On this "Sith are not evil" thing

[Gratulor]

Hello. I'm a fan of all aspects of the Star Wars universe. One thing that troubles me is the posts that try to justify the Sith as not being evil, but misunderstood. So I'm here to try to make sense the evil nature of the Sith as well as the good they believe.

The good:

 

• They believe in survival. In the time of the game, they believe in the survival of the culture -- the essence of being Sith -- at their core. A belief of the survival of a culture is good in my book.
  
• They promote the support of their society. It's essential for any nation/culture to promote it's welfare.
  
• They are very much in favour of their society's defense. Any culture that doesn't denfend itself is doomed.
  

 

The bad:

 

• They believe in a class system that considers it's elite members (the Sith) as gods. Under them, if anyone questions them they face the threat of death. If anyone as much as offends them, they face the penalty of death.
  
• They believe in slavery as a good for their society. Can anyone contradict that?
  
• They believe in military might over diplomacy.
  
• They believe in the supremacy of two races over others.
  
• They bomb cities at their discrecion, commit genocide and torture prisoners.
  

 

How can anyone justify the bad? The Sith are in control of the Empire, and they sanction all the actions in the bad sections. The bad outweigh the good, and the Sith are definitely evil according to western standards.

 

What is so good about the Empire that you would justify it's actions?

 

In the game, I am mostly Empire. In roleplay, I justify their actions frequently and without remorse. It's good fun and doesn't hurt anyone. But anyone taking a real world action against the Empire being called "evil" just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Add to the list of the good or bad of the Empire, or make your say. I'd love to challenge any viewpoint.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Gratulor

[ZionHalcyon]

The Sith are indeed evil.

 

However, this thread misses a golden opportunity.

 

That is, its entirely possible for the SITH to be evil, but the EMPIRE not.

 

If you play through enough of the game, you will find that there are plenty an imperial officer who chaffes at being under Sith domination, and who do prefer the empire because it is a more orderly society. They oft consider themselves the real backbone of the Empire, while the sith flit about doing "sith" business.

 

That doesn't mean every non-sith imperial is a good or nice guy - plenty who want to use some sith connections as a play for more power within the society, but I have a hard time finding non-sith citizens of the empire on the whole to be that evil - fastidious, oft times decadent, and perhaps ignorant of the ills of others, but by and large not really all that evil...

[Gratulor]

And I'm talking about the Sith, not the Empire. The Imperials can be good indeed. I am just talking about the Sith. And Sith politics within the Empire. Not the individual citizen of the Empire. Just the Sith and their politics.

[MasqureMan]

And I'm talking about the Sith, not the Empire. The Imperials can be good indeed. I am just talking about the Sith. And Sith politics within the Empire. Not the individual citizen of the Empire. Just the Sith and their politics.

 

The structure of the Empire keeps the powerful on top and the weak on the bottom. The backstabbing disorder that is so prevalent also helps prevent leaders and the Empire as a whole from becoming stagnant, which, if you remember from Kotor days, was a big problem of the Republic. "A culture achieves definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking." While it may be done sadistically and with little remorse, the Sith do in fact keep the Empire strong because the strong and ambitious are constantly trying to back stab their superiors and replace them, between their duties of course .

 

Now, the Sith do indeed have evil tendencies. I don't believe you can say they are all evil, but I do think you could argue most of them are evil. They are indeed sadistic, they do believe in slavery, but it is important to remember it's a system where even a slave can become a Sith Lord given the opportunity. And not every Sith Lord is as bad as the other, so there's a bit of wiggle room in morality.

 

So, do I want to live in the Empire? Nope. But are the Sith keeping the Empire strong so the decent people within it can have a good life? Yes.

[Gratulor]

Yes, they do keep the Empire strong. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the notion that the Sith, the cult, the code of the Sith are misunderstood. I agree it makes the individual strong. I agree that a society that embraces these tenets can be strong. I disagree that a society built on these foundations can be morally good.

[Lordmird]

I don't believe the Sith are evil. They do some evil things in conjunction with the Empire, but I do not believe the Sith are evil

[Gratulor]

I don't believe the Sith are evil. They do some evil things in conjunction with the Empire, but I do not believe the Sith are evil

 

How so?

[Gratulor]

Again, I'm talking about the Sith, not the Empire. The Sith, the cult of warrior monks from Korriban. Not the Empire.

[Lordmird]

How are the Jedi any different? In the Clone Wars era the Jedi Order enslaved an entire army of clones. Clones are still living beings.

[Gratulor]

How are the Jedi any different? In the Clone Wars era the Jedi Order enslaved an entire army of clones. Clones are still living beings.

 

The Jedi don't participate in most Sith participations except for slavery.

 

And Bail Organa protested the creation of a clone army in Episode 2.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Gratulor

[Lordmird]

The Jedi don't participate in most Sith participations except for slavery.

 

And Bail Organa protested the creation of a clone army in Episode 2.

 

Bail Organa isn't the Jedi Order though. The Jedi took advantage of the clones, and didn't treat them as human beings. They preach, but they do not practice.

[StarSquirrel]

The Jedi don't participate in most Sith participations except for slavery.

 

And Bail Organa protested the creation of a clone army in Episode 2.

 

Organa wasn't a Jedi.

 

Basically Sidious (a sith) forced the jedi into that position (started the war and had a slave army ready for the Republic to claim when he was ready) and there where plenty of Jedi who spoke out against the slave army. (Bardan Jusik comes to mind). Unfortunately conflict also tends to drive jedi towards dark actions (self justified by their good intentions) so bear that in mind.

 

The Dark Side is evil by nature. Sith must use the Dark Side by definition. So the Sith become evil through the use of that which makes them Sith. Thus Sith are Evil.

 

We think of them as regular people too often. The Force plays havoc with your emotions, like an amplifier.

Edited July 23, 2013 by StarSquirrel

[Gratulor]

I know he wasn't a Jedi.

 

I'm arguing that the Sith aren't misunderstood, but evil. Why can't anyone understand that?

[Aurbere]

I think it's unjustified to condemn the Jedi for fighting alongside the clones during the war. The whole picture has to be considered here.

 

But as to the OP, yes, the Sith are evil.

[Aximand]

How are the Jedi any different? In the Clone Wars era the Jedi Order enslaved an entire army of clones. Clones are still living beings.

 

*Cough*

 

No, actually, they did not. In fact, the Jedi were the only group of people as a whole to treat the Clones as individuals rather than just tools to be used.

[MasqureMan]

I mean, I think the question itself is a bit pointless. You can argue Sith are not morally evil purely because you can be a light side sith, which, while still being a killer and whatever else, do what they do for the glory of the empire and not themselves. They won't kick someone just because they're down or shock someone for the heck of it, they are straight and to the point. So I don't really agree with the Sith being evil, but I also don't think the opposite of that is misunderstood. You can understand how their culture works and not agree with it, doesn't have to make them evil.

[TalonVII]

*Cough*

 

No, actually, they did not. In fact, the Jedi were the only group of people as a whole to treat the Clones as individuals rather than just tools to be used.

 

But did they ask any questions? Is this morally right? Should we even ask the clones if they want to do this? Hell they don't even PAY the clones. They just order them into battle like disposable units. Hell even Obi-wan did. They didn't enslave them, the republic did, but they sure as hell aided and abetted them.

 

Why? Because at that time they had a knife to their throats and suddenly the ends justified the means. No, the Jedi are just as much as fault for using them, as Sideous did for creating them and using them in a situation to get rid of the Jedi.

 

You can treat a slave well, but guess what they are still SLAVES. That's what the clone army was: SLAVES. They didn't have ends to their enlistment. They were not paid, not volunteered for it. Basically grown out of a vat, thrown into a group, trained to fight, then thrown into a war.

 

That my friend is indentured servitude IE slavery.

[RatPoison]

Let's make one thing clear... what is good or evil is a matter of perspective. To claim that one entity is good and another bad is all a matter of opinion. These opinions change from culture to culture and over time.

 

Are the Sith evil?

 

The simple answer is no. They are simply Sith and they believe in a culture and societal structure that you all disagree with. Despite the fact that they don't necessarily adhere to -your- perspective and/or stereotype doesn't automatically brandish them as "evil". When you read the information regarding the Empire, and Imperial citizens... things get reinforced further due to an impassioned populous that lives for the service of the Empire and the promotion of its ideals... ideals driven by the society's leaders, the Sith.

 

Lets draw some parallels.

 

Is slavery bad? Slavery has existed throughout mans history on this planet. In some pockets of the world today... it still exists. Slavery, of course, was a part of America's history as well... and societal perspective during those times... while varied didn't initially consider slavery as "evil". Society changed... and our perspective shifted.

 

How about military might versus diplomacy. You feel the need to separate the two when in reality, military might and diplomacy are tied together. Without military might or the support of somebody with military might then the weight one brings to the negotiating table is diminished. In order to have grounds to negotiate you must have power, and thus diplomacy and military might are linked. You can't call military might "evil" or even use it as an example since the alternatives to military might aren't much better or different. Alternatives come in the form of hostages and money, to name two.

 

To draw another parallel, the United States swings so much weight around the world because it has wealth (technically) and military power. When we bark... people listen because we can economically devastate some countries and where that isn't viable, we can simply devastate them through arms. Thus... when we want to move to the negotiating table, people at least make an appearance.

 

At any rate... I can beat this drum for quite awhile. Suffice to say the first issue in trying to somehow opine Sith are or aren't evil is that you are relying on a point of view to make those statements. By doing so you are completely ignoring and somehow rendering the views of the Empire's peoples as being inferior to your own. That in itself is no more right than anything else. When you go back to your initial views on what makes Sith good... consider that some of those are the goals and the rest are means. Also consider the lore and history between the Sith Empire and the Republic. Don't forget the attempted genocide either.

 

Oh... and on one other side note, do remember that one of the foundations of the Sith ideology is freedom to follow ones passions. This inherently leaves the door wide open for a variety of perspectives and personalities within the group. Make no mistake... power is an absolute, and through that power you gain your freedom to do as you please which can range from whatever you feel may be good or evil.

 

...

 

This is one of the beautiful things about Star Wars (in my opinion)... the parallels between the fiction and our reality and actual history as a species.

Edited July 24, 2013 by RatPoison

[Sarlegant]

and YET while Sith have this freedom to do as they please, it's always acquired through killing something, ie someone, many someones...

While the Sith could have chosen love, as this great passion to fuel their power with the force, they always chose anger/hate...

 

because this is so predictable with Sith, I'm comfortable to say that by nature the Sith are evil...

 

but believe what you will, life is good, enjoy the lore, it beats being bored...

[TheGreatSatan]

Evil is a completely subjective notion. Do not take it for granted that everyone uses the same definition as you. There are as many versions of what defines evil as there are people.

[Euphrosyne]

The amount of moral nihilism on display in this thread - and most of the others that deal with this sort of thing - is both depressing and depressingly predictable. It's depressing because it implies very serious consequences for the behavior of the people who make these claims. And it's depressingly predictable because nobody, it seems, can be bothered to read modern philosophy, or can be bothered to have a decent foundation in logic - so given that most people are unfamiliar with these things, conclusions like many of those in this thread could be seen coming a long way off.

 

For instance, the denial of the existence of moral facts - i.e. objective truths on which a foundation of moral judgments and an ethical system can be constructed - seems to be somewhat in vogue in this thread. Put another way, it's the idea that, since different people consider different things to be morally good or morally evil, that there are no such truths about whether anything can be objectively morally good or objectively morally evil.

 

Okay, but the same logical underpinning exists for the notion of having reasons for doing anything at all, not just actions that are called into moral question. If you claim that there are no objective moral facts that induce people to make ethical decisions, then implicitly you also claim that there are no objective reasons that induce people to take any action at all. It's not quite the problem of demonstrating causality, but it's close.

 

Now, the claim that reasons don't exist is logically coherent. It's not, technically speaking, an invalid point of view to hold. But it's not commonly held at all; most people, I daresay, do believe that there is a reason that they do the things they do. They go to get water because they feel thirsty; they get a job to pay the bills; they read a book or play a game because they're bored, and so on.

 

Furthermore, believing that there are no such things as reasons is not a very useful way to think, because claiming that reasons don't exist leads nowhere. It's not a prescriptive system, it's a descriptive one. It has fairly unhappy consequences for the way people live their lives. It presumes, effectively, that everything that almost everybody believes about, well, everything is false. In my view, one would need extremely strong arguments to accept such a position, and nobody in the history of ethics has ever really managed to make such arguments.

 

What we usually get as an "argument for" moral nihilism - or, alternatively, the closely related moral relativism - are assertions that, since not everybody has or does operate from the same moral truths, therefore there are no objective moral truths. But that's absurd; it's like saying that since lots of people make - and have historically made - mathematical errors, therefore there is no objective math. You know, "two plus two doesn't necessarily equal four because some people think that it equals six instead". Or the belief that, before Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem, there was no such proof possible. There might very well be such a proof (and, indeed, there was), much like there might very well be logical proofs of objective moral truths. We simply may not have discovered them yet.

 

---

 

Coming from another angle, the vast majority of modern philosophers are moral realists, and believe that, yes, there are such things as objective moral facts. People who think that ethical philosophy is not about the search for figuring out, proving, and/or understanding moral truths necessarily think that it is about something else (e.g. Wittgenstein, who claimed that philosophy was purely descriptive and existed for the purpose of 'clearing away confusions' - as though one wouldn't get better work out of simply making a pill to do that, or something). They don't tend to be philosophers, and if they do, they don't tend to be particularly rigorous ones (like Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, and that whole group, who seem to have made careers out of being completely incomprehensible as though that were some sort of virtue).

 

This leaves us with the information that people who are good at philosophy, who tend to do philosophy in the most rational way, make these conclusions about philosophy. And that should be fairly suggestive to everybody. Not decisive, of course, but I think that it implies that their reasoning bears a much closer look. Check out Rawls, for instance.

 

Anyway, this is all a fairly long-winded way of saying that I believe that the people who claim that the Sith are not evil are being insufficiently rigorous in their thought processes and arguments.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Euphrosyne

[RatPoison]

Ah... considering one of the basics of philosophy is an understanding of self and perspective, Euphrosyne's comment can be summed up with the use of a simple phrase highlighted throughout the long reply, "I believe".

 

To paraphrase a quote: nothing is good or evil, thinking makes it so.

 

From one society to the next, the perspectives will be different on what is good or evil. Simply sitting off on one side and applying ones own moral compass to the varied actions of the Sith is a fools argument to suggest that the Sith are evil. Take a moment to consider the oppositions perspective, their culture, their beliefs.

 

A person cited that Sith kill to fulfill their passions, instead of loving. Well that's not accurate either, Sith subscribe to all emotions and through the lore you will find contrary philosophies and moral compasses in and amongst the Sith. About the only thing consistent from Sith to Sith... is a respect for power. Those who have, and those striving to gain it. The process by which each Sith sets out to become more powerful is up to them.

 

The culture of killing or punishing the weak, torturing traitors and enemies of the state... that is all apart of Imperial culture. Read the lore.

 

At any rate, the simple point is that trying to make the Sith "evil" requires nothing more than an opinion. If you want to believe that they are evil because they don't follow your morals. Then so be it. I'd prefer to not be myopic and broaden my perspective to consider their culture and beliefs so that I can compare it to my own and see where the differences lie.

 

And in the spirit of my last reply, a simple parallel is a comparison of religions. You can pull from history or even from current events. Take for example the differences between Muslims and Christians and their associated cultures. Think about Iran and Israel. In both cases, each nation, or religion/culture has their own set of moral beliefs, but despite some similarities there are also deep differences which express themselves in a variety of ways that some of us on the outside may flatly say is wrong on both counts. Yet, if you dive into the box of each culture and consider their perspective... their actions make sense to them.

 

Everything boils down to perspective.

 

And then there is this year long discussion on the same thing:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=276147

Edited July 26, 2013 by RatPoison

[MasqureMan]

The amount of moral nihilism on display in this thread - and most of the others that deal with this sort of thing - is both depressing and depressingly predictable. It's depressing because it implies very serious consequences for the behavior of the people who make these claims. And it's depressingly predictable because nobody, it seems, can be bothered to read modern philosophy, or can be bothered to have a decent foundation in logic - so given that most people are unfamiliar with these things, conclusions like many of those in this thread could be seen coming a long way off.

 

For instance, the denial of the existence of moral facts - i.e. objective truths on which a foundation of moral judgments and an ethical system can be constructed - seems to be somewhat in vogue in this thread. Put another way, it's the idea that, since different people consider different things to be morally good or morally evil, that there are no such truths about whether anything can be objectively morally good or objectively morally evil.

 

Okay, but the same logical underpinning exists for the notion of having reasons for doing anything at all, not just actions that are called into moral question. If you claim that there are no objective moral facts that induce people to make ethical decisions, then implicitly you also claim that there are no objective reasons that induce people to take any action at all. It's not quite the problem of demonstrating causality, but it's close.

 

Now, the claim that reasons don't exist is logically coherent. It's not, technically speaking, an invalid point of view to hold. But it's not commonly held at all; most people, I daresay, do believe that there is a reason that they do the things they do. They go to get water because they feel thirsty; they get a job to pay the bills; they read a book or play a game because they're bored, and so on.

 

Furthermore, believing that there are no such things as reasons is not a very useful way to think, because claiming that reasons don't exist leads nowhere. It's not a prescriptive system, it's a descriptive one. It has fairly unhappy consequences for the way people live their lives. It presumes, effectively, that everything that almost everybody believes about, well, everything is false. In my view, one would need extremely strong arguments to accept such a position, and nobody in the history of ethics has ever really managed to make such arguments.

 

What we usually get as an "argument for" moral nihilism - or, alternatively, the closely related moral relativism - are assertions that, since not everybody has or does operate from the same moral truths, therefore there are no objective moral truths. But that's absurd; it's like saying that since lots of people make - and have historically made - mathematical errors, therefore there is no objective math. You know, "two plus two doesn't necessarily equal four because some people think that it equals six instead". Or the belief that, before Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem, there was no such proof possible. There might very well be such a proof (and, indeed, there was), much like there might very well be logical proofs of objective moral truths. We simply may not have discovered them yet.

 

---

 

Coming from another angle, the vast majority of modern philosophers are moral realists, and believe that, yes, there are such things as objective moral facts. People who think that ethical philosophy is not about the search for figuring out, proving, and/or understanding moral truths necessarily think that it is about something else (e.g. Wittgenstein, who claimed that philosophy was purely descriptive and existed for the purpose of 'clearing away confusions' - as though one wouldn't get better work out of simply making a pill to do that, or something). They don't tend to be philosophers, and if they do, they don't tend to be particularly rigorous ones (like Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, and that whole group, who seem to have made careers out of being completely incomprehensible as though that were some sort of virtue).

 

This leaves us with the information that people who are good at philosophy, who tend to do philosophy in the most rational way, make these conclusions about philosophy. And that should be fairly suggestive to everybody. Not decisive, of course, but I think that it implies that their reasoning bears a much closer look. Check out Rawls, for instance.

 

Anyway, this is all a fairly long-winded way of saying that I believe that the people who claim that the Sith are not evil are being insufficiently rigorous in their thought processes and arguments.

 

For me, it's not so much that things Sith do can't be called evil, but that not all Sith are the same. There are honorable ones among them who care about their children and love their families and friends, but still do what they have to do in the name of the Empire and the Emperor. Likewise, there are others who are sadistic bastards and do things for the evulz and powah, so it's hard to judge the whole order for the d-bags within it.

[Euphrosyne]

Ah... considering one of the basics of philosophy is an understanding of self and perspective, Euphrosyne's comment can be summed up with the use of a simple phrase highlighted throughout the long reply, "I believe".

 

To paraphrase a quote: nothing is good or evil, thinking makes it so.

 

[excursus on perspective, restating all the moral relativistic points made previously without actually responding to the other post]

So your response to my statement that I don't think you're being sufficiently rigorous is to ignore that, and to continue to harp on the things you've been talking about already without making a substantive response to my objections?

 

Glad you're here.

For me, it's not so much that things Sith do can't be called evil, but that not all Sith are the same. There are honorable ones among them who care about their children and love their families and friends, but still do what they have to do in the name of the Empire and the Emperor. Likewise, there are others who are sadistic bastards and do things for the evulz and powah, so it's hard to judge the whole order for the d-bags within it.

Sure. I get that. To move away from the philosophy to history, claiming that all Sith are intrinsically evil by dint of being Sith is ridiculous, like claiming all Germans/Russians/Chinese are intrinsically evil because the Nazis/CPSU/CPC run/ran their countries. Of course that's wrong. I mean, I've written hundreds of pages of fanfiction based around a Sith Warrior who is meant to be portrayed as not actually evil (in sharp contrast to most of the rest of the Sith). So I get it.

 

But that's not really the point. A lot of people in this thread have not been arguing on the basis of the - for lack of a better term - "light side Sith". They've been claiming that all Sith, even the ones who commit wanton genocide, randomly murder people, enslave whole populations, etc., can't be judged to be evil. They argue this on the basis of a moral-relativistic standpoint that is either not internally coherent or that has intellectual consequences that they do not understand and would probably disagree with if they did understand them.

 

Simply put, it's teenager ethics, the sort of thing one develops by reading the so-called Continental philosophers. It's not rigorous at all, it's not based on logic, and it's really more like literature than anything else.

[LighterDarker]

How are the Jedi any different? In the Clone Wars era the Jedi Order enslaved an entire army of clones. Clones are still living beings.

 

I agree with you on the first part, Jedi are no different they scheme and lie, remeber that one mission on Balmorra that you do for Darth Lacris? The evidence was as clear as day that the Jedi and the Republic were invovled. If you choose to kill Cheketa, the Republic and Jedi Lie that they were not involved at all. The Jedi are hypocrites, they practice hypocrisy, that is something I cannont stand. Atleast the Sith are honest about.