NationStates Jolt Archive

I am, of course, referring to the Sith in Star Wars.

Personally, I’m going to have to go with evil. It is demonstrated time and time again in various Star Wars movies, books and video games, that the Sith are oppressive, often intolerant of non-human species, and are willing to do anything to achieve their goals. It has also been demonstrated that a convert to the Dark Side of the force will quickly abandon his original and perhaps noble intent for joining in the first place in favor of more sinister aspirations.

However, in the Star Wars Universe, there are many examples of various non-Force users who claim to not understand the difference between Sith and Jedi, and are distrustful of both. They also claim that morality is relative and at least the Sith seem to accomplish something, in comparison to the stalled and cautios approach of the Jedi.

Now, you may be asking yourself, why on this green earth did this star wars geek bring this up in NS general? The answer is simple. I would like the opinion of the casual Star Wars fan. Someone who likes the movies, but is not into the multimedia of the Star Wars Universe. I am also aware that there are quite a few Star Wars fans on this forum, some rather knowledgeable on the subject. Not to mention, I wonder what people who hate Star Wars think of this issue. Also, I was bored.

One word: Alderaan.

Another word: Kashyyk.

One word: Alderaan.

Another word: Kashyyk.
Alderaan and Kashyyk were both the works of the Empire, not the Sith. While it's understandable to draw the conclusion that the Sith is responsible, as the Emperor is a Sith Lord, one must also realize that both were well-planned politically geared maneuvers.

That said, I think the Sith is freakin' awesome.

morally absolute? that's not evil, because things are one way outside of one's perceptions. though i do agree that the sith are evil.

Simonist']Alderaan and Kashyyk were both the works of the Empire, not the Sith. While it's understandable to draw the conclusion that the Sith is responsible, as the Emperor is a Sith Lord, one must also realize that both were well-planned politically geared maneuvers.

I don’t see how one could possibly think that the enslavement of millions and the murder of billions could ever be justified when all it was blatant power grabbing. Also, both of those events actually rallied support for the Rebel Alliance Against the Empire. So they were not “well-planned”. As a certain princess said, “The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”

Evil. They are a menace to the galaxy. If Anakan struck down the emperor when he had the chance it would have saved millions from suffering. Instead he became a pansy ass bitch because he didnt get promoted to master jedi. Boohoo!

Evil. their blind disregrard for others, particularly those who care for them in combination with their lust for nothing but power and control leads a logically capable mind to realize the inherent fact that they are against what is good.

I think the path of either Jedi or Sith is too extreme. The Jedi take children from their parents and try to raise them without knowledge of love, while the Sith reject that mental austerity to such an extent that their entire life becomes a quest for power and strength.
I think that the Jedi perpetuate the Sith. To the everyday galactic citizen, they say "just wait, the Force will show us what to do.", while people suffer and die.
I think many become Sith through exasperation from the Jedi refusal to do anything productive. In fact, think of the time the Jedi spend in council rather than stopping the damn galactic war.
The only Jedi who's ever done anything worth doing was Luke Skywalker. I think this was because he was a middle-of-the-road sort of Jedi. He wasn't going to deny feelings he knew weren't bad, yet still managed to fight for good. And since he knew what love was, he didn't have to go to the dark side and kill children to get in touch with his feelings.

If the Jedi are any good at all, they're too damn bureaucratic to actually solve anything.
Plus, the Sith have WAY cooler force powers. Lightning zap, bitch. Force choke. Compared to what? Force-aided interior decoration?
Jedi suck ass.

:rolleyes: Dear god, absolve the geeks that pose such a question

I think that the Jedi perpetuate the Sith. To the everyday galactic citizen, they say "just wait, the Force will show us what to do.", while people suffer and die.

That is exactly what happened during the Mandalorian Wars, and thus Revan and Malak took up the mantle of Sith Lords, leading countless Jedi to the Dark Side under the guise of fighting the Mandalorians. Shortly after this, they preceded to destroy countless innocents in a quest to rule the Galaxy.

The only Jedi who's ever done anything worth doing was Luke Skywalker. I think this was because he was a middle-of-the-road sort of Jedi. He wasn't going to deny feelings he knew weren't bad, yet still managed to fight for good. And since he knew what love was, he didn't have to go to the dark side and kill children to get in touch with his feelings.

Luke’s New Jedi Order really is something. However, the Old Jedi Order did maintain peace for 20,000 years. It is also notable that Obi-Wan and Yoda realized the extremity of their old ideals. Note that they did not attempt to teach Luke to deny his feelings.

Evil!

I am, of course, referring to the Sith in Star Wars.

Personally, I’m going to have to go with evil. It is demonstrated time and time again in various Star Wars movies, books and video games, that the Sith are oppressive, often intolerant of non-human species, and are willing to do anything to achieve their goals. It has also been demonstrated that a convert to the Dark Side of the force will quickly abandon his original and perhaps noble intent for joining in the first place in favor of more sinister aspirations.

However, in the Star Wars Universe, there are many examples of various non-Force users who claim to not understand the difference between Sith and Jedi, and are distrustful of both. They also claim that morality is relative and at least the Sith seem to accomplish something, in comparison to the stalled and cautios approach of the Jedi.

Now, you may be asking yourself, why on this green earth did this star wars geek bring this up in NS general? The answer is simple. I would like the opinion of the casual Star Wars fan. Someone who likes the movies, but is not into the multimedia of the Star Wars Universe. I am also aware that there are quite a few Star Wars fans on this forum, some rather knowledgeable on the subject. Not to mention, I wonder what people who hate Star Wars think of this issue. Also, I was bored.
They are not "evil"; there's no such thing. The role of the adversary is to test the hero. Test his resolve, test his stamina, test anything about him. If the hero passes or fails the tests, he does so by his own merit. It is not the "dark side" that sucks him in; it is he who chooses it.

Actually, if you look at rhetoric and actions... the Sith are not moral absolutists...not by any means. They are moral relativists. Just listen to Sidious' arguments to Anakin (Vader) in order to bring him to the dark side. Pure moral relativism.

I don’t see how one could possibly think that the enslavement of millions and the murder of billions could ever be justified when all it was blatant power grabbing. Also, both of those events actually rallied support for the Rebel Alliance Against the Empire. So they were not “well-planned”. As a certain princess said, “The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”
Actually, Kashyyk was a good idea in order to get some manual labor early on. There was no huge rebel uprising that they would've seen as a continual problem at that point, so it was a sound idea.

Second, Alderaan was a well-planned move. Whether or not they got the accurate location of the Rebel base in question, they were essentially attempting to get a rise out of the Rebellion as to figure out where they were. It WAS folly to assume the Death Star could take 'em on, especially assuming that they knew all the weaknesses and the possibility of small fighters penetrating their defenses, but in terms of what they were trying to achieve by destroying Alderaan...technically, it worked.

I know one thing: I'd rather be a Sith than a Jedi.

Yeah, yeah, I know: the dark side is quicker, easier, more seductive. Fool!

Actually, if you look at rhetoric and actions... the Sith are not moral absolutists...not by any means. They are moral relativists. Just listen to Sidious' arguments to Anakin (Vader) in order to bring him to the dark side. Pure moral relativism.

I wasn’t saying that they were absolutists, I was asking if others thought their evil designation was due to others moral absolutism. Also, Sidious would have said anything to bring Anakin to the Dark Side.

I know one thing: I'd rather be a Sith than a Jedi.

I'd agree with everyday knowledge. But in my heart, I wouldn't use my power for bad things, at least not too many bad things. I personally am just happy with myself when my friends are happy. So I'd use my pwoers to help those people.

Although that may mean I hurt others.

Screw the Sith and Jedi. I SHOULD BE RULER OF EVERYTHING.

I just saw Episode III for the second time, and one quote bothered me from Obi-Wan: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" (or something very close to that). The thing is, they obviously didn't. Anaken himself said something like "It depends on your point of view" as to whether Palpatine, and what he himself had done, was evil or not - hardly the stuff of absolutism.

Indeed, it was the Jedi that dealt in at least one absolute - the dark side was to be avoided at all costs.

And yes, the Sith were evil. There is such a thing as evil, both in the Star Wars universe and our universe, and it must be recognized before it can be defeated. As we saw in London, Bali, Madrid and New York in the past few years.

Both the Sith and the Jedi are, well, stupid. As Vergere points out a lot later on, the light/dark distinction doesn't work. Very few things are actually black and white like that. The same force powers can be used under both, because it's the same /Force/. The difference is in intent, and that's what the Jedi of the Old Republic were trying to keep stable. Jedi work for others. Sith work for themselves. Attachment leads to jealousy, possessiveness, and self-centredness, which is why Anakin fell.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to train that into people except at an early age, hence the steal-the-children.

Also, as Vergere /also/ pointed out, anger in and of itself isn't 'dark'. Blind rage, yes, because it makes you want to lash out for no reason. But every Jedi, in a fight, gets angry. It's /contained/ anger, controlled, funneled into winning the fight and achieving the goal. There's nothing wrong with /that/, the alternative is people who don't really make the effort, due to trying to remain calm.

I dont give a damn wether or not they are evil. They are vastly supeior to those namsy pamsy do gooder Jedis. Power is the only True currency the Sith know this.

Also they get to wear black.

I'm a huge star wars fan. From what I can tell, every jedi that became a sith did so by orginally just seeking out information about the way of the sith. The emperor even mentioned that in the film episode 3, and vader joined out of compassion to save his wife. The sith do not start out as evil. They just have a different view than the jedi. However, once they get to a state of mind to where they dont have to follow rules anymore they go nuts with it. Thus vader killing the kids. So yes sith do evil things, but jedi do things wrong too. For instance qui-gon jinn, my favorite jedi, was a jedi master, but still would go against the council if he felt it necessary. Was qui-gon evil? So there thats what I leave you with.

P.S. Its nice to have a friendly forum thread.

I just saw Episode III for the second time, and one quote bothered me from Obi-Wan: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" (or something very close to that). The thing is, they obviously didn't. Anaken himself said something like "It depends on your point of view" as to whether Palpatine, and what he himself had done, was evil or not - hardly the stuff of absolutism.

Indeed, it was the Jedi that dealt in at least one absolute - the dark side was to be avoided at all costs.

And yes, the Sith were evil. There is such a thing as evil, both in the Star Wars universe and our universe, and it must be recognized before it can be defeated. As we saw in London, Bali, Madrid and New York in the past few years.
Plz dont bring that into this find another thread if you want to argue about that

Both the Sith and the Jedi are, well, stupid. As Vergere points out a lot later on, the light/dark distinction doesn't work. Very few things are actually black and white like that. The same force powers can be used under both, because it's the same /Force/. The difference is in intent, and that's what the Jedi of the Old Republic were trying to keep stable. Jedi work for others. Sith work for themselves. Attachment leads to jealousy, possessiveness, and self-centredness, which is why Anakin fell.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to train that into people except at an early age, hence the steal-the-children.

Also, as Vergere /also/ pointed out, anger in and of itself isn't 'dark'. Blind rage, yes, because it makes you want to lash out for no reason. But every Jedi, in a fight, gets angry. It's /contained/ anger, controlled, funneled into winning the fight and achieving the goal. There's nothing wrong with /that/, the alternative is people who don't really make the effort, due to trying to remain calm.

There is a lot of truth to what you say. I dont want to get people angry, but remeber luke was in his 20s when started his jedi training. Luke became a jedi too.

Evil. They are a menace to the galaxy. If Anakan struck down the emperor when he had the chance it would have saved millions from suffering. Instead he became a pansy ass bitch because he didnt get promoted to master jedi. Boohoo!

Had Anakin attempted to strike down Sidious, his turn to the Dark Side would have been far more complete than it otherwise was. We must wonder if his fall was more of a bargain than a full on embrace. Sidious was far too powerful to be killed by young Skywalker, and would have either twisted him or, more unlikely, killed him.

Dude... they blew up a planet. They killed democracy to introduce a regime of absolute power. They get their kicks by killing Jedi. I'm a believer in moral relativism but there are limits to everything!

And they blew up a planet.

Yes the Sith are evil. But being evil isn't always a bad thing. And even evil can do good things, when seen in the right light.

Take that one Sith Lord mentioned in episode three. He could keep people from dying. And since it was never discussed who he kept from dying, we can assume he may have used this power for "good" sometimes. Like saving a whole bunch of dying people.

And really, isn't the distinction between good and evil open to interpretation? Something someone thinks is evil could be interpreted as good by another person.

They killed democracy to introduce a regime of absolute power.




Acually, it was a rebublic. Big difference.

Also, as Vergere /also/ pointed out, anger in and of itself isn't 'dark'. Blind rage, yes, because it makes you want to lash out for no reason. But every Jedi, in a fight, gets angry. It's /contained/ anger, controlled, funneled into winning the fight and achieving the goal. There's nothing wrong with /that/, the alternative is people who don't really make the effort, due to trying to remain calm.

Actually, the Jedi do remain calm in fights. They allow the Force to flow through them and act through them. The only Jedi that I can recall who uses anger in a fight was Mace Windu. However, it took him years to master.

I'm a huge star wars fan. From what I can tell, every jedi that became a sith did so by orginally just seeking out information about the way of the sith. The emperor even mentioned that in the film episode 3, and vader joined out of compassion to save his wife. The sith do not start out as evil. They just have a different view than the jedi. However, once they get to a state of mind to where they dont have to follow rules anymore they go nuts with it. Thus vader killing the kids. So yes sith do evil things, but jedi do things wrong too. For instance qui-gon jinn, my favorite jedi, was a jedi master, but still would go against the council if he felt it necessary. Was qui-gon evil? So there thats what I leave you with

The Jedi certainly do have their faults, but they are preferable to the Sith. Qui-Gon was indeed wise. In fact, eventually even Yoda acknowledged that he was a far greater Jedi than the council gave him credit for. In death, Qui-Gon eventually became Yoda’s master of sorts. Thus, Yoda did not teach Luke to deny his feelings.

P.S. Its nice to have a friendly forum thread.

Yes, it is.

Take that one Sith Lord mentioned in episode three. He could keep people from dying. And since it was never discussed who he kept from dying, we can assume he may have used this power for "good" sometimes. Like saving a whole bunch of dying people.

Just out of curiousity, was the story of Darth Plagus (sp) factual - canonically - or was it just a tale spun to seduce Anakin?

I thought it was just a mythology Palpatine invented to help make Anakin his apprentice, but I'm not too sure.

Yes the Sith are evil. But being evil isn't always a bad thing. And even evil can do good things, when seen in the right light.

Take that one Sith Lord mentioned in episode three. He could keep people from dying. And since it was never discussed who he kept from dying, we can assume he may have used this power for "good" sometimes. Like saving a whole bunch of dying people.

And really, isn't the distinction between good and evil open to interpretation? Something someone thinks is evil could be interpreted as good by another person.
Your statements are completely nonsensical. That's like saying the color white is not always white, or whatever. Evil is evil. Can evil acts be turned to the good? Yes, but that does not change the evil intent and nature of the person committing the act.
If the distinction between good and evil is open to interpretation, I say killing people who disagree with me is good. That's just my interpretation, of course . . . :rolleyes:

Just out of curiousity, was the story of Darth Plagus (sp) factual - canonically - or was it just a tale spun to seduce Anakin?

It was true. Plagius was Sidious’s master, before Sidious killed him, stabbed his own mater in his sleep. Some have speculated that Plagius even created Anakin. Anakin, now there is a good example of how the Dark Side can twist someone so completely. He turned to it to save his wife. He was then told that he killed her, then years later, he finds out that can’t be true because his son lives, yet he didn’t care.

Edit: Does anybody know if its Plagus or Plagius?

Where's the option that says the Sith are evil but the Jedi are obnoxious self righteous pussies?

Edit: Does anybody know if its Plagus or Plagius?

It should be Plagas if it follows the Spanish spelling of Plague. Then again, it is George Lucas we're talking about here...so...

Whatever. Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.

Whatever. Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.

Nice.

As Anakin tells Palpatine, the Sith think inwards, only about themselves. They are the extreme of blind narccism and they go forward with it until it consumes them and they become mere extensions of the dark side of the Force, itself. Moreover, the Flanneled One has always maintained that his story is of good versus evil; this cannot be denied. The Sith are to represent true, undisputed evil while the Jedi are to represent true, undisputed good (selflessness and total devotion to others).

Personally, I'd follow the Potentium.

And it's Darth Plagueis, in reference to Darth Sidious' master. And who is to that Sidious simply lied to Anakin about Plagueis being able to cheat death as a way of luring him in? Plagueis was real, but there's nothing to say that he actually had achieved the ability to stop others from dying (the one power that Anakin wants).

The Jedi, in the twilight of the Old Republic, represent how a group or cause can lose sight of its original goals. They have become passive and pacified by a millenium without the Sith. This has lulled them into a false sense of security and given rise to an alarming level of arrogance within the Order, thus leading to their downfall.

the Flanneled One

I’m gong to have to remember that one.

There is no evil, there is no good...
Just the power...

I don't like jedi or sith or any religious group...

First of all, I do not appreciate the wording here; 'victims' of moral absolutism they are not; followers they are. It never ceases to amaze me the fact that everything we observe in reality is absolute yet so few of us are prepared to delegate the same status to morality. Whether you're a cop, a judge, or a moderator for a webgame, an objective assessment of any situation is generally admired. Try to do the same thing with morality and you'll never hear the end of it.

Basically, the Sith are both--they're moral absolutists and they're evil. I have more in common with their ideology than with the Jedi, but I can't reconcile the Sith desire for power, so evil they remain. That being said, I can't say I'd have acted too differently from Vader in Episode 3--save for the fact that I probably wouldn't sack the Jedi Temple, and I'd have murdered Palpatine on the spot upon being informed of Padme's death.

First of all, I do not appreciate the wording here; 'victims' of moral absolutism they are not; followers they are. It never ceases to amaze me the fact that everything we observe in reality is absolute yet so few of us are prepared to delegate the same status to morality. Whether you're a cop, a judge, or a moderator for a webgame, an objective assessment of any situation is generally admired. Try to do the same thing with morality and you'll never hear the end of it.

Basically, the Sith are both--they're moral absolutists and they're evil. I have more in common with their ideology than with the Jedi, but I can't reconcile the Sith desire for power, so evil they remain. That being said, I can't say I'd have acted too differently from Vader in Episode 3--save for the fact that I probably wouldn't sack the Jedi Temple, and I'd have murdered Palpatine on the spot upon being informed of Padme's death.

I agree. And I probably would do the same thing of you with Palpatine...

The Jedi are like religious fundamentalists while the Sith seem a lot like Nietzsche-ites or something. I would disagree with both, but at least the Jedi don't blow up planets.

I do think the Sith are evil, especially as portrayed in the movies as opposed to the Knights of the Old Republic game, where they are shown having an actual philosophy that people could credibly believe in, and even think is "good" (i.e. the proper way to free oneself and increase the strength of one's side, the Sith). Not that I agree with their philosophy, but at least it's "believable" in a story context, as opposed to "Give in to you anger! Join the Dark Side!"

Though the Sith are evil, the moral aspect of Star Wars is not quite as clear-cut as it seems.

1. The Jedi doctrine of celibacy/no love/no attachments

Well, weren't they "attached" to the Republic? If they *really* practiced what they preached, they would have sat in some mountain monastery somewhere and meditated, being serenely unconcerned about whether the Republic fell or not. "Defeat the Sith, we must!" Really? Why? Doesn't that mean "we" would be heavily attached to a certain outcome?

And in an ethic where *love* is forbidden, what sort of "goodness" are we talking about anyway? A "selfless" willingness to fight and die, for a cause one is presumably not attached to? Sounds more like one of those Trade Federation war droids to me...

This doctrine is directly responsible for Anakin's fall. The Jedi, presumably being the more life-oriented sect, would have been the more likely to have knowledge of the "resurrection" power, somewhere in the secret libraries of their Temple, than Palpatine would be to have it in his sitting room. But Anakin couldn't go to them with his problem. Why? Because Jedi aren't supposed to love. If the Jedi sanctioned love, he could have went to them, they would have allayed his fears, and he would have been far less likely to fall.

Furthermore, considering that this is a society with advanced medical science, like bacta tanks, and medical droids, surely they would have had advanced prenatal care available also. Why can't Padme just go get a checkup as soon as Anakin mentions his dreams to her? Why hadn't she been doing it routinely throughout her pregnancy? One reason: an advanced medical scan of the children would have identified their father.

2. Hypocrisy:

Can anyone tell me why it is "Dark Side" and "evil" to kill someone with the Force using force lightning or the classic Choke, but righteous to use the Force to slice 'em in half with a lightsaber? Or, for that matter, why it's so much more "uncivilized" to kill with a blaster?

3. Jedi Can Be Really Nasty Sometimes

Obi-Wan and Anakin/Vader, at the end of their light-saber duel. Here is Anakin, Obi-Wan's student and brother-in-arms, burned over most of his body, arms and legs severed, and sloooowly sliding into the lava. Obi-Wan snivels at him for failing to be "the Chosen One" and bring balance to the Force, and leaves him to die a slow, excruciating death. No quick coup-de-grace with a lightsaber here.

4. Sith Can Be Nice Sometimes

And who was it who *personally* flew all the way across the Galaxy, came to Anakin's side, laid a compassionate hand on him, and rushed him to the hospital? Why, Emperor Palpatine. Can you imagine any modern politician doing anything similar? They'd send minions to do it.

5. Emperor Windu?

That the Jedi Order was well on its way to becoming Sith in its own slow, contemplative way is made clear by Mace Windu's advocacy of a Jedi takeover of the Republic. Yoda expresses caution, but has no alternative suggestion. Sure, the Jedi would let the Senate have power again...as soon as people they liked were elected.

Then, Mace Windu comes with a pair of enforcers to "arrest" Palpatine. When Windu urges Anakin to join him against Palpatine to break the deadlock, he says that Palpatine "is too dangerous to let live"--the *exact same words* Palpatine uses to persuade Anakin to finish off Count Dooku. Since Palpatine controlled the Senate and the courts, Windu knew no trial or impeachement could succeed.

So, even if Palpatine had surrendered peaceably, Windu would have given him a summary execution, then led a Jedi takeover of the Republic. This "temporary" Jedi dictatorship would have had to either crush the Senate and courts, which supported Palpatine, or be crushed by them. And, in all this crushing and conquering, could the Jedi really have avoided turning to the Dark Side? So, we would have either an Empire ruled by Mace Windu and the Jedi Council, or perhaps by someone like Grand Moff Tarkin, if he had ordered the Clone Troops into action against the Jedi following the coup against Palpatine. Would things really have been much different?

6. Speaking of Grand Moff Tarkin...

It was not "the Sith" (i.e. Darth Vader) who ordered the destruction of Alderaan, but Grand Moff Tarkin, who was in command of the Death Star. True, Vader makes no move to stop him, but it is possible that he did not have the authority to do so. This is based on the fact that Tarkin had command of the Empire's most powerful weapon, while Darth Vader had command of a Super Star Destroyer, and presumably a fleet to go with it. IOW, Tarkin may have had a higher rank than Vader in the Imperial military, despite Vader's closeness with Palpatine. For Palpatine, keeping Vader's rank relatively low would be a way to prevent the ubiquitous "betrayal by the apprentice" in Sith culture.

7. The Evil Empire Was Evil, but...

...it's citizens had a lot of freedoms we wouldn't even imagine in the U.S. or Europe. For example, Han Solo carries a blaster on his hip as he travels 'round the Galaxy, visiting spaceports on uncountable planets, not worrying that his means of self-defense will be denied to him. Furthermore, he even *mounts heavy weapons on his ship* and is never harrassed for having them. The characters travel to and fro without any passports, implanted microchips, Galactic ID's, etc., and they're *never* told to take off their shoes and hand over the nail clippers, much less scanned with a device that lets the cops see their naked body in case they might be carrying weapons (this is a real device that will probably be common in airports Real Soon Now).

There are no sobriety checkpoints, no seat belt laws, or any evidence of an all-pervasive Nanny State. No surveillance cameras. Even the Death Star was ridiculously easy to get around on, weapons and all, even though it was the Empire's most top-secret military installation. Despite their Nazi uniforms, the Imperials just weren't too good at totalitarian tyranny.

and I'd have murdered Palpatine on the spot upon being informed of Padme's death.

You know why all that stuff was blowing up? Vader was trying to kill the emperor but realized that he couldn’t. His power was severely weakened.


I do think the Sith are evil, especially as portrayed in the movies as opposed to the Knights of the Old Republic game, where they are shown having an actual philosophy that people could credibly believe in, and even think is "good" (i.e. the proper way to free oneself and increase the strength of one's side, the Sith). Not that I agree with their philosophy, but at least it's "believable" in a story context, as opposed to "Give in to you anger! Join the Dark Side!"

Well, those Sith are not the same as Darth Sidous’s version. Also, the philosophy expressed by those older Sith is based on Nazism, which many people adhere/d to, so it is realistic..

1. The Jedi doctrine of celibacy/no love/no attachments

Yep. Which is why Yoda and Obi-Wan, realizing the failure of this ideology, did not pass it on to Luke, so that his new order would not contain it.

Obi-Wan and Anakin/Vader, at the end of their light-saber duel. Here is Anakin, Obi-Wan's student and brother-in-arms, burned over most of his body, arms and legs severed, and sloooowly sliding into the lava. Obi-Wan snivels at him for failing to be "the Chosen One" and bring balance to the Force, and leaves him to die a slow, excruciating death. No quick coup-de-grace with a lightsaber here.

Actually, Obi-Wan couldn’t bring himself to kill Anakin, he wanted to, but he just couldn’t.

5. Emperor Windu?

I’m sure that Yoda would have kept him in check.

6. Speaking of Grand Moff Tarkin...

Yep. Tarkin was evil without the aid of any Dark Side.

7. The Evil Empire Was Evil, but...

These same freedoms existed in the Republic. I also take issue with the Empire being evil. Its emperor was evil, yes, but many Imperials were good people. For instance, Admiral Piet appears to have never done anything but fight for his nation, no malice at all. In fact he feared Vader more than any Rebel. He had to be around him much more often.
And about Han solo’ ship, many of the modifications on the Millennium Falcon were illegal.

I think that the sith are good, because if the sith rule all, peace shall come because there is no-one to fight with. The sith kills all the jedi to stop there rivilrey so no strife. Then late "Luke" comes alone and defeats the empire so the universe is seperated, then people fight for the top. It just depends on your views. And the sith lord kills evil like other "old sith" like Dukoo and Greaves and kills the trade federation who kill for money.

I like the post by Eleusia. Well written. Thanks for your time and thoughts.

My thoughts are the Sith are evil, yes, but the Jedi aren't "good", they're more like "neutral" or grey to the Sith's black.

I define evil as actions benefitting self at the expense of others, and good as actions benefitting others at expense of self.

Taken to extreme you have Mother Theresa vs Adolf Hitler.

The most notable example being the aformentioned actions of Obi Wan as he left Anakin on fire, limbless and slipping into lava.

Were Obi Wan doing as Jesus did - the one whom I believe embodies perfect good - would have not even fought Anakin at all. It was his student. His 'brother'. Obi could have stood there and said, "Go for it buddy. You're my brother, and I'm not going to fight you."

Let's fast forward to Return of the Jedi, where Luke says exactly that.... well... swap 'father' for 'brother' though...and it's the very thing that turns Vader back to a path of self sacrifice, where he spends his own life to save the Galaxy from Palpatine.

Luke is indeed a more "good man" than any of the other Jedis. Love conquers fear within a person. Anakin had fear. Anakin was driven by fear. Luke was driven by a love for his father.

But love is a feeling the Jedi's, like Buddhists today, tried to supress. Get rid of ALL attachments and desires - neutrality.

I'm all for diving in, feeling love and loss, but feeling love overwhelm any fear.

Kalawak, that was brilliant. It is why Luke’s new Jedi Order is so marvelous.

I, personally, do not think this do be a question of the Sith's evil. I believe it is more about the Jedi's absolute belief that their way is correct. This is not to say that the Sith are unlike that, but the Jedi claim to be tolarant, wise, and farsighted. But they seem to always see Sith as unconditionally evil, with no chance of redemption.

They do not realize that the purges the Jedi constantly executed upun the Sith in defence of the Old Republic (Hinted at because they believed the Sith were extinct, though they had been relatively plentiful in the past) destabilized the Force just as much as the Sith's eradication of the Jedi.

The Sith are the corrupt and self-centered side of the force. The side that is quick to respond, and always seeks the best answer--- for yourself first, and for your community second. A good defence of the Empire and the Dark Side exhists in one of the articles of Darth Vader's Blog (http://darthside.blogspot.com/) (and even if you aren't interested in such rhetoric, if you are arguing in this thread, the entire blog is a must-read).

Neither side is truely better then the other. The Sith are shown as the "Dark, Evil" side--- something that Lucas surely intended originally. And they sure are dark and evil... but the recent movies revealed noticable chinks in the armor of the Jedi. The Light Side of the force is not perfect either, despite what the Jedi claim.

I believe that the Sith are victims of moral absolutism. However, I also believe that they are a corrupt and self-serving group of force-users. I believe that it can be said best that the force would be best used in "balance". Anakin truely would have been the greatest if he had learned select skills from the Emperor, then slew him, setting out on his own path, undominated by either side of the force.

They do not realize that the purges the Jedi constantly executed upun the Sith in defence of the Old Republic (Hinted at because they believed the Sith were extinct, though they had been relatively plentiful in the past) destabilized the Force just as much as the Sith's eradication of the Jedi.

The Jedi never attempted a purge on the Sith. They simply expelled the first to practice the Dark Side from the Order. These Dark Side users left the Republic and formed an Empire. This Empire waged war on the Republic many times throughout history. The last such war was one thousand years before Episode I. In this war the remaining Sith used a suicidal Force Bomb in order to kill as many Jedi as possible with their deaths. This is why the Jedi believed them extinct. What they didn’t know is one Sith pulled out of the Force bomb at the last second, Darth Bane. He was the one that started the new Sith, where there would be only two, and they would take over the Galaxy in the shadows, not with armies.

I think that the sith are good, because if the sith rule all, peace shall come because there is no-one to fight with. The sith kills all the jedi to stop there rivilrey so no strife. Then late "Luke" comes alone and defeats the empire so the universe is seperated, then people fight for the top. It just depends on your views. And the sith lord kills evil like other "old sith" like Dukoo and Greaves and kills the trade federation who kill for money.

It's Dooku and General Grievous isn't a Sith.

Kalawak wrote:

I like the post by Eleusia. Well written. Thanks for your time and thoughts.

^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you.


My thoughts are the Sith are evil, yes, but the Jedi aren't "good", they're more like "neutral" or grey to the Sith's black.

^^^^^^
Yes, or perhaps their evil is of a subtler kind (see below).


I define evil as actions benefitting self at the expense of others, and good as actions benefitting others at expense of self.

^^^^^^^^^
This is a common concept of morality, but IMO a very dangerous one. This "morality of sacrifice" rests on the unspoken premise that mutually beneficial coexistence among humans is impossible. Others are inherently a threat to one's own interests, and vice versa. The individual is given a choice between being an immoral vampire who sacrifices others to self, or a moral victim who offers her neck to be bitten.

If "good" is to benefit others at the expense of self, then those others must be *evil* (i.e., benefit themselves at the expense of another, the "good" person) in order to recieve the aid of the "good." In this moral system, the apparent purpose of the good is to serve the evil.

Consider what it leaves out: the person who chooses neither to be a sacrificial animal on the altar of others, nor sacrifice others on the altar of self. The person who deals with others by exchanging values, and helps others not out of self-sacrifice, but *benevolence,* a genuine desire to see others' lives improved. In a morality based on mutually-beneficial coexistence, synergetic cooperation, and benevolence, there is no place for either selfless sacrifice, or heartless sacrificing.


Taken to extreme you have Mother Theresa vs Adolf Hitler.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler are not so much moral opposites in their doctrines, as opposite sides of the same sacrificial coin. The Nazis may have borrowed and twisted Neitzsche's concept of the "Ubermensch," but they were about as far from being hyper-"individualists" as it is possible to get. Like Mother Teresa, they taught a morality of self-sacrifice and unconditional obediance.

The difference lies in their choice of beneficiary and master. For the Nazis, it was Adolf Hitler, as Fuhrer and embodiment of the German Volk/Reich. For Mother Teresa, it was her Fuhrer in Heaven.[1] The Nazis were passionately opposed to "bougeois selfisness" and "liberalism" (which, in those days meant individual liberty, not a comprehensive welfare state). Just look at footage of a Nuremburg rally to see how selfless those people really were. They completely submerged their individuality into the collective.
For a more in-depth look at the Nazis and sacrificial morality, see "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff. [2]

If Mother Teresa had believed that her god required her to massacre the children of Calcutta (see the Book of Joshua in the Bible) or be part of a Crusade, I suspect she would have done very different things. Unless her natural compassion prevailed, and she rejected the allegedly divine commands. But that would require a certain kind of *selfishness,* i.e. putting her *own* feelings/conscience ahead of the Other/others she had pledged to serve.

This sacrificial morality is, I think, one reason why the Jedi Order continually spawned Sith over thousands of years. In a Galaxy dominated by the Jedi ideal of selfess sacrifice, there was always a place for those eager to collect sacrifices. One cannot exist without the other. A morality of mutual benevolent co-existence would have resolved the paradox and brought balance to the Force.

The Sith practiced the other side of sacrificial morality, seeking to sacrifice others to self. This made it ultimately impossible for them to cooperate, as they were often too busy turning on each other to unite successfullly against the Jedi and the Republic.


The most notable example being the aformentioned actions of Obi Wan as he left Anakin on fire, limbless and slipping into lava.

Were Obi Wan doing as Jesus did - the one whom I believe embodies perfect good - would have not even fought Anakin at all. It was his student. His 'brother'. Obi could have stood there and said, "Go for it buddy. You're my brother, and I'm not going to fight you."

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Though I don't agree with you that Jesus was the embodiment of perfect morality (that's a subject for another thread), I do think that if Obi-Wan had chosen to epitomize Jedi selflessness, he would have done as you suggest, and it would have been interesting. No awesome lightsaber duel though... >grin< Of course, if Anakin had become truly evil, he could have cut Obi-Wan down and laughed, and likewise anyone else who sought to practice that theory of "good."


Let's fast forward to Return of the Jedi, where Luke says exactly that.... well... swap 'father' for 'brother' though...and it's the very thing that turns Vader back to a path of self sacrifice, where he spends his own life to save the Galaxy from Palpatine.

^^^^^^^^^^^
But Luke *did* fight Vader. It was the sight of him being fried by Palpatine that caused Vader to turn from the Dark Side. Interestingly, love for a son--the thing that ultimately redeemed Anakin--would have been forbidden by the old Jedi Order...because "attachments" lead to the Dark Side.


Luke is indeed a more "good man" than any of the other Jedis. Love conquers fear within a person. Anakin had fear. Anakin was driven by fear. Luke was driven by a love for his father.

But love is a feeling the Jedi's, like Buddhists today, tried to supress. Get rid of ALL attachments and desires - neutrality.

I'm all for diving in, feeling love and loss, but feeling love overwhelm any fear.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll agree heartily with you on that!

NOTES:

1. What else do you call an absolute ruler whose commands Must Be Obeyed without question?

2. While I don't agree with all of Peikoff's ideas--especially as he has fallen to the Dark Side since writing this book--it does document Nazi ideas of morality quite well.