Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

kun but it would be close he has awsome force powers to.

Kun, and it would not be close. Kun would own him.

Sidious. The Force storm rules.

Originally posted by Fishy
Kun, and it would not be close. Kun would own him. there force powers are both very strong and sids can do more then just a storm but your probably right fishy

lets make it kun right after his fight with ulic

Like I said; what's the preparation time and requirements for this Force storm? Cuz if he can't pull it out of his ass in under thirty seconds... wait, ten seconds, Kun owns him, and badly too.

NO CUZ CIDEUS PWNS ALLL!!11!1!!11111!11!!1LOLOLOLOLOLOLLOL!11

Later dudes. See ya in, oh, eight hours. Don't make any good threads without me, although I doubt that'll be happening anytime soon.

I did make a good thread while you were gone.

is windu joking? i cant tell

this is not uber kun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or is he that strong 5 seconds after his fight with ulic?

it is kun before his war, weak kun. weak but still weak

Oh that's bogue.

... Sidious still loses, because unless he can do that Force Storm at point blank range without killing himself and wreaking the room in under ten seconds no prep, Kun would engage him in melee combat and beat his ass. Kun was still good at saber combat before the war.

got you force storm or death HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A FORCE STORM?

3 to 1 sids wow! im the only one for kun in the polls

I don't think very high of DE Sids, because he was killed by Solo.

a blaster can kill anyone without a lightsaber kun included

not necessarily. Corran Horn has shown the ability to asorb blaster bolts like vader with only a month or so of training.

it hit him in the back aand he was dying trying to get into anikan he would not have noticed or something

Kun Kun Kun Kun Kun Kun Kun

Kun. Yes, It's Kun

this is kun before his war

Doesn't matter. Kun will just engage Sidious in a lightsaber fight and outmaneuver him. Unless Sidious can pull out force storm from his ass, he's done for. In a straight up lightsaber battle, Kun takes him.

true (sigh)

fights with Sidious are rarely straight up.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
fights with Sidious are rarely straight up.

This is true. And also why I encourage a bit of a story tyep intro for threads, to give us a feel for where everyone is, their level of awareness, etc.

Level of awareness? For most people here that's next to nothing. And where they are? Up some character or another's ass.

well i see i need to post all my Exar info again, in my absence people have become ignorent, here you go:

Exar was an exceptional duelling master.
He also was able to freeze the entire (which had jedi that were in the building) with one spell and then resuce his apprentice and kill an extremely powerful jedi master and nobody could do a thing about it. This jedi master was also very similar to Yoda and been training for 600 years, also remember that the jedi master was training during the height or war in the republic so he knew battle better than Yoda did.
The jedi order also sent thousands of jedi to kill Exar. He was able to repel all of them long enough to preserve his spirit for thousands of years.
And Exar did study alot, Vodo-Baas says that Exar is the most powerful student he has ever trained and the most powerful force user of that time, and Vodo was similar to Yoda, he trained lots of jedi over a long period of time, and if Exar was the best, that means something.
Exar also studied alot, he was fasinated by the sith teachings in Vodo's holocron. Exar also learned under the ancient sith, like Freedon Nadd and Marka Ragnos, he would still be very smart. It is also worth noting that the ancient sith said that Exar would be the one to bring about the golden age of the sith and said that he was the Dark Lord of the Sith, over Ulic-Qel Droma.
Exar Kun was also able to destroy the entire massassani race, quite a feat. He drained their life force and used it to prolong his life.

His apprentice, Ulic, was a powerful jedi and dueller in his own right, but Exar was his unquestioned master and the ancient sith said that Kun would be the dark lord, not Ulic, this means that Kun is stronger than Ulic was.
He was also able to hide as a sith in the middle of the jedi stronghold (Ossus) and recruit jedi to become sith, without the jedi even knowing what he was doing, that's got to take some pretty impreesive power. He decived the best jedi in the order, took sith stuff and recruited new allies from the midst of the jedi ranks, lied to the jedi masters, and they couldn't even tell it was going on! Also, this planet (and its sun) were later blown up by Kun so anybody after him would have no knowledge of those things that Exar knew.
Also, he invented his own lightsaber, Exar was the person who invented the double blade lightsaber. He also designed his own unique style of duelling, something that he never tought to anyone and was lost after his defeat. So nobody other than him and Ulic had any idea what to expect from him (everyone else he faced ended up dead)
He is also an amazing dueller, after he decided to try against Vodo (a lightsaber master), Vodo died in around 10 seconds, before that Kun was just toying with him. Toying with him! In the middle of the senate chamber on the same planet as the jedi temple, he could still toy with one of the best duellers in the jedi order and win hands down.
Kun also learned loads of stuff from Ossus, which was later destroyed by him so anyone after him couldn't have learned anything from it, he also used sith holocrons and had the private notes of Naga Sadow, another sith who could blow up a sun. Naga was also a dark lord of the sith from 1000 years before Exar and was Marka Ragnos apprentice and had an amazing grasp of the dark side, Exar learned it all.
Kun was able to walk into the heart of the republic senate, freeze them all, kill their leader and a jedi master, and walk out, nobody could do a thing. This is in the heart of the jedi order! He was also able to kill a beast which is probably very similar to a terentek, or better, with very few problems. Exar was also able to walk into another jedi stronghold (Ossus), kill more jedi, steal the artifacts, and walk out again, unharmed. He was also able to destroy Freedon Nadd with no problems.

About Exar being defeated by 12 people, only 2 which had lightsabers, might I add that one of those people was Luke Skywalker, another was Kun's old master, a 4000 year old jedi master. Also, I think its impressive that it took 12 jedi combined, 2 of which were masters, to defeat Kun's ionized air particles.

Think about how he died, he was faced against 10 000 jedi, and the republic fleet. Under those circumstances, anyone would have died. Exar died sure, but he was able to hold the entire fleet off with the force until he was able to figure out a plan to keep himself alive. Exar was able to kill off an entire race, numbering thousands, to keep himself alive, sure he was killed 4000 years later, but it still took 14 jedi, 12 padawans, Luke and Kuns old master to kill him. Think about it, 2 lightsabers, 12 padawans/knights, 2 jedi masters (including one of the most powerful jedi ever; Luke and the old version of Yoda, Vodo-Baas, he trained lots of jedi, for some reason I think of him like an old Yoda), to kill off Kun's 4000 year old ionized air particles! He must have been near godlike when he was alive.

When Kun walked, the ground shook underneath him from the shear power of the dark side eminating from his body.

Exar did invent his own style of lightsaber combat, the double blade, also, his double blade was different than any other double blade. He was able to move it faster and aim more than with other double blades. Also, since few people had never seen a double bladed sabre, it would throw them off. He can move his lightsaber so quickly that almost anyone he faced would be sliced before he knew what was going on.

Exar wore armor with a cortosis weave in it, allowing him to recieve hits from a lightsaber without doing him damage.


So he would wipe his ass with Sidious no trouble at all

Ah, there's the wealth of Exar Kun information. But especially that last half, starting with the ground shakes onward... sources for that information?

I read the Tales of The Jedi comics and indeed the gound did shake beneath Kun's feet.

Damn.

Despite his power I never liked Kun. He lacks subtly and one of things I like in Revan is his skill at manipulation and subtly.

Yup, I just looked back over the comics and all of that is official. There is very little tilt to it, it's pretty much straight up fact. Exar clearly is stronger than most people give him credit for. There's a leaning towards games and movies because we can SEE exactly what happens.

Originally posted by Abyssal Lord
Despite his power I never liked Kun. He lacks subtly and one of things I like in Revan is his skill at manipulation and subtly.

Who needs subtlety when you walk in and kick everyone's ass? There are cases when you NEED it, and there are cases when you don't. Exar Kun didn't use subtlety much, but in many ways, he didn't need to.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Who needs subtlety when you walk in and kick everyone's ass? There are cases when you NEED it, and there are cases when you don't. Exar Kun didn't use subtlety much, but in many ways, he didn't need to.

I just like the fact that Revan played the entire Jedi Counsel for fools and how he under the guise of destroying the Republic was actually trying to save it and unlike Kun Revan didn't fall to darkside which so far has been unheard of for anyone else that used the darkside (except perhaps Mace)

Originally posted by Abyssal Lord
I just like the fact that Revan played the entire Jedi Counsel for fools and how he under the guise of destroying the Republic was actually trying to save it and unlike Kun Revan didn't fall to darkside which so far has been unheard of for anyone else that used the darkside (except perhaps Mace)

We have someone, a dubious source, saying he didn't fall to the darkside. But really, it is clearly possible that he was influenced by the dark side in his actions.

Yes, Revan did play a lot of guys for fools, but in the end, the similar fates happened to their galaxy conquering campaigns.

Originally posted by Illustrious
We have someone, a dubious source, saying he didn't fall to the darkside. But really, it is clearly possible that he was influenced by the dark side in his actions.

Yes, Revan did play a lot of guys for fools, but in the end, the similar fates happened to their galaxy conquering campaigns.

I would not call Kreia a dubious source for something like this, but hey thats just my opinon and I think your right about the Dark Side influence in his actions.

Kreia herself was influenced by the darkside, so it's more than possible.

Originally posted by Illustrious
We have someone, a dubious source, saying he didn't fall to the darkside. But really, it is clearly possible that he was influenced by the dark side in his actions.

Yes, Revan did play a lot of guys for fools, but in the end, the similar fates happened to their galaxy conquering campaigns.


Hm, no, I'll argue that Revan's intentions may have been good, but he inherently fell to the dark side, whether it was a fall, embrace, or utilization of that dark side doesn't matter; the point is Revan used evil to fight evil, and that is never in itself good. For an action to be morally right, you must have at least the intent and the action be morally permissble, even if the result isn't so.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Hm, no, I'll argue that Revan's intentions may have been good, but he inherently fell to the dark side, whether it was a fall, embrace, or utilization of that dark side doesn't matter; the point is Revan used evil to fight evil, and that is never in itself good. For an action to be morally right, you must have at least the intent and the action be morally permissble, even if the result isn't so.

Ack. All leave the philosphy to you.

Thanks. lol... I'll talk your ear off about it.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Hm, no, I'll argue that Revan's intentions may have been good, but he inherently fell to the dark side, whether it was a fall, embrace, or utilization of that dark side doesn't matter; the point is Revan used evil to fight evil, and that is never in itself good. For an action to be morally right, you must have at least the intent and the action be morally permissble, even if the result isn't so.

That's what I'm trying to say originally. We have a source, albeit dubious, in Kreia saying Revan never fell to the dark side. But he was clearly influenced by the Dark Side and "fell" to it, indicated by his actions.

You are right he tried to fight fire with fire and ended up getting burned.

Let's hope he brightens up in the future. Evil never wins. If Revan continues to be a Sith lord, he will end up another brief paragraph in the broad history of the galaxy.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Let's hope he brightens up in the future. Evil never wins. If Revan continues to be a Sith lord, he will end up another brief paragraph in the broad history of the galaxy.

I suppose that all depends on what ending Lucasarts chooses for Revan to be canon.

I'm guessing lightside, since there wouldn't be much of a story if it was DS.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Ah, there's the wealth of Exar Kun information. But especially that last half, starting with the ground shakes onward... sources for that information?

Its said in Kotor too, on that space station near Yavin.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Let's hope he brightens up in the future. Evil never wins. If Revan continues to be a Sith lord, he will end up another brief paragraph in the broad history of the galaxy.

Evil always wins, well in real life at least just never in movies or books...

Anyways to the point you made. If Revan did not fall to the Dark Side and just used the Dark Side to bring peace then that was not evil. He caused evil but he was not evil.


Its like this, would you kill one child to stop aids? It would be for the greater good, it would save millions of lives. Thats what Revan did, yeah he caused pain because of it, yeah when he died his apprentice decided to try and stop every disease, without ever hoping for a cure, but still Revan did what he had to do.

yea Kun rocks Revan is awsome

so, we seem to have gotten off topic, is there anyone out there still supporting sidious after what I said?

if not then this thread is now pointless

This thread has been pointless from the start because Sids never stood a chance with or without your post

lol, true

yea i just wanted to see...

Originally posted by Fishy
Evil always wins, well in real life at least just never in movies or books...

Anyways to the point you made. If Revan did not fall to the Dark Side and just used the Dark Side to bring peace then that was not evil. He caused evil but he was not evil.


Its like this, would you kill one child to stop aids? It would be for the greater good, it would save millions of lives. Thats what Revan did, yeah he caused pain because of it, yeah when he died his apprentice decided to try and stop every disease, without ever hoping for a cure, but still Revan did what he had to do.

A utilitarian outlook. Utlilitarians believe that an act can be morally justified if the outcome equals greater good than say, another outcome. If blowing up the fat guy who got stuck in the escape hatch saves nine lives, it's morally permissable. This is humanist BS. At least Kant, another humanist, respects human beings intrinsically.

You cannot shoot a man to save others, you cannot burn a house to save it from flooding. None of these examples are examples of moral righteousness. And Revan's methods were dark in nature. He was like Kreia; treating everyone like tools and not like human beings. Revan would argue that you COULD kill a baby to save millions from AIDS, but hat he is not seeing is that that is a moral evil, regardless of purpose. This is the ultimate dilemma that utilitarians like to stick to like glue, but it can be undone.

Even Kant says "You cannot will as a maxim what you would not will for all of mankind." Basically, he is saying you can't reason that say, lying is morally permissable only for you and only for certain situations (Or all situations) and it not be so for all people everywhere. This means, for murder of a babe to be morally permissable, it must be permissable to all people everywhere, regardless of circumstances.

For an action to be objectively right and not subjectively right, it must have both a pure or good (And not just prudent) motive or will behind it as well as a good or pure action. The result is intended to be the same, but this is not always so. So by abstaining from killing the baby, you are intending to do no harm to the innocent babe and certainly no harm to the AIDS sufferers, and your actions aren't morally questionable (Since it isn't like you're lying, cheating, or pillaging) but the result, sadly is bad and out of your control. This is not a dilemma for a moral man or woman; it's the way the world is. You cannot have your cake and eat it to, so you might as well accept that in trying to be morally good you may have to allow bad things to happen in moments of decision, unless you want to commit bad acts. And once you do commit bad acts, each time you give in to that feeling, it becomes easier and easier. This is a wedge into your conscious, and it is very common in the world today.

So no, Revan is objectively morally wrong. And in GL's Star Wars universe, there is good and evil, right and wrong. There is no subjectivist trends; there is pure and unpure. And Revan is unpure.

. . . Damn. . .

Sorry, but I get my feathers ruffled when people argue that the ends justifies the means.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Sorry, but I get my feathers ruffled when people argue that the ends justifies the means.

It really does depend on your look on life, you say doing nothing would be morally right, I'd say you'd be a freaking murderer if you would not kill that child.

One can not possible measure up against millions, the things you discuss is an opinion. The need of the many outway the needs of the few. Thats my opinion at least. If you agree or not is up to you. But let me just say this, somebody who decides to kill that one child or somebody that decides not to. Neither one of them is right, neither of them is wrong. They will both have to live with themselves later on. Both do what they do for themselves and for them alone.

Maybe I will have sinned after I would have killed that child, but everynight I would spend in prison would be a night where I would realise that I have saved millions of people from suffering and dead. For me it would all be worth it, so yeah the end does justify the means IMO.

Of course, in your opinion. But you should realize the dangers of having a personal opinion on morality; I could carpetbomb London in accordance with my god Allah Amed Artoo and say I am killing the stiff lipped infidels and I could imagine I was saving millions of lives from an oppressive regime, something nearly if not moreso drastic than an AIDS epidemci (Which we already have)

Now, I would NOT be a murderer for abstaining to killing the child to save millions. If anything, I'd be morally right and pure for not killing the child, because I am not directly the agent of death for the millions. I am not responsible for their fates in this situation. Let me discuss why:

It is not me that kills those people; it is the circumstance that forces my hand. If you really want to get into specifics, it's not AIDs that kills folks- it's the diseases they get because AIDs weakens them. And you have a large variable with a million people. Half of them could die because of nearly limitless other causes. Would I be responsible for those too? No, I wouldn't. I have direct control and responsibility over that hapless infant, and to kill him or her and justify it with the potential to stave off death for a million others is ludicrous.

No, the morally right thing to do is to save the child and help the millions as best you can. You cannot save the world, and you most certainly cannot save the world at the expense of good. Revan is evil. Killing that baby is evil. End of argument.

Revan's actions are evil, although he himself does not consider himself so. End of discussion.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Of course, in your opinion. But you should realize the dangers of having a personal opinion on morality; I could carpetbomb London in accordance with my god Allah Amed Artoo and say I am killing the stiff lipped infidels and I could imagine I was saving millions of lives from an oppressive regime, something nearly if not moreso drastic than an AIDS epidemci (Which we already have)

Now, I would NOT be a murderer for abstaining to killing the child to save millions. If anything, I'd be morally right and pure for not killing the child, because I am not directly the agent of death for the millions. I am not responsible for their fates in this situation. Let me discuss why:

It is not me that kills those people; it is the circumstance that forces my hand. If you really want to get into specifics, it's not AIDs that kills folks- it's the diseases they get because AIDs weakens them. And you have a large variable with a million people. Half of them could die because of nearly limitless other causes. Would I be responsible for those too? No, I wouldn't. I have direct control and responsibility over that hapless infant, and to kill him or her and justify it with the potential to stave off death for a million others is ludicrous.

No, the morally right thing to do is to save the child and help the millions as best you can. You cannot save the world, and you most certainly cannot save the world at the expense of good. Revan is evil. Killing that baby is evil. End of argument.

How so?

Good and bad are opinions. You bombing London would be considered Evil by a lot of people, most actually but some would consider it good because you did stop the infidels. Now does that make you right or wrong. You say wrong without any doubt. I say you are neither, Wrong IMO Right in others opinions.

Yes you might be pure if you don't kill that child, yes you will not be a murderer. But on the other hand you let millions die when you had the chance to stop it, which is evil too. At least I consider it to be evil. And you say its not your responsibility to stop aids, that you shouldn't worry about saving people by killing somebody else. But aren't you just fleeing from the possibility's, you are not morally pure when you refuse to kill that child. You are as evil as one that would kill that child for one. Because you knowingly and willingly let millions suffer just to save one.

You are putting the life of that child higher then you are putting their lives, I think you are wrong in doing so. That you do not have the right to do so, yet you do. If you have to make the choice one or one million, I hope you choose for the Million. Yeah it may not be the ultimate good, but its still good. To put in SW terms.

Mace Windu wanted to reject the Jedi Code and Kill Palpatine, if he succeeded it would have stopped a lot of trouble.

If he didn't and arrested him Palpatine could have been free and could have perhaps destroyed the Jedi anyways. Now would Mace have done the second thing he would have been morally pure but responsible for the death of millions, would he have killed Palpatine he would not be pure but he would have saved millions.

What decision would have been better, if you would not have known the outcome?

That's completely different. I k now it's an anology, but still, completely different. Palpatine is an evil creature, one who, by his own will, would kill those trillions himself.

But the baby is an innocent, a victim. Killing it and killing Palpatine, completely different.

Originally posted by Fishy
It really does depend on your look on life, you say doing nothing would be morally right, I'd say you'd be a freaking murderer if you would not kill that child.

That does not depend on your personal look in life. Preventive actions like this can not be seen as morally right because of a simple fact: You can never say what might happen and therefore taking questionable actions (from a moralists point of view) will always result in even greater problems.

The baby carrying a deadly desease (AIDS is kind of a bad example - let's take the plague) is a nice example for this. What would happen if you kill the child or not kill the child. Let's say you have an 2 % chance that the child will survive - then you have a 50 / 50 chance that the child will be the cause of an epedemy. Now...what do you do ?



Now...you can judge here by mathematical measures or just going by "What would be best for society". Considering "moral" it would be wrong to kill the child just for the single reason that you can't be 100 % sure what will happen if you don't do it.

You can say "Well in 98 % the child will die anyway so it doesn't matter if I kill it to save millions of people" - what happens if this childs is one of the 2 % that would survive ?
You can say "Well there is a 50 % chance that if I don't kill the child more people probably will die." - what if nothing like this is going to happen.



No. You won't realise that you saved millions. The only thing you will think about is that you killed one child because you would never be able to say what would have happened if you didn't do what you've done.

There is no situation where a wrong (moral) action can be justified because it might have prevented some greater evil. That's like saying "I killed the murderer and therefore I prevented other murders" without knowing if the murderer would have killed another person. You can never tell if your action was right because you can't be sure what would have happened if you didn't act like you did.

The only situation where you can argue like that would be if you can travel to the past and know what will happen if you don't do what you think that must be done. And even in this case you can't be sure that you do the right thing since you don't know what kind of effect it will have. For example: Killing Hitler might save the life of some people - but it can also result in Stalin attacking Europe and starting the second World war and there might be even more people killed. See what I mean ? As long as the result of acting or not acting can not be predicted you can't justify action that are wrong from a moral point of view.

Yep. Morality is either objective or bullshit, so much as I've learned, and especially in SW, it's objective.

Morality, as far as killing infidels with a bomb, is twisted here. However, the Star Wars universe is a thing of black and white, there is the light side of the force and the dark side. There is no room for interpretation as far as which side is "moral."

Hmm Nai, my point was not made with the thought of could be's... It was made with a would be.

Killing that child would stop aids
Not killing that child would not.

Thats what I said. You are right in your post. But you took what I wrote out of context, and missed the point of the debate by looking at it realisticly. I'm talking about morals here not about realism.

And I already argued against even that possibility earlier.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
And I already argued against even that possibility earlier.

But I disagree.... A discussion about morals is not one that can be won anyways.

The concept of good and evil is something than can never truly be resolved because you will always have people who will disagree.

Originally posted by Darth Zayzia
The concept of good and evil is something than can never truly be resolved because you will always have people who will disagree.

For all intents and purposes, concerning our original point about Revan, the Star Wars Universe has broken it down to Lightside and Darkside. While it may be impossible to pinpoint with real life examples, Star Wars has made it clear there is what is right and moral, and what is wrong and evil.

Originally posted by Illustrious
For all intents and purposes, concerning our original point about Revan, the Star Wars Universe has broken it down to Lightside and Darkside. While it may be impossible to pinpoint with real life examples, Star Wars has made it clear there is what is right and moral, and what is wrong and evil.

I was talking about real life, but yes the Star Wars universe is indeed broken down into black and white.

Yeh, and I recognized that .

not the whole sw world luke's unifying force exists too even if its BS

bump

well, dealing with the AIDS issue, I believe that it would be morally wrong to kill a child too stop the epidemic. I think this for several reasons, one being that it is a child and has a right to live as well, just because it has a disease is no reason to kill it, if it were then we would have no children because all of them catch a disease at some point, an example being chicken pox, if that is given to a adult it can be deadly, yet we do not kill people with chicken pox.

Also, and this is specific to AIDS (well and a few others but whatever), AIDS is sexually transmitted, if the kid was careful and did not run around like a rabbit, then it could be self controlled and their could be no epidemic and still no murder. It all comes down to choice, and I think that murdering a child for the greater good is unethical, for if we kill one, where do we stop?

Exar Kun would win this, I believe.

DE Sidious is amazingly powerful because of his Force Storm ability, which not even Kun could survive. But I don't think he could summon one with enough accuracy in a few seconds. If he couldn't, Exar would beat him.

Also considering it requires an uncanny amount of concentration to create, hence why Luke and Leia took advantage of - and used it to slay Sidious while he wasn't able to fight back.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Sorry, but I get my feathers ruffled when people argue that the ends justifies the means.

That brings to mind such philosophers and writers like Niccolo Machiavelli. To him, the ends do justify the means.

Yes, but I understand why he advocates them; he is applying philosophy for rulers. Different objectives there.

Originally posted by Darth Somebody
That brings to mind such philosophers and writers like Niccolo Machiavelli. To him, the ends do justify the means.

Yes. But Machiavelli didn't write because of morality. Machiavellis main issue was political philosophy - how to get power and how to keep it. That's more or less acting against an overall morality because Machiavellis focus is the individual and his (political) power while moralists focus more on society. You could also quote Hobbes here who said that the instinct of self preservation is the strongest factor in the life of a human being and all other things have to be subordinated under that instinct.

In this kind of philosophy morality doesn't count because the basement of this philosophies are natural instinct where "morality" is a product of the human mind.

Now if we take Kants moral concept - the categorical imperative - only actions that can be carried out in all possible circumstances can be seen as moral "right" while all actions that can only be seen as "right" in certain situations are "wrong" and therefor should never be carried out. In the situation with the child suffering from a decease that might kill millions of other persons: Killing the child might be seen as "right" in this certain situation but it would be seen as "wrong" in any other situation - therefore the action is moral "wrong" and should not be carried out.

And Kants view on morality is just judging the actions regardless to their consequences or the intention of the person who carries them out. Therefore killing a child would always be wrong and it doesn't matter if you save millions of people by doing so.

Here we a back at your point, Fishy. "Morality" has nothing to do with oppinion. Like you said: Bombing London can be seen as "good" or "evil". Now Kant comes in and says: "If you want to see bombing London as a morally justifyable act you must say that bombing a city is always right". Now show me anybody that will agree that bombing the city he lives in (or every other city in the world) would be right regardless to the circumstances. You won't find anybody and therefore this action must be seen as "evil". Even if you find somebody that might agree (because he hates cities) you can go further and say: "People are killed by bombing are city - if this should be right than killing people must be right in any circumstances". Who will agree with that ?

Therefore what Revan did (assasinations, wars and so on) must be seen as "wrong" from a moral point of view no matter if he had a "good" intention.

Originally posted by Nai Fohl
Yes. But Machiavelli didn't write because of morality. Machiavellis main issue was political philosophy - how to get power and how to keep it. That's more or less acting against an overall morality because Machiavellis focus is the individual and his (political) power while moralists focus more on society. You could also quote Hobbes here who said that the instinct of self preservation is the strongest factor in the life of a human being and all other things have to be subordinated under that instinct.

In this kind of philosophy morality doesn't count because the basement of this philosophies are natural instinct where "morality" is a product of the human mind.

Now if we take Kants moral concept - the categorical imperative - only actions that can be carried out in all possible circumstances can be seen as moral "right" while all actions that can only be seen as "right" in certain situations are "wrong" and therefor should never be carried out. In the situation with the child suffering from a decease that might kill millions of other persons: Killing the child might be seen as "right" in this certain situation but it would be seen as "wrong" in any other situation - therefore the action is moral "wrong" and should not be carried out.

And Kants view on morality is just judging the actions regardless to their consequences or the intention of the person who carries them out. Therefore killing a child would always be wrong and it doesn't matter if you save millions of people by doing so.

Here we a back at your point, Fishy. "Morality" has nothing to do with oppinion. Like you said: Bombing London can be seen as "good" or "evil". Now Kant comes in and says: "If you want to see bombing London as a morally justifyable act you must say that bombing a city is always right". Now show me anybody that will agree that bombing the city he lives in (or every other city in the world) would be right regardless to the circumstances. You won't find anybody and therefore this action must be seen as "evil". Even if you find somebody that might agree (because he hates cities) you can go further and say: "People are killed by bombing are city - if this should be right than killing people must be right in any circumstances". Who will agree with that ?

Therefore what Revan did (assasinations, wars and so on) must be seen as "wrong" from a moral point of view no matter if he had a "good" intention.

Its amazing how people can take a video game and start an entire philoshical debate over the actions of a fictional character. IMO Revan did what he needed to do and was willing to face the consequenses.

Originally posted by Nai Fohl
Yes. But Machiavelli didn't write because of morality. Machiavellis main issue was political philosophy - how to get power and how to keep it. That's more or less acting against an overall morality because Machiavellis focus is the individual and his (political) power while moralists focus more on society. You could also quote Hobbes here who said that the instinct of self preservation is the strongest factor in the life of a human being and all other things have to be subordinated under that instinct.

In this kind of philosophy morality doesn't count because the basement of this philosophies are natural instinct where "morality" is a product of the human mind.

Now if we take Kants moral concept - the categorical imperative - only actions that can be carried out in all possible circumstances can be seen as moral "right" while all actions that can only be seen as "right" in certain situations are "wrong" and therefor should never be carried out. In the situation with the child suffering from a decease that might kill millions of other persons: Killing the child might be seen as "right" in this certain situation but it would be seen as "wrong" in any other situation - therefore the action is moral "wrong" and should not be carried out.

And Kants view on morality is just judging the actions regardless to their consequences or the intention of the person who carries them out. Therefore killing a child would always be wrong and it doesn't matter if you save millions of people by doing so.

Here we a back at your point, Fishy. "Morality" has nothing to do with oppinion. Like you said: Bombing London can be seen as "good" or "evil". Now Kant comes in and says: "If you want to see bombing London as a morally justifyable act you must say that bombing a city is always right". Now show me anybody that will agree that bombing the city he lives in (or every other city in the world) would be right regardless to the circumstances. You won't find anybody and therefore this action must be seen as "evil". Even if you find somebody that might agree (because he hates cities) you can go further and say: "People are killed by bombing are city - if this should be right than killing people must be right in any circumstances". Who will agree with that ?

Therefore what Revan did (assasinations, wars and so on) must be seen as "wrong" from a moral point of view no matter if he had a "good" intention.

You are right, its not a good thing to do. But it might still be the right thing to do. Which is why I would do it.

Revan has shown some morality, I think.

Is Sidious more evil than he?

Originally posted by Darth Somebody
Revan has shown some morality, I think.

Is Sidious more evil than he?

Sidious did not care about any greater good or saving the Republic. Revan although he did some terrible things knew that if he did not then the Repubic was doomed and he was willing to accept the concquenes of his actions.

Revan's motives were different, but they were still not what Kant would consider "of good will or intent", and that is because the will and intent behind the action must result in a morally similar action. If you have a good intention to help your friend out of a well he has fallen into, but your actions result in you looking and not making much of an effort to save him, your actions (or inaction, a passive thing) aren't in alignment with your intent to help, and the result (Which is his ass being stuck down there, probably for awhile) is less then good.

But that is a very meek example. The point is, to kill in the name of saving lives is ridiculous. If your intent is to save lives, you will take none. Instead, as I said, you should work towards helping the suffering of others, since all lives pass. True, people should be willing to actively help one another. But you cannot stop death, and to champion one life over another begs for clarification: what makes one life worth more than another?

And to answer this, I ask... What makes life worth anything?

And it is that all life has instrinsic value, and value in its future and in its quality of said life. Touching a bit on the euthanasia issue, the quality of life of someone who is nonresponsive, on machines, and in a hospital bed for twelve years versus a small eight year old child in a reasonably average home or even in an abusive home from which he can survive... which is worth more? Well, life itself is said to have instrinsic value, of course. But in this particular case, the comatose person has next to no good quality of life, and the prospects of receiving a better quality of life are slim to none. So in this case, would you have to choose between a small child with the potential for a future (Good or bad) versus someone who will remain static and never enjoy life as we know it again, the wise choice is the child.

So my question to you, Fishy... Is what makes the lives of a million different people more valuable than the life of a child? Is each person's future worth more than the child's? Or does the issue of the future matter... is the issue more one of common morality, or one of simple, straightforward solutions? Is value in quantity rather than quality? Or is this a much harder question than any of us are making it out to be?

Interesring, if Kum and De Sidious use all of their powers, it'll be a hollow victory - I wonder what will be left from the galaxy...

Damn, Janus, you sound like Gandhi or somethin'. Still on that morality debate?

Numbers, thousands of Children die a year because of aids. Thousands of adults die a month because of aids. We don't know what this child will do in the future, we don't know what these people will do in the future, but what I do know is that killing that child now will save millions now and later.

No not one of those lives is more important then that of the child, and if it would be one person or that child I would let the child live. But we are talking about millions, and a responsibility to the world and to the child.

Now you have a few contradictions here, which makes this a hard thing to do.

Killing somebody is bad
That child has a life in front of him/her and its unfair to kill it.
But those thousands of children and thousands of adults do too, is it fair to let them die for the child?

You say you should try to stop the suffering of the others without killing that child, I say killing that child will actually achieve something, and that is not just stopping one disease its giving an entire continent hope. Nobody and I do mean nobody is so important that all those millions of people don't matter. Killing that child would be hard, but I can not put one person no matter how young or innocent above that of a million others.

You are right I wouldn't be morally pure if I kill the child, I would not be good in the way some people describe it. But it would be good in my eyes, and thats all that matters now isn't. You wouldn't kill that child because of your own moral objections, I would kill that child because I would feel its the right thing to do, and I wouldn't care about what other people say. Because I know that by killing one I saved millions.

Lets say you can kill somebody who is going to start a war in ten years, a war that will make the entire world suffer, without that person the war would never happen and nothing even close to that will happen. Would you let that person that is right now innocent live or would you save the millions in the future.

I think you are really missing the issue here, its not about whether killing that child or not is a nice thing to do, yeah it sucks yeah its rotten yeah it will hurt a lot of people. But I'm very simple here, Majority rules. Millions are more important then one. Let that one die if it saves millions. Thats just how I look at it.

Originally posted by Fishy
Numbers, thousands of Children die a year because of aids. Thousands of adults die a month because of aids. We don't know what this child will do in the future, we don't know what these people will do in the future, but what I do know is that killing that child now will save millions now and later.

No not one of those lives is more important then that of the child, and if it would be one person or that child I would let the child live. But we are talking about millions, and a responsibility to the world and to the child.

Now you have a few contradictions here, which makes this a hard thing to do.

Killing somebody is bad
That child has a life in front of him/her and its unfair to kill it.
But those thousands of children and thousands of adults do too, is it fair to let them die for the child?

You say you should try to stop the suffering of the others without killing that child, I say killing that child will actually achieve something, and that is not just stopping one disease its giving an entire continent hope. Nobody and I do mean nobody is so important that all those millions of people don't matter. Killing that child would be hard, but I can not put one person no matter how young or innocent above that of a million others.

You are right I wouldn't be morally pure if I kill the child, I would not be good in the way some people describe it. But it would be good in my eyes, and thats all that matters now isn't. You wouldn't kill that child because of your own moral objections, I would kill that child because I would feel its the right thing to do, and I wouldn't care about what other people say. Because I know that by killing one I saved millions.

Lets say you can kill somebody who is going to start a war in ten years, a war that will make the entire world suffer, without that person the war would never happen and nothing even close to that will happen. Would you let that person that is right now innocent live or would you save the millions in the future.

I think you are really missing the issue here, its not about whether killing that child or not is a nice thing to do, yeah it sucks yeah its rotten yeah it will hurt a lot of people. But I'm very simple here, Majority rules. Millions are more important then one. Let that one die if it saves millions. Thats just how I look at it.

No, I just think you missed the point I touched on and that Nai touched on as well. For one, if there is ever a situation where you are in direct responsibility of the life of a child who is the difference between the eventual death or life of a million people, it would seem that you had to make the choice, to give all those people a chance. It certainly seems a lot easier to deal with, of course. But when will there ever be a point in life where you must kill a child to save the world? A disease doesn't make sense; you can just as easily quarantine a diseased child, even indefinately. So let me propose another situaton, and perhaps then you will understand a bit better.

During a travel tour, a bus full (Think, thirty people) of tourists are visiting the magnificent seaside caves in some faraway land. All is well until a shifting of the earth's plates traps them, leaving open only a small opening, which is the only way out. The water is rising at this point, and eventually all in this cave, all thirty, will die. One of the tourists, a heavy man, was the first to make it to the opening. He is caught and caught good. He cannot go forward out into the open or back into the cave. One of the tourists proposes to blow the opening up farther, using a small pack of explosives he has on hand (Imagine this for the sake of the argument, if nothing else). Of course, this will kill the heavyset man, but it will open the side of the cave most likely, and allow the others to freedom. So, do you blow up a man who is helpless and for most intents innocent of any wrongdoing just to save the group of tourists? Or do you let him live, and consider other options?

Not everyone likes to apply morality in everyday life... at least, not objective morality. Subjective morality (In which it's always open to debate, whether it's the time or place, etc.) is more popular because people can console themselves with the delusion that morality isn't objective and that it 'changes' from time to place, situation circumstances, etc. Even from person to person. And the other reason for this is that following an objective, moral standard can literally get you or others killed.

So it falls into two categories- those who believe in something beyond our frail mortal shells, and who believe in moral purity as being a goal worth trying to attain if nothing else; and those who believe we live and learn and then die, and in this case morality is just a social tool, occassionally reflective of feelings. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Fishy
Lets say you can kill somebody who is going to start a war in ten years, a war that will make the entire world suffer, without that person the war would never happen and nothing even close to that will happen. Would you let that person that is right now innocent live or would you save the millions in the future.

That's stupid, Fishy. Imagine somebody would have killed Hitler in 1929. What would have happened ? Do you really think their would have never been a second World War ? Do you really think the Holocaust would never have happend. The problem here is that Hitler himself could only be sucessful because of the circumstances:

- Germans feeling used because they alone were said to be guilty of the first World War
- a great nationalistic movement in all European countries (aided by Darwins theories used on societies)
- a wave of prejudices against Jewish people (basically developed from medieval times on in Europe)

Now...what would have happened if somebody killed Hitler ? The same war could have been started by Stalin and it could have even been worse than that what Hitler started. Or even worse: Central Europe could have stayed like this until the invention of the Nuclear Bomb and than their could have been a Nuclear War - point is: You'll never know and therefore killing somebody can't be "right" as simple as you look at it.

@Janus:
When you have a look at the SW universe from Kants point of view you won't find a single being that pocesses moral integrity because they all lie, manipulate or kill people because they think they have to do so.

Originally posted by Nai Fohl
That's stupid, Fishy. Imagine somebody would have killed Hitler in 1929. What would have happened ? Do you really think their would have never been a second World War ? Do you really think the Holocaust would never have happend. The problem here is that Hitler himself could only be sucessful because of the circumstances:

- Germans feeling used because they alone were said to be guilty of the first World War
- a great nationalistic movement in all European countries (aided by Darwins theories used on societies)
- a wave of prejudices against Jewish people (basically developed from medieval times on in Europe)

Now...what would have happened if somebody killed Hitler ? The same war could have been started by Stalin and it could have even been worse than that what Hitler started. Or even worse: Central Europe could have stayed like this until the invention of the Nuclear Bomb and than their could have been a Nuclear War - point is: You'll never know and therefore killing somebody can't be "right" as simple as you look at it.

@Janus:
When you have a look at the SW universe from Kants point of view you won't find a single being that pocesses moral integrity because they all lie, manipulate or kill people because they think they have to do so.

Hm. Well, I was thinking... Kant also said we can't use human beings as means, only as ends. Killing a child is basically using them as a means to an end. But you're right... Characters in Star Wars are morally ambiguous in many ways, even though good and evil are absolute. No one character conforms to Kant's ideals, for sure. But then, that's absolutism.

You people are looking at this as if it would happen.

No you couldn't qaurentee the child becuase then the disease wouldn't be stopped. This is a what if situation that will never ever happen. Think of it like this

God appears in front of you and tells you to kill that child or let millions die later on.

And Nai, on your Hitler thing. Thats again realisitcly speaking i'm not talking about realism here am I? I'm talking about a very simple choice, one or a million. Thats the choice you have to make the thing is you will be directly responsible for the dead of the one. Think about god appearing and telling you what will happen if you do and don't. Then make the choice. You and maybe Janus as well are looking at this as if it could happen, it can't.

@ Janus and the guy in the cave.

I would place the dynamite, start looking for another option come back when the time runs out, if we haven't found anything i'd blow the guy away. If we do find something then we are in luck. Simple as that. If there is another option I would of course take it, but if not? Well I would not let 29 people die just to make 1 die anyways.

Originally posted by Fishy
You people are looking at this as if it would happen.

No you couldn't qaurentee the child becuase then the disease wouldn't be stopped. This is a what if situation that will never ever happen. Think of it like this

God appears in front of you and tells you to kill that child or let millions die later on.

And Nai, on your Hitler thing. Thats again realisitcly speaking i'm not talking about realism here am I? I'm talking about a very simple choice, one or a million. Thats the choice you have to make the thing is you will be directly responsible for the dead of the one. Think about god appearing and telling you what will happen if you do and don't. Then make the choice. You and maybe Janus as well are looking at this as if it could happen, it can't.

@ Janus and the guy in the cave.

I would place the dynamite, start looking for another option come back when the time runs out, if we haven't found anything i'd blow the guy away. If we do find something then we are in luck. Simple as that. If there is another option I would of course take it, but if not? Well I would not let 29 people die just to make 1 die anyways.

Anything could happen in life, Fishy. But the reason for debating this is to get closer to the truth in life, and the truth about morality and how people see it and deal with it.

That hardly deals with anything that I said...

I'm talking about certainty's you think i'm talking about possibility's.

I just want to know one thing

If god himself came up to you right now and told you that if you killed a Random child within 24 hours aids would dissapear for good and not be replaced with anything else, would you or would you not do it?

I wouldn't. No moral god would advocate the death of a child, even for the lives of many. Things are good because they are instrinsically good, not because god advocates them. If whatever god wanted to be good was good, then good would be inconstant and couldn't be measured or valued for what it is, since it could lose value at any time, or even for all time.

So no, to answer your question, I still wouldn't kill a human child on god's orders to save the lives of any number of human beings. Their fates are their own, not mine. I am not working actively to kill anyone, and for god to even suggest it strikes me as either being a moral test or being something other than a god who is good.

Oh you do so like taking this out of context don't you...

Its not a test its just a mission for you take it or leave it.

But I need all that I want to know, just one thing. When you say no I won't, you are condemning a million people to their death, you are killing them in a way. No you did not put the gun to their head and pulled the trigger but you are the reason they will not survive. No matter how you turn it. Its like when you give somebody the Death Penalty, you may not execute the order but you are giving it.

"Off topic" doesn't even begin to describe this. . .

Not really no, but I think the topic got a lot better with it, so I don't care.

Originally posted by Fishy
Oh you do so like taking this out of context don't you...

Its not a test its just a mission for you take it or leave it.

But I need all that I want to know, just one thing. When you say no I won't, you are condemning a million people to their death, you are killing them in a way. No you did not put the gun to their head and pulled the trigger but you are the reason they will not survive. No matter how you turn it. Its like when you give somebody the Death Penalty, you may not execute the order but you are giving it.

No, you have taken it totally out of context. Your analogy is incorrect.

In the million person situation, something else or someone else has become the agent of destruction. Not me. I am not killing anyone. I am not wishing death on anyone.

But in the case of the death sentence, if it was me signing the death sentence notice, it would be me wishing death to someone, for whatever reason. And beause of that it's an incorrect analogy.

And back to this, no, I'm not a murderer or an amoral person for saving the child, even if it does mean the death of a million people. Again, moral actions are formed like this:

Intent - Action - Consequence

For an action to be morally good, the intent and the action must be good.

So, operating under a moral standard, such as what Kant uses (Which relies on rational thought) we have to conclude that we cannot use human beings as means, but only as ends. Human beings have intrinsic value. If they didn't, we couldn't respect them any more than we could respect a rock or a wolf. And in this situation, we have what is called a moral dillemma; we have two instrinsically valuable units to choose from. Since one cannot furnish imformation on which is more valuable with any degree of accuracy, you must conclude that both are equally valuable. Sounds wrong? Well, prove to me how millions of lives, with all the variables therein, are worth more than a single baby child!

You cannot act as some holy judge and decree a million lives worth more than one, unless you advocate utilitarianism, and that hackjob of a moral theory doesn't hold water. Again, quantity should not override quality.

And since I am not directly causing the death of the million, nor am I in any way wishing it (However, I would be wishing and directly causing the death of the hapless child) the argument looks like this:

Harm No one (Good) ... That's the intent.

Abstain from killing the child (Good) ... the action.

Unfortunately, such a morally good action lead to the deaths of others by some other agent of death, and under circumstances that are variables at best. (Bad) ... the consequence.

It's just like if a doctor operates in surgery. His intent is good, but the result can be out of his hands, and thuis bad can happen. And it is not his fault.

Originally posted by Fishy
God appears in front of you and tells you to kill that child or let millions die later on.

In this situation I would say: "Sorry god, I can't do this...it's against my philosophical view on life". Now god or the desease or whatever kills the millions. Am I responsible for this ? No. I'm not. Why ? Because it wasn't my action that let the people die. That's like saying anyone who participated in the Manhatten project is personal responsible for the death of all people killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.



I still won't kill anybody because it's not within my competence to decide over the life or death of another human being. See...if god wants Hitler dead he should kill him. If god wants Hitler alive Hitler should live. It's not my decission.
Even if god commands me to kill Hitler (or the child) I still won't do it because god (if he exists) gave me this little thing called "free will" and therefore I can decide what I want to do and I can't be punished for my decission unless I'm breaking a rule.

Killing somebody would make me a killer no matter if other people would think I'm a hero because I saved their lifes by taking another.

So his definition is suddenly law?

The intent of killing the girl is good, the action is bad the consequence is good.

For me the end justifies the means. For you it doesn't. For me I'm saving a million lives and you are sentencing millions to an early dead.

You on the other think i'm killing one and you are not.

The end justifies the means, IMO. Debating this is very useless really. Its not like either one of our oppinions will change.

So if the end justifies the means, can I torture someone to find out information?

If the end justifies the means, can I subjugate every nation in this world under my power to ensure my own gun bought peace?

If the end justifies the means, can I kill you to get a better parking space?

If the end justifies the means, there is no morality. Period. Anything can be good or bad, depending on the viewpoint and the goals of the person making this subjective decision. So you'r arguing this as morality? No, it doesn't hold up.

And you should consider reading Kant before you dispel it as a credible philosophy. For one, he relies more on rational thought than anyone save for Ayn Rand. Two, he's the foundation of western moral thought for the last two hundred years for a good reason. And three, his methods (even at their simplest levels) are more rationally convincing then "the end justifies the means." Because the latter is not ethical morality; it's a selfish, egocentrical philosophy which would spell the end of our civilization if it were in common practice everywhere, by all people.

Originally posted by Fishy
The intent of killing the girl is good, the action is bad the consequence is good.

See...that's the problem here. The intent to kill a person can never be good so this would result in bad intent, bad action and - probably - a better outcome than not killing the girl.



Another problem. If the end justifies the means you can do what you want by arguing in a certain way. You can basically kill everybody you like by arguing like this:

- they might be bad persons because everybody has some kind of egoism in them and egoism is bad
- if they can be egoistic than they might be able to become criminals
- if they might be able to become criminals they might be able to kill somebody
- if they might be able to kill somebody killing them means probably saving somebodies live

That would finally result in a philosophy were you're going to extinct mankind to save mankind because you kill anybody since anybody might possibly do something "bad" or "evil" at a certain time in their lives. Of course this is exagerated but that's it what it might lead to when people start to justify killing somebody with a good intent. The death penalty also might have some "good intent" (from your point of view) but it's still wrong because the intention is "killing somebody" and not "saving lifes".



You would kill the child because you think it's the right thing. Still the fact remains that you have killed the child then. Does it matter WHY you did it ? No. Now...the person that won't kill the child simply won't kill anybody. People might die, yes, but still the person isn't killing anybody directly while you would have done so.

Wrong here, because this is a sure case... Not a possibility, the kid could be the child of god. I don't know, all I know is that in this case the outcome will be good therefor, for me its worth doing.

In other situations everything would change, I would not be sure of the outcome so I would not be able to make the choice like this.

And the Death Penalty sucks ass from my POV. Killing people sucks, but if it saves lives then it might just be worth it. In this case it saves a lot of lives so its worth it. Its a sure deal to save millions, not a could be not a maybe.



Actually it does matter why I did it, I had my reason and that reason was to save a million people. Now you say you are not directly responsible for killing the million people if you don't, but if you see a person falling down a cliff and you don't catch him when you can. Then you are not responsible for his death, afterall he was the one that fell down but on the other hand you are because you didn't prevent it when you could.

I personally could not live with myself knowing that every 3 minutes or something a person would die when I could have stopped that.

Oh well...I have to introduce the term "freedom" here or that what Kant would call a "causality of freedom".

The whole question is not a problem of conscience. The question is not what you should do the question is what you personally want to do. And you can't answer the question what you want to do unless you have done it. It's not your identity that determines your actions - it's your actions that determine your identity.

Now you have to see the action you have to take out of context. Do you want to kill the child ? Hell...no...Do you have to kill the child because this is the only way to save millions of people ? Probably yes in the situation you created. And in this case the freedom of choice you have might force you to take an action and thereby it will determine your character.

That means: Killing the child might be seen as "right" if you view it from a point of necessity but it can never seen as being the moral right thing to do neither for you (because you can't say: "I'm proud because I've killed the child !" nor for the public or lets say the people you have saved because they will know that to save their lives you had to kill an innocent baby.

Now...to come back to Revan again. What Revan did...was it "right" ? Was it necessary ? Was it good ? Hell...no.
He killed many Jedi, he killed innocent people, he assassinated politicians to do what - strengthen the Republic ? What kind of thinking is this ? That's like saying (Janus gave the example) "If I am the ruler of the world their will be no wars anymore because there is no opposition to fight" or - more exaggerated - "If I kill all human beings there would be no criminality any longer".

He was neither acting because of a moral righteousness nor out of necessity so what he did can only be considered as being wrong. And that's why he takes the "right" action (from a moral point of view) past KotoR and goes to fight the Sith Empire on his own - without using / risking / taking the lives of others like he did it before.

You are right about Revan there and that surprises me a lot, I would have expected him to use army's to fight the Sith. Afterall that seemed like the reason he turned and that could have made it necessary to do, but obviously it wasn't. Obviously he didn't want to avoid the destruction of the Republic or some governing organisation because he didn't. It could have started off noble but turned worse and worse and worse. A good example of the end justifies the means gone out of hand.

However during the Mandelorian wars, pretty much everybody agreed that the end justified the means. Even though it made Revan as bad as the Mandelorians. But look at this from a different way.

The Jedi Order wanted to make a threat to them known, thats why they didn't act becuase they didn't think the Mandelorians acted alone. They were willing to let billions of people die just to find out who could possibly be controlling the Mandelorians. How would you classify that action? They did not directly kill any of the people, yet they refused to help.

Originally posted by Fishy
However during the Mandelorian wars, pretty much everybody agreed that the end justified the means. Even though it made Revan as bad as the Mandelorians. But look at this from a different way.

The Jedi Order wanted to make a threat to them known, thats why they didn't act becuase they didn't think the Mandelorians acted alone. They were willing to let billions of people die just to find out who could possibly be controlling the Mandelorians. How would you classify that action? They did not directly kill any of the people, yet they refused to help.

And now we are back at a what-could-have-happened situation. The Jedi wanted to investigate a threat further because they thought there might be something else behind it. Doesn't that remind you of something ?

Imagine the Jedi in the PT would have never entered the clone wars / used the clones. What would have happened ? The Seperatists might have been able to take over the Republic thereby getting Sidious out of the position as chancellor. As a result their would never have been an Empire, Order 66 would have never been carried out and all the Jedi wouldn't have been killed. If the Jedi had just tried to solve the conflict in a diplomatic way Sidious would have become a victim of his own plan.

Now for Revan: Imagine what would have happened if Revan had given the Jedi the time to investigate the threat and decide after doing so. The Jedi Civil War with all of it's victims (through Revan and Malak - Jedi and innocent people) would never had happened and that also counts for the consequences. The Exile would have never existed nor would Nihilus have and since Nihilus wouldn't have existed Katarr would have never been destroyed.

The end can never justify the means if the end remains unknown. What Revan did might actually have costed more lives than there would haven been lost acting like the Jedi Council wanted to.

Agreed, but there inability to act was the same thing as what Revan did in a manner of speaking. They refused to act, Revan refused to stay silent. It could also have been that the Mandelorians would have taken over the galaxy and that they would have destroyed the Jedi and everybody would be speaking Mandelorian, that the Republic would have never been rebuild and that most of the galaxy would have been enslaved for thousands of years to come.

Aren't both Revan and the Council responsible for millions of deaths, the council could have prevented it all would they have moved faster and Revan could have listened to the council you don't know whats to come you don't know whats going to happen, both did what they thought was the right thing to do. Who is to say that either one of them is wrong?

kun would take out sids especially if sids was mutalated like he mostly was

Originally posted by DarthMaul9123
kun would take out sids especially if sids was mutalated like he mostly was

I love how you don't read the topic at all, and then spout off whatever you have to say.

Originally posted by Illustrious
I love how you don't read the topic at all, and then spout off whatever you have to say.
im sorry but the topic is sids vs kun so i dont spout

Originally posted by Fishy
Agreed, but there inability to act was the same thing as what Revan did in a manner of speaking. They refused to act, Revan refused to stay silent. It could also have been that the Mandelorians would have taken over the galaxy and that they would have destroyed the Jedi and everybody would be speaking Mandelorian, that the Republic would have never been rebuild and that most of the galaxy would have been enslaved for thousands of years to come.

How should the Mandalorians have taken the Republic ? Revan with 1/3 of the Republic forces and not all of the Jedi was enough to stop them - all Republic forces and all Jedi would have done the same.



No. The Jedi Council might be seen to be responsible for the deaths of people the Mandalorians have killed to the point where Revan entered the war. From this point on Revan is responsible - for every single Mandalorian, Echani, Jedi, Sith, Republic soldier, civilist and whoever killed in the Mandalorian Wars and in the Jedi Civil war and the events people from the Mandalorian or Jedi Civil war evolved participating in.

Actually I think that Revans actions caused more deaths than the hesitance of the Council.

They say that the council served no one with inaction. But even Canderous tells you that the Mandalorians were prompted to soften up the Republic (If I recall correctly) by some entity outside of the Outer Rim territories. Yes, the jedi council would have been standing by and letting millions die or become subjugated. This is hard to imagine, much less tolerate.

In any case, the jedi live to stop the spread of the dark side in the galaxy, and NOT to play general. The Republic is responsible for its own fate. It is responsible as a unity to provide defense for its own people. And it should have the ability to repel such an attack, even if it is a bloody and long defense. If anything, the Republic's inability to deal with the Mandalorian threat is a clear indicator that it, as a conglomeration of planets and star systems, was too weak, passive, and perhaps too large to defend itself. Instead of having ample garrisons in outer sectors to deal with potential threats, the Republic forces were lumped together and too centralized to deal with the Mandalorian raids. If anything, the raids went on for some time undetected by the Republic and the senate, which is pathetic. Imagine ruling the Roman Empire and not having a clue that you just lost Gaul to those damn Germans again. I mean, talk about out of touch with the needs of your people.

But the jedi, it is their duty to combat the dark side and the Sith, not to fight for the Republic which can't fight for itself. From where I'm looking at it, Revan was spurred on by dreams of gaining knowledge and power through combat, and he used the plight of the Outer Rim sufferers to compel more compassionate jedi to join his crusade. And he won, but at what cost? The Sith returned to the known galaxy, causing the obliteration of the Jedi Order as it was known. The Republic is financially bankrupt. They are rebuilding the damage from the Jedi Civil Wars one planet at a time. As of five years after the war, they were perhaps maybe 40% done with one planet. It could take centuries to heal from the scars of battle, both with the Mandalorians and with the new Sith. And we can only guess at what is to come. So no, Revan did not act in the right mindset, a moral one, and he perhaps caused so much damage he is feeling guilty for his decisions, and is seeking to solve it himself.