Was Yoda really all that wise?

A great quote I read from an concentration camp survivor: He was a young man, and one morning he saw an older guy on his knees thanking God, and he asked him "What could you possibly be thankful for", and the man said "I am greatful God didn't make me like them". Be wary of what any violence makes you, no matter the cause.

This is true. A pre-emptive strike is very tough to justify however. They wouldn't have needed to overthrow the Republic if they weren't in some way being oppressed. Maybe i am mistaken here tho.

You may be correct. There was alot of support for the CiS however, I am sure it wasn't because the Republic smelled too much like roses.

Heres the thing: You see good and bad actions, I see action and non-action. You claim that blowing up a planet is evil, but killing in the name of peace is ok. I am saying killing is killing, and not is not. I am saying morality doesn't exist. I am saying the only way to not be a killer, is to not take a life

 

A great quote I read from an concentration camp survivor: He was a young man, and one morning he saw an older guy on his knees thanking God, and he asked him "What could possibly be thankful for", and the man said "I am greatful God didn't make me like them". Be wary of what any violence makes you, no matter the cause.

So basically that even if you fight them but don't take part in the same torturing/slaughtering you become just as bad as them? I'm just trying to get a clarification because while I doubt that the concentration camp survivor would say that he felt the Allies were wrong for destroying the camps, it does seem to me at least to be what you're using it to state.

This is true. A pre-emptive strike is very tough to justify however. They wouldn't have needed to overthrow the Republic if they weren't in some way being oppressed. Maybe i am mistaken here tho.

I'm not entirely sure as the Seperatist/Republic conflict I do feel is slightly more of a grey area. The fact that almost every member of the Confederacy was a corporate entity such as the Trade Federation, the Techno Union, etc. makes me a bit wary that they were justified though.

You may be correct. There was alot of support for the CiS however, I am sure it wasn't because the Republic smelled too much like roses.

No, but no government does. I'm not saying the Republic was perfect, as it clearly wasn't even before Palpatine's rise.


Heres the thing: You see good and bad actions, I see action and non-action. You claim that blowing up a planet is evil, but killing in the name of peace is ok. I am saying killing is killing, and not is not. I am saying morality doesn't exist. I am saying the only way to not be a killer, is to not take a life, what cause you represent doesn't make you any less a murderer.

So you don't even believe that one is allowed to kill in self-defence?


I can't debate Lucas' right to do what he wants. My issue is this: He creates the Jedi and Sith to be opposing forces, and makes one inherently good, and one inherently bad. Even makes the type of Force they wield opposite, but says that when one exists and one doesn't we have balance. that is questionable at best, plain bad storytelling at worst. My opinion.

I can see where you're coming from, personally I just think he should have used another word than balance to get it across.

 

But the term is "balance of the Force". The Jedi and Sith arent "the Force" they are the beings that effect it. The Jedi seek to maintain the balance. The Sith destroy it to further their own power. Therefore the Jedi need to destroy the Sith. Then good and evil will of course remain in the galaxy but are balanced. When the Sith is around evil takes over. As the ROTS opening scroll says "evil is everywhere".

 

Another interpretation would be that in order to achieve balance both the Jedi and the Sith had to be destroyed. At the end of the saga, the only one left is Luke. He's certainly not a Sith, but he's a completely different being to the earlier Jedi order. He's balanced in the sense that he has an awareness of both the living and unifying Force. He's called a Jedi but he's a long way from the Jedi we see in the PT IMO.

 

I can't speak for the thoughts of the survivor, I just liked the quote and it gives me pause for thought on the subject. He may have been absolutely stoked to see the people running the camp get killed. But that would make him the very thing he was thankful that he wasn't. My opinion.

Self serving buisnessmen, or self serving politicians. I have trouble separating the two. While I am not saying either is worse, trying to find a valid reason to support one, or debase the other is pretty silly.

Not at all. As I said we always have a choice, and that applies both ways. Who am I to say "one is not allowed" to do anything. Heres the issue: You have a "bad" guy trying to kill you, so you defend yourself, and kill him instead. Even if you believe your actions are justified, he has still turned you into a killer. You are now a victim instead of victorious. This is the nature of the encounter we have in ROTJ between Vader/Luke/Sidious. Luke declares the Emporers failure while all 3 are still alive. The Emporer didn't "fail" because Luke "won", the Emporer failed because he could no longer achieve his goal. This is the essence of "if you do not contend, no one can contend against you".

Self defense is the refuge of a man who is affraid to die. What makes your life more valuable than your attackers? Is your life worth more than theres, are you better than they are? These are not easy questions to answer of course, but they are worth pondering. Its all a matter of values and philosophy, but as far as the Jedi are concerned....

There is no death, there is only the Force. Killing in the name of self defense shouldn't be valid reasoning, at least not for the Jedi.

Point taken. I have a tendancy to be too literal =)

 

I don't agree but I can definitely see where you're coming from.

It is, but I'm just thinking that having it simply be one self-serving group leaving another self-serving group makes it so neither is all that heroic. I'd say that the Republic was still slightly more so given that some of the Senators such as Padme,Mon Mothma, or Bail Organa weren't simply out for themselves.

I just don't see a murderer as equivalent to someone who is attacked and defends themselves. I mean, both are technically killers, but their motivation is entirely different.

It's not just you though, I mean a lot of fans still see balance as being not what Lucas meant to get across.

 

You must be careful here, you are walking the line between ACTION and INTENTION. As you say both would technically be killers, but motivation validates one and not the other. This implies that ANY action CAN be justified. Even something as over the top, as say blowing up a planet, can be justified by your explanation. When you start using reasoning and logic to justify your actions in the eyes of others, you become very Sith-like. Is that not what Palpatine is alwyas doing? He is justifying all his actions in the name of order and peace.

If your actions aren't good enough to speak for themselves, they probably aren't good enough at all. If you kill someone, even in self defense, you will end up trying to justify it. Not only will you try to justify it to others, but to yourself. Is the concept of "self defense" not a justification to take a life already.

As far as you seeing murder differently than other types of killing, as I said it will always be debatable due to differences in values and philosophy.

 

Interesting stuff about actions and intentions.

The whole self defence thing is always a thought provoking discussion. I guess if one takes the "all killing is killing" philosophy to it's logical conclusion, every time a person eats a hamburger or a pork chop they commit an act equivalent to knifing someone to death in cold blood.

Mmmmm pork chops...

 

Which is entirely different from self-defense. I'm also not saying all actions can be justified either. I'm saying that some such as killing the person attacking you can be(and then only in incredibly specific situations, and only if you can't stop them through a non-lethal means. The best would be to do it through non-violent means.) There's no justification for much of what Palpatine did. You're taking my argument and taking it to it's extremes, which is past where I think it's still valid.

It is, but I think that it's a valid one.

Oh it definitely will be.

 

Boxy -you have used my name instead of Starwalker. Any chance you could inform the mods so they can edit it so people dont get the wrong impression about my views? Thanks.

 

The Jedi and Sith arent "the Force" they are the beings that effect it.


The Jedi and the Sith are the beings that tap into and use it. It is the Force that effect them.

 

I was referring to balance. I was pointing out that the numbers of Jedi and Sith dont effect balance. But their actions have a direct influence upon it. The Jedi maintain it. The Sith erode it.

 

YOU see killing in "self defense" as a justifiable act. YOU see the blowing up of a planet as "extreme". Both are acts of violence, that is a fact. I am not saying either is good or bad. I am saying both are killing. Again, YOU are the one debating what can and cannot be justified. My point is this: If YOU have the right to justify an act of violence, so does anyone else, this includes Palpatine. While I agree, self defense is different from planet destruction, neither of our opinions change the nature of "justification". Your argument is favoritism, not objective.

"I think" : This validates everything I just posted above. Objectivity isn't about what you think. Finding reasons to justify violence of any kind is.

 

All moral objectivism consists of is a belief that certain acts are moral or immoral regardless of what one thinks is moral or immoral(I checked wikipedia.) If that's the definition being used then I am because self-defense isn't killing an innocent person whereas destroying a planet is killing countless of innocents. They're nothing alike except that both are an act of violence, but you're taking it to such an extreme that it loses credibility. It's like saying that decapitating someone and slapping them are one in the same in terms of morality.

Yet you say the very same thing earlier that you say self-defense is different from planet destruction. I also only used I think in order to be respectful of the other argument. Self-defense is an entirely different animal than destroying a planet.

 

You both make good points.

There is no REAL objectivity though is there? Even moral relativism is just a point of view, based on the belief that good and bad are just a point of view.

 

I don't know that we can know if there is or not because humans of course always view themselves as in the right, so if there is an objective morality we'd have no way of following it as we'd think we're right regardless of if we line up with it or not.

 

Absolutely right.

Let me put it another way...

People can never be completely objective, can they?

 

As noted on the Colbert Report, wikipedia is nonsense. If you can get enough posters to say the definition of black is white, it will be written. Your definition is written in your heart as is mine.

As with the majority of my posts, you take what suits you. As I said, I personally agree with you, self defense is different than planet destruction. THEN I STATED THAT NEITHER OF OUR OPINIONS CHANGE THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. Regardless of what either of us think, my initial post remains valid.

Darth Duckie: ^^^ This is the nature of objectivity. We all have opinions, but seeing that there is always another side to the coin is what counts. The most important part is realizing both sides of the coin are JUST AS VALID and equally JUST AS FLAWED as the other.

 

Darth Duckie: ^^^ This is the nature of objectivity. We all have opinions, but seeing that there is always another side to the coin is what counts. The most important part is realizing both sides of the coin are JUST AS VALID and equally JUST AS FLAWED as the other.

Yep, I undertand what you're saying and might I say you argue it in a most compelling fashion. My point is that your definition of objectivity is in itself subjective, in that it precludes the existance of concepts of right and wrong, good and evil etc, which are beyond and external to individual beings' perceptions. Some people believe that there is a God, or a supernatural entity of some kind which dictates these things, and whether you or I or Yoda or Palpatine see something as good or bad is really irrelevant in light of that fact. They may be right, they may be mad! But there's no way of proving it one way or another. To say that there are always two valid sides to every coin is based on the opinion that there is no external right and wrong, but only internal perspective and justification.

 

It is, but there are definitions to terms and given that moral objectivity isn't an entry that's likely to get messed with it's at least a source worth considering, if not solely relying upon it as I was.

True, and I am debating what can and cannot be justified because there's no justification for the slaughter of a planet. There's a significant difference between justifying defending yourself and justifying slaughtering innocent men, women, and children. I just don't agree with your premise that justifying one action is the same as justifying another that's on an entirely different scale, and I know you'll say what I think doesn't matter from an objective standpoint, and of course you're right, but by that same token it doesn't matter to me if you think it's not different because it objectively is. I mean, if you take the argument that they're the same to it's inevitable conclusion eating meat is the same as destroying a planet.

 

I know only a Sith deals in absolutes, but ...

Either there are external moral absolutes or there aren't. If there aren't, then eating meat is as good or bad as blowing up a planet and also as good or bad as walking your dog or reading the paper. Because if there aren't moral absolutes there are no good and bad, right or wrong, there are merely human constructs masquerading as those things, which enable us to function in society.

So we decide, based on our own experiences, which we believe. But neither point can be proven as right, or disproven wrong, which makes each standpoint an opinion, rather than a fact. Consequently, we see people's actions, in terms of right or wrong, good or bad or indifferent, through the filter of the opinion that we have formed, which means that the way we see those things can't be objective.

 

"Dealing in absolutes" in my mind is more about the Sith creating absolutes - saying that "this is how it will be, its my way or the highway" where as the Jedi are guided in the moment and do what is right in the moment.

 

I was talking more about external moral absolutes, and whether they exist or not.

 

Oh right. Well, I think they do - but in a simplistic way. Life complicates things. For instance, compassion, love, justice, freedom are for me good moral absolutes. The best ideals to live by. But life gets complicated. There are times when you have to make choices that seem to stary away from these ideals. Choose the lesser of two evils kind of thing.

 

Yeah, I think there are too. And I also agree that the realities of life make it difficult to not get it wrong sometimes, despite best intentions.