Lit Pacifism versus “Justified” Violence - which should the Jedi strive closer to?

Pacifism versus “Justified” Violence - which should the Jedi strive closer to?

The Jedi are meant to be keepers of the peace, not soldiers… and their involvement in the Clone Wars is seen as a mistake.

But should they be the ideal, total pacifists?

Luke is the ideal Jedi when he throws away his lightsaber, accepting he’d rather die and doom the Rebel Alliance rather than strike at Darth Vader or Emperor Palpatine. By chance there was a good outcome. But it was also a good outcome because Vader used violence to kill Palpatne.

Luke is again the ideal Jedi in his last stand on the planet Crait - evasion and distraction, not striking back. Allowing others to live and escape harm, without harming anyone. But could everyone afford to respond to the First Order this way?

Should all members of the Republic/Rebellion/Resistance have acted only in pacifism?

What’s the line?

What should be the ideal role of the Jedi, when it comes to pacifism versus “justified” use of violence/force?

 

My line of thought is the Jedi ideal is violence is a tragedy, even when necessary. If a jedi has to draw their lightsaber, there has been a failure, somewhere and sometime. Ideally they never want to do so, and no Jedi should relish having to kill people, but to be a jedi requires a willingness to use force to protect the innocent, defeat evil, and defend the republic.

 

I feel the Jedi should strive closer to pacifism, because justifying violence is always a slippery slope, many Jedi have slipped and used violence in excess, ending up falling to the Dark Side, that said, realistically it can't always be the case, but there's a big difference if you are justifying one type of violence, like using your lightsaber to disarm an opponent to defuse a dangerous situation, than if you're justifying another type of violence, like killing a large group of people because it's "safer" for the galaxy, Jedi should try to never justify the latter.

 

The Jedi would try to solve somehting peacefully...but when forced they would go what needs to be done.

 

Given how much of the Jedi ethos is about serving and protecting others, it's hard to imagine that not getting violent from time to time, even if it's a last resort.

Luke's approach to Jabba in Return of the Jedi is probably a case in point: give the guy every chance to do the right thing, but when he doesn't...

 

Well, a passive Jedi isn't really much good to anyone. On the other hand, Jedi tend to be a little overzealous when it comes to "disarming" you...

 

I think the Jedi should strive toward pacifism indeed. Ghandi spoke and showed a lot of how pacifism works and even if initial pains and sacrifices may happen to the pacifist group, ultimately, pacifism always wins whereas violence begets more violence.

If a Jedi dismember to disarm an opponent or kill someone, what if he had innocent family that will seek revenge? The cycle of violence never is a good choice and only speaks of a lack of patience. Bringing about a quick solution that seems easier initially but has a longer tail of baggage and begets only more violence should never be an option.

To convince the enemy to stand down, or to use other means without fighting like Luke showed repeatedly since ROTJ are the better way, even if it means suffering till the time is right that pacifism wins out, the win will be longer termed than any victory through violence that is usually shortlived.

Whenever Jedi used violence, it ended bad, even if not shortterm, mid or longterm it always backfired. That is the path of the Dark Side. As Yoda said in TESB, "What is in there? - Only what you take with you!" so if you bring violence for whatever the reason, that is what you get and nurture!

 

Starting a fight is seldom a good move, but ending one is. That goes x1000 for a war.

The principle of proportionate force applies to Jedi: use just enough force to resolve the situation, and no more. Ideally, use none at all.

 

In my opinion violence should always be the last option, and only be used once all other options are exsausted, and only for as long as nessescary. Once an enemy is subdued or gives up further use of violence is morally wrong.

What Jaina did to Jacen in their final fight, killing him when he tried to leave, begged to end the fight, that was flat out murder and not how a Jedi should act. In fact I find the whole "Sword of the Jedi" title a contradiction in and of itself.

 

I would say this matter becomes confused during times of war, especially if the Jedi are fighting for the galactic government in question. How do the Jedi reconcile not killing when fighting Quarren militia in the clone wars, or the Yuuzhan Vong, or imperials during the Sith imperial war?

The only reconciliation is violence to defend the (ideally good and just) government is necessary during such times.

So I wouldn’t say the Jedi should be pacifistic, as doing so would be not intervening when their intervention could make things better.

 

I feel like Kyp Durron in the NJO mostly gets it right, while pacifist Jacen gets it wrong. Meanwhile, dark side LOTF Jacen is also wrong because he's eager to use force and violence, and constantly provokes confrontations to the point where violence happens.

As for Luke in the throne room...I dunno. I can't think of any clear-cut answer as to why Luke striking down Palpatine would be a dark side act, whereas Revan doing the same to Malak isn't. Maybe it's an inconsistency we just have to live with.

 

Jacen became a pacifist more due to his own spiritual and philosophical crises than any notion that the Jedi shouldn’t be warriors on principle.

Kyp’s problem on the other hand was going after criminals without sanction as a vigilante because he felt he had to atone for his own crimes.

Are some Jedi more suited to a life of meditation, study and non violent solutions? Yes, absolutely. Fey being a major one off the top of my head. At the same time, the Jedi are warriors-not just warrior monks. If used properly, they can be whirlwinds of destruction in battle, and nigh insurmountable for non force users. And this can be used to achieve an incalculable amount of good.

More complex questions might be “is it right for Jedi to always serve as soldiers or commandos at the behest of the galactic government?”

“Do Jedi owe their enemies even during times of war, any more mercy or regard than non Jedi do?”

“If a Jedi wishes to join the military and serve under uniform, can they do this while still remaining a jedi?”

“if a Jedi for whatever reason does not wish to participate in a conflict or violence in general, should they be accommodated? And if so, to what extent?”

There are a lot of interesting questions you can ask, when it comes to exploring the Jedi’s relationship with violence, that are more interesting than the “unconsidered violence vs strict pacifism” dichotomy.

 

I think the Jedi favoring Mon Cala over Quarren, Huuk over Kalesh and Wookiees over Trandosians show a certain hypocrisy within the order. They should not nessesary have a side unless its a struggle for dear survival, as it was against the Vong or the Empire. Jedi shouldn´t belong to a goverment.

 

Well see that's the problem, the Jedi ideally serve a government that promotes peace and justice, thing is governments aren't perfect. Sometimes they act out of malice, other times stupidity or ignorance, and sometimes just simple favoritism or bias. So that means Jedi enact the policies of flawed governments. And as your examples show doesn't always end well.

 

If you refuse to ever use violence then you are at the mercy of those who will. In a world where some will use violence then all must be willing to use it lest they are enslaved or killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide

 

Another pertinent point. Pacifism is untenable in any universe where it is not universally adhered too.

 

Well even the Empire did claim to promote "Peace and Justice". All goverments do that, because that is the basis of a goverment.

Well I did say you can and should use it in self defense or to save others from an immediate thread.

 

How are we defining "violence" here? Killing/maiming, or a fisticuff that ends in some physical bruising but no death?

I ask because Zayne Carrick always refused to kill. He beat people up, sure, but he never killed. He got a lot of flack about it too, even from other Jedi. That he was weak, that he wasn't doing enough. Yet at the end of the day, he always delivered.

I always thought he was the best Jedi.

 

I think the Jedi made that decision a LONGGGGGG time ago with the fact they're "knights."

The Jedi exist to be champions of peace.

They use violence as a last resort and only to the purpose of ending violence.

 

To quote Joshua Graham, "I don't enjoy killing, but when done righteously, it's a chore like any other. And practiced hands make for quick labor."
I have similar thoughts on the pacifism / violence debate. There should be a difference between killing for bloodlust our out of revenge versus taking out a threat.

 

I’m defining it as killing, mostly in a war/conflict context. Non lethal violence is something Jedi do have force abilities to enact successfully, though not all of them do.

 

I'm a pacifist in real life but the Jedi Order is explicitly a religious martial one.

Mind you, I didn't know it was monastic before the Prequels but we know now.

I admit, I always wanted to meet Jedi who were Jedi but not Jedi Knights not because they weren't capable but because they were Force Users who didn't train as warriors.

 

Also something to consider is that Jedi are interventionists. They (often) go out and get involved in other fights.

So how would that factor in? Is it still self-defence if you step in?

 

I mean, this is a series explicitly inspired by World War 2.

Star Wars doesn't quibble over the definition of protecting yourself versus protecting others. It is an implicit good to protect another person from violence.

George R.R. Martin has it questioned whether it was right for Daenerys to intervene and free all the slaves during her conquest of the West. George Lucas' world would go, "Yeah, because slavery is vile."

It's a sign the Jedi are screwed up that they have fallen prey to the former thinking.

 

The jedi are also philosophers, asking such questions is kind of part of being a Jedi. Jedi aren't supposed to be thoughtless drones. They're supposed to constantly contemplate, think, and meditate on what is right, what is good, and what is best.