Are Sith really evil?

[Beniboybling]

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

And better because of it.

[zzoorrzz]

And better because of it.

 

I agree, still that doesn't make it natural. Those are 2 separate things.

[Euphrosyne]

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.

Consider the following:

 

A priori truths are only plausibly truths at all if they are constructed about facts about the people who "know" them. This applies to mathematics as much as it does morality: 2+2=4 is only true iff under conditions of full rationality all persons would endorse that statement, with "full rationality" meaning persons have coherent, true beliefs and commit no logical fallacies.

 

So by this line of reasoning, one can have objective truths about morality just as much as one can have them about mathematics: by constructing them out of facts - and counterfactuals - about human behavior and knowledge. Or, simply put: because math and ethics rest on essentially similar logical underpinnings, if one accepts that mathematical truths can be objective (something with which I have known no one to disagree), then one must also accept that moral truths can be similarly objective.

 

I am not saying that this is a particularly good way to construct a system of morality, nor am I arguing in favor of it. But it does indicate that the statement "morality is inherently subjective" is not trivially true.

[Beniboybling]

Consider the following:

 

A priori truths are only plausibly truths at all if they are constructed about facts about the people who "know" them. This applies to mathematics as much as it does morality: 2+2=4 is only true iff under conditions of full rationality all persons would endorse that statement, with "full rationality" meaning persons have coherent, true beliefs and commit no logical fallacies.

 

So by this line of reasoning, one can have objective truths about morality just as much as one can have them about mathematics: by constructing them out of facts - and counterfactuals - about human behavior and knowledge. Or, simply put: because math and ethics rest on essentially similar logical underpinnings, if one accepts that mathematical truths can be objective (something with which I have known no one to disagree), then one must also accept that moral truths can be similarly objective.

 

I am not saying that this is a particularly good way to construct a system of morality, nor am I arguing in favor of it. But it does indicate that the statement "morality is inherently subjective" is not trivially true.

Interesting. But surely this would only work if everyone was in agreement with said truths, or at least had no valid means of disputing them i.e. try as you might but 2+2 will never equal 5. Whereas in some situations murder is arguably right while in others it is wrong. What I'm essentially disputing here is that mathematics and morality have similar underpinnings as mathematics is intuitive while morality, at least in my opinion, is not. Edited June 5, 2013 by Beniboybling

[Khevar]

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.

Over the last 50,000 years, H. Sapiens has evolved in a direction of "social consciousness"

 

Groups of humans that were unable to rise above animalistic behavior were dominated by groups that had figured out how to cooperate. The more sophisticated brains were able to do so. Those that couldn't fell behind.

 

"Being conscious of ourselves and therefore also nature" is itself PART of the natural order.

[Khevar]

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

The ability of a human being to reason, to think, to be creative, and to conceive of ideas and put then into motion is a natural progression as the human brain evolved.

 

Many species have evolved from living in water, to living on land. They have changed, although many have vestigial markers showing they used to be waterbound.

 

A human may have an evolutionary background with the "law of the jungle", but his evolution past that has resulted in the people you see today. This is no more unnatural than the fact that we no longer breathe water.

[Luckeyduckey]

79 pages?

 

There's a one word answer to it.

 

Yes.

[Euphrosyne]

Interesting. But surely this would only work if everyone was in agreement with said truths, or at least had no valid means of disputing them i.e. try as you might but 2+2 will never equal 5. Whereas in some situations murder is arguably right while in others it is wrong. What I'm essentially disputing here is that mathematics and morality have similar underpinnings as mathematics is intuitive while morality, at least in my opinion, is not.

Whether mathematics is intuitive is irrelevant to the ability to logically prove it. The primary reason you and everybody else believes that 2+2 does not equal 5 is because you have been taught that way; it's been hammered into your brain by a multitude of parents and math teachers since you were old enough to read. But mathematics is basically an arbitrary game, a logical system where everything revolves around definitions as opposed to observable or provable facts. The only way to eliminate the arbitrariness of mathematics, to make it objectively true as opposed to intuitively true, is to make the aforementioned connection between a prior truths and facts that people believe about themselves. This is not merely me talking out my rear end; I couldn't dream up something like this and lack the philosophical or logical training to even try. This is a consensus argument of modern philosophers.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Euphrosyne

[DarthBloodloss]

Sith are evil, and know they are evil.

 

You can tell by the dialogue. Whenever people bring up the subject of good vs evil, the Sith never disagree and say they are the good ones.

 

Luke: "Father, there is still good in you, I feel it."

 

What does Vader say? Does he argue that he, in fact, is the one following the correct moral compass? No, he says, "Nah, its too late man."

 

The only time someone says something is Anakin on Mustafar. But considering he was tipping the scales at Dark V, it was just delusion by that time.

[Khevar]

Whether mathematics is intuitive is irrelevant to the ability to logically prove it. The primary reason you and everybody else believes that 2+2 does not equal 5 is because you have been taught that way; it's been hammered into your brain by a multitude of parents and math teachers since you were old enough to read. But mathematics is basically an arbitrary game, a logical system where everything revolves around definitions as opposed to observable or provable facts. The only way to eliminate the arbitrariness of mathematics, to make it objectively true as opposed to intuitively true, is to make the aforementioned connection between a prior truths and facts that people believe about themselves. This is not merely me talking out my rear end; I couldn't dream up something like this and lack the philosophical or logical training to even try. This is a consensus argument of modern philosophers.

Perhaps I'm overlooking some point you're trying to make about logic, but simple math and many types of advanced math are far more than an arbitrary game or a set of logical definitions.

 

This is particularly true when you have math that can be easily related to the physical universe with observable behavior. Put 5 apples on a table. Count them. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

 

Put 2 apples on another table. Add 2 more apples. Count them. 1. 2. 3. 4.

 

They are not the same.

 

The primary reason people believe 2+2 equals 4 is because it is observably true, NOT because it is hammered in by teachers.

 

Imagine a social experiment that took a young person who has no knowledge of math, and try to teach them that 2+2 equals 5. They might accept the fact from the teacher, but the moment they try to relate it to the world in front of them, they will see that it isn't true.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Khevar

[SithKoriandr]

Perhaps I'm overlooking some point you're trying to make about logic, but simple math and many types of advanced math are far more than an arbitrary game or a set of logical definitions.

 

This is particularly true when you have math that can be easily related to the physical universe with observable behavior. Put 5 apples on a table. Count them. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

 

Put 2 apples on another table. Add 2 more apples. Count them. 1. 2. 3. 4.

 

They are not the same.

 

The primary reason people believe 2+2 equals 4 is because it is observably true, NOT because it is hammered in by teachers.

 

Imagine a social experiment that took a young person who has no knowledge of math, and try to teach them that 2+2 equals 5. They might accept the fact from the teacher, but the moment they try to relate it to the world in front of them, they will see that it isn't true.

 

I always took that argument to be they're saying we call the number 4 four, when we could've called 4 five. Basically it's a dumb argument.

 

It's like saying "What if we spelled CAT, D. O. G."

[Bytemite]

Two plus two is five for very high values of two. Also, two plus two is ten in base four.

 

*hooked off stage and booed out of the auditorium*

Edited June 6, 2013 by Bytemite

[Euphrosyne]

Perhaps I'm overlooking some point you're trying to make about logic, but simple math and many types of advanced math are far more than an arbitrary game or a set of logical definitions.

 

This is particularly true when you have math that can be easily related to the physical universe with observable behavior. Put 5 apples on a table. Count them. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

 

Put 2 apples on another table. Add 2 more apples. Count them. 1. 2. 3. 4.

 

They are not the same.

 

The primary reason people believe 2+2 equals 4 is because it is observably true, NOT because it is hammered in by teachers.

 

Imagine a social experiment that took a young person who has no knowledge of math, and try to teach them that 2+2 equals 5. They might accept the fact from the teacher, but the moment they try to relate it to the world in front of them, they will see that it isn't true.

That's not an observable fact, that's just playing games with the definitions of the numbers. 2+2=4 is a tautology. It is based on axioms regarding the values of the numbers two and four. It is not as though the universe has defined "two" and "four" for us, and given us examples of a universal law relating those numbers in the real world. Math is therefore a closed logical system. There is literally no test that could be done in the real world to disprove any mathematical relationship, and no test that could be done in the real world to prove one.

 

But, unlike what SithKoriandr said, the fact that this is an a priori truth instead of an observable truth is not trivial or irrelevant. Take another example. The circumference of a circle is held to be 2, times the radius of the circle, times the constant pi, correct? But in the real world, we observe things that we describe as circles all the time, none of which actually have these dimensions - they're always slightly, if infinitesimally slightly, off. We do not conclude from this that 2πr does not describe the circumference of a circle; we conclude that these are imperfect circles. That is not based on observable fact or empirical testing, it is an a priori truth: math games in one's head.

 

So if we don't know these things by empirical testing, how can we know them? The common answer is something called "human convergence", described in the previous few posts. And that's what makes it at least theoretically possible for there to be an objective morality: it would be based upon what humans would counterfactually believe to be "moral" under idealized conditions.

 

The problem, obviously, is that where one can very easily demonstrate that sort of convergence in mathematics - nobody will seriously argue that the circumference of a circle is anything other than 2πr - it is very difficult to demonstrate such a convergence in morality. But it's also very difficult to demonstrate a lack thereof. There are examples of mathematical truths that haven't been proven, like Riemann's hypothesis and the P-NP problem. But it's generally agreed that mathematicians and computer scientists have, over time, generally managed to get closer and closer to proofs or approximations of the answers. One might very well say the same thing about philosophers: that they have, over time, gotten closer and closer to proving objective moral truths. They're just not quite as far along as the mathematicians are.

 

Again, I don't wish to argue in favor of this interpretation of philosophy (although I would like to point out that any counterinterpretation is basically Platonist, which is obviously not desirable; people have been poking holes in Platonism for 2300 years). But it is suggestive and interesting. You may still believe that moral truths are subjective, and you may be right about that, but I want to stress that it's not something trivially true that one can simply assert with general agreement.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Euphrosyne

[Khevar]

@Euphrosyne,

 

Heh, I'm pretty sure that the level of logic and philosophy you are discussing is beyond my reach at this time. It's a shame, as I believe it would be pretty interesting if I really grasped it.

 

It reminds me the first time an advanced theoretical mathematician was trying to describe the subject of his dissertation, as it related to a type of math that would only be applicable in a universe that followed different laws than ours.

 

I believe useful philosophies are those tempered with practicality. It's not dissimilar to how particle physicists have theorized the building blocks of matter. Phenomenon A is observed. Scientist comes up with Theory B that could explain it. Theory B predicts Phenomenon C that has yet to be observed. If we look, and see Phenomenon C, then Theory B has some validity. Is Theory B "true"? Maybe. But it's a "practical truth" as we get results by applying it.

 

I postulate that Evil consists of actions that impede survival, and that Good consists of actions that improve survival, and that survival is more than just living or dead and include the quality of survival.

 

Is the Empire itself Evil? Perhaps. As an organization, as a government, as a group, they are trying to put their brand of order in the galaxy. Their brand of order is influenced by the Sith. And the group is headed by the Sith Emperor, who as I mentioned before

 

wants to suck out all life in the galaxy to ensure his own personal immortality

 

Is there a better example of "impede survival"? Not only for the people of the Republic, but Empire as well?

 

"As the head goes, so follows the body." The Sith Council is filled with backbiting, treacherous, power-hungry people that are unable to cooperate fully as they try to tear each other down. They would shatter the Republic in a heartbeat if they weren't so busy with personal and political infighting.

 

I would say that the Sith create an environment where it is easy to be evil, to do evil, and for evil to rise in power.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Khevar

[zzoorrzz]

The ability of a human being to reason, to think, to be creative, and to conceive of ideas and put then into motion is a natural progression as the human brain evolved.

 

Many species have evolved from living in water, to living on land. They have changed, although many have vestigial markers showing they used to be waterbound.

 

A human may have an evolutionary background with the "law of the jungle", but his evolution past that has resulted in the people you see today. This is no more unnatural than the fact that we no longer breathe water.

 

Evolution takes a little bit longer than few centuries though. Being "nicer" to each other than animals isn't part of being human yet, simply because there was no time for that. We are still animals. Thanks to fast technical advance, we can afford not to be, right now. But in everyone of us sleeps beast that can be awake under certain circumstances.

Edited June 6, 2013 by zzoorrzz

[Euphrosyne]

@Euphrosyne,

 

Heh, I'm pretty sure that the level of logic and philosophy you are discussing is beyond my reach at this time. It's a shame, as I believe it would be pretty interesting if I really grasped it.

 

It reminds me the first time an advanced theoretical mathematician was trying to describe the subject of his dissertation, as it related to a type of math that would only be applicable in a universe that followed different laws than ours.

 

I believe useful philosophies are those tempered with practicality. It's not dissimilar to how particle physicists have theorized the building blocks of matter. Phenomenon A is observed. Scientist comes up with Theory B that could explain it. Theory B predicts Phenomenon C that has yet to be observed. If we look, and see Phenomenon C, then Theory B has some validity. Is Theory B "true"? Maybe. But it's a "practical truth" as we get results by applying it.

Hah, yeah, I won't pretend that I can talk about this stuff all that articulately either. I'm just a history student; dealing with formal logic at anything beyond a very basic level is pretty beyond my skill set. Out of all the modern philosophers, I like Nietzsche not so much for his ideas themselves, but because he explained them without bothering much in the way of proof. Philosophical proofs are a pain in the butt to wade through. Nietzsche relied on rhetoric and humor, and he was pretty good at that.

 

To be fair to the philosophers, though, I think that these sorts of things are applicable in the real world. It's just that most people can't or won't apply them, because most people - including myself - don't tend to have a coherent and thought-out ethical system that they follow. It's extremely irrational to act that way, but people do, unfortunately.

I postulate that Evil consists of actions that impede survival, and that Good consists of actions that improve survival, and that survival is more than just living or dead and include the quality of survival.

 

Is the Empire itself Evil? Perhaps. As an organization, as a government, as a group, they are trying to put their brand of order in the galaxy. Their brand of order is influenced by the Sith. And the group is headed by the Sith Emperor, who as I mentioned before

 

wants to suck out all life in the galaxy to ensure his own personal immortality

 

Is there a better example of "impede survival"? Not only for the people of the Republic, but Empire as well?

 

"As the head goes, so follows the body." The Sith Council is filled with backbiting, treacherous, power-hungry people that are unable to cooperate fully as they try to tear each other down. They would shatter the Republic in a heartbeat if they weren't so busy with personal and political infighting.

 

I would say that the Sith create an environment where it is easy to be evil, to do evil, and for evil to rise in power.

Ever hear of Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus? (If you don't feel like slogging through the Wikipedia or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy versions, you could always try SMBC.) Your post looks like it's recreating that, to an extent.

 

Oh, and I think that the Sith Empire is an unquestionably and intrinsically evil organization both in general and in its particulars. Just to get that out of the way. Although I think that the Dark Council wouldn't "shatter the Republic in a heartbeat" - they'd just try.

[Xeperi]

Over the last 50,000 years, H. Sapiens has evolved in a direction of "social consciousness"

 

Groups of humans that were unable to rise above animalistic behavior were dominated by groups that had figured out how to cooperate. The more sophisticated brains were able to do so. Those that couldn't fell behind.

 

"Being conscious of ourselves and therefore also nature" is itself PART of the natural order.

 

All apex predators are both highly intelligent and extremely social as far as I know. This is to more efficiently do what they do.

 

I really think where "social consciousness" hit its peak as a part of the evolutionary advantage that is sentience, is the part where the survival of less fit genes is forced by the organization implemented by more fit genes, to act in service to that organization and the overall evolutionary benefit of the species.

 

I agree being conscious of ourselves and therefore also of nature is part of the natural order. It is "the natural orders" consciousness of its self. Which is why it strikes me as odd when people say we should rise above or be better than it. Odd because "rise above" and "better" imply an ethical standpoint, and if that stand point is to have more than subjective relevance then it really has to fall back into the context of the framework of social consciousness its self. In so much as social consciousness is an evolutionary advantage. It becomes a little redundant to the point of recursion which is epistemologically interesting but on its face simply means that we need be "better animals", a more effective apex species.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Xeperi

[Beniboybling]

Hah, yeah, I won't pretend that I can talk about this stuff all that articulately either. I'm just a history student; dealing with formal logic at anything beyond a very basic level is pretty beyond my skill set.

Master of understatement.

 

But yeah I get what your saying and can't help but agree with you, though like a circle can never be perfect I'd doubt any purely a priori logical theory would ever be applicable to reality.

 

On morality as a whole, I'd agree that practicality is essential. A moral theory is useless if it cannot be easily conveyed to an average person on the street. Although while applying 'logic' and 'reason' to morality may seem desirable, any moral theory that is purely analytic is going to be incompatible with reality.

[Khevar]

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

I find it odd that you argue that a) there is no such thing as evil, and b) that racism, slavery and betrayal are part of the natural order of mankind.

 

The implication is that a group of humans, cooperating towards a better life, and advancing science and the humanities is weird an unnatural. This is a truly bleak view of existence.

 

I reject this idea from a purely practical standpoint. If I were to accept this as true, it would follow that nothing anyone does really matters, we're all a bunch of savages and any attempt to live in a happier state is worthless. Furthermore, if everyone had this viewpoint, society would decline.

[Beniboybling]

I postulate that Evil consists of actions that impede survival, and that Good consists of actions that improve survival, and that survival is more than just living or dead and include the quality of survival.

 

Is the Empire itself Evil? Perhaps. As an organization, as a government, as a group, they are trying to put their brand of order in the galaxy. Their brand of order is influenced by the Sith. And the group is headed by the Sith Emperor, who as I mentioned before

 

wants to suck out all life in the galaxy to ensure his own personal immortality

 

Is there a better example of "impede survival"? Not only for the people of the Republic, but Empire as well?

 

"As the head goes, so follows the body." The Sith Council is filled with backbiting, treacherous, power-hungry people that are unable to cooperate fully as they try to tear each other down. They would shatter the Republic in a heartbeat if they weren't so busy with personal and political infighting.

 

I would say that the Sith create an environment where it is easy to be evil, to do evil, and for evil to rise in power.

Again I don't believe this works. The Sith Empire for example, commits many acts that improve the survival of their people. War for example, is effectively protecting the Empire and its citizens from another holocaust, does that make it good? I would not say so. Is sacrificing one person to save many good? I would not say so. Is building empires on the backs of slaves - which, eventually, will improve the overall survival and quality of survival of the said empire's citizens and future generations - good? I would not say so. In some cases these can be defined as 'necessary evils' but I would not refer to them as good.

 

And that's not even taking into account the fact that its impossible to accurately predict the future, and therefore difficult to predict whether an action will increase survival, or decrease it. But that depends on whether this is an ethical theory, or simply a means of judging actions.

 

I would call this utilitarianism of Bethman's kind though, I wouldn't call this theory hedonistic.

[Beniboybling]

I find it odd that you argue that a) there is no such thing as evil, and b) that racism, slavery and betrayal are part of the natural order of mankind.

 

The implication is that a group of humans, cooperating towards a better life, and advancing science and the humanities is weird an unnatural. This is a truly bleak view of existence.

 

I reject this idea from a purely practical standpoint. If I were to accept this as true, it would follow that nothing anyone does really matters, we're all a bunch of savages and any attempt to live in a happier state is worthless. Furthermore, if everyone had this viewpoint, society would decline.

That's nihilism for you. But while I agree that evil does not exist, that doesn't mean we can't have morality.

[Beniboybling]

All apex predators are both highly intelligent and extremely social as far as I know. This is to more efficiently do what they do.

 

I really think where "social consciousness" hit its peak as a part of the evolutionary advantage that is sentience, is the part where the survival of less fit genes is forced by the organization implemented by more fit genes, to act in service to that organization and the overall evolutionary benefit of the species.

 

I agree being conscious of ourselves and therefore also of nature is part of the natural order. It is "the natural orders" consciousness of its self. Which is why it strikes me as odd when people say we should rise above or be better than it. Odd because "rise above" and "better" imply an ethical standpoint, and if that stand point is to have more than subjective relevance then it really has to fall back into the context of the framework of social consciousness its self. In so much as social consciousness is an evolutionary advantage. It becomes a little redundant to the point of recursion which is epistemologically interesting but on its face simply means that we need be "better animals", a more effective apex species.

If your implying that society has not 'risen above' natural selection then I would disagree. As sentient beings we regard the characteristics of natural selection as distasteful, and while unintentionally it may still continue in some respects, we certainly do not and should not actively encourage and pursue it.

 

Indeed the fact that the driving function of humanity is no longer simply to 'survive' would imply that are fundamentally different from our ancestors and other, non-sentient beings. And not just simply 'better apex species', given that morality in many respects can be quite impractical.

[Khevar]

Again I don't believe this works. The Sith Empire for example, commits many acts that improve the survival of their people. War for example, is effectively protecting the Empire and its citizens from another holocaust, does that make it good? I would not say so. Is sacrificing one person to save many good? I would not say so. Is building empires on the backs of slaves - which, eventually, will improve the overall survival and quality of survival of the said empire's citizens and future generations - good? I would not say so. In some cases these can be defined as 'necessary evils' but I would not refer to them as good.

 

...

If survival is being viewed on a sliding scale (i.e. more than just "alive" or "dead") then good and evil would also fall under that same sliding scale.

 

Building empires on the backs of slave labor (I'm thinking of the temple in Dromund Kaas now) may assist the survival of the ruling elite on DK, but it actively harmed the survival of the slaves. Actively campaigning against non-humans as lower forms of live deserving slavery? Now we're talking about a significant decrease in survival for vast populations of the galaxy.

 

As for the War, the biggest problem is that it was started by the Sith Emperor himself with motives I've mentioned earlier. We're not talking about the poor, defenseless citizens of the Empire, fearing for total annihilation at the hands of the ruthless Republic. His end-game is the very definition non-survival.

 

Sacrificing one person to save many is something difficult to debate. I don't think it's possible to make any sweeping statement on the subject. However, I can think of individual situations where it may be appropriate.

 

A gunman is in a clock tower killing innocent bystanders. If were a Tac Unit sniper in position, and I could take a killing shot and stop the rampage, would I do it? Absolutely. Would that be evil? In part. Would that be good? I'd like to think so.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Khevar

[zzoorrzz]

I find it odd that you argue that a) there is no such thing as evil, and b) that racism, slavery and betrayal are part of the natural order of mankind.

 

The implication is that a group of humans, cooperating towards a better life, and advancing science and the humanities is weird an unnatural. This is a truly bleak view of existence.

 

I reject this idea from a purely practical standpoint. If I were to accept this as true, it would follow that nothing anyone does really matters, we're all a bunch of savages and any attempt to live in a happier state is worthless. Furthermore, if everyone had this viewpoint, society would decline.

 

You have good thinking. I can agree with pretty much everything you said. But I don't think it has to end in decline. Admitting that nothing really matters doesn't mean we can't still do those worthless things. After all, why not if it doesn't matter? ;-)

[Khevar]

You have good thinking. I can agree with pretty much everything you said. But I don't think it has to end in decline. Admitting that nothing really matters doesn't mean we can't still do those worthless things. After all, why not if it doesn't matter? ;-)

 

At this point I would have to fall back onto a more empirical form of logic.

 

I've known some people who felt that nothing really mattered. In my experience, these people displayed one of two behaviors:

 

1. Their activity level was low, demonstrating a lethargy or apathy about things.

2. Their actions were aggressively self-serving.

 

Furthermore, the most successful and accomplished groups I've been a part of had a minimum of people like that.

 

From this, I draw a purely personal conclusion, which may or may not hold out on a broad scale, that the attitude of "nothing really matters" is detrimental to a successful group.