do jedi kill their prisoners

[jedipodo]

Does the "Golden Rule" belong to "moral universalism" in your opinion?

[kid]

...is not able to excert sufficient control on a given situation to prevent the evil-doer from harming others and themself....

Exactly.

Theoretically there should be non-lethal control methods, otherwise you would have police shooting burglars because they are about to escape ...

Garbage. One MAJOR difference between Revan and the common criminal. The common criminal isn't the most powerful being in the known galaxy. "The will of a sith lord is not so easily manipulated." If they restored her original identity, she would, with ease, escape and continue her conquest of the galaxy, as if nothing had happened.

In this case, there are no non-lethal control methods, besides somehow convincing her to stop what she is doing. And if you think "talking her out of it" would work... well, it wont. Again, "the will of a sith lord is not so easily manipulated."

But you are forgetting that all they were able to do was keep Revan alive after the damage caused by Malak. (Unless Bastila was lying.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does this have to do with anything?

[metadigital]

Does the "Golden Rule" belong to "moral universalism" in your opinion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes.

 

*Contemplative thoughts*

 

Deep dive into Meta-ethics!

 

I like the sound of Moral Universalism, but, truthfully I hadn't thought about this aspect before. I guess I would subscribe generally to moral anti-realism, and specifically I am a Moral Skeptic. This means that I think there are absolute moral essential values, just we don't know what they are and can't determine them.

 

For example, I would hold that Killing a person is wrong, but not absolutely in all cases. If a person was about to kill a busload of children and the only way to stop him (and the statistics tell us it would be a him) is to shoot him just beforehand, then I have no ethical qualms with that. Methinks a deontological moral absolutist definitely would, but I would argue we wouldn't know the true Moral Universalist position because of my Moral Skepticism.

 

Does that help?

[metadigital]

...Theoretically there should be non-lethal control methods, otherwise you would have police shooting burglars because they are about to escape ...

Garbage. One MAJOR difference between Revan and the common criminal. The common criminal isn't the most powerful being in the known galaxy. "The will of a sith lord is not so easily manipulated." If they restored her original identity, she would, with ease, escape and continue her conquest of the galaxy, as if nothing had happened.

In this case, there are no non-lethal control methods, besides somehow convincing her to stop what she is doing. And if you think "talking her out of it" would work... well, it wont. Again, "the will of a sith lord is not so easily manipulated."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No.

I also doubt whether you could talk Revan out of evil, but -- for example -- Charles Manson is not easily dissuaded from his psychopathic urges, either. You just have to contain Revan in isolation to prevent harm to others and self.

But you are forgetting that all they were able to do was keep Revan alive after the damage caused by Malak. (Unless Bastila was lying.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does this have to do with anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Merely stating it to point out that if this is true the Jedi Council didn't "choose" to wipe Revan's mind, it was due to circumstances beyond their control.

[kid]

Why are we delving into philosophy here? This isn't that complicated.

Light side Revan realized that what the council did was right - "I understand, Bastilla, you had no choice." So why can't you?

 

edit: sorry, didn't see above post

 

You just have to contain Revan in isolation to prevent harm to others and self.

Again, do you really think this is possible? Honestly. What would contain her? A force shield? 100 meters of concrete walls? No, there is not one single thing they could have done to contain her.

 

Merely stating it to point out that if this is true, the Jedi Council didn't "choose" to wipe Revan's mind, it was due to circumstances beyond their control.

Again, what does this have to do with anything?

[Cloris]

I am -- and have been since before I care to remember -- an amateur lexicographer. 

Hey, I have a book on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its give and take relationship with lexiconography called Slayer Slang. I think you may enjoy it, if you do not have it already.

 

Meh. Merriam-Webster are American. I don't like their abstracted definitions, americanised spelling and lack of derivation information. (I used to have one of their hardcover dictionaries, when I went to school in the US -- hand all the flags of the world in the back, as well as some other decent miscellany.) My favouyrite dictionary is the unabridged Oxford University Dictionary (all twenty volumes).

My favorite is my Encarta World Dictionary, but I was too lazy to get up and go get it.

Okay, I think we may have traversed into uber-geek ville, what do you think?

 

I'm not really a fanboy, but I suspect they uphold the law, which is why Obi Wan has no qualms about battling the evil empire (the quondam Republic). You could always check out StarWars.com

Makes me wonder what a Jedi is supposed to do when stuck in a position like GO-TO's...

 

True, and I've browsed through the site, but I always get sidetracked and end up reading for extended periods of time and forgetting what I was looking for in the first place!

 

Hey, dewaybe2678, I just wanted to say thanks a bunch for starting such an interesting thread!!!

 

Cloris

[Cloris]

It's very hard to find an example for this. I must admit that I've never thought about it before.

 

It is impossible! I didn't want you to feel like I was just baiting you though, and that's why I explained that I had to do it too.

 

I totally agree that morality is not a law of nature. But it has much to do with people, the humans, ever since their existence (prehistoric man).

 

For example, a human being in general does't want to be harmed, neither does he/she like it if somebody lies to him/her, killing children is resolutely abnominated, etc. The permission to act in self-defence is a universally accepted morality, too.

 

I think the terms of "good" and "evil" (in a very raw form) already emerge from those native patterns of thought. Therefore they might not be as "relative" as one could assume.

 

I would call it "human morality", because it has its roots in the very nature of humans. In my opinion this is the fundamental basis of morality on the scale of culture and religion.

 

My theory is that all societies at least have these abstract concepts in common. Mostly the difference is only the different sanction following a breach of these rules.

 

BUT, of course, how could it be otherwise, there are also extremes. There are occurrences in history and present where people have been brainwashed and where the "human morality" has been "perverted" to an unbearable degree and isn't apparent any more at first glance. Moreover, there are various individuals and groups who abolished any morals about others.

 

The Sith cult would fall into the "perverted" category... 

 

Now, please, tell me what you found out in your homework. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All societies have sets of rules that they use to determine what is acceptable behavior, true, but those rules are not nearly as universal as we think. In some cultures, women spend their time of active mentstration seperate from their tribe under penalty of physical punishment. In others, it is wrong to raise your hand against your neighbor for any reason, even self defense -- greviances are addressed through a council. In some it is acceptable to mutilate the genitals of newborn males, in others it is considered remiss not to mutilate the genitals of pre-pubescent girls in order to prepare them for future marriage.

 

Most people don't want to be lied too, but if you are asked "Honey, do these jeans make me look fat?" answering "No, baby, your huge posterior makes you look fat," may be true, but not appreciated. Okay, I'm trying to lighten up a bit, I admit: I feel I've been kind of stuffy. You make some damn good generalizations, but there are always exceptions. I have whole books about the exceptions, but my specialization is human sexuality, so the details probably aren't appropriate here.

 

I think that in order to call it "human morality" one needs to leave room for us to be just that, human. To me, that means considering a person's point of view, to you it may not -- and you know what? I appreciate your point of view! So there, take that!

 

 

O, yeah, that assignment: it is impossible to cite a universally (across countries, cultures, and timelines) accepted moral stance, even on extreme issues such as infantacide, canibalism, and incest. I don't want you to think I was trying to trick you, though, it really is an eye-opening exercise, and I think that it's great that you tried (screw Yoda, sometimes trying is more important than doing!). Thank you.

 

From your next post:

Huh, who said that?!  Sorry, no offense intended, it was more of a question than a statement.

When you were asking me if then any action was therefore justifiable, and whether or not there was any room for those that knowingly commit wrongs --I perceived it as accusatory and antagonistic and I then reacted defensively. My apologies.

 

More from me later,

 

Cloris

[metadigital]

You just have to contain Revan in isolation to prevent harm to others and self.

Again, do you really think this is possible? Honestly. What would contain her? A force shield? 100 meters of concrete walls? No, there is not one single thing they could have done to contain her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it is not possible, see my previous post about insufficient control of the situation, above (). Lack of options = blunt action.

Merely stating it to point out that if this is true, the Jedi Council didn't "choose" to wipe Revan's mind, it was due to circumstances beyond their control.

Again, what does this have to do with anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are discussing the moral choices/implications of the Jedi Council's willful actions on REvan, aren't we? So if they didn't actually do anything, then the discussion is moot. (A very long digression over three posts to make an aside, but I think I've made myself clear now.)

[metadigital]

You've never watched Total Recall?!?!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apologies: I wrote this late and realised afterwards that I had only put obscure character references in, which is not in keeping with the standard of netiquette I like to maintain!

 

The Film "Total Recall" is based on a short story called "We can remember it for you wholesale" by Phillip K. D1ck (who is a very important Sci-Fi writer, up there with all the best like Asimov and Clarke). Made into a film starring Arnold "Governator" Schwartzenegger (and there was a novelisation written by Piers Anthony, I think.)

 

Read the short story if you don't want to watch an action film with Arnie in it. (But I did like the film, and my comment was addressed to it.)

 

PKD, as he was known, wrote a lot about what is the meaning of self, and lots of his stories (he wrote "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", which you may have seen the film, starring Harrison Ford as Decker, "Bladerunner" -- do see the "Director's Cut", without the corny voice-over as this one doesn't dumb-down the ending; another short story "Minority Report" -- also a film starring Tom Cruise.)

[kid]

"Irrelevant? Did they use him/her by accident? lol. I accept the Jedi's efforts to manipulate Revan, but i don't agree with the argument that the Jedi spared Revan because of the goodness of their hearts."

I don't so much care about the motives of specific Jedi Masters, but the larger issue of morality and the Jedi Code. That is, what would the Jedi Code dictate the Jedi do with Revan? After all, isn't that the larger, more important issue? Whether or not the Jedi Code is flawed?

 

"We are discussing the moral choices/implications of the Jedi Council's willful actions on REvan, aren't we? So if they didn't actually do anything, then the discussion is moot. (A very long digression over three posts to make an aside, but I think I've made myself clear now.)"

Yes, we are. But are we not discussing their actions AFTER Bastilla healed Revan and kept her from dying? That is, what the Jedi do with their prisoners? It a completely different discussion whether or not Bastilla should have healed Revan or let her die. Hence, that is why I think Bastilla's decision to "keep Revan alive after the damage caused by Malak", doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.

 

"If it is not possible, see my previous post about insufficient control of the situation, above (). Lack of options = blunt action."

Can't find it, could u link or quote urself?

[Cloris]

Yes, we are.  But are we not discussing their actions AFTER Bastilla healed Revan and kept her from dying?  That is, what the Jedi do with their prisoners?  It a completely different discussion whether or not Bastilla should have healed Revan or let her die.  Hence, that is why I think Bastilla's decision to "keep Revan alive after the damage caused by Malak", doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't really think the subject was restricted in much of any way -- we've been all over the table on it, and I rather like it that way. Just be specific when you disagree with someone so it is easier to communicate, at least that's my unasked for opinion. We were talking about the the Jedi and their prisoners, the Order's actions in reference to Reven, a hypothetical duel between Malak and Kavar regarding what makes someone a Jedi's prisoner, and the morality driving some of the characters in Episode III, to name but a few!

 

I recall that it was Bastilla's mission to capture rather than assassinate, and that makes me wonder what the Jedi were originally planning to do with/to her. If they could not contain her as she the person she was, and they knew that they could not do so, then what was to happen? I feel like I have to consider the possibility that this could have been their plan all along...

 

Considering her injuries, perhaps they did only what was necessary. However, the deliberate with-holding of information about one's self in order to prevent a certain path of determination is a complicated issue and not one easily brushed aside. It was an issue, depending on how you played it, that could have done more harm than good -- if they were actually trying to bring someone back to the light, then perhaps sowing discord and distrust is not a wise way to do so.

 

Something else: since she was dying, and it took what seems to be unnatural measures to bring her back, did the Jedis interfere with the "will of the Force" by reviving her? Or can it, by it's very nature, not be denied?

 

Oh, hell, I've gone from ethics to divinity. Opps.

 

Cloris

[Padmi Skydrunkard]

The thing is it is mentioned in the sequel that her memory is coming back ( of her original plans), so just how destroyed was her mind anyway?

 

Personally I think it may have only been minimal brain damage, like some memory loss or something since Bastila lied about so much, she may have lied about Revan almost dying. :ph34r:

[Darth Flatus]

Lies, deceit, trickery... these are the tools of the Dark Side...

[edu11]

The thing is it is mentioned in the sequel that her memory is coming back ( of her original plans), so just how destroyed was her mind anyway? 

 

Personally I think it may have only been minimal brain damage, like some memory loss or something since Bastila lied about so much, she may have lied about Revan almost dying.  :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is what i believe as well. When Revan confronts Bastilla, she says every lie she can think in order to be spared.

[metadigital]

... Are we not discussing [the Jedi Council's] actions AFTER Bastilla healed Revan and kept her from dying?  That is, what the Jedi do with their prisoners?  It a completely different discussion whether or not Bastilla should have healed Revan or let her die.  Hence, that is why I think Bastilla's decision to "keep Revan alive after the damage caused by Malak", doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have crossed wires, then. Some people posting in this thread have said that the Jedi Council were wrong to overtly interfere with Revan's mind, by wiping it clean of the Dark Side. I was merely saying that their story is that they did no such thing.

"If it is not possible, see my previous post about insufficient control of the situation, above (). Lack of options = blunt action."

Can't find it, could u link or quote urself?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't find it in this thread, so it must be in another topic! Anyway, let me restate in full:

Killing an opponent is the course of action when you cannot over-power them to prevent harm to innocents and themselves. Otherwise it would be morally acceptable to have Jedi acting as judge, jury and executioner -- with the obvious results.

 

Ideally, a person against taking life would not kill an opponent; e.g. in the UK the state death penalty was removed from the statute books (in the sixties, I think).

 

Charles Manson hasn't been, and won't be, executed, even though he is guilty beyond doubt and also beyond redemption. Other serial killers have been executed by the state.

 

I think Jedi are more like the UK/Californian than the Texan/Floridian governments.

 

So Jedi should be disarming and imprisoning the Sith, not running 'em through with 'sabers.

[metadigital]

... Considering her injuries, perhaps they did only what was necessary. However, the deliberate with-holding of information about one's self in order to prevent a certain path of determination is a complicated issue and not one easily brushed aside. It was an issue, depending on how you played it, that could have done more harm than good -- if they were actually trying to bring someone back to the light, then perhaps sowing discord and distrust is not a wise way to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again we have the "End justifies the means" Chaotic Good versus "Do no conscious wrong to anyone under any circumstances" no-hypocrisy-brooked Lawful Good argument. This is a dilemma which means that there is no absolute right answer (otherwise it wouldn't be a dilemma) and that means that everyone who faces the dilemma will have to s9olve it on its merits, everytime.

Something else: since she was dying, and it took what seems to be unnatural measures to bring her back, did the Jedis interfere with the "will of the Force" by reviving her? Or can it, by it's very nature, not be denied?

 

Oh, hell, I've gone from ethics to divinity.  Opps.

 

Cloris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it is always going to be difficult to contain a philosophical debate to one small area; it sometimes helps to frame one problem with another -- although that was a blatant tangent to shoot off on.

Blatant plug for my other post: (<{POST_SNAPBACK}>)

[Darth Flatus]

even when a sith is disarmed he is still dangerous, so what does a jedi do then?

[Padmi Skydrunkard]

even when a sith is disarmed he is still dangerous, so what does a jedi do then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

incapacitate them, not 'program' them

[Darth Flatus]

... and "incapacitating" them entails?

 

I hate to draw this comparison but i think an appropriate real world analogy would be: There's a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest and he's threatening to blow himself up in a place like a shopping mall - what you do do? (jack) what do you do?

 

 

 

 

 

forgive the speed reference but i couldnt resist :D the question remains though

[metadigital]

even when a sith is disarmed he is still dangerous, so what does a jedi do then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

incapacitate them, not 'program' them

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. Render them harmless, with as little force as is necessary.

 

BTW These aren't my personal beliefs! I'm not saying I wouldn't kill a burglar in my house, I'm saying what a Jedi should be aiming to do.

 

If killing is wrong, then anyone killing is either bad or unable to control the situation (via talk / overwhelming non-lethal force, etc). You would probably object if children found guilty of shoplifting were executed. Some people, with an extreme view of the sanctity of life, would not permit even a convicted murderer to be executed -- even if it was in self defence and they would die as a result. That sort of extreme.

[Darth Flatus]

i dont think a jedi is that extreme, or else they wouldnt learn to fight and carry a dangerous weapon.

[metadigital]

i dont think a jedi is that extreme, or else they wouldnt learn to fight and carry a dangerous weapon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... And that is why we are able to debate it endlessly, because there is no higher authority to consult, no real council, not even a disgruntled vagrant ex-Jedi wondering past. " :cool:

 

Actually the best way to incapacitate a Sith would be to put them to sleep. They could be help in perpetual matrix-style controlled environment, and in extreme cases even have their DS personality expunged ...

[kid]

"Killing an opponent is the course of action when you cannot over-power them to prevent harm to innocents and themselves. Otherwise it would be morally acceptable to have Jedi acting as judge, jury and executioner -- with the obvious results."

 

So you're saying the council should have killed Revan, their "prisoner," instead of giving her a new personality? I don't think I could agree with that. To me, death is the ultimate punishment.

[metadigital]

"Killing an opponent is the course of action when you cannot over-power them to prevent harm to innocents and themselves. Otherwise it would be morally acceptable to have Jedi acting as judge, jury and executioner -- with the obvious results."

 

So you're saying the council should have killed Revan, their "prisoner," instead of giving her a new personality?  I don't think I could agree with that.  To me, death is the ultimate punishment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, because there were alternatives (obviously at least one). Taking life must be the absolute last option.

 

The debate is focused on whether taking someone's memories and identity is equivalent to taking their life, and if so then the Jedi were just arguing semantics (i.e. by that argument they still killed Revan).

 

If they could keep Revan in the matrix, and preferably redeem her willingly, that would be the ultimate. :cool:

[atomic]

My conviction is that death is not a form of punishment, but an escape route to apply punishment.

Anyone can kill, that's the easy way. But redeeming is much more difficult. I don't deny that, sometimes, killing is necessary because there is no other way (eg.: the enemy doesn't surrender to you and keeps attacking, even after beeing desarmed).

 

Now, back to topic.....

Like ANY cult, the jedi/sith have their views of the world in wich they live and they act according to their convictions.

Like ANY cult, if they only see in one direction, they'll be blind to all other sides and extremist behaviour starts to appear.

 

As for: "I hate to draw this comparison but i think an appropriate real world analogy would be: There's a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest and he's threatening to blow himself up in a place like a shopping mall - what you do do? (jack) what do you do?"

My answer would have to be: I would try and talk him out of it, and if that didn't work I would shoot him with a tranquilizer

 

As for the actions of the jedi council: they ARE NOT saints and they'll never be.