Can the Empire truly be redeemed?

[Euphrosyne]

Simply put, we can't say "the Fel Empire/Sith Empire was a failure" anymore than we can say "Nazi Germany was a failure" (WW2 aside) because these things simply aren't true, morality doesn't come into this, only results.

 

But that's partly besides the point, I'm merely approaching this from an objective perspective, which means putting aside my moral preferences. I realise that others are approaching this from subjective perspectives. Which is fine.

There is no such thing as an objective perspective, or rather: there is no way to observe and report on a given event without adding subjective interpretation. Something as fundamental as the language one uses to describe an observation - and the cultural viewpoints that might underpin that language - can change the way an event is described rather dramatically. This concept, which is usually lumped together with related ideas under the heading of the "linguistic turn", is a rather fundamental epistemological and philosophical concept, and has been ever since the 1960s and 1970s. The works of Hayden White, assuming one can be bothered to plow through them, make for a decent guide to the whole thing.

 

Or, as Deliann Mithondionne once wrote: "What anything means depends on how you tell the story."

 

Your analysis is also reliant on the flawed assumption that your definition of "success" is universal. It isn't. You seem to define success, in terms of a state and institution, as self-perpetuation, survival, and territorial expansion. I don't see why that's axiomatic. Perhaps one believes that a state is only successful if it ensures the safety and prosperity of as many of its citizens as it possibly can from any threat, internal or external, in which case the Sith Empire would fail rather catastrophically. Perhaps you believe that a state's success should be judged by its ability to respect and enforce sentient rights. These are "results", not "morality", but the question of which results matter is ultimately subjective, not objective.

 

By claiming that your analysis ignores ethical and moral concerns because they - unlike, ostensibly, the things you do discuss - are not objective, you implicitly argue that those things do not matter, and that states should not pay any attention to ethical issues because they are irrelevant to how successful those states are. That isn't just a subjective claim in and of itself, it's utterly horrifying. I think it's bizarre that you claim that the Nazi government was a failure because it lost the Second World War and ceased to exist, and not because of the Holocaust or the massive war the Nazis unleashed on Europe. By arguing thus, you're not ignoring ethics: you're embracing the ethics of "success".

 

And to suggest that ethical concerns have no place in a thread about redemption - which is intrinsically a moral concept, unless you're talking about coupons - is silly anyway.

[Xilizhra]

There is no such thing as an objective perspective, or rather: there is no way to observe and report on a given event without adding subjective interpretation. Something as fundamental as the language one uses to describe an observation - and the cultural viewpoints that might underpin that language - can change the way an event is described rather dramatically. This concept, which is usually lumped together with related ideas under the heading of the "linguistic turn", is a rather fundamental epistemological and philosophical concept, and has been ever since the 1960s and 1970s. The works of Hayden White, assuming one can be bothered to plow through them, make for a decent guide to the whole thing.

 

Or, as Deliann Mithondionne once wrote: "What anything means depends on how you tell the story."

 

Your analysis is also reliant on the flawed assumption that your definition of "success" is universal. It isn't. You seem to define success, in terms of a state and institution, as self-perpetuation, survival, and territorial expansion. I don't see why that's axiomatic. Perhaps one believes that a state is only successful if it ensures the safety and prosperity of as many of its citizens as it possibly can from any threat, internal or external, in which case the Sith Empire would fail rather catastrophically. Perhaps you believe that a state's success should be judged by its ability to respect and enforce sentient rights. These are "results", not "morality", but the question of which results matter is ultimately subjective, not objective.

 

By claiming that your analysis ignores ethical and moral concerns because they - unlike, ostensibly, the things you do discuss - are not objective, you implicitly argue that those things do not matter, and that states should not pay any attention to ethical issues because they are irrelevant to how successful those states are. That isn't just a subjective claim in and of itself, it's utterly horrifying. I think it's bizarre that you claim that the Nazi government was a failure because it lost the Second World War and ceased to exist, and not because of the Holocaust or the massive war the Nazis unleashed on Europe. By arguing thus, you're not ignoring ethics: you're embracing the ethics of "success".

 

And to suggest that ethical concerns have no place in a thread about redemption - which is intrinsically a moral concept, unless you're talking about coupons - is silly anyway.

It's an easy trap to fall into, and I do it myself from time to time; that the survival of the state's institute of government is the main standard by which a state's success is measured, even though that is, as you said, highly subjective. But yes, the more obvious ways the Empire failed was by the way it failed its citizens.

[ShadowMudkip]

It's an easy trap to fall into, and I do it myself from time to time; that the survival of the state's institute of government is the main standard by which a state's success is measured, even though that is, as you said, highly subjective. But yes, the more obvious ways the Empire failed was by the way it failed its citizens.

If we are going to rabbit trail to the topic of success, I might as well have some fun with it. One person success, may be another's failure. In terms of survival, conquest, and military superiority, the Sith Empire is a success! However, when it comes to the treatment, or lack of treatment, of its citizens, the Sith Empire is a catastrophic failure.

 

As a person who holds a Western ideological viewpoint, playing as the Empire is quite fun, as it holds very little of what my society holds dear. Its like experiencing a new culture with different beliefs and practices. If the Empire were to be put into our worlds perspective, it would appear very much like the state of North Korea.

[theUndead]

Wait, ideal? Hell no. The Galactic Empire, if anything, was even worse than the Sith Empire. And which of my reforms do you consider nonviable?

 

In the end, it probably is best if it just got absorbed into the Republic.

 

So your solution is to dissolve any entire society just because you disagree with it?

[Xilizhra]

So your solution is to dissolve any entire society just because you disagree with it?

Sometimes it's necessary.

[Jrr_hypernova]

Well the Sith Code makes it easy.

 

At the end of the Code, you have been freed by the Force, and does not require any particular use of it. That's the biggest difference between Sith and Jedi - the Jedi control everything about what they are supposed to think, while the Sith are individualistic to a fault.

 

In that sense, you can look at the Sith as having the strength and passion to live as they choose, with the traditions and governments as a gentlemen's agreement and desire for a society.

 

Tradition does attempt to dictate that all Sith live to master only the dark side, but the Sith Code does not prevent anyone from using their understanding of passion to love, protect, and negotiate illusory peace while continuing efforts to destroy their enemies.

 

Peace is a Lie can be interpreted as an option for all Sith to pretend to be peaceful in intention, while acting on their passions using that deception to their advantage. Peace is temporary and inner peace is personal, total peace for all is impossible, per the Code.

 

and don't they just draw power from passion? that doesn't always have to be negitive emotions it could be thing like love, faith in stuff, hope fredom or really anything that gives you strong emotions.

[theUndead]

Sometimes it's necessary.

 

No it isn't. It does not matter how tyrannical a system of government is, completely destroying it and i'ts people does not solve the issue. Reform the empire by changing its power structure and eliminating key areas of hostility such as Sith dominance and you will have a better place.

[Euphrosyne]

No it isn't. It does not matter how tyrannical a system of government is, completely destroying it and i'ts people does not solve the issue. Reform the empire by changing its power structure and eliminating key areas of hostility such as Sith dominance and you will have a better place.

Who said anything about destroying the people of the Empire?

[theUndead]

Who said anything about destroying the people of the Empire?

 

Dissolving the society implies total destruction, at least in my mind.

[Euphrosyne]

Dissolving the society implies total destruction, at least in my mind.

Or maybe it could work like postwar Germany.

[Beniboybling]

There is no such thing as an objective perspective, or rather: there is no way to observe and report on a given event without adding subjective interpretation. Something as fundamental as the language one uses to describe an observation - and the cultural viewpoints that might underpin that language - can change the way an event is described rather dramatically. This concept, which is usually lumped together with related ideas under the heading of the "linguistic turn", is a rather fundamental epistemological and philosophical concept, and has been ever since the 1960s and 1970s. The works of Hayden White, assuming one can be bothered to plow through them, make for a decent guide to the whole thing.

 

Or, as Deliann Mithondionne once wrote: "What anything means depends on how you tell the story."

 

Your analysis is also reliant on the flawed assumption that your definition of "success" is universal. It isn't. You seem to define success, in terms of a state and institution, as self-perpetuation, survival, and territorial expansion. I don't see why that's axiomatic. Perhaps one believes that a state is only successful if it ensures the safety and prosperity of as many of its citizens as it possibly can from any threat, internal or external, in which case the Sith Empire would fail rather catastrophically. Perhaps you believe that a state's success should be judged by its ability to respect and enforce sentient rights. These are "results", not "morality", but the question of which results matter is ultimately subjective, not objective.

 

By claiming that your analysis ignores ethical and moral concerns because they - unlike, ostensibly, the things you do discuss - are not objective, you implicitly argue that those things do not matter, and that states should not pay any attention to ethical issues because they are irrelevant to how successful those states are. That isn't just a subjective claim in and of itself, it's utterly horrifying. I think it's bizarre that you claim that the Nazi government was a failure because it lost the Second World War and ceased to exist, and not because of the Holocaust or the massive war the Nazis unleashed on Europe. By arguing thus, you're not ignoring ethics: you're embracing the ethics of "success".

 

And to suggest that ethical concerns have no place in a thread about redemption - which is intrinsically a moral concept, unless you're talking about coupons - is silly anyway.

I realise that it is impossible to be totally objective, but your perhaps assuming a different kind of objectivity here. Yes we cannot approach any situation abstractly, a view from nowhere if you will. But we can detach ourselves from our own personal opinions and cultural influences and reinsert ourselves in a different one. Literature for example does this all the time simply by creating characters. And that is what I'm doing here, I'm putting my own personal opinions aside and approaching the situation from a different perspective. And for a lack of a better term I'd refer that as being objective.

 

These are not my definitions, these are not my opinions on what I feel "matters". One might think that when I use words like objective they might understand that these are not arguments I necessarily support. These are the opinions of an Imperial citizen of which the Empire we are discussing. From the perspective on an Imperial citizen authoritarian leadership, expansionism etc. are good, and they'd be able to support this statement with logical arguments.

 

They might also argue that human progression and fulfillment is more important than happiness, and again this is an argument that is logically supportable. Also when I said morality isn't important, what I meant to say is that our morality isn't important. Because its our own subjective perspective. The Sith Empire isn't devoid of morals, this is what I mean about being more objective, we are so caught up in our own self-righteouness we forget the definition:

 

"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."

 

Morality isn't about being nice to people and helping the old lady across the road, that's our morality. Morality is what a specific culture regards to be right and wrong, the Sith Empire has a moral code, its just different from ours. Like you say, the ethics of success, I'm not embracing this model, I'm approaching the situation from the perspective of somebody who does - try to understand this before you accuse me of being a Nazi or something.

 

So from their perspective the Sith Empire is well functioning, morally acceptable etc. etc. and we can't really refute that on logical grounds, because its all a matter of opinion, these are subjective tastes.

 

So using the word redemption is, in my opinion, quite arrogant. Its a bit of a digression but I think its important. The Jedi for example talk about people "falling" but we know that light and dark are equal. Just like within our own world no morality is categorically "better" than another just different. So by using the word redemption like the Jedi use fall we are assuming that we are right, not simply on a different side of the coin. But what exactly do we have to support that? I understand that if your religious you might have something to back that up, but nobody else does I feel.

 

But back to the point. We can denounce things like xenophobia, power plays and Sith elitism (the latter two to an extent) because these are simply irrational. There are no positive effects from the perspective of either society to supporting xenophobic attitudes, its an irrational fear, just like the Nazi's "fear" of the Jews was equally irrational.

 

These are the kinds of things I feel, objectively speaking, would need to change if we were to reform the Empire.

 

Anyway you seem to have conveniently missed half of my point, which is somewhat frustrating. I hope you've actually read all my posts in their entirety and didn't just see this little part and latch on it. Let me quote:

 

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. This isn't a question of what is fine or not. Or anything like that. I'm not denying that you can say the Sith Empire is morally reprehensible. You can. Heck you should.

 

[insert the above argument here]

 

But that's partly besides the point, I'm merely approaching this from an objective perspective, which means putting aside my moral preferences. I realise that others are approaching this from subjective perspectives. Which is fine.

 

But if we do that, the question "can the Empire truly be redeemed" is really a categorical no. Societies are fundamentally built upon morality and culture, and these are the very things we are challenging here. The culture and morality of the Sith Empire, if we remove those there is no Sith Empire. The system would cease to exist.

 

Again, to compare, its like saying "Can Nazi Germany truly be redeemed?" Of course not! To do that we've have to throw out the Nazi's completely and then some, and then it would not longer be Nazi Germany, it wouldn't even be close.

 

...

 

P.S. I do personally find it distasteful to assert what I believe to be subjective i.e. morality, as objective. Which is what I feel is being done here. By assuming the Empire needs to be redeemed we are assuming that we are right and they are wrong - I don't think we have the authority to do that. I also feel that it helps to be objective more often, not only does it make us more understanding of others, but it helps us see our own flaws. But that's just me. And I mean no offense.

 

I understand what everyone is discussing here, and my answer is no, it cannot. Partly because we have to realise that we are trying to impress our own subjective perspective onto a completely opposite one, which would lead to the Sith Empire ceasing to exist. Which leads to the argument that the only way in which the Sith Empire can be "redeemed" from its flaws without totally destroying it, would be to correct that which is logically irrational and ineffective, rather than what we regard to be morally reprehensible. Because morality is the crux of civilization, you can't just change that.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Beniboybling

[Beniboybling]

It was functioning so well that it spawned a whole Rebellion and a constant stream of defectors to hack away at it? And when said rebels took out the head of state, it immediately collapsed into an anarchy of feuding warlords? That doesn't sound well-designed to me.

 

The Nazi state wasn't made well either. Its economy could only function by constantly plundering its neighbors, and Hitler set up various government offices to constantly fight each other for funding and domains of control, to see who'd emerge as the strongest. Ultimately, it was terribly inefficient and only ever looked good in the short term.

It functions better than the Sith Empire, minimal power plays that have minimal effect on efficiency. There are only two Sith so Sith elitism as a problem doesn't come into it, Sidious and Vader earn their respect and authority. And while yes xenophobia is still there it's not quite as acute as it is in the Sith Empire. Its not perfect no, but better.

 

From the perspective of Darth Sidious of course. Throw in an analogy here to make my point clear, lets say Sidious hired Yoda as an aide and tasked him with "fixing the problems with the Empire" - just imagine what he would do, he'd overhaul the entire system to the point where it would cease to exist. Does that seem dumb to you?

 

Well that's how I feel here, I feel this is kinda dumb. Meaning no offense.

 

And yes, that's why I drew the comparisons between the Sith Empire and the Nazi's. The Nazi's had many pros, that's the only way they could have rebuilt their society from the mess it was in and waged a war against the world. But it also suffered from many problems similar to that of the Sith Empire, very similar.

 

But again the question "Can Nazi Germany truly be redeemed?" seems kinda dumb question too doesn't it?

[Beniboybling]

It's an easy trap to fall into, and I do it myself from time to time; that the survival of the state's institute of government is the main standard by which a state's success is measured, even though that is, as you said, highly subjective. But yes, the more obvious ways the Empire failed was by the way it failed its citizens.

An accusation you can only level at the Sith, not me, so point that finger someplace else!

 

Serious question though, is it a trap? At the heart of this state survival thing is survival of the fittest, and at the heart of that is human progression, achieving your fullest potential. That's what the Sith strive to do. Its a question of balancing that with happiness, the Sith might have got the equation wrong but they've got the right ingredients.

[Beniboybling]

and don't they just draw power from passion? that doesn't always have to be negitive emotions it could be thing like love, faith in stuff, hope fredom or really anything that gives you strong emotions.

That would still be drawing on the dark side, if you embrace passion as the dark side demands you do you cannot wield the light side of the Force. Can Sith be "nice", yes. Can Sith be light side, no.

[Xilizhra]

Or maybe it could work like postwar Germany.

That was my plan for this, and what the New Republic should have done to the remnants of the Galactic Empire. The fact that they didn't came back to bite them.

 

Morality isn't about being nice to people and helping the old lady across the road, that's our morality. Morality is what a specific culture regards to be right and wrong, the Sith Empire has a moral code, its just different from ours. Like you say, the ethics of success, I'm not embracing this model, I'm approaching the situation from the perspective of somebody who does - try to understand this before you accuse me of being a Nazi or something.

But in that case, the speciesism and power struggles are also part of their morality (the power struggles are explicitly supported by millennia of Sith precedent), so wouldn't count as failings either until said morality changed.

 

So using the word redemption is, in my opinion, quite arrogant. Its a bit of a digression but I think its important. The Jedi for example talk about people "falling" but we know that light and dark are equal. Just like within our own world no morality is categorically "better" than another just different. So by using the word redemption like the Jedi use fall we are assuming that we are right, not simply on a different side of the coin. But what exactly do we have to support that? I understand that if your religious you might have something to back that up, but nobody else does I feel.

Who's "we?" I sure as hell don't. The dark side is far worse a path to get caught on than the light side.

 

P.S. I do personally find it distasteful to assert what I believe to be subjective i.e. morality, as objective. Which is what I feel is being done here. By assuming the Empire needs to be redeemed we are assuming that we are right and they are wrong - I don't think we have the authority to do that. I also feel that it helps to be objective more often, not only does it make us more understanding of others, but it helps us see our own flaws. But that's just me. And I mean no offense.

We have, via making observations of their people, enough perspective to determine which side causes more net suffering and then come to the conclusion of destruction if one side is sufficiently worse and dangerous of its own accord.

 

It functions better than the Sith Empire, minimal power plays that have minimal effect on efficiency. There are only two Sith so Sith elitism as a problem doesn't come into it, Sidious and Vader earn their respect and authority. And while yes xenophobia is still there it's not quite as acute as it is in the Sith Empire. Its not perfect no, but better.

I'm pretty sure the xenophobia is actually worse.

 

From the perspective of Darth Sidious of course. Throw in an analogy here to make my point clear, lets say Sidious hired Yoda as an aide and tasked him with "fixing the problems with the Empire" - just imagine what he would do, he'd overhaul the entire system to the point where it would cease to exist. Does that seem dumb to you?

 

Well that's how I feel here, I feel this is kinda dumb. Meaning no offense.

Why would I care what the rulers think if they're the major problem? Reform would be for the sake of its citizens.

 

Serious question though, is it a trap? At the heart of this state survival thing is survival of the fittest, and at the heart of that is human progression, achieving your fullest potential. That's what the Sith strive to do. Its a question of balancing that with happiness, the Sith might have got the equation wrong but they've got the right ingredients.

The Sith strive to achieve their own personal fullest potential, with the Empire just being a sort of side benefit if it turns out well.

 

That would still be drawing on the dark side, if you embrace passion as the dark side demands you do you cannot wield the light side of the Force. Can Sith be "nice", yes. Can Sith be light side, no.

Positive emotions, even passion, are powered by the light side. The Jedi doesn't discourage positive emotions because they're inherently dark, but because positive emotion can so easily flip around to become negative emotion.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Xilizhra

[DarthDymond]

My argument is that in this case moral accusation against the Sith Empire isn't I feel relevant here. If your morals are, from the perspective of our culture, reprehensible, that doesn't mean your society is broken. You wouldn't call say Nazi society broken and in need of a fix. It functions, society perpetuates, people thrive. Its a legitimate political system because it doesn't break down into anarchy like if the Monster Raving Looney Party came into power.

 

So when I approach the Sith Empire with the word reform, I look at the flaws that hold in back from functioning, xenophobia, power play, elitism etc. not slavery, expansionism and authoritarian government. Because as much as we may dislike it these policies are often effective, Nazi Germany for example was an extremely powerful nation. It was very well functioning, its only downside from a completely objective perspective were the same problems that plague the Sith.

 

Simply put, we can't say "the Fel Empire/Sith Empire was a failure" anymore than we can say "Nazi Germany was a failure" (WW2 aside) because these things simply aren't true, morality doesn't come into this, only results.

Alright, I was looking at your reply in the context of OP's overall question, rather than the specific term "failure" as used in his post you were directly replying to. And given that the original question was whether the Empire can be "redeemed" (which strongly implies a moral element) into a "non-tyrannical society" (an explicit moral valuation), I'd say the moral aspect is at the core of the thread more than the "keeping the trains running on time" aspect.

 

But if we do that, the question "can the Empire truly be redeemed" is really a categorical no. Societies are fundamentally built upon morality and culture, and these are the very things we are challenging here. The culture and morality of the Sith Empire, if we remove those there is no Sith Empire. The system would cease to exist.

 

Again, to compare, its like saying "Can Nazi Germany truly be redeemed?" Of course not! To do that we've have to throw out the Nazi's completely and then some, and then it would not longer be Nazi Germany, it would even be close.

I think this is getting to a definitional issue over "when does a civilization stop being the same civilization."

I think most people would say that 2014's USA is the same civilization as 1787's USA, but most would say that 2014's Russia is not the same as 1917's Tsarist Russia. But is 2014's England the same civilization as 11th Century England? As 1707's England? Is France's current "Fifth Republic" the same civilization as 1946's "Fourth Republic" or pre-WW2 "Third Republic"? Was the Roman Empire the same civilization after Constantine? I think there's definitely room for reasonable minds to disagree, but there seem to be plenty of instances where significant cultural and moral features of societies have changed, yet we consider those societies to have endured.

 

Eighteenth century America had slavery and patriarchy as, if not "core values", at least strongly entrenched values and institutions, yet while racism and sexism are still present in the society the change has been immense. "Culture and morality" often evolve and change over time, without the underlying society being destroyed in the process.

 

So the question is: Is the "Sith" element of the Sith Empire an essential part of its social identity, such as you are taking Nazism (with all its attendant racism and tyranny) to be an essential part of Nazi Germany, or is it like the "Kingdom" element of the United Kingdom, which the society has evolved beyond while still remaining the same society.

 

And, on the other hand, even if Sith rule is an essential feature, is the Sith philosophy itself irredeemable from a moral standpoint, or could it become a more benign system while still being "Sith"? (Without calling Christianity "better" than paganism, I'd compare such a change to seeing the Roman Empire change from their Olympic Pantheon to Christianity - a new philosophy supplanting the old, but with the same society enduring.)

 

P.S. I do personally find it distasteful to assert what I believe to be subjective i.e. morality, as objective. Which is what I feel is being done here. By assuming the Empire needs to be redeemed we are assuming that we are right and they are wrong - I don't think we have the authority to do that. I also feel that it helps to be objective more often, not only does it make us more understanding of others, but it helps us see our own flaws. But that's just me. And I mean no offense.

While I find it interesting that you are willing to assert the value of "objectivity" (which is itself a subjective value) but are not willing to assert the value of "not having slaves", I'm going to opt to not delve to deeply into that, since it'll probably bring us waaay off-topic for the thread.

[Beniboybling]

In response to post #40.

 

1. I never said that morality is exempt for criticism, I'm saying that one way (and perhaps the only way) to approach this topic of reform is from the perspective on an Imperial. What do they regard as well-functioning society? Xenophobia is an obstacle to Imperial ideals. On top of that its illogical, we can't refute it with the argument that it conflicts with our own beliefs but we can simply brand it is ineffective in any functioning society. In makes no sense. Nor do I believe xenophobia is a core component of Sith society, its just a idiosyncrasy arisen out of slavery and expansionism, and it is many ways completely overridden by other facets of Imperial society such as meritocracy.

 

2. Exactly, you are assuming you are right in an absolutist kind of way. But the fact is that balance is neither a excess of light and dark, but complete equality between the two. And because both paths are equally necessary they are equally valuable, you therefore cannot "fall" to the dark side as that would imply the dark side is corruption. Its not, its just another side of a coin. This isn't like heaven and hell, demons and angels, its yin and yang.

 

3. That's not the point though, of course that's the case. Its the only reason I can sit here and be content in the society I live in, and justify my actions in general. But that doesn't make them absolutely correct, we simply do not possess the authority to make such distinctions, we can only offer our own perspective, we are not gods.

 

And I'm saying this because I feel such an authoritarian stance on morality is in the end at the heart of things like Imperialism, racism and yes, Nazism. But this is a Star Wars discussion forum so I'm not going to use real world examples, instead lets look at the Jedi. And lets look at their approach towards the Sith. As a result of their own self-righteousness they are not only blind to the realities of the Force but approach the Sith in an extremely hostile and ineffective manner, which always leads to gross loss of life and perpetuates an altogether vicious cycle.

 

The Sith emerge, the only options the Jedi see is redemption or destruction. Reconciliation? No. Its join us or die. Most of the time the latter option, and so the Jedi destroy the Sith and they come back and they come back etc. etc. Throw in some mass genocide, you get the idea. But maybe if the Jedi weren't so self-assured, they might consider reconciling themselves with Sith ideals, which in the end is the only feasible way to break the cycle.

 

Now don't assume that I'm implying that we should have say, reconcile ourselves with the Nazis. I'm not. I don't think the Sith are comparable to the Nazis, I don't think from our cultural perspective we can define them as "evil." I'd substitute the Sith with any culture or person, or religion etc. that is different enough from our own to warrant us attempting to force our beliefs upon them, because we are so assured that our way is the right way and more importantly the only way or rather those who we see as inferior to which leads to resistance, which leads to loss of life.

 

I'm only saying this because people constantly come up with the accusation that this will lead to willful ignorance of evil etc. and that is all bad and what not. But I think there are lots of benefits to this kind of thinking. If we all truly believe in democracy I don't see why we should not be more democratic in this field as well, rather than authoritarian.

 

4. Good point, but not the point. The point is that attempting to enforce an altogether opposite cultural and moral foundation on a society, and claiming that this is in some way "fixing" something that is "broken" is a bit silly. Its like offering to fix somebody's toy but instead throwing it away and buying a completely new one. Heck the toy isn't even broken, the kid just doesn't like the look of it and claims its broken because of that. You get the idea.

 

5. Sith aren't all that make up the Sith Empire however, the Imperial ideal in general doesn't encompass them.

 

6. I'm not sure where you got that from. But I'm afraid not. In order to draw on the light side of the Force you have to clear your mind of passions, positive emotions perhaps but generally one clears oneself of emotions. Because emotions are dangerous, they can lead to passions which is exactly what the Jedi try to avoid.

 

To define passion:

 

1. strong and barely controllable emotion.

 

And then of course we have the line from the Jedi Code:

 

There is no passion, there is serenity.

 

The Jedi Code is partly intended to assist Jedi in drawing on the light side of the Force. And it wards against passions, emotions like lust, obsession, possession, anger, hatred, grief, fear etc. these are passions. Things that are difficult to control and lead to reckless action, that lead to the dark side. Things like happiness, love (without attachment) serenity, and things that can be controlled, which is essential to drawing on the light side of the Force.

 

Therefore a Code, a Sith Code, that demands use of uncontrollable emotions to achieve power is one that simply cannot be reconciled with the light side of the Force. If you embrace your passions you embrace the dark side, the light cannot be drawn upon in this way. And that's without considering the emphasis on control and domination, that is not something the light side provides, the light side demands you become a vessel and servant to the Force.

 

And then of course we have "peace is a lie" which is a direct attack on the Jedi Code itself. Peace is what you need to draw on the light. The Sith believe that the Jedi simply deny the existence of their passions and that the light side is therefore a facsimile of true power in the Force, that they could achieve by embracing their true nature.

 

The only way one can draw light and dark together is through balance, you have to embrace both sides. Not just one.

[ShadowMudkip]

In response to post #40.

 

1. I never said that morality is exempt for criticism, I'm saying that one way (and perhaps the only way) to approach this topic of reform is from the perspective on an Imperial. What do they regard as well-functioning society? Xenophobia is an obstacle to Imperial ideals. On top of that its illogical, we can't refute it with the argument that it conflicts with our own beliefs but we can simply brand it is ineffective in any functioning society. In makes no sense. Nor do I believe xenophobia is a core component of Sith society, its just a idiosyncrasy arisen out of slavery and expansionism, and it is many ways completely overridden by other facets of Imperial society such as meritocracy.

Agreed

2. Exactly, you are assuming you are right in an absolutist kind of way. But the fact is that balance is neither a excess of light and dark, but complete equality between the two. And because both paths are equally necessary they are equally valuable, you therefore cannot "fall" to the dark side as that would imply the dark side is corruption. Its not, its just another side of a coin. This isn't like heaven and hell, demons and angels, its yin and yang.

 

3. That's not the point though, of course that's the case. Its the only reason I can sit here and be content in the society I live in, and justify my actions in general. But that doesn't make them absolutely correct, we simply do not possess the authority to make such distinctions, we can only offer our own perspective, we are not gods.

 

And I'm saying this because I feel such an authoritarian stance on morality is in the end at the heart of things like Imperialism, racism and yes, Nazism. But this is a Star Wars discussion forum so I'm not going to use real world examples, instead lets look at the Jedi. And lets look at their approach towards the Sith. As a result of their own self-righteousness they are not only blind to the realities of the Force but approach the Sith in an extremely hostile and ineffective manner, which always leads to gross loss of life and perpetuates an altogether vicious cycle.

The Jedi's unwillingness to coexist causes many of the conflicts with the Sith. Plagueis and Sidious tried to tip the balance of the Force to the Dark Side, the Force created Anakin to combat that. In the same way, the Jedi's Light Side only ideology causes the Force to tip in favor of the light. To combat these changes, the Sith once again rise. The heart of the conflict is the Jedi's self-righteousness.

The Sith emerge, the only options the Jedi see is redemption or destruction. Reconciliation? No. Its join us or die. Most of the time the latter option, and so the Jedi destroy the Sith and they come back and they come back etc. etc. Throw in some mass genocide, you get the idea. But maybe if the Jedi weren't so self-assured, they might consider reconciling themselves with Sith ideals, which in the end is the only feasible way to break the cycle.

The Jedi need to stop with the join or die mentality

Now don't assume that I'm implying that we should have say, reconcile ourselves with the Nazis. I'm not. I don't think the Sith are comparable to the Nazis, I don't think from our cultural perspective we can define them as "evil." I'd substitute the Sith with any culture or person, or religion etc. that is different enough from our own to warrant us attempting to force our beliefs upon them, because we are so assured that our way is the right way and more importantly the only way or rather those who we see as inferior to which leads to resistance, which leads to loss of life.

Im not going to comment on Nazi Germany, its getting us off topic

I'm only saying this because people constantly come up with the accusation that this will lead to willful ignorance of evil etc. and that is all bad and what not. But I think there are lots of benefits to this kind of thinking. If we all truly believe in democracy I don't see why we should not be more democratic in this field as well, rather than authoritarian.

 

4. Good point, but not the point. The point is that attempting to enforce an altogether opposite cultural and moral foundation on a society, and claiming that this is in some way "fixing" something that is "broken" is a bit silly. Its like offering to fix somebody's toy but instead throwing it away and buying a completely new one. Heck the toy isn't even broken, the kid just doesn't like the look of it and claims its broken because of that. You get the idea.

 

5. Sith aren't all that make up the Sith Empire however, the Imperial ideal in general doesn't encompass them.

 

6. I'm not sure where you got that from. But I'm afraid not. In order to draw on the light side of the Force you have to clear your mind of passions, positive emotions perhaps but generally one clears oneself of emotions. Because emotions are dangerous, they can lead to passions which is exactly what the Jedi try to avoid.

 

To define passion:

 

1. strong and barely controllable emotion.

 

And then of course we have the line from the Jedi Code:

 

There is no passion, there is serenity.

 

The Jedi Code is partly intended to assist Jedi in drawing on the light side of the Force. And it wards against passions, emotions like lust, obsession, possession, anger, hatred, grief, fear etc. these are passions. Things that are difficult to control and lead to reckless action, that lead to the dark side. Things like happiness, love (without attachment) serenity, and things that can be controlled, which is essential to drawing on the light side of the Force.

I don't think someone can have true love without attachment. Love is an attachment to another person so strong that is sometimes changes us.

Therefore a Code, a Sith Code, that demands use of uncontrollable emotions to achieve power is one that simply cannot be reconciled with the light side of the Force. If you embrace your passions you embrace the dark side, the light cannot be drawn upon in this way. And that's without considering the emphasis on control and domination, that is not something the light side provides, the light side demands you become a vessel and servant to the Force.

Servant/vessel to a psychotic corporeal entity? Yea i'll pass. Also, I don't believe that the Sith Code is to the Sith what the Jedi code is to the Jedi. The Jedi revolve themselves around their code. The Sith simply use it to better break down their philosophy. Why would the Sith, who value personal freedom, let themselves be controlled and tied to something so restrictive as a code?

And then of course we have "peace is a lie" which is a direct attack on the Jedi Code itself. Peace is what you need to draw on the light. The Sith believe that the Jedi simply deny the existence of their passions and that the light side is therefore a facsimile of true power in the Force, that they could achieve by embracing their true nature.

The only way one can draw light and dark together is through balance, you have to embrace both sides. Not just one.

Replies in red. I have determined Beni is a bad triple poster and should be consumed by rakghouls.

[Euphrosyne]

I realise that it is impossible to be totally objective, but your perhaps assuming a different kind of objectivity here. Yes we cannot approach any situation abstractly, a view from nowhere if you will. But we can detach ourselves from our own personal opinions and cultural influences and reinsert ourselves in a different one. Literature for example does this all the time simply by creating characters. And that is what I'm doing here, I'm putting my own personal opinions aside and approaching the situation from a different perspective. And for a lack of a better term I'd refer that as being objective.

 

These are not my definitions, these are not my opinions on what I feel "matters". One might think that when I use words like objective they might understand that these are not arguments I necessarily support. These are the opinions of an Imperial citizen of which the Empire we are discussing. From the perspective on an Imperial citizen authoritarian leadership, expansionism etc. are good, and they'd be able to support this statement with logical arguments.

 

[etc.]

There is a better term. You're still speaking subjectively. It doesn't particularly matter whether you personally think that you don't hold the opinions you appear to be espousing. Something as basic as your own choice of words injects perspective into the discussion. So does the choice of subject. This isn't hard.

 

More to the point, you claimed that other views of the situation were illegitimate, and that your view was the objective one. You claimed that one could not say that the Empire was flawed, purely because you held a morally nihilistic view of the situation to be axiomatic and objective. According to you, all alternative ethical systems are equally valid, because, um, "culture". There is nothing objective about that at all.

 

Hell, most modern philosophers reject your understanding of morality because it is analytically useless. A few months ago, I posted at length on the sort of moral nihilism that provides the foundation for most arguments that the Sith Empire as an institution was not evil. It didn't draw substantive criticism, largely because I'm pretty sure most people on this site haven't read much philosophy other than maybe some badly digested and misunderstood Friedrich Nietzsche. I'm no philosopher, either, but at least I like to think I've gotten past the obnoxious teenage ethics that you'll find in all the attempts on this forum to make an apologia for the Sith.

But back to the point. We can denounce things like xenophobia, power plays and Sith elitism (the latter two to an extent) because these are simply irrational. There are no positive effects from the perspective of either society to supporting xenophobic attitudes, its an irrational fear, just like the Nazi's "fear" of the Jews was equally irrational.

 

These are the kinds of things I feel, objectively speaking, would need to change if we were to reform the Empire.

So, you're okay with the authoritarianism, the slavery, and the military aggression, but Sith and xenophobia are bad things? What makes the one group of things 'irrational' and the other one not?

 

I'm finding it very difficult to figure out a coherent thread in your discussion of this topic. You claim that you believe that the Empire is morally reprehensible, but you also claim that this belief is irrelevant and that maybe the Empire isn't all that morally reprehensible after all. Then you point out that most of the things that the Empire does that are morally reprehensible are 'irrational', so they've got to go anyway.

 

Like, what is even your point by now? Are you just arguing with people who think that the Empire sucks, purely for the sake of arguing about it?

Anyway you seem to have conveniently missed half of my point, which is somewhat frustrating. I hope you've actually read all my posts in their entirety and didn't just see this little part and latch on it. Let me quote:

 

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. This isn't a question of what is fine or not. Or anything like that. I'm not denying that you can say the Sith Empire is morally reprehensible. You can. Heck you should.

 

[insert the above argument here]

 

But that's partly besides the point, I'm merely approaching this from an objective perspective, which means putting aside my moral preferences. I realise that others are approaching this from subjective perspectives. Which is fine.

 

But if we do that, the question "can the Empire truly be redeemed" is really a categorical no. Societies are fundamentally built upon morality and culture, and these are the very things we are challenging here. The culture and morality of the Sith Empire, if we remove those there is no Sith Empire. The system would cease to exist.

 

Again, to compare, its like saying "Can Nazi Germany truly be redeemed?" Of course not! To do that we've have to throw out the Nazi's completely and then some, and then it would not longer be Nazi Germany, it wouldn't even be close.

 

...

 

P.S. I do personally find it distasteful to assert what I believe to be subjective i.e. morality, as objective. Which is what I feel is being done here. By assuming the Empire needs to be redeemed we are assuming that we are right and they are wrong - I don't think we have the authority to do that. I also feel that it helps to be objective more often, not only does it make us more understanding of others, but it helps us see our own flaws. But that's just me. And I mean no offense.

 

I understand what everyone is discussing here, and my answer is no, it cannot. Partly because we have to realise that we are trying to impress our own subjective perspective onto a completely opposite one, which would lead to the Sith Empire ceasing to exist. Which leads to the argument that the only way in which the Sith Empire can be "redeemed" from its flaws without totally destroying it, would be to correct that which is logically irrational and ineffective, rather than what we regard to be morally reprehensible. Because morality is the crux of civilization, you can't just change that.

It's fairly rich for you to complain about other people ignoring parts of your posts on an argument. Usually, when I catch you doing the same in a given thread, I just leave, because it's not worth getting involved in a quote war with somebody who's going to either studiously ignore the point I'm trying to make or constantly misrepresent a position that I feel is pretty well laid out by any given one of my posts. (Xilizhra, for instance, seems to get what I have to say just fine.)

 

But this is really more of the same as before. On the one hand, you claim that you think that the Sith Empire does things that are morally awful. Whatever. It reads like boilerplate, which is what it almost certainly is. On the other hand, you also claim that this doesn't really matter, that other definitions of morality and success are entirely valid, and that this viewpoint and no other espoused in this thread is "objective". This goes hand in hand with the implication that, since everybody else is failing to be objective, they are wrong.

 

You're persistently refusing to acknowledge that your understanding of objectivity is wrong, that your view of morality is not popular or "objective", and that, whatever your intention, your efforts to paint the Empire as an institution that could be plausibly viewed by somebody as morally acceptable effectively play the role of attempting to justify what the Empire does. If the Empire does awful things, but the people who are running the Empire say "this is how our culture works! don't be hatin'!", you apparently think that other people can't criticize the way that they do things, because all ethical systems are equally valid or some similar tusker poop. They can think that it sucks, but actually trying to force the Imps or whomever to change their behavior is just NOT OKAY.

 

In your other wide-ranging posts, you've also managed to insinuate that Nazi Germany was all right in many respects, that the opinions of the murderous psychopaths who run the Sith Empire should be taken into account when discussing how to change things, and that the dark side of the Force is a-okay because...um...it exists. At this point, I don't even think that I or anyone else needs to discuss what you have to say. You're doing a fine job of discrediting yourself on your own. The people on this forum who can figure out a way to agree with what you've posted after all of this...well, they're probably not worth trying to persuade anyway.

 

When you get down to the gristle, though, you and I agree on the fundamental answer to the question posed in the OP. Neither one of us thinks that the Sith Empire can be reformed into an institution that would be morally acceptable to the majority of the people in this thread. The difference is that you draw the conclusion that the Empire should only be reformed into an institution that eliminates some specific flaws that you don't like, whereas I draw the conclusion that the Empire must be destroyed and its people liberated. You can entertain that belief if you like, but don't argue that your view is the only objective way to see things.

 

Or, you know, do argue that. At this point, I couldn't care less.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Euphrosyne

[ShadowMudkip]

whereas I draw the conclusion that the Empire must be destroyed and its people liberated.

 

What, in your opinion constitutes the destruction of the Empire?

[Xilizhra]

What, in your opinion constitutes the destruction of the Empire?

I'm not her, but the arrest and trial of the Dark Council and those who make up the upper echelons of the Imperial military and Intelligence, and the capitulation and disarmament of the Empire as a whole while a new and non-aggressive government under the Republic's sphere of influence was built up, would be a good start in my opinion.

[ShadowMudkip]

I'm not her, but the arrest and trial of the Dark Council and those who make up the upper echelons of the Imperial military and Intelligence, and the capitulation and disarmament of the Empire as a whole while a new and non-aggressive government under the Republic's sphere of influence was built up, would be a good start in my opinion.

 

What would you do with all the other Sith? what about the Light Side Sith in the Empire?

[Xilizhra]

What would you do with all the other Sith? what about the Light Side Sith in the Empire?

Disarming Force users is admittedly tricky, and I'm not personally sure how I'd handle that aspect.

[ShadowMudkip]

Disarming Force users is admittedly tricky, and I'm not personally sure how I'd handle that aspect.

 

Your earlier post about disarming the Empire was sound, however the Republic would most likely give the Jedi the responsibility of the Sith. This is where the Join or Die mentality comes in.

[Xilizhra]

Your earlier post about disarming the Empire was sound, however the Republic would most likely give the Jedi the responsibility of the Sith. This is where the Join or Die mentality comes in.

The problem is that most Sith are mentally unstable in some way or other, due to the corrupting effects of the dark side, so there might be a lot of them who'd need to be confined. The stable ones who didn't commit war crimes probably wouldn't be forced to join the Jedi Order, however, though they may be monitored.