Are Sith really evil?

[Beniboybling]

"Things that increase survival across a broad area are Good. Things that decrease survival across a broad area are Evil.

And its attempts to apply universal maxims like this that lead to 'evil' acts being justified. Not only do actions consider immoral not always have life or death repercussions - e.g. slavery, rape, corruption - but one cannot justify an actions simply because it results in the 'greater good'.

 

But to take your maxim at face value, it could be easily used to justify war against another county if that country threatened their own. For example if a smaller nation (X) declared war against a larger one (Y), and if X had a more dedicated military than Y, it would be justifiable to drop nuclear bombs on X and wipe them out its population entirely. Because in the long term it would result in the survival and prosperity of a greater number of people.

 

The very fact that you are supporting the barbaric actions of a warlord is testament to the fact that your philosophy allows for the justification of pain and suffering. Or what you would define as evil.

 

You see the problems with universal maxims like these is that there are always loop holes, there is no one definition of what is 'good' and what is 'evil' - different communities have different definitions and it should remain that way because different communities exist in different situations which call for a different kind of morality.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Beniboybling

[Kaedusz]

 

Granted they want to take over the galaxy, but look at it from their standpoint. Republic is corrupt and decadent and can't really govern courscant let alone the rest of the known galaxy.

 

I mean wouldn't you want to take it over so you could have some sembalance of order in the chaos of the republic?

 

The Empire's motives to destroy the Republic are more than that.The Empire is an actual nation completely separate from the Republic,both in its foundations and now.It has its own world view ,ideals and goals.

The Republic being corrupt and decadent has little to do with the goals of the everage imperial citizen born and raised in the Empire and has Imperial self conscious that enrolls in the army.It has more to do with just my nation vs theirs and the humiliating defeat ''my'' nation suffered long time ago.Odile Vaiken anyone?

 

Although,Yes the Republic is not a nation but a union of semi-independent entities ,partly similar to the EU and UN,but on Galactic Scale.

 

Another thing worth mentioning is the confrontation between two ideologies,many times seen in the real world.

On one hand you have a free society and on the other authoritarian(and theocratic) regime.It is deeply rooted in the Imperial culture that it is a good idea to sacrifice freedom for more security,the result which is a strong state,which can do anything to you.On the other hand in the Republic,the state is weak,and you have more freedom,but you can be killed by street thug on some slum on Coruscant and dumped in a barrel and noone will ever know.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Kaedusz

[Khevar]

And its attempts to apply universal maxims like this that lead to 'evil' acts being justified. Not only do actions consider immoral not always have life or death repercussions - e.g. slavery, rape, corruption - but one cannot justify an actions simply because it results in the 'greater good'.

 

But to take your maxim at face value, it could be easily used to justify war against another county if that country threatened their own. For example if a smaller nation (X) declared war against a larger one (Y), and if X had a more dedicated military than Y, it would be justifiable to drop nuclear bombs on X and wipe them out its population entirely. Because in the long term it would result in the survival and prosperity of a greater number of people.

 

The very fact that you are supporting the barbaric actions of a warlord is testament to the fact that your philosophy allows for the justification of pain and suffering. Or what you would define as evil.

 

You see the problems with universal maxims like these is that there are always loop holes, there is no one definition of what is 'good' and what is 'evil' - different communities have different definitions and it should remain that way because different communities exist in different situations which call for a different kind of morality.

It might surprise you, but I actually agree.

 

I specifically chose a controversial example. Now, when I say "Survival" I don't mean "Barely Surviving." Survival is a gradient scale. A begger in the streets of Delhi is alive, but his survival isn't as great as (for example) the Chief Minister of Delhi.

 

You may make an argument against the King of Qin showing that he is, in fact Evil, and I might agree. But your argument would include reasons why his actions affected the survival of the people of China.

 

I note that you stayed away from my Tim McVeigh example. Care to weigh in on why his actions WEREN'T evil?

 

As I mentioned before, this is a topic worthy of discussion and debate.

 

Now, it is my contention that to take the position that "there is no such thing as evil because people disagree on what evil is" a dangerous proposition, and will allow evil to exist without check.

 

If you look, you will find Charles Manson apologists. Despite the fact that he showed no remorse and joked about his killing sprees in court. How is this not the very face of evil itself? And hiding behind "people can't agree on good and evil" is a lack of confront on evil that does exist.

 

One can say with certainty that there are, in fact, Sith that are NOT evil. But, can you come up with a compelling argument that the Sith Emperor himself ISN'T evil?

[Laiov]

Yup...totally see your point on Jedi being evil and repulsive. *sarcasm*

The Jedi code has at its core a selflessness, yielding an ascetic focus upon others. To contrast the Sith code has at its core an egocentrism, yielding a decadent focus upon the self. Direct consequences of the Sith code have been the authoritarian subversion and destruction of others in service of the self. Direct consequences of the Jedi code have been the authoritarian subversion and destruction of the self in service of others.

 

Both the Jedi and the Sith are extremist death cults. They appeal to the significance of the Force to deny the significance of the life of the person as they exist, and in so doing regularly attempt to subvert (or "transcend") that life. I perceive death cults as an evil. What makes the Jedi death cult repulsive in addition to being evil, whereas the Sith are just blatantly evil, is that they are constantly being construed as life-affirming and good. I find the goodguyism of the Jedi posture insulting. The most reprehensible evil is not the evil that cackles in black hats and twirls its mustache conspicuously. Instead it's the delusion of the white hats, widely admired and vaunted, and thereby spread to dysfunction everywhere, like a disease.

 

What I would perceive as "good" is far more tempered than either the Jedi or the Sith. On the Star Wars continuum it would be something squarely in the gray in between, entirely absent the person-annihilating delusions of both.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Laiov

[Beniboybling]

It might surprise you, but I actually agree.

 

I specifically chose a controversial example. Now, when I say "Survival" I don't mean "Barely Surviving." Survival is a gradient scale. A begger in the streets of Delhi is alive, but his survival isn't as great as (for example) the Chief Minister of Delhi.

 

You may make an argument against the King of Qin showing that he is, in fact Evil, and I might agree. But your argument would include reasons why his actions affected the survival of the people of China.

 

I note that you stayed away from my Tim McVeigh example. Care to weigh in on why his actions WEREN'T evil?

 

As I mentioned before, this is a topic worthy of discussion and debate.

 

Now, it is my contention that to take the position that "there is no such thing as evil because people disagree on what evil is" a dangerous proposition, and will allow evil to exist without check.

 

If you look, you will find Charles Manson apologists. Despite the fact that he showed no remorse and joked about his killing sprees in court. How is this not the very face of evil itself? And hiding behind "people can't agree on good and evil" is a lack of confront on evil that does exist.

 

One can say with certainty that there are, in fact, Sith that are NOT evil. But, can you come up with a compelling argument that the Sith Emperor himself ISN'T evil?

Regardless, it can't be applied to everything. In terms of Tim McVeigh, yes in that scenario it works, but in many others it fails and instead of condemning immorality, it allows it. Now, I stand by my belief that evil acts cannot be objectively defined. You can say its impractical or dangerous, but that doesn't make it false. Pretending its true and attempting to go along with it is only going to cause problems.

 

However this doesn't mean that anything goes, and that we should allow such actions to happen simply because we are incapable of labeling them 'evil' or 'wrong'. Evil and immorality can be defined, but only subjectively. And that definition arises from your personal community and the values they uphold. Because of that what is considered 'moral' and 'immoral' will differ depending on the society you live in, and the era you live in. In some societies killing may be necessary, it some it may not. But as long as the values of your community are directed at human happiness and flourishing*, then following them will lead you to become a virtuous person and doing the 'right' thing. And likewise can act as a basis for judging the actions of others.

 

Apply this to the Sith Empire and we see that they are an 'immoral' society. They uphold oppression and exploitation which do not lead to human happiness and cannot be considered virtuous in any context. So we are justified in condemning them as immoral. Though when we say the word 'immoral' or 'evil' we are using our own subjective definition. In reality 'evil' is just a concept and does not actually exist. And although I cannot think of any situations were genocide or slavery could not be considered evil, that's not justification for saying it exists.

 

Now this may sound a lot like virtue ethics, and really it is, but that's what I believe in.

 

*Now you may be thinking that this sounds like a universal maxim but its not, a maxim is rule of principle. This is simply an observation of the goal of humanity - which applies to everyone.

[Beniboybling]

The Jedi code has at its core a selflessness, yielding an ascetic focus upon others. To contrast the Sith code has at its core an egocentrism, yielding a decadent focus upon the self. Direct consequences of the Sith code have been the authoritarian subversion and destruction of others in service of the self. Direct consequences of the Jedi code have been the authoritarian subversion and destruction of the self in service of others.

 

Both the Jedi and the Sith are extremist death cults. They appeal to the significance of the Force to deny the significance of the life of the person as they exist, and in so doing regularly attempt to subvert (or "transcend") that life. I perceive death cults as an evil. What makes the Jedi death cult repulsive in addition to being evil, whereas the Sith are just blatantly evil, is that they are constantly being construed as life-affirming and good. I find the goodguyism of the Jedi posture insulting. The most reprehensible evil is not the evil that cackles in black hats and twirls its mustache conspicuously. Instead it's the delusion of the white hats, widely admired and vaunted, and thereby spread to dysfunction everywhere, like a disease.

 

What I would perceive as "good" is far more tempered than either the Jedi or the Sith. On the Star Wars continuum it would be something squarely in the gray in between, entirely absent the person-annihilating delusions of both.

That's actually a very good point. Though you should probably explain your position initially else people will just think you a wacko.

 

I also believe that neither the Jedi nor the Sith have the right perspective, and that the original Je'daii Order were closest to the 'right' way before they split. After all isn't the Force all about balance? Nevertheless I never thought of it from this perspective, food for thought indeed...

[Khevar]

The Jedi code has at its core a selflessness, yielding an ascetic focus upon others. To contrast the Sith code has at its core an egocentrism, yielding a decadent focus upon the self. Direct consequences of the Sith code have been the authoritarian subversion and destruction of others in service of the self. Direct consequences of the Jedi code have been the authoritarian subversion and destruction of the self in service of others.

 

Both the Jedi and the Sith are extremist death cults. They appeal to the significance of the Force to deny the significance of the life of the person as they exist, and in so doing regularly attempt to subvert (or "transcend") that life. I perceive death cults as an evil. What makes the Jedi death cult repulsive in addition to being evil, whereas the Sith are just blatantly evil, is that they are constantly being construed as life-affirming and good. I find the goodguyism of the Jedi posture insulting. The most reprehensible evil is not the evil that cackles in black hats and twirls its mustache conspicuously. Instead it's the delusion of the white hats, widely admired and vaunted, and thereby spread to dysfunction everywhere, like a disease.

 

What I would perceive as "good" is far more tempered than either the Jedi or the Sith. On the Star Wars continuum it would be something squarely in the gray in between, entirely absent the person-annihilating delusions of both.

I think this is a really good point.

 

However, I also think that the environment of the Jedi Order makes it easier for people who are trying to promote survival to exist. And harder for people who are trying to promote destruction to exist. And by comparison, I think that the environment of the Sith Order is the reverse.

 

For example, when I played my Consular as "light side" I was making decisions that helped a number of the rim planets survive better. I attempted to reduce conflict where possible, and the efforts were directed towards a group of people in a spirit of help. This attitude came naturally to me, while role playing my character. The idea that I could subvert, take over, control or destroy those groups was hard to relate to.

 

This isn't to say that I couldn't have done that, or that those choices weren't available, just that the setting was such that it was easier to do "good" and hard to do "evil".

 

By comparison, when I played my Inquisitor, the direction was one of selfishness, personal power and destruction of enemies (real or imagined) in my own group -- The Empire. I watched other Sith casually torture and murder Imperial Officers for something as simple as lack of respect or compliance with an order. Or just for fun to see what it was like when they squirmed. In this environment, it was natural to fall in line with this. I played the storyline out as a selfish, rude, twisted being.

 

Now, it would be possible to play that character as one trying to do "good." And yet, these would be perceived as a sign of weakness, opening oneself up to attack and possible destruction by the other Sith. In this environment, it was easier to do "evil" than to do "good".

 

Also, when I played my Agent, I played it as a consummate professional, trying to do everything to support the Empire, and achieve it's goals. And yet, it was the Sith Order and it's members that got in my way more than the Republic.

 

By comparison, when I played my Trooper, I found a Republic that was beset by corruption and tangled in a typical bureaucratic nightmare. In my travels and attempts to do my job, the Jedi were an asset, not a hindrance (unlike the Republic Senate itself)

 

I find it very difficult to agree with any idea that both the Jedi and Sith Orders are equally bad.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Khevar

[Beniboybling]

I find it very difficult to agree with any idea that both the Jedi and Sith Orders are equally bad.

From an intellectual standpoint, perhaps, but from a moral standpoint? I'd say the Jedi are more agreeable.

[Aurbere]

From an intellectual standpoint, perhaps, but from a moral standpoint? I'd say the Jedi are more agreeable.

 

Unfortunately morality is one of those things that are subjective.

 

Although I don't know anyone who thinks mass genocide and slavery is a good thing.

[Dbuntu]

Unfortunately morality is one of those things that are subjective.

 

Although I don't know anyone who thinks mass genocide and slavery is a good thing.

Depends on perspective. Not to step on any toes, but religious texts tend to be okay with murder and slavery and are often used for moral frameworks.

[Khevar]

Depends on perspective. Not to step on any toes, but religious texts tend to be okay with murder and slavery and are often used for moral frameworks.

Too true.

 

Which is why I'm thankful for intelligent philosophers that strove to break free of such fixated thinking and who try to find better ways of understanding life and the people in it.

 

Not to mention that groups that promote things like murder and slavery are often violating their own written texts, in an extremely dangerous form of hypocrisy.

[Kaedusz]

Depends on perspective. Not to step on any toes, but religious texts tend to be okay with murder and slavery and are often used for moral frameworks.

This may be getting offtopic but:

You can't take a ''religious text'' out of a context and then use it for some absurd argument.

Those texts you are referring to were written a long time ago,in a an age where killing people and slavery was as normal as the mcdolands in the corner today.It was practiced in the whole world and it is a characteristic of the historic time,not of religion.If anything religion used to put a civilized framework on those practices and limit them.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Kaedusz

[theStirge]

The thing is, in Star Wars, Jedi like to say "there is no death, only the force". Where is the argument for killing somebody being evil then?

 

Also it makes Jedi contradictory since they basically say death is no big deal and in the same time they make quite a bit of effort to prevent other people from dying. I'm wondering why.

 

"There is no death, there is only the Force" is not intended to imply that life has no value or meaning. It's a warning against becoming too attached to your corporeal existence, possibly so attached that you fall to the Dark Side in your effort to retain it. When it's your time to go, it's your time to go, and you will become one with the Force when you do, so don't fret about it. This doesn't mean lay down and die, or stand by passively and let others die, but if you're in tune with your feelings and trust in the Force, you will know when it's time to let go.

 

The Force is about life, and that line is to remind you that life will continue as long as there is the Force, even if it continues without you personally. But just because death should be nothing to fear doesn't mean you should seek it out or passively accept it when you can prevent it without causing greater harm. And no, killing in self-defense or the defense of others is not causing greater harm, unless you could have prevented it without killing.

[Darth_Moonshadow]

This may be getting offtopic but:

You can't take a ''religious text'' out of a context and then use it for some absurd argument.

Those texts you are referring to were written a long time ago,in a an age where killing people and slavery was as normal as the mcdolands in the corner today.It was practiced in the whole world and it is a characteristic of the historic time,not of religion.If anything religion used to put a civilized framework on those practices and limit them.

 

Tell that to Westboro, because they do that schtako every single day.

[JamagsAwesome]

I wonder if racist slavers with a society built on betrayal that consider themselves the ultimate expression of the force are evil... Hmmmm...

[zzoorrzz]

I wonder if racist slavers with a society built on betrayal that consider themselves the ultimate expression of the force are evil... Hmmmm...

 

Then the whole world is evil since strong animals kill weaker animals every day. It's quite normal. People are animals too, just have bigger brains in their head.

[Beniboybling]

Then the whole world is evil since strong animals kill weaker animals every day. It's quite normal. People are animals too, just have bigger brains in their head.

And because of that we have the ability to rise above the natural order and establish some kind of morality. Just because its 'natural' does not make it desirable. We are only animals by definition, sentience gives us the power to be better. Edited June 5, 2013 by Beniboybling

[Khevar]

I wonder if racist slavers with a society built on betrayal that consider themselves the ultimate expression of the force are evil... Hmmmm...

Then the whole world is evil since strong animals kill weaker animals every day. It's quite normal. People are animals too, just have bigger brains in their head.

zzoorzz, following your logic:

 

1. In the animal kingdom, the strong preys on the weak.

2. This is natural behavior.

3. Man is an animal.

4. Racism, slavery and betrayal are expressions of the strong preying on the weak.

5. Racism, slavery and betrayal are natural behavior.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Khevar

[Xeperi]

And because of that we have the ability to rise above the natural order and establish some kind of morality. Just because its 'natural' does not make it desirable. We are only animals by definition, sentience gives us the power to be better.

 

Nah, we don't have the ability to be "above" the natural order, we simply have the ability to be conscious of ourselves and therefore also nature. The lie comes when we deny what is natural in ourselves. Sentience (aka self-referencing consciousness) is the product of millions of years of "the strong survive, the weak die of", it was literally designed - every cell, every flash between every set of neurons- as the absolute highest form of "the strong survive". It is why humans dominate earth. If anything else were the case, sentience would long ago have been out-competed by a superior form of evolutionary development.

[Beniboybling]

Nah, we don't have the ability to be "above" the natural order, we simply have the ability to be conscious of ourselves and therefore also nature. The lie comes when we deny what is natural in ourselves. Sentience (aka self-referencing consciousness) is the product of millions of years of "the strong survive, the weak die of", it was literally designed - every cell, every flash between every set of neurons- as the absolute highest form of "the strong survive". It is why humans dominate earth. If anything else were the case, sentience would long ago have been out-competed by a superior form of evolutionary development.

I'm not saying we aren't a product of nature or evolution, but this doesn't mean that as the only sentient species on the planet we aren't able to rise above the savagery and brutality of animals and instead have to adopt some kind of social Darwinism. Simply put, we are better than our ancestors. Break the circle!

[Euphrosyne]

It is theoretically possible to construct an a priori objective model of morality much as it is possible to construct an a priori objective model of mathematics. It's not necessarily the sort of morality that one would unquestioningly argue in favor of, but it certainly could exist. So it's not exactly axiomatic that morality is necessarily subjective.

[thomasbaxter]

It's probably been mentioned but couldn't read through all the pages. I recall on the Jedi Knight storyline on tatooine, the main bad guy on that planet brings this up. Was interesting to know how the sith corrupted over time.

[Beniboybling]

It is theoretically possible to construct an a priori objective model of morality much as it is possible to construct an a priori objective model of mathematics. It's not necessarily the sort of morality that one would unquestioningly argue in favor of, but it certainly could exist. So it's not exactly axiomatic that morality is necessarily subjective.

Is it? I can think of no reason why possible could not be substituted with impossible. Given that as a pure concept, good and evil are purely subjective. Still I'm not entirely confident on that. Edited June 5, 2013 by Beniboybling

[Xeperi]

The "Dark/Light" paradigm in Star Wars is a very simplistic invention to put "good guy/bad guy" codes of conduct into a space-opera.

 

But Star Wars grew and grew and grew and a ton of stuff got added to the original, making the whole thing much more complex and multi-layered. Taking all of that into consideration, the Light Side makes me think of eastern philosophies of Dharma, harmonizing with the underlying rhythm of the universe to the point of letting go of ones own ego and becoming one with the universe. The Dark Side makes me think of pre-christian western philosophies of expanding ones own ego to the size of the universe and forcing that underlying rhythm to harmonize with ones own. These would be the Right and Left hand side of traditional mysticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-hand_path_and_right-hand_path

 

"Light Side" http://sourceryforge.org/index.php/Right-hand_path

 

"Dark Side" http://sourceryforge.org/index.php/Left-hand_path

[zzoorrzz]

zzoorzz, following your logic:

 

1. In the animal kingdom, the strong preys on the weak.

2. This is natural behavior.

3. Man is an animal.

4. Racism, slavery and betrayal are expressions of the strong preying on the weak.

5. Racism, slavery and betrayal are natural behavior.

 

Well, technically, that's all correct. Todays society is unnatural in many things.