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.
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
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.
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
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.
Last edited by Janus Marius on Aug 28th, 2005 at 06:33 PM
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.
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
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.
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.
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
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.
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Aug 28th, 2005 05:58 AM
