Originally posted by InsaneNoodlyGuy
As the Majority of the Galaxy does not involve sentients, but rather the hard rules of nature (Strong survive, weak perish/suffer by the strong). If anything, enlightened sentients who value themselves and others are closer to being unnatural. Having people you care about sure, but caring about everybody? I won't deny that if it worked we'd have a perfect Utopia, but did it work for the Republic? Nope. It fell apart because of it's own massive corrpution (which would have to around long before Palpatine got to work) allowing Palpatine to get as far as he did. He made things much worse once he got in office, of course, but he was just the infection on an already open and bleeding mortal wound.Easier isn't better, no. The question is why is it easier. And why indeed? Because it is consistent with sentient nature. If it wasn't a natural state, it wouldn't be so damn easy.
Jedi claim to serve the force. But force has no preferance toward Good and Evil. These are sentient concepts. If it did prefer "Good", it wouldn't let the sith be so damn strong. It sure as hell wouldn't let "the balance" be restored by killing off everybody and starting anew.
The Force is created and used by all living things. Living things. And those living things that are on a higher evolutionary level are capable of rational thought. The ideas of good and evil exist to them, whereas lower beasts do not have such luxuries.
But I think you're missing the point. Darksiders are immoral. And morality is about what we -should- do in life, not what -is- in life. Science tells us what is. Ethics and morality tell us what should be. Keep that in mind. The Jedi are working towards something that may never come. But they are doing their part in a world that apparently needs every good soul it can get. It's interesting to note that GL's world has the Order which is good and it is diverse. That is, even alien cultures who grew up fundamentally different eventually reach similar reasoning when it comes to a higher good.
But then, I suppose, all beasts and Sith are the same too. Both have reached a decision regarding what they want, and it's tangible goods versus metaphysical good.
Now... about the hard rules of nature. They exist. And in lower beasts, there is no getting around that. A wolf cannot plant a farm. A jackal cannot build a home. Lower creatures do not have the abilities we possess. And that is why they live their lifestyles: quick, brutal, and amoral.
But a human being can build a home, thus it need not neccessarily be territorial. A human being can grow plants and obstain from killing. Read that again. A human being can obstain. We have those options. Thus, we should not be so quick to assume our natures and our futures lie in the black and white of nature. Our minds are advanced enough to have created and recognized such aspects as good and evil. If we were meant to live as beasts, we would not have such novelties. If you have learned -anything- from nature, you realize that creatures develop towards their own best interests. They adapt and learn to interact rather harmoniously with their environment. (On a sidenote, human beings are less than harmonious with their surroundings, because they see as the Sith do... they see only tangible goods, in in doing so they are slowly ruining this world around us... OUr very livelihood.)
But human beings, having knowledge of right and wrong, often cannot realize that they DO have such knowledge. Thus come the Jedi- an Order of sentients striving to flesh out the knowledge that is ingrained in us. To say that acting in the ways of the Sith or those of the dark side persuasion is closer to one's nature is insinuating that people are inherently evil. And that is a poor conclusion to come to in life.
Originally posted by xxxpoppunker182
but man is inherently evil. its portrayed in almost everything like lord of the flies for one example.
What's your proof that man in inherently evil, other than a movie called Lord of the Flies? If man was inherently evil, we would all be Sith, and morality would not exist.
The Jedi never claim the Force is inherently good. When has that ever been said?
They do good because doing good is the right thing to do, not because it is commanded by the Force. The Force is the means of their powers and the means by which they gain their wisdom and understanding; it may lead you to an understanding OF good and evil but it is not the source of it!
Star Wars is a simple morality tale of good and evil. If you want a mixed morality story, go chose another sci-fi, because you are way out of place here. Bad guys are bad guys and there is no justification for them.
Dooku, btw, was not trying to root out corruption; he was using corruption as an excuse for his own power scheming,. Anakin, meanwhile, may have been led down the road to evil by his love, but a. that is NOT a moral justification for mass murder and b. it's a lie anyway. It was his fear of losing her he was acting on- a selfish one. He didn't want to feel like how he did when he lost his mother. GL is showing how easy it is to become evil in such a fashion.
Originally posted by Darth_Janus
What's your proof that man in inherently evil, other than a movie called Lord of the Flies? If man was inherently evil, we would all be Sith, and morality would not exist.
well i mean it is easier to be the jackass and be mean and make fun of someone then stand up for him/her. if that makes sense.
like if there arent anyrules no laws nothing what do you think will happen? who do you tink the ones "ontop" of everything would be.
also if you're a christian or a catholic adam took the apple from the snake even though god said not to. i'm really sorry i'm tryin to think of the best way to say it and i just can't think of it i'll repost when i do.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
In Star Wars, the bad guys are EVIL. That is the point. If you agree with them... that is a very worrying statement about you.
Evil is merely a point of view. So what the bad guys do doesn't necessarily be evil in everyones eyes.
Like some would say that what happened 11th September 2001 (or was it 2000?) was evil, other will say it was justice.
Well, I think that sometimes it is necessary to transcend the idea of good versus evil when it comes to certain aspects of SW, as the Sith does not mean evil - it is just a different way of using the Force that often leads to anger and hatred due to simple degeneration (this is what has been indicated to me by KOTOR and the books and movies). Sith just means that one uses one's feelings (emotional) to guide their use of the Force. This means love or attachment, not just anger. A Sith could hypothetically never become hateful if he or she maintained the original conditions of his or her control of the Force. The Jedi rely on objectivity and lack of emotional involvement to guide their use of the Force. This is because all Jedi know that every one of them - even Jedi like Master Yoda - would degenerate to hatred if any of them became attached to something or loved someone or felt strongly about anything.
But that is just SW Force principal - and Ushgarak is right about the good versus evil point as a plot element. Perhaps, though, xxxpoppunker182 is trying to distance himself from the situation of real life and trying to be brutally frank - sometimes it requires a great amount of self-control to do the right thing, at least for me. Or perhaps I do not understand the situation fully. That is simply what I believe from what has been written.
Peace be with you all.
No Dipshit (never though It' dbe saying that and meaning no insult), the sith embrace the dark side while rejecting the light. A sith couldn't stay away from hate, they are trained in it just as the Jedi are trained to avoid it.
I concede the sith are massivly flawed, but slightly (slightly I note) less so then the Jedi. The Jedi have good intentions, far better then the Sith to be sure, but they ignore a large chunk of their own nature.
The Jedi abstain from passion and emotion. That's why they commonly take children away from their parents before any attachments can form. It is why Jedi are essentially asked to remain chaste. This abstenance, (and I mean in general, not just the sex) is their flaw.
Passion is a powerfull tool, for good or ill. But it's a very necesary one. To abstain from it, or even to try, is impressive. But not really all that productive. It's why art history has few Eunuchs of note. Passion does grant power, power that doesn't have to necessarily be used for ill ends.
I'm guessing that force users were more powerfull before the creation of orders like the Jedi. People who could use their full emotinal range, from anger to love, would be extremely more effective then those who limited themselves to one end of the spectrum.
You claim nature see's in black and white? I'd say the exact opposite. The Jedi and the Sith see things in black and white. Nature, and the force, is the rainbow in between. Dark is closer to nature, but nobody is near it. But, picking which side has is closer, I go with nature of sentients (which at least has the capacity for darkness) and nonsentients alike (though they cannot truly be called dark).
Creatures in nature do not act according to good or evil, but rather as true to themselves. The Jackal will kill, and take sustenence in the suffering and death of others. Does this make it evil? Even if it immensely enjoys what it does? No, because it is doing what is true to itself.
This is the flaw of the Jedi. They deny huge parts of them. The sith induldge excessivly in their worst parts. But at least they acknowledge the parts, and that is why I side with them.
True, but I don't think it has to be that way. With all due respect, Mr. InsaneNoodlyGuy, sir, I am not discussing the nature of light versus dark in the Force, because that is how the Force eventually becomes used as a tool. What I am discussing, rather, are the techniques used to control the Force. It is not a matter, in this case, of light or dark, but rather of emotions or no emotions. The Sith use emotions. The Jedi do not. They use instinct and objectivity, because emotions, not only simple bitterness and anger, mind you, but attachment and love, too, possibly, make Sith what they are. It's a matter of seeing beyond the simple matter of conflict between good and evil (which is undoubtedly the real argument here - this is what SW is - my point is about the root of the schism) and seeing the real difference between the way Yoda channels the Force and Sidious channels the Force. Yoda does not feel - true Jedi remain unattached and uninvolved. So, theoretically, there could be a Sith that does nothing but love, because Sith are defined by emotional feeling rather than hatred.
In summation, the idea is (totally disconnected from previous arguments on this thread at this point):
Being Sith does not mean one is necessarily evil - it means that one uses emotions to guide their use of the Force (which ends up always leading to evil, admittedly, but, again, theoretically does not always have to be so at all times).
Being a Jedi does not make one good - it means that one uses objectivity to guide their use of the Force.
They are like two separate styles - nothing more. The conflict to which the styles lead, as you see I mean, is another issue entirely. According to this, Anakin became a Sith as soon as he fell in love with Padme. See what I mean now? It's a distinction. And no offense taken to the addressal to my name, sir.
Originally posted by Morridini
Evil is merely a point of view. So what the bad guys do doesn't necessarily be evil in everyones eyes.Like some would say that what happened 11th September 2001 (or was it 2000?) was evil, other will say it was justice.
Firs off, Morridini... Evil is not merely a POV... A person's definition of evil does not change what it really is any more than ignoring a fire in a house keeps you out of danger. What you're saying is evil is completely subjective, and that's a horrible way to look at morality. If what you're saying is true, than torture, murder, betrayal, cannibalism, hatred, etc. are all morally justifiable and right, with the only conditions being on POV.
Dipsit, the Sith ARE evil. The very teachings of the Sith center around hatred of the Jedi and the need to dominate the very galaxy. Don't try and tell me the Sith are misguided or true to themselves. If being true to an inner beast is being true, so would shitting everywhere, humping the legs of anything attractive... etc. The Jedi revel in their advanced state and distance themselves from such beastly urges and desires. A Sith claims that they are free, and that they are true to themselves. And this is the greatest lie of all, since they are slaves to their inner beasts and they have NO future.
And the Jedi discourage passion and emotion, but even mighty Yoda can only be so stoic. The Jedi don't deny passion entirely (as Anakin seems to suggest). They don't totally deny themselves their humanity. Jedi have a sense of humor. They show respect, they are sometimes jealous. They get angry, whether it be righteous or petty anger... They are sad. The Jedi are not some mindless automotons like everyone suggests. They simply -deal- with their emotions better than the Sith. They control their emotions, not the other way around. However, Dipsit does make a very good statement... that being a Jedi does not equate with good. However, unless one is a Sith in name only and not in practice, one cannot be anything but deluded and evil. If evil is too strong a term for you, try 'mislead', since that is what evil beings are... mislead from the moral truths of the universe.
Regardless of whether evil is a point of view or not, a. not in Star Wars it isn't, and b. not according to GL it isn't, which is why he is presenting his films the way he is. This being the SW area and not the Philosophy area, let's keep it like that, thanks.
Secondly, the Jedi take kids and forbid attachment not out of any misguided attempt at purity, but simply out of practicality! Untrained Force users are liable to fall to their emotions and are dangerous. Properly trained Jedi have to be taken at birth else the risk of them falling to the Dark Side is too great. Jedi are forbidden attachm,ent because that also leads to the Dark Side.
Yeah, it's harsh, but that is how it is! You cannot criticise the Jedi for the Universe being the way it is. They do the absolute best in the situation they are in.
As Jedi HAVE to shy from attachment and as in GL's story the Jedi are the absolute good guys, then by his rules, the two are not incompatible. I also see nothing on screen to suggest this is in error.
The Jedi dont' deny all their emotions, but that seems to be the ultimate goal. For example, not greiving the death of a close friend. That runs contrary to every natural impulse most any creature would have, sentient or nonsentient alike. It's not sucessful yet, but it seems to be what they are trying for. As you said, it's the journey that counts. And trying to be lifeless automatons is a damn stupid journey.
If the Jedi paused to think about their recuritment program, they'd realize that their supreme arrogance had reached a point rivaling the corrupt senate they served. Who gave them the goddamn right? Claiming to prevent future catastrophy is a damn stupid reason if you ask me. Pratical or not, they remove the child's choice from them. Anakin chooses to become a Jedi: did anybody else really have the option? It's a testament to the orders effectiveness that there weren't more betrayls. Why do you think it was so easy for palpatine to turn the public opinion against the jedi? the jedi numbered in thousands in a galaxy of billions. Most would never meet a Jedi. And hearing of a group that takes children from their parents at birth wouldn't aid their reputation any. For many, I'd be the Jedi were seen as an evil order and their destruction an act of good.
Besides, Luke turned out fine. Proof the "praticality" of the Jedi was utter conceit. And in Eu (valid because of the section of forums we are in) Luke proceeds to break pretty much every tenent of the former Jedi, having several girlfriends and eventually a wife, bearing children, and forming massive amounts of personal attachments, again turning out fine.
If all Jedi are absolute good, explain Dooku.
No, Luke was NOT fine. Luke was very dangerous! He was on the edge of falling to the Dark Side. That is an insane risk to take!
Again, GL is the final arbitrator. He presents us with a system where the Jedi have to take force-capable babies at birth for the greater good. That is, again, the way it is.
And Dooku fell to the Dark Side. Did you possibly note that one?
Furthermore, whatever section we are in, EU that contradicts GL or the movies is in error.
Agreed. And Luke Skywalker went from being GL's hero in the OT to becoming everyone's living fantasy in the Eu noves after that time period. The whole series beyond that is inconsistant with GL's original design and his emphasis on the struggle between good and evil hrough the Force. Luke Skywalker has been presented by a few people here as a "grey" Jedi, which is a dangerous thing to even consider. The Jedi represent the good in the SW universe. Look at their leader, Yoda... Do you think Yoda would approve of Luke's fall to the darkside in the De series? Of his attachments and relationships? The series went from space opera to action-soap opera with the creation of post-ROTJ EU. Meh
Anyways, this topic has been beaten to death. Sith = evil, jedi = good. It is that simple.