Obi-Wan, Yoda and Mace are very hard to decide between for "most moral". Any separation would be infinitesimal.

I would definitely put Qui-Gon behind them.

Soooo, in terms of "most moral":

Obi-Wan/Yoda/Mace
Qui-Gon
Anakin miles behind