The Sith and Morality

"What drove me to make these movies is that this is a really interesting story about how people go bad. In this particular case, the premise is: Nobody thinks they're bad. They simply have different points of view."-- George Lucas

Examining the above Lucas quote can give us some insight into the minds of the villains of the Star Wars saga, especially the Sith. In the quote, Lucas calls attention to a point that both Palpatine and Anakin addressed in Episode III: the notion that no one considers himself evil. Individuals who are labeled by society as "evil" simply have different ideas about morality than most people do. No matter what an "evil" person may do, he has some kind of a justification for his actions.

How does all of this relate to the Sith's views on morality? What exactly are those views? Does anyone have any ideas on how the Sith's concept of right and wrong functions?

Do the Sith normally subscribe to common standards of morality, but simply allow exceptions to those standards whenever the Sith believe that such exceptions are necessary for the pursuit of power? For example, do you think that the Sith would disapprove of murder under ordinary circumstances, but approve of the deed if it is necessary to maintain control over the galaxy or to obtain vengeance? If that is the case, then how would such standards apply to people who aren't Sith lords? According to the Sith's standards, would ordinary people have the right to commit murder if they feel that such an action would protect whatever power they have or bring about some type of personal vindication?

If non-Siths wouldn't have that right, then is the Sith's sense of morality simply predicated on a sense of superiority and entitlement? In other words, due to the Sith's belief that they are superior (due to their special powers) to everyone else, perhaps they believe that they are not obligated to observe the same moral restraints that common people are obligated to follow. Such a view sounds similar to social Darwinism. The Sith believe that because of their powers (which should make them more effective than anyone else at survival), they have more natural entitlement to survival than everyone else. Thus, the Sith can do as they please and disregard common moral standards. Because they have more of a right to live than everyone else, the Sith are not obligated to respect the livelihoods of other humans. Such a viewpoint would even be reflected within the Sith Order itself, where an apprentice who is stronger than the Master (and thus higher on the scale of social Darwinism) would feel justified in destroying his Master and usurping his power. That is one possible explanation for the Sith's concept of morality.

It is also possible that the Sith simply subscribe to the "morality of the jungle", both in regards to themselves and to outsiders. Under such a system, you either kill or are killed. Ethics is not an issue, and you have no concern for anything other than self-preservation. With such views, you would never feel that any of your actions are immoral- as long as they are aimed at self-preservation. After all, does a wild beast feel guilty when he destroys a lesser beast? That may be how the Sith view the world.

Another possibility is that the Sith are obsessed with law and order. They may believe that in order to have a peaceful and stable environment, you must have an authoritarian government (run by the most powerful Force adepts in the galaxy) that regulates every aspect of people's lives. Perhaps the Sith are solely concerned with the end (a stable government), not caring what means (oppression and tyranny) are used to achieve those goals. Under that scenario, anything that is done for the sake of maintaining a dictatorships would be considered moral.

As you can see, there are an infinite number of possible explanations for the Sith's moral views. Perhaps a combination of those explanations would be most appropriate. What do you think? What insight can you shed on the psychology of the Sith and their concepts of morality? Could such in

 

Man, I hope you get some good responses -

It's a heavy topic and I don't know where a jumping off point would be ...

 

I tend to think that the Sith simply believe that they have overcome such narrow-minded distinctions as 'good' and 'evil.' There is simply what is good for the Sith and everything that isn't. This would naturally lead them to divide the galaxy into two categories, assets and threats(which is essentially what Anakin espouses with "If you're not with me, you're my enemy.)

I suppose this would be somewhat like the Law of the Jungle as you describe it, but I think it differs in some important ways. Firstly, it's not that the Sith don't believe in 'good' and 'evil', they simply think it's entirely relative(as Palpatine says, "Good is a point of view.") What's best for the Sith is to dominate all who oppose them, and thus Palpatine believes anything which furthers that goal is 'good.' This would naturally translate to supporting authoritarian government, as that's the only form of government which could ensure that only those who are assets will rise to power while all who pose a threat are ruthlessly eliminated.

I'm not sure how it would compare to real life dictators. The assumption of superiority and thus the right to lead is definitely a common thread between many dictators and Palpatine, however many dictators strongly believe that ethics are absolute while Palpatine as noted takes a bit more of an Nietzschean stance.

 

A Sith apprentice can craft his own moral system if he so wishes as long as it doesn't hinder him from fulfilling his duties. Morality isn't really something taught by the masters so I am sure every Sith will sooner or later invent their own moralic codex however twisted it may be.
Law of the Jungle is one common philosophy they entertain, but I find it entirely possible that they develop different philosophies as well. Like viewing themselves as a humble servant to the dark side who is chosen by it to bring misery and pain to the world. Or maybe they believe great pain is necessary to step up a next level in being and thus they are helping people when they are bringing pain. Or maybe an apprentice will believe in absolute freedom, which means that he will shed every restraint and in so doing he/she will be an example to others.

Oh, I don't think Palps is moralic. He probably has antisocial personality disorder such as the likes of Hannibal Lector and co.

 

I think the Sith are basically amoral... that is to say that they see nothing as moral or immoral. Although, as Master_Starwalker said, "there is simply what is good for the Sith and everything that isn't", which I think is a very valid point but I think the issue is more that "good" in this instance means "benefits the Sith" as opposed to "moral". And when Palpatine says, "Good is a point of view" to Anakin, I hear a little tinge of mocking in his voice... as if he is really saying that if you even believe in good in the first place you need to acknowledge that it is subjective... but that good and evil don't really exist anyway.

 

There's definitely a mocking quality to his voice, but I thought it was mocking Anakin's belief that good is external and absolute.

 

A very interesting discussion, this is.

To a large extent, the law of the jungle defines Sith philosophy, particularly within the Order itself. Those who are strong must constantly overcome the weak, proving worthy of the power they have either inherited or claimed for themselves. Concepts of morality do not concern them so much as power. There is no "good" or "evil" for them; there is only those with power and those without it, and the latter will more quickly perish than the former.

As chaotic as that seems, I do also believe that the Sith ascribe to some ideal of Law and Order. However, the order they envision is one with a single Dark Lord at the summit, and all others subservient to his will. The rule of one over many is what matters, so that the "jungle" mentality is contained among the Sith, and the rest is a stable civilization. This stands in opposition to the Jedi, who would rather serve others than rule them, and so they must fight to "tame" the jungle in themselves and throughout the universe instead of imposing order as the Sith would.

 

What sense of power do "ordinary people" have that they would have to kill for to protect? Example, Lando tried to work a deal with Vader to keep control (power) of cloud city to no avail. The Sith take what they want when they want.
I think the Sith do not really care who kills who as long as such killing does not intrude or interfere with Sith order and their quest for power. Any perceived threat would be eliminated, but it is obvious that officer, troopers, citizens are looked at as merely tools/pawns at the Emporor's disposal. As long as Non-Sith lords remain in fear of the Sith and defer to their power, the Sith couldn't care less what they do.

 

In my initial question, I was referring to how the justice system would be handled under the Sith. Would common criminals (e.g. murderers, rapists, thieves) still be punished the same way that they would be under any other legal system? Is it possible that the Emperor and Darth Vader don't even care about how those types of criminal cases are handled and just allow the regional governors and the courts to do as they please? If that is the case, then that might imply that the Sith don't really care what the common people are doing (since they wouldn't care one way or the other what the justice system was doing to criminals) and that they are only concerned with actions that would affect their maintenance of power.

Some people have perceived a potential contradiction between the Sith's belief in peace and order and their actions of feeding on the "negative energies" of anger, hate and aggression. Those people might ask how Palpatine could consider the embracing of "negative energies" to be good, even if he believes that "good is a point of view". However, I don't see how any of that creates a contradiction. The Sith could be concerned with peace and order, but believe that aggression, deception, and authoritarianism are the only methods that could eventually bring about stability. As for the belief that embracing "negative energy" is good, that fits perfectly with the idea that good is simply a point of view. The Sith see the benefits that anger and aggression can bring to them; thus they think that those qualities are good. Remember that just because society at large believes that the dark side is "negative" doesn't mean that the Sith think that way. It is quite possible that the Sith, who embrace the dark side, believe that everything about the dark side is positive, since it can eventually lead to positive results. In that case, they would be expressing their point of view that anger, hate, and aggression are good (since they produce desirable results) and that compassion and selflessness are foolish and bad characteristics (since they only serve to weaken the individual and decrease his chances at obtaining power).

With that said, I think that it is important to remember that just because Palpatine says something about the nature of good and evil doesn't necessarily mean that he believes it. That is a problem that we encounter when examining the ideology of any deceptive politician (e.g. controversy over Hitler's religious beliefs). If a person is skilled at manipulation and subterfuge, then it wouldn't be surprising if he simply publicly engages in philosophical contemplations that he thinks will benefit his cause, regardless of whether he believes the tenets expressed in those contemplations or not. Thus, it is quite possible that Palpatine would claim that "good is a point of view"- without actually believing it- merely for the reason that such a claim would be effective at making Anakin more open to the Sith ideology.

Remember that Anakin has been trained to believe in a certain type of morality, perhaps even absolute morality. The Jedi believe that compassion is a virtue and that the dark side is a perversion of the Force. Although Anakin was often a rogue Jedi, those beliefs were firmly planted in his head, and it would take some effort to convince him to alter his concept of morality. Palpatine's claim that "good is a point

 

Well said, that is essentially what I was getting at when I said, "when Palpatine says, 'Good is a point of view' to Anakin, I hear a little tinge of mocking in his voice... as if he is really saying that if you even believe in good in the first place you need to acknowledge that it is subjective... but that good and evil don't really exist anyway."

Also well said, and I also agree with this (this was the other main point of my post above).

 

I think there is a political context and psychological context to the questions. I think a psychologist would label Anakin with having extreme passive-aggressive personality disorder, as well as simply being immature. The Sith in general, Palpatine specifically, labeled as sociopaths, having a total inability to relate to the human suffering they cause. Actually they may be masochistic control freaks. They get pleasure from pain, self-inflicted or doling it out to others, and demand doling it out to anyone they simply don't like or are threatened by. When Palpatine is told he has lost, it's as angry as we've seen him get. Yet he was practically orgasmic as his own lightening bolts were scaring his skin. You know he's an S&M freak.

But hey I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist so others who know more can chime in.

Ideologically they are totally flawed with a clear sense that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Quite a few believe that morality is relative, but the major flaw is that when the same exact situation they say is relatively moral in one case, applied to themselves is consisted absolutely amoral without question. When Anakin is treated like a child, he gets pissier than when he treats others as insolent. But he's also really not really all that bright. He gets duped into an ideological trap that he probably doesn't really agree with, by someone who totally absolutely believes it to the point of psychotic delusion. Both Palpatine and Anakin are as paranoid as the Jedi are clueless in connecting the dots.

Politically, such personalities in power will demand the formation of political systems that agree with their world view, which is authoritarian. The galaxy had peace before the Sith started making trouble, so I do not buy the argument that they merely pursue peace and have a different way of going about getting there. They do not believe in self-determination, they believe in fate and destiny, they believe in peace at the barrel of a gun. They only understand force and power. They want power to force others to do as they wish. Again, they're control freaks.

I don't think it's all that complicated. Authoritarian governments aren't prosperous, and don't tend to last that long as far as government systems go. They don't really care about managing the day to day machinations of making a society work because the people involved are anti-social people. So you will find that the morality of the society and the government will mimic the personal morality (and amorality) of those in power. If they think a particular action is wrong, then it is wrong. It's a much more subjective based moral system (hence moral relativism), rather than objective.

Palpatine in particular gets off on being a plotting, cheating, lying, powerful bastard. That's all. It's not that complicated. He played all three sides in the debate: Sith/unlimited power, Republic, Separatists. As Chancellor he supported the Republic which he really hated. As a Sith Lord he supported the Separatists and then turned on them and had them assassinated.

(Not that the Jedi's delusions are really any better, in particular in light of their massive failures, but at least they don't intentionally get off on causing suffering.)

 

It is a twisted perspective.
A point of view which rationalizes their hunger for power.
A justification.

-Seldon

 

Very interesting topic. I always "latched" onto the various "point of view" comments made by various characters in the SW series. Even Obi-Wan when discussing truths with Luke, he uses the "point of view" phrase when talking about why he lied about Lukes father.

Anyways, The Sith...yeah...it can get complicated. It can seem sometimes that they deserve some sympathy for just trying to establish order and prevent total chaos. People must be governed at some level or things just wouldnt work out. The Sith do at times use the point of view argument when its convenient to do so.

One question I do have though is why are The Jedi so against saving lives and/or preventing death? When Palpatine said that Anakin could not learn this skill from a Jedi, he made it sound like the Jedi were totally against it or something. Unless the Jedi view it as un-natural to prevent impending death.

 

The Jedi view it as defying the Will of the Force based on an inability to let go.

 

The "way of the Force" in this context is not coincidentally mirrored in the Way of the Dark: All things die. Even stars burn out.

 

Ahhh...yes.... thats right!

 

Interesting topic that can be tackled from a few different angles. From the lazy one I give you this:

Both are extremes that irritate me. I suppose if I had to pick someone close to me on the GFFA morality spectrum, it might be Jolee Bindo from KOTOR. In short, he knows that life is complex and painted in subtle shades of grey, and he seems to be aware of his own nature.

I'll forgive his long winded rambling styled talk for now.