main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

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

Discussion in 'Literature' started by Ghost, Jan 31, 2022.

?

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

  1. Pacifism

    25.7%
  2. “Justified” use of violence/force

    74.3%
  1. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Who says pacifists can only stand by and watch?
     
    Irredeemable Fanboy likes this.
  2. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    They can’t stop anything if the other person doesn’t listen to their pleas. They have to let it happen. They can only deal with the fall out of violence.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2022
    Vialco and AusStig like this.
  3. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    No (though wouldn’t it also be true in this interpretation that police figures usually only deal with the fallout of violence?)

    They can block violence from happening, using other things or themselves, creating barriers or shielding others. They can distract. They can find other ways to delay. They can disarm or or the rise neutralize their weapons. They can try to de-escalate and defuse. Proactively, they can educate. Reactively, they can heal. They can act as diplomats. Just being a good role-model can do a lot of wonders too that ripple out, and not everyone is a Sith, most are bullies who just need to be reminded of the humanity of others.
     
    Irredeemable Fanboy likes this.
  4. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Blocking, disarming and defending often requires violence. How are you going to disarm someone without some form of violence? Even forcing a weapon from someone’s had requires violence, and we’re back at the scary ‘where’s the line.’ You’re essentially left with shielding (although make sure it doesn’t deflect back at the attacker I guess). This preoccupation with not proactively acting to stop the attacker could get more innocent people killed who didn’t need to be killed, and in a world where there are many violent people, you’re effectively deferring this ‘dirty’ job for others to do. No philosophy should be reliant upon others to do what you yourself won’t do. Heck, Jedi wouldn’t even be able to capture or arrest someone in this scenario.

    Pacifism has its role, in certain contexts, but only when trying to awaken others to injustice. The Jedi aren’t however protesting against an unjust government, they are seeking to protect people from the violence of other people.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2022
    Gerak, Vialco and AusStig like this.
  5. AusStig

    AusStig Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 3, 2010
    I am responding to the parts of your post that is responding to me. You said they could heal both sides, so I asked how that would work in a massacre. Which is a real issue. How do you stop a massacre of innocents?

    How do you stop people who don't share your morals? Moral examples don't work on people who don't share them.

    Do you think moral example would stop the empire?

    spoiler alert it ended with the pacifists dead

    https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Caamas_Firestorm

    Are we not talking about Jedi?

    You seem to think that ANY violence will immediately result in genocide.

    Ok this is just flat out wrong. Most bullies are @$$holes who do stuff because no one will stop them and they won't suffer any consequences, unless the Jedi have some power to stop them then they can't.

    Is mind affecting people more moral than violence?
     
  6. Irredeemable Fanboy

    Irredeemable Fanboy Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 27, 2020
    Keep in mind that this is what they should strive closer to, not what they should be, the Jedi physically can't be absolute pacifists in the sense many people are implying (not active, just sitting by and doing nothing not to "get their hands dirty") because of their commitments, but they should strive for it, they should be, philosophically, pacifists, even when they are forced to use force, they should always look for another way, even if it is harder, it is ultimately better.

    On the other hand, they should never strive to justify violence, it's diametrically opposed to what the Jedi are all about.
     
    Ghost likes this.
  7. Vialco

    Vialco Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 6, 2007
    I’ve resisted getting involved in this debate several times in the past week. But having seen the latest thoughts voiced, I wanted to add this remark.

    The very first time we saw a Jedi use his lightsaber on-screen, it was to brutally dismember a thug who was harassing his Padawan in a bar.

    [​IMG]

    It should be noted that the Jedi in question only resorted to violence after his peaceful attempt to dissolve the conflict failed and the thugs proceeded to attack. But once peaceful resolution was no longer an option, the Jedi did not hesitate to use his weapon to violently end the conflict.

    I think this is a perfect example of how Jedi should use violence. It should never be the first resort, but it should always be an option for them to use, albeit judiciously and always using restraint. I believe violence and battle are vital tools in a Jedi’s arsenal, just as vital at negotiation and peaceful discussion. The latter should always be used first and the former should only be used when absolutely necessary and then only the in exact amount required. No more, no less.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2022
  8. Sarge

    Sarge Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Oct 4, 1998
    I can respect a person who is willing to die for his beliefs. I can't respect a person who is willing to let others die for his beliefs.
     
  9. ColeFardreamer

    ColeFardreamer Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Obi Wan should just have used a blaster on stun to dissolve the situation and Ponda Baba. Come on... dismemberment? Was not necessary at all. The lightsaber may be a more stylish weapon, but more civilized? hardly.

    Jedi have an entire arsenal to diffuse a situation.
    -Mindtrick
    -put opponent into a sleep/coma via the Force pressuring certain points of the body or peacefully taking them unconscious
    -Stun weapons like blasters
    -diplomacy
    -absorb energy and become the shield to innocents themselves
    -absorb a lightsaber blade (rare power but it existed) like with lightning which Yoda showed he knew)
    -etc. etc.

    They also can pull people out of harms way with the force, or push. They can if adept at it, freeze people in midmovement or freeze blaster shots as Kylo Ren did (though only if trained in that).

    And yet, they wield their lightstick to dismember most often! Ouch!

    there is no reasonably justifying that ever!

    Heck Kenobi could pull the blaster of Ponda Baba from his holster or hand, he could make him shoot in his own foot.. he could make him topple or fall down and drop the weapon.

    Yet he chose to dismember.

    Obi Wan did not do that to defuse the situation, or stop him. Much less was neccessary for that. He did that so that the entire bar was aware to not try anything likewise. He showed off and let Ponda Baba take the pain for it.

    In general, I never got why fans like kenobi? Sure great actors, but ANH Kenobi is a nasty one. He manipulates Luke, he knows what will go down at the Lars homestead and keeps him away not trying to save his aunt and uncle so he would leave with him. He shows off in the bar, knowing it would force stormtroopers to investigate a jedi sighting and hence force Luke to flee with him.
     
    Irredeemable Fanboy likes this.
  10. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    This seems like a massive stretch.
     
    RK_Striker_JK_5, AusStig and Sarge like this.
  11. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    I said healers and diplomats to end the fighting, and you respond with a strawman about how I'm saying they need to help each side and keep the conflict going.

    I literally just said these can be nonviolent methods:
    "They can block violence from happening, using other things or themselves, creating barriers or shielding others. They can distract. They can find other ways to delay. They can disarm or or the rise neutralize their weapons. They can try to de-escalate and defuse. Proactively, they can educate. Reactively, they can heal. They can act as diplomats. Just being a good role-model can do a lot of wonders too that ripple out, and not everyone is a Sith, most are bullies who just need to be reminded of the humanity of others."

    And saying that doesn't count because "even forcing a weapon from someone’s had requires violence" is just silly. We're talking about the Jedi.

    Don't argue against something I'm not arguing for.

    And you also again try to change the topic to delegating the "dirty job" to others, which I said before wasn't the argument.

    Also, why shouldn't the Jedi protest against unjust governments or policies?
     
  12. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Again, you’re talking about ideal situations. In some situations you need to directly stop the attacker, and that requires force against the attacker. The whole “attackers just need to be reminded of humanity” is a fantastical platitude which isn’t how every situation is going to work, by far.

    Im sorry, but I think the comment about others requiring force to actually keep things from falling apart is relevant. A state requires some type of force. The Jedi would be relying upon others to do the things that they would have renounced in order to keep peace and justice.

    I didn’t say the Jedi shouldn’t protest against those things, but that is not what their only task is, so pacifism clearly isn’t a useful tool for them.
     
    AusStig likes this.
  13. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    It doesn't have to require force. Again: "They can block violence from happening, using other things or themselves, creating barriers or shielding others. They can distract. They can find other ways to delay. They can disarm or neutralize their weapons. They can try to de-escalate and defuse. Proactively, they can educate. Reactively, they can heal. They can act as diplomats."

    Also, who says the Jedi should necessarily support a state?
     
  14. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Sometimes the best thing is to disarm someone with the weapon. This requires violence, and sometimes risks the life of the attacker. You’re acting like the Jedi are Supermen who can slow time and do things to perfect precision.

    They may not serve the state, but they require a state to exist like anyone else, to their own benefit and for society’s.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2022
    Vialco and AusStig like this.
  15. AusStig

    AusStig Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 3, 2010
    No YOU said that. You said they can be healing all sides. I responded to that, by saying it would just help both sides keep fighting, which it likely would. Not everyone shares your values. The Red Cross and the Catholic Church helped both sides in ww1 and the CC made efforts to negotiate an end to it, but neither side wanted to end the war. An advisor is only as powerful as they are listened to and if no one listens to your Jedi they have no power.

    SOME Jedi do act like you say but not all.
     
  16. Darth Invictus

    Darth Invictus Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Part of the Jedi's general mandate through the ages has been to act in accordance with galactic governments and preserve stability and peace. As governments primary function is the defense of territory and maintenance of order, this inevitably requires violence in some capacity. For this purpose, Jedi have been soldiers, peace keepers, and even act in more specialized violent roles-spies, assassins, generals, and so on.

    If you want a truly pacifist Jedi order, then you need to disconnect them from galactic politics entirely, which doesn't necessarily go well either, because then if war breaks out-the Jedi are arguably negligent in not being involved.
     
    Sarge likes this.
  17. Gerak

    Gerak Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 23, 2019
    With Jedi mindtricks or Force persuasion? If so, how is that not violence? Is psychically dominating someone's mind and altering their perception of reality or otherwise altering their mind not violence?
    And what if that education and healing brings more suffering and death later down the road? What if the path to longterm peace means bringing violence to a head in the present? Would a Jedi not be duty-bound to consider all options, even those that include violence, if they believe it is a necessary path to harmony for the greater good?
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2022
  18. Ackbar's Fishsticks

    Ackbar's Fishsticks Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2013
    I did think The Phantom Menace was an interesting demonstration of where they do and don't draw the line. Apparently, applying a Jedi mind trick to Watto was considered kosher, but robbing him at lightsaberpoint wasn't.
     
    AusStig likes this.
  19. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Well that’s what I’ve been arguing here since around 2005, but that’s it’s own thread (which I’ve already made in other forums).


    First paragraph - I’m not talking mind control, I’m talking being a diplomat and negotiator.

    Second paragraph - that’s a “the road to hell is paved with good intentions / for the greater good” Caedus argument.
     
  20. Jedi Knight Fett

    Jedi Knight Fett Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2014
    If you want to be peacekeepers sometimes you gotta kill people. that's a last resort though. If someone gives you no choice that justified violence.
     
    Gerak likes this.
  21. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    That assumes they should be peacekeepers, though that’s also more for another thread.

    What I’ve been arguing is, for the people saying Jedi should embrace violence and force, that the line has to be clearer than “last resort” or given “no choice” because that’s a very slippery slope.
     
    Vialco likes this.
  22. Jedi Knight Fett

    Jedi Knight Fett Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2014
    They shouldn't be pure pacifists. that's more my point. Use the force to make sure the innocent are not harmed
     
    Sarge and AusStig like this.
  23. AusStig

    AusStig Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Why not make one here?

    I think a good argument could be made for the Jedi to shut themselves off from the galaxy as much as they can.
     
  24. Sarge

    Sarge Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Oct 4, 1998
    Every situation is different, just as every person is different. There is no one single clear-cut line that applies all the time in every situation. It's up to each individual to apply his best judgment to whatever problem is facing him. Trying to come up with a set of rules that have to be followed will only lead to legalism and rules-lawyering as people try to find loopholes to take advantage of irrelevant details.

    IMO, the Jedi should train their own to have a strong sense of justice and fair play, and let the ones on the scene make the call. Will that be a perfect system? Of course not. But I believe it's still less open to abuse than any other option.
     
    Vialco likes this.
  25. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    I have made about a dozen threads on it in the last 20 years here, and I was planning to make another again.

    You can discuss here for now:
    https://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-future-of-the-force-force-users-post-tros.50048819/

    Using the force "to make sure the innocent aren't harmed" is a very slippery slope. You need a clearer line if you're to convince me that Jedi should embrace violence and force.

    How is that less open to abuse? There need to be at least some moral ironclad lines that shouldn't be crossed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2022