The Sith as the Good Guys?

[Beniboybling]

I recently came across a quote that I'd found (and then lost) a while ago that I thought was really interesting. I don't know the context, but its from Lumiya, and a very interesting take on what it is to be Sith:

 

…Taking the life of an innocent is always harder even than taking your own, if you're sincere. This is the ultimate test of selflessness—whether you're ready to face unending emotional pain, true agony, to gain the power to create peace and order for billions of total strangers. That is the sacrifice. To be vilified by others, by people you know and care for, and for your personal sacrifice to be totally unknown to those billions you save, to do your duty as a Sith. To do your duty for the good of the galaxy. It's easy to be a clean-cut hero slaying monsters. There's always a little bit of vanity in it. There can be no room for vanity or pride in being despised.

 

So what do people think? Is there any room for a Sith Lord to ever be considered a "good guy"/having a morality?

 

EDIT: P.S. I'd just like to make clear that I'm not saying that their is room for us justifying the actions of the Sith on moral grounds, but the Sith doing it themselves, as opposed to disregarding morality and conscious as restraints.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Beniboybling

[Aurbere]

I don't know the context of it either, but my first assumption is her trying to manipulate Jacen.

[Beniboybling]

I don't know the context of it either, but my first assumption is her trying to manipulate Jacen.

Hmm, I don't know much about Lumiya but I don't think its entirely compatible with her personality. I just thought it was an interesting take on being Sith, and how being a Sith can be very flexible.

[Aurbere]

Hmm, I don't know much about Lumiya but I don't think its entirely compatible with her personality. I just thought it was an interesting take on being Sith, and how being a Sith can be very flexible.

 

I wouldn't trust it, if my assumed context is correct.

 

Also, YaraelPoof made a video about a similar question.

[Beniboybling]

I wouldn't trust it, if my assumed context is correct.

 

Also, YaraelPoof made a video about a similar question.

Well as someone unaware of the context, I'm taking it as it is I suppose.

[Aurbere]

Well as someone unaware of the context, I'm taking it as it is I suppose.

 

Seems wise, since I don't know the context either.

[Selenial]

I always thought that was Caedus' take on being a Sith anyway, at first.... But I never really enjoyed Caedus as a character *raises anti Flame-shield*

[Sadishist]

I recently came across a quote that I'd found (and then lost) a while ago that I thought was really interesting. I don't know the context, but its from Lumiya, and a very interesting take on what it is to be Sith:

 

…Taking the life of an innocent is always harder even than taking your own, if you're sincere. This is the ultimate test of selflessness—whether you're ready to face unending emotional pain, true agony, to gain the power to create peace and order for billions of total strangers. That is the sacrifice. To be vilified by others, by people you know and care for, and for your personal sacrifice to be totally unknown to those billions you save, to do your duty as a Sith. To do your duty for the good of the galaxy. It's easy to be a clean-cut hero slaying monsters. There's always a little bit of vanity in it. There can be no room for vanity or pride in being despised.

 

So what do people think? Is there any room for a Sith Lord to ever be considered a good guy/morally justified?

 

You should read Legacy of the Force series and check up on the story of Darth Caedus.

[Beniboybling]

You should read Legacy of the Force series and check up on the story of Darth Caedus.

Like I said I'm more interested in the quote itself that the context.

[MyDarkSunshine]

Depending on your interpretation of Revan's fall/sacrifice, he could have followed a similar philosophy. This would require following Traya's (KOTOR II) explanation of his character and assuming the historian (SWTOR) was inaccurate or mistaken - which is an entirely valid, if optimistic, reading of the events. I'm sure there are other Sith who fall into this category but my knowledge of the EU isn't particularly vast.

 

That aside, I think it is entirely possible to do bad things for the right reasons. The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions after all. However the Sith are almost universally "evil" by many (modern day Western) standards; they are not the 'good guys', but they can be anti-heroes. Can they be selfless? Maybe. Probably. Some may believe they're serving the greater good; that the harm they inflict pales in comparison to the alternative - the lesser of two evils. Whether or not that is morally justifiable is an entirely different, far less clean cut matter; a utilitarian would argue that yes, it can be if the result benefits a greater number than it harms - by contrast a deontologist would argue that the Sith have failed in their ethical duties and thus are morally corrupt.

[Warren-Stride]

That quote is very interesting. But I doubt it applies to more than a handful of Sith.

 

Even so, I think that kind of philosophy still falls under the "lawful evil" category, where a villain does evil hings (such as sacrificing innocent civilians) to ensure that their government/faction/political system gains power. After all, no matter what the Sith's intentions are for helping (or hurting) other people, the end goal is always power.

 

The argument could be made that the Dark Side leads to quicker, easier power, and thus allows the Sith to more effectively protect their government from being overthrown. But the Dark Side also demands that peace is a lie, so even if the Sith could ensure security for their government, the nature of the Dark Side would not allow them to have a peaceful, prosperous society without a common enemy, lest they turn on themselves.

 

Typically, I think most Sith are much more self-interested than this. They care about personal power, not the "good of the galaxy." But even if a Sith did adopt this philosophy, they would still be considered evil because they're supporting a malevolent system.

[Scutum]

It makes sense for someone who lived in the era of Sidious and his Galactic Empire to take a point of view like this, since one of his pieces of propaganda was that his empire was bringing peace and order to the galaxy. This seemed like Anakin's point of view s well by the end of EP III after he took the offer of power and eliminated the enemy leadership, thus ending the destructive war.

 

The quote itself is interesting, but for the most part it seems like simple justification/manipulation. If this is Lumiya talking to Jacen then it makes sense to try and convince someone from the Jedi POV that the Sith are just as heroic in their own way in saving the galaxy. The idea of a despised hero taking power to save everyone seems quite noble since it involves a lot of sacrifice on the part of the "hero", but I think that in most situations it doesn't make as much sense.

 

Yes a Sith can try to fight for noble goals, but their brutality and "lust for power" will always separate them from those who try to do it responsibly and with as little conflict as possible. It's interesting, but for the most part I would say that they can not be the "good guys" or morally justified since they either have never tried to or refuse to try and do it the Jedi way. This is all subject to people's POV's however, so there are some who might see them as heroes, even though the Jedi have actually brought peace to the galaxy where the Sith only bring oppressive "protection".

[Spetulhu]

That aside, I think it is entirely possible to do bad things for the right reasons. The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions after all.

 

Or as some of the more Lawful Evil sort do - good things for bad reasons. Found an orphanage with the intention of recruiting the most gifted kids from it later. Give aid to people not because you think they need (or deserve) it but for making yourself look good. Spare defeated opponents - not because you think mercy is good but so others know they too can ask to surrender instead of fighting to the last man.

[StarSquirrel]

I recently came across a quote that I'd found (and then lost) a while ago that I thought was really interesting. I don't know the context, but its from Lumiya, and a very interesting take on what it is to be Sith:

 

…Taking the life of an innocent is always harder even than taking your own, if you're sincere. This is the ultimate test of selflessness—whether you're ready to face unending emotional pain, true agony, to gain the power to create peace and order for billions of total strangers. That is the sacrifice. To be vilified by others, by people you know and care for, and for your personal sacrifice to be totally unknown to those billions you save, to do your duty as a Sith. To do your duty for the good of the galaxy. It's easy to be a clean-cut hero slaying monsters. There's always a little bit of vanity in it. There can be no room for vanity or pride in being despised.

 

So what do people think? Is there any room for a Sith Lord to ever be considered a good guy/morally justified?

 

I had a great multi-paragraph reply, but then I read this:

"Doing the right thing isn't something special. It's the minimum. It's where we start each morning, not where we try to end up one day in the future. You taught me that."

-Ben Skywalker to Luke Skywalker-

 

Your quote, Beni, is a classic example of "The ends justify the means." When it comes to great power, ambition tends to override duty. Lifes mean less, so taking them means less. Innocence is easy to disregard, because at all levels people are guilty of something. When you start making justifications for evil, evil doesn't just have its foot in the door its halfway in.

Edited February 16, 2014 by StarSquirrel

[Beniboybling]

I had a great multi-paragraph reply, but then I read this:

"Doing the right thing isn't something special. It's the minimum. It's where we start each morning, not where we try to end up one day in the future. You taught me that."

-Ben Skywalker to Luke Skywalker-

 

Your quote, Beni, is a classic example of "The ends justify the means." When it comes to great power, ambition tends to override duty. Lifes mean less, so taking them means less. Innocence is easy to disregard, because at all levels people are guilty of something. When you start making justifications for evil, evil doesn't just have its foot in the door its halfway in.

This is true, but what I found most interesting is a possibility for a Sith to be selfless as opposed to selfish. So in such a sense power, ambition etc. have nothing to do with it. And one might believe they are doing "the right thing" for others.

 

Of course such an individual would be morally flawed, but not your atypical "UNLIMITED POWER!" individual. They would actually have morals - but I expect this is quite similar to the person Darth Caedus was.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Beniboybling

[Beniboybling]

Yes a Sith can try to fight for noble goals, but their brutality and "lust for power" will always separate them from those who try to do it responsibly and with as little conflict as possible. It's interesting, but for the most part I would say that they can not be the "good guys" or morally justified since they either have never tried to or refuse to try and do it the Jedi way. This is all subject to people's POV's however, so there are some who might see them as heroes, even though the Jedi have actually brought peace to the galaxy where the Sith only bring oppressive "protection".

I think in this case its less of a lust for power, and more of a willingness to make sacrifices.

[StarSquirrel]

Of course such an individual would be morally flawed, but not your atypical "UNLIMITED POWER!" individual. They would actually have morals - but I expect this is quite similar to the person Darth Caedus was.

 

In my opinion, that is exactly what Caedus was meant to represent. His entire story revolved around that conflict of a moral person having to do bad to achieve good. To me it was meant as a warning of how that line of thinking corrupts, an investigation on how good people can pave their way to hell with their good intentions.

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[batsey]

yea honestly. drath plageuis is a very good example

[Beniboybling]

In my opinion, that is exactly what Caedus was meant to represent. His entire story revolved around that conflict of a moral person having to do bad to achieve good. To me it was meant as a warning of how that line of thinking corrupts, an investigation on how good people can pave their way to hell with their good intentions.

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If I could be bothered to take the plunge in the post-ROTJ I might be bothered to read about him.

 

But yeah, good point, one can't be truly selfless is one exerts power over others. And taking the lives of others is doing that. So ultimately they'd end up having their morals corrupted. And ultimately a Sith following this ideal would effectively be putting themselves above morality, the next step being doing away with it altogether.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Beniboybling

[Sadishist]

If I could be bothered to take the plunge in the post-ROTJ I might be bothered to read about him.

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Caedus

[Beniboybling]

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Caedus

Yah, I doubt Wookieepedia quite conveys the emotional turmoil... as you might expect.

[Scutum]

To be honest I never liked Caedus (and it's not because he beat Kyle!), but I always thought that his story is what Anakin's should have been like in a few aspects.

 

Anakin was fed this idea of Sith "selflessness" by the end of EP III, but it would have been more interesting if we saw this in the earlier movies too.

[Lenlo]

So what do people think? Is there any room for a Sith Lord to ever be considered a "good guy"/having a morality?

 

This is STAR WARS, not A Song of Ice and Fire: INNN SPAAAAAAAACE.

It would be a complete departure from the space opera subtext if not all "good" guys were "good", and not all "bad" guys were bad. It just wouldn't be Star Wars without that "black and white" moralty.

[Sanguiluna]

Can a "Sith" who follows that sentiment really be called a Sith? My understanding had always been that the Sith do what they do for the sole objective of becoming the most powerful being in the galaxy. Lumiya's idea of killing innocents as a necessary evil on the path to peace for the "greater good" sounds more like Potentium philosophy than Sith philosophy. Of course, since this is Lumiya, I just assumed she spouted that rhetoric for the sole purpose of turning Jacen, not believing it herself for a second.

 

That's one of the reasons I'm always hesitant to consider Caedus a legit Sith; he seemed to have completely missed the whole point of what it meant to be Sith. At least Vader, though he was also initially mislead by ideas of order and peace, as well as the idea of saving his wife, he eventually came to embrace the true principles of the Sith once his fall became complete--taking several apprentices behind Sidious's back, trying to convince Starkiller that the woman he loved meant nothing because she was just holding him back, convincing Palpatine to let him turn Luke to the dark side as an asset for the Empire when he was really just looking for someone to help him kill Palpatine, etc. But Jacen died before he could even scratch the surface about what it really meant to be Sith.

[Lenlo]

This "morality of intention" garbage is exactly the sort of nonsense that lunatics and/or patsies use to justify the crimes of fictional characters like Ender Wiggin, and those of real people like Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong.

 

It stands to reason that a Sith would balk at you when questioned about the morality of their actions. The mindset that seeks absolute power even over death won't exactly admit wrong, otherwise that person wouldn't be absolutely powerful now would they? They may as well call themselves the Sociopaths, it sure as well would clarify their positions.

 

Off topic: Enders Game falls in line with a lot of literature (Starship Troopers is probably the best example) based off Fascist wet dreams and costumed as fiction. I'm of the personal opinion that Orson Scot Card should be ashamed of himself for disguising dogma as a children's book (there's a reason Ender's Game is on the top reading lists of Military Academies).

Edited February 17, 2014 by Lenlo