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.
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.
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 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.
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.