Are the Sith really Evil?

[theUndead]

Like Darkseid said, Evil is nothing more than just a mere perception... Thus it is an abstract.

 

Agreed. Also want to add that the following the dark side and becoming a Sith does not inherently make you evil it is the choices you make that defines if your good or evil. An example would be Anakin Skywalker who only chose to embrace the dark side and the Sith ways just to save his wife and it was Palpatine who manipulated Anakin to become evil and murder etc.

 

Thus being a Sith means you follow their philosophy to use passion to gain strength and become powerful but to become evil you have to CHOOSE it.

[Mordegrus]

Agreed. Also want to add that the following the dark side and becoming a Sith does not inherently make you evil it is the choices you make that defines if your good or evil. An example would be Anakin Skywalker who only chose to embrace the dark side and the Sith ways just to save his wife and it was Palpatine who manipulated Anakin to become evil and murder etc.

 

Thus being a Sith means you follow their philosophy to use passion to gain strength and become powerful but to become evil you have to CHOOSE it.

 

Exaclty what I would say.

[OldVengeance]

Actually, nobody knows who started the First Great Schism. The Second Great Schism was started by escalating arguments regarding their opposing views. It was the Republic that chased the Sith out of the Galaxy nearly causing their extinction which instigated the current war being waged in TOR. So, your statement that the Sith started all the wars is not true.

 

The Sith Code does not end peace, it says peace is detrimental to one's progress. Only extremists would take it to mean war is the path to strength. Conflict can be overcoming any adversity.

 

The sih order are extremists. Just about every single individual of them we've ever seen is.

 

The Republic chasing the Sith out of known space was a direct result of the Great Hyperspace War, which the Sith started. So it is true.

[Maaruin]

That's why it's so hard to summarily denounce Sith because Sith philosophy, the philosophy of selfishness, isn't something in our own morality we are trained to abhor, it's something we are taught to moderate.

 

And that's exactly why I woul call the Sith evil: They don't moderate their selfishness. Most of them kill, torture, betray etc. if it serves them.

 

I think, in general, everything we call evil has a moderated, non-evil version.

[Lewisgil]

The sih order are extremists. Just about every single individual of them we've ever seen is.

 

The Republic chasing the Sith out of known space was a direct result of the Great Hyperspace War, which the Sith started. So it is true.

 

Not all Sith are extremists. Saying all Sith are extremists is like saying all Jedi are pacifists. If it were true, there would be no Jedi that turn to the Dark Side. If all Sith were extremists, the Sith would have died out long before the Rule of Two came to an end.

 

While it may have been a result of the Great Hyperspace War, that act is what spurred on the war going on during TOR. Also, the first two Great Schisms are not attributed to the Dark Jedi, which became the Sith, so the SIth have not started all of the wars, making your statement false.

 

The Sith Philosophy does not tell one to start wars. It tells one to learn from adversity and become stronger for it. The SIth Culture is one of the strong surviving and ruling over the weak which is how nature selects the ruling class. It seems only natural, not evil. There are evil Sith individuals. To say the entire Order is inherently evil is a fallacy of biased sampling.

[OldVengeance]

The Republic's actions that drove the Sith to unknown space were still part of the Great Hyperspace War. If you were to count the Emperor's centuries of planning for the Great Galactic War as being caused by the Republic's actions back then, it's still all part of the same war. The war that the Sith started. To say the Republic started the Great Galactic War would be like saying the Allies began World War 2 by creating the Treaty of Versailles. It may have been one of the many root causes by it began with Germany invading Poland.

 

The Dark Jedi that began the first two great schisms are still the direct predecessors of the Sith Order, and were philosophically not especially dissimilar. Even if you disregard them though, it's irrelevant. Since we are talking about the Sith then only the wars between Sith and Jedi were what I was referring to.

 

Can you name examples of Sith that aren't extremists? All Sith murder people to get what they want. I don't know of a better way to define an extremist. It is quite literally a necessity of their training. They force their students to kill each other to survive. That's an evil way to run things. And if Sith philosophy is based around strength from adversity, then the logical conclusion is to seek it out when there is peace.

 

Just because something exists in the natural world doesn't mean it's a moral way to run a society. A civilization where like the Sith Empire where the strong rule over the weak by virtue of their strength is evil. And from a storytelling point of view, the Sith Order has always been the villains in these stories. They are evil because they are intended to be the bad guys and that has never changed.

Edited May 24, 2012 by OldVengeance

[Maaruin]

While it may have been a result of the Great Hyperspace War, that act is what spurred on the war going on during TOR. Also, the first two Great Schisms are not attributed to the Dark Jedi, which became the Sith, so the SIth have not started all of the wars, making your statement false.

 

Sorry, but that's not quite correct. The Second Great Schism was the birth of the Sith. It lead to a hundred years war between dark and light Jedi and in the end the dark Jedi were exiled to Korriban.

 

The Sith Code seems like to be influenced strongly by it. If you read it as a creed of Jedi who want to break away from the "chains" of the Jedi order and seek power where Jedi forbid it it makes the most sense.

 

The First Schism was different, of course, it only created the Legions of Lettow.

 

Of course the Sith didn't start all the wars, but they started all the wars between them and the republic/Jedi. I think the Sith even started every single war in which they were involved.

[ProfessorWalsh]

Not all Sith are extremists. Saying all Sith are extremists is like saying all Jedi are pacifists. If it were true, there would be no Jedi that turn to the Dark Side. If all Sith were extremists, the Sith would have died out long before the Rule of Two came to an end.

 

Canonically most Jedi who do turn are usually tricked into using the Dark Side. Once they start the Dark Side clouds their mind, much like a drug would. When that happens the person starts making even more bad decisions, often without realizing that they were bad decisions at the time, and then when they have moments of self-reflection, they usually fall into a depression. (That is actually what happened with Anakin according to the George Lucas commentary for Episode III.)

 

The tricking part is important. Usually the Sith use a Jedi's own ego against them to manage their turn to the Dark Side. A Sith will often appear as a friend (Vegere to Jacen Solo, Darth Caedus to Ben Skywalker, Darth Sidious to Anakin Skywalker, even Darth Treya to the Jedi Exile) to the Jedi, telling the Jedi how good they are, how powerful they are, how wise they are, etc. Then, they wait for the Council to do anything that they know the Jedi disagrees with...

 

They capitalize on that and continue to prop the Jedi up. Telling them how the Council is wrong, and how the Jedi is correct. Then, usually, they start slipping in the good lies. The most common ones are:

 

A) The Council is hiding information from you or here is a technique the Council thinks is Dark Sided, but they are wrong, and it isn't the first time, after all they were wrong when they disagreed with you weren't they? (Sidious used this one on Anakin Skywalker.)

 

B) Only the weak fall to the Dark Side, but you are stronger than that, you won't fall. The Council simply is too weak but you, you are powerful... You can use the Dark Side for the good of all people. (Lumiya did this one to Jacen Solo.)

 

C) There is no Dark Side, it all depends on how you use the Force not which side you use. (Vegere to Jacen Solo.)

 

Alternatively, I think you are forgetting that Star Wars is a work of fiction. Just because you feel that a group of extremists probably wouldn't last long in real life (even though there are numerous real world examples to the contrary) this is fiction and not real life.

 

While it may have been a result of the Great Hyperspace War, that act is what spurred on the war going on during TOR. Also, the first two Great Schisms are not attributed to the Dark Jedi, which became the Sith, so the SIth have not started all of the wars, making your statement false.

 

The Sith have started all of the wars that they have been involved in.

 

The Sith Philosophy does not tell one to start wars. It tells one to learn from adversity and become stronger for it. The SIth Culture is one of the strong surviving and ruling over the weak which is how nature selects the ruling class. It seems only natural, not evil. There are evil Sith individuals. To say the entire Order is inherently evil is a fallacy of biased sampling.

 

...

 

Okay, this burns me up...

 

1. Stop using the "Survival of the fittest" argument if you don't actually know what Darwin was talking about.

 

People do this on this forum all the time and it isn't used properly. In fact the Sith go against the survival of the fittest. I'm going to put this in bold for emphasis:

 

THE SITH GO AGAINST THE CONCEPT OF SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!

 

The term, "Survival of the fittest" isn't the idea that the weak or a species should be killed or that the strong rule the weak. That simply isn't what Darwin was referring to. Instead Darwin was referring to the ability for a species to continue to have offspring and to continually grow in numbers.

 

One of the things that Darwin praised as making a species "the fittest" was actually the strong members protecting and nurturing the weak members of a society thus ensuring and overall larger population in general. The fittest simply means the ability to continue to grow and spread. According to Darwin a society that protects and nurtures the weak, allowing the population to flourish is the strongest. The Sith completely go against this.

 

What the Sith do is NOT natural.

 

The Sith Order uses the Dark Side. Fact.

The Dark Side, in the context of Star Wars is evil. Fact.

The Sith by their nature are evil. Fact.

[lokdron]

Canonically most Jedi who do turn are usually tricked into using the Dark Side. Once they start the Dark Side clouds their mind, much like a drug would. When that happens the person starts making even more bad decisions, often without realizing that they were bad decisions at the time, and then when they have moments of self-reflection, they usually fall into a depression. (That is actually what happened with Anakin according to the George Lucas commentary for Episode III.)

 

The tricking part is important. Usually the Sith use a Jedi's own ego against them to manage their turn to the Dark Side. A Sith will often appear as a friend (Vegere to Jacen Solo, Darth Caedus to Ben Skywalker, Darth Sidious to Anakin Skywalker, even Darth Treya to the Jedi Exile) to the Jedi, telling the Jedi how good they are, how powerful they are, how wise they are, etc. Then, they wait for the Council to do anything that they know the Jedi disagrees with...

 

They capitalize on that and continue to prop the Jedi up. Telling them how the Council is wrong, and how the Jedi is correct. Then, usually, they start slipping in the good lies. The most common ones are:

 

A) The Council is hiding information from you or here is a technique the Council thinks is Dark Sided, but they are wrong, and it isn't the first time, after all they were wrong when they disagreed with you weren't they? (Sidious used this one on Anakin Skywalker.)

 

B) Only the weak fall to the Dark Side, but you are stronger than that, you won't fall. The Council simply is too weak but you, you are powerful... You can use the Dark Side for the good of all people. (Lumiya did this one to Jacen Solo.)

 

C) There is no Dark Side, it all depends on how you use the Force not which side you use. (Vegere to Jacen Solo.)

 

Alternatively, I think you are forgetting that Star Wars is a work of fiction. Just because you feel that a group of extremists probably wouldn't last long in real life (even though there are numerous real world examples to the contrary) this is fiction and not real life.

 

 

 

The Sith have started all of the wars that they have been involved in.

 

 

 

...

 

Okay, this burns me up...

 

1. Stop using the "Survival of the fittest" argument if you don't actually know what Darwin was talking about.

 

People do this on this forum all the time and it isn't used properly. In fact the Sith go against the survival of the fittest. I'm going to put this in bold for emphasis:

 

THE SITH GO AGAINST THE CONCEPT OF SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!

 

The term, "Survival of the fittest" isn't the idea that the weak or a species should be killed or that the strong rule the weak. That simply isn't what Darwin was referring to. Instead Darwin was referring to the ability for a species to continue to have offspring and to continually grow in numbers.

 

One of the things that Darwin praised as making a species "the fittest" was actually the strong members protecting and nurturing the weak members of a society thus ensuring and overall larger population in general. The fittest simply means the ability to continue to grow and spread. According to Darwin a society that protects and nurtures the weak, allowing the population to flourish is the strongest. The Sith completely go against this.

 

What the Sith do is NOT natural.

 

The Sith Order uses the Dark Side. Fact.

The Dark Side, in the context of Star Wars is evil. Fact.

The Sith by their nature are evil. Fact.

Finally someone gets it as sith lore and dark side lore lover I always turn in my bed when people say sith are misunderstood or they are not really evil. The dark side corrupts it does not matter how you use it, the dark side will find some way to turn you the more you use it.

[Captain_Zone]

Finally someone gets it as sith lore and dark side lore lover I always turn in my bed when people say sith are misunderstood or they are not really evil. The dark side corrupts it does not matter how you use it, the dark side will find some way to turn you the more you use it.

 

The Sith ARE Evil by their own choice. The Sith Code, however, isn't. I call their philosophy pseudo-Darwinism, as it uses the often misinterpreted portions of Darwin's teachings. The Sith Code itself is also a guide to self-improvement, depending on how it's interpreted. 99% of the Sith, however, interpret it in the way that is most commonly described. There are exceptions to the rule. But not very many.

[ProfessorWalsh]

There are exceptions to the rule. But not very many.

 

Canonically there actually haven't been any exceptions to the rule.

 

The only one that we have was Lumiya's recounting of Darth Vectivus, which was a story designed to convince Jacen Solo that he could be a non-evil Sith who wasn't consumed by the Dark Side.

 

The context there is very important, because we have no other examples of a non-evil Sith, and that one example is very likely to be a fabrication due to the specific reason it was used. This is also because yes, they were actively trying to turn Jacen Solo as well, not simply trying to expand his horizons.

[Lady_Alyria]

The Sith ARE Evil by their own choice. The Sith Code, however, isn't. I call their philosophy pseudo-Darwinism, as it uses the often misinterpreted portions of Darwin's teachings. The Sith Code itself is also a guide to self-improvement, depending on how it's interpreted. 99% of the Sith, however, interpret it in the way that is most commonly described. There are exceptions to the rule. But not very many.

 

Maybe the Sith Code is an extreme version of humanism, but it's not darwinism, because if everyone that followed the Sith Code, followed it to the best of their abilities, there would be one Sith, ruling over a completely enslaved universe. Darwinism is about the survival of a species. The Sith Code requires you to kill off your own species in a quest for power.

[Maaruin]

Canonically there actually haven't been any exceptions to the rule.

 

The only one that we have was Lumiya's recounting of Darth Vectivus, which was a story designed to convince Jacen Solo that he could be a non-evil Sith who wasn't consumed by the Dark Side.

 

The context there is very important, because we have no other examples of a non-evil Sith, and that one example is very likely to be a fabrication due to the specific reason it was used. This is also because yes, they were actively trying to turn Jacen Solo as well, not simply trying to expand his horizons.

 

That's not true anymore. This game introduced the Sith Lord Kel'eth Ur. You can find a holocron with his teachings in the Dark Temple on Dromund Kaas. He was clearly light side (=not evil) and was killed because of that.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQar1NXXMFI

 

 

It also introduces Overseer Emerage and a bunch of light side acolytes. (Jaesa's companion story line, light side.)

 

 

= non-evil Sith do exist, but they are persecuted as heretics

 

 

Edit: There are probably also some that I would grey Sith. Sith that use the dark side sometimes and seek power, but in a moderate way, not as much as most Sith. I can only give one example from the game: Darth Silthar

 

 

A Sith who worked for the imperial Reclamation Service. He treats his men well. He seems to be more genuinly interested in archeology (not only the power it offers). And one of his men says he wouldn't summon lightning if he wasn't really in danger.

 

= moderatly evil Sith

Edited May 24, 2012 by Maaruin

[antval]

When reading through the 6 lines that form the Sith code, what I get is that through power and strength one gains true freedom. The code doesn't dictate what one should do with that power, but if we interpret the actions of those who do follow the Sith code we see quite alot of actions that we by our standards deem evil.

 

However, hypothetically, say that I follow the Sith code and by myself have alot of power (eg forcepowers), but that I choose to live out my life alone on some remote planet while being happily satisfied . Does it mean that I or the Sith code is evil?

 

My point is interpretation of a 'philosophy' combined with ones actions blurs the matter.

 

Take the writings of Hegel or Rousseau, there have been different interpretations and subsequent actions based on those interpretations (eg formation of authoritarian states), doesn't necessitate that the philosophy of Hegel or Rousseau are by definition evil.

 

Tbh, if we are going to call the Sith code a philosophy, then it would be the most shallow philosophy ever.

Edited May 24, 2012 by antval

[Lady_Alyria]

When reading through the 6 lines that form the Sith code, what I get is that through power and strength one gains true freedom. The code doesn't dictate what one should do with that power, but if we interpret the actions of those who do follow the Sith code we see quite alot of actions that we by our standards deem evil.

 

However, hypothetically, say that I follow the Sith code and by myself have alot of power (eg forcepowers), but that I choose to live out my life alone on some remote planet while being happily satisfied . Does it mean that I or the Sith code is evil?

 

My point is interpretation of a 'philosophy' combined with ones actions blurs the matter.

 

Take the writings of Hegel or Rousseau, there have been different interpretations and subsequent actions based on those interpretations (eg formation of authoritarian states), doesn't necessitate that the philosophy of Hegel or Rousseau are by definition evil.

 

Tbh, if we are going to call the Sith code a philosophy, then it would be the most shallow philosophy ever.

 

But the question was if the Sith were really evil, not just their code. There is a lot more to Sith philosophy than just the Sith Code, they have their own culture and way of life, and it's one of domination and destruction.

[Captain_Zone]

Canonically there actually haven't been any exceptions to the rule.

 

The only one that we have was Lumiya's recounting of Darth Vectivus, which was a story designed to convince Jacen Solo that he could be a non-evil Sith who wasn't consumed by the Dark Side.

 

The context there is very important, because we have no other examples of a non-evil Sith, and that one example is very likely to be a fabrication due to the specific reason it was used. This is also because yes, they were actively trying to turn Jacen Solo as well, not simply trying to expand his horizons.

 

Also, if Lord Praven is canonized as C, he would also be an exception. He's definitely not evil.

 

And as stated above by another poster, Kel'eth Ur.

 

@Lady: That's why I call it PSEUDO-Darwinism. It's the misinterpreted parts of Darwin's work that are so common even in today's world that form the basis of Sith culture. Survival of the fittest, only the strong survive, etc. Gain power to prove you're the strongest. The Code is just words. The philosophy is what they take from those words.

 

@Prof. Also, since you are the foremost authority on Canon of all types around here, Tuscad, Snipe, and I could use your expertise over in the "Boba Fett is Both Dead and Alive (Technically)" thread. A guy there is claiming to be an "expert" on Canon, yet he tried to pass off the name "Jaster Mereel" as a C-Canon override exception to G-Canon. He also claims that nothing after RotJ is C-Canon.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Captain_Zone

[Knightless]

Well, the Sith believe that the Force should only be taught to the strong, and the weak are not fit to use their incredible power. The Jedi believe that the power should be taught to everyone. That is one reason there were many Datk Jedi, because they just kept teaching them, and teaching them (the Jedi).

 

Yes, they are evil. A hero is defined by there choices. You must choose, and continue to choose, what is right.

[Lady_Alyria]

@Lady: That's why I call it PSEUDO-Darwinism. It's the misinterpreted parts of Darwin's work that are so common even in today's world that form the basis of Sith culture. Survival of the fittest, only the strong survive, etc. Gain power to prove you're the strongest..

 

Then it's pseudo-Burger Kingism too because you can "have it your way". There is a reason it's called survival of the FITTEST and not survival of the strongest. Just because you are strong doesn't mean you are the most fit to survive in an environment. Sometimes fitness is a simple matter of coloring that matches the environment, so predators have a harder time seeing and eating you. The Sith as a species would be the exact opposite of fit. Any species which culture mandates the murder of it's own members is doomed to fail. Proof being the Sith has been near complete extinction how many times? Three? Survival and causing wars for no reason and murdering anyone with shiner toys than you do not go hand in hand. Darwin would consider the Sith an evolutionary dead end.

[antval]

But the question was if the Sith were really evil, not just their code. There is a lot more to Sith philosophy than just the Sith Code, they have their own culture and way of life, and it's one of domination and destruction.

 

On page 5 the OP rephrases the question into whether Sith philosophy is evil, so that was pretty much what I based my answer on.

However, if we follow your line of thought by including Sith culture into our judgement, then we must be clear that culture and philosophy are two distinct concepts.

 

Sith culture is 'bad' in terms of western standards of ethics as so many have pointed out.

Even by the classical standards of utilitarianism where the goals justify the means, sith culture of behavior is ethically bad. Actions that would increase the overall satisfaction of the Empire would be deemed morally good, however SIth culture seems to also encourage individuals to satisfy their own interests at the expense of its community by imposing harm onto fellow citizens (thus bad).

 

I also agree with your post regarding Sith culture being a defunct-version of social-Darwinism. It seems as the contradictions within Sith culture tends to push Sith society into a Hobbesian state of nature, where all individuals war against each other. As we see in-game, the Empire has legal rules of conduct, but in practice there is constant scheming with the likely potential of death to the one who looses. An argument could be made that the constant-scheming is restricted to the "elite" of the society (force users and higher military command) and not to the masses in general. Yet who would actually want to live in such a society where tomorrow could very well be your last? Whether one is a force-user or not, the average person X with some degree of rationality combined with a will to survive is not going to passively overlook that the **** is going to hit the fan.

 

Though, one could wonder whether being a force-user (or perhaps just being dark-sided) distorts rationality.

When Anakin went darkside he seemed to become quite the nutbag.

Edited May 24, 2012 by antval

[Lady_Alyria]

Though, one could wonder whether being a force-user (or perhaps just being dark-sided) distorts rationality.

When Anakin went darkside he seemed to become quite the nutbag.

 

Well doing whatever you feel does seem in direct opposition to rational behavior.

[OldVengeance]

The game does indicate that there are "sith" who lean towards the lightside of the force but seeing as they are hunted down as heretics and traitors I don't even know if it's fair to call them Sith anymore.

 

Beyond them, I don't necessarily thing there is anything preventing Sith from have redeeming qualities, but that's not quite the same as being lightside or not evil. I actually play my darkside Sith Warrior that way. He's fairly evil and loves "domination and destruction" as he told Vette, but he's actually kind of a nice guy. He treats all his subordinates well unless they threaten his mission or his ego. Between that and his vague sense of honor, he ended up with thousands of lightside points but still was Dark III in Act 3.

 

Silthar and Praven are other good examples. Praven is honorable and lacks the sadism of everyone around him, but he's not motivated by compassion but by a sense of fair play. He's still willing to do terrible things, like destroy Tatooine. I suspect that if Angral had specifically ordered him to murder the woman and her Jawa friends or any other civilians he would have, albeit reluctantly. If you send him to the Jedi to become fully lightsided he talks about his regret for having inflicted "horrors on the innocent" as a sith in the letter he sends you.

 

Silthar is friendly to visitors, treats his men well, and seems to genuinely care about them, but he's not at all concerned about murdering people to get what he wants. If you tell him that the venture has angered the Sons of Palawa, he dismisses all the people you killed to get the droid as unimportant.

Edited May 24, 2012 by OldVengeance

[Velaran]

Yes, they are evil. A hero is defined by there choices. You must choose, and continue to choose, what is right.

 

By definition, an individual Sith can choose to do whatever he/she wants.

[OldVengeance]

Sith claim that is the case but in practice that's not how it works out at all. In fact I'd say most Sith's lives are more restricted in most ways than those of Jedi are. They are required to obey their masters' directives or die. Sometimes they succeed at overthrowing them but those opportunities are fairly rare. And even then they need to deal with all the other hungry sharks out for their blood from above and below. And in truth the only Sith without a Master is the Emperor or Dark Lord himself.

 

As Khem Val put it "Strength or death, that is your way."

[Captain_Zone]

Then it's pseudo-Burger Kingism too because you can "have it your way". There is a reason it's called survival of the FITTEST and not survival of the strongest. Just because you are strong doesn't mean you are the most fit to survive in an environment. Sometimes fitness is a simple matter of coloring that matches the environment, so predators have a harder time seeing and eating you. The Sith as a species would be the exact opposite of fit. Any species which culture mandates the murder of it's own members is doomed to fail. Proof being the Sith has been near complete extinction how many times? Three? Survival and causing wars for no reason and murdering anyone with shiner toys than you do not go hand in hand. Darwin would consider the Sith an evolutionary dead end.

 

Whoa whoa whoa! No need for hostility here. I'm just pointing out how their culture works, here. I NEVER said it was the RIGHT way to run a government, did I??? I'm just saying that is how the SITH do it. Doomed to fail unltimately, if they keep going as they are. Also, to clarify, they kill those around them who are incompetent, weak, or fail in their assigned tasks. Quite a few cultures in history have done the same. Fail, and you either commit suicide, or someone else kills you. Is it the RIGHT way to do things? IMO, NO it isn't. That doesn't change the Lore of Star Wars, however. The Sith culture is what it is. *shrug*

[Kyneris]

Is the Dark Side evil ? Yes.

Are all Sith Darksiders ? No.

 

Therefore: Are all Sith evil ? No.