do jedi kill their prisoners

[metadigital]

As a little aside (well, you knwo you want them) it was the English who commited the first wartime attrocity in the middle ages with repect to chivalry: the rules of engagement (e.g. don't kill an unarmed opponent) generally accepted in major battles (same selfish morality dilemma for small batles, though) were thrown out when the English knights saw an expedient battle tactic to wipe out an entire (teutonic) force.

 

Back on topic: Good question, what are the Jedi battle codes (ie chivalry)? Not very often do we get to spare an opponent when playing as LS ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really like asides: so what is the name/date of the battle you're referring to above?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew I'd be called on it. I honestly can't remember (it was years ago I saw/read it), I would estimate it was before Henry V, but even that is just an educated guess. (Henry V did conduct a lot of bloodthirsty battles in France.) I know it ushered in a new era of post-chivalry, because (naturally enough) everyone else stopped being chivalrous back.

[Darth Flatus]

chivalry is overrated, win war at all costs (so long as your own side doesnt suffer too badly)

[Darth Somethingorother]

As a little aside (well, you knwo you want them) it was the English who commited the first wartime attrocity in the middle ages with repect to chivalry: the rules of engagement (e.g. don't kill an unarmed opponent) generally accepted in major battles (same selfish morality dilemma for small batles, though) were thrown out when the English knights saw an expedient battle tactic to wipe out an entire (teutonic) force.

 

Back on topic: Good question, what are the Jedi battle codes (ie chivalry)? Not very often do we get to spare an opponent when playing as LS ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really like asides: so what is the name/date of the battle you're referring to above?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew I'd be called on it. I honestly can't remember (it was years ago I saw/read it), I would estimate it was before Henry V, but even that is just an educated guess. (Henry V did conduct a lot of bloodthirsty battles in France.) I know it ushered in a new era of post-chivalry, because (naturally enough) everyone else stopped being chivalrous back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Better example of our good old english chivalery might have been Richard the Lionhearted's massacre of the people of Antioch- after he'd taken the city.

 

@ Darth Flatus; in all fairness, and maybe a slightly pedantic pov, you don't know Palpatine's whole story either- he might have done some really great things before he became a Sith, and been an all- round nice bloke. The kind of bloke who you'd buy a Tarisian Ale for if you saw them in the cantina. The best way to find out, would have been to put him on trial- he could always have been stripped of the force. In the words of Obi-Wan Kenobi; "there are alternatives to fighting".

[metadigital]

Depends how big the mistake is. Lets see, Vader wiped an entire form of life (Prince Xizor being the last to die), Revan. He/she decieves a clan to let him go into the temple and be able to use the Star Forge (and a second time if he/she becomes dark again). And also if dark again kills the wookie, Mision, and possibly Carth. (though seeing as how Carth isn't in TSL when you make Revan a dark male I guess he hunts him down and eventually kills him) I say those are some pretty big mistakes to let them go by without any kind of punishment. If you give them a second chance they should at least be harshly punished.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Forgiveness doesn't measure the size of the infraction. Forgiveness (when done properly, and this requires commitment from the criminal and the victims) enhances both parties and gives them a rejuvenating effect.

 

Punishment is a different kettle of fish. You can go prehistoric: for every wrong, pay back double; or biblical: an eye for an eye (and not two eyes for an eye), or modern (deprivation of liberty or, in some backward societies ( " ), the death penalty).

 

What might be more interesting to discuss is state sanctioned torture. I don't mean to be flippant; either. I would never make light of those poor people who have suffered under disgusting despotic governments.

 

I am talking about the legitimate, codified, use of torture on known criminals. For example, I heard recently that a self-confessed hostage-taker was threatened with torture when he refused to divulge the location of the hostage. He soon changed his mind when he was threatened with torture. This obviously would only be possible with extreme cases with people of known, demonstrable and proven guilt. (Cloris, before you ask ( :D ), I think the country was Germany -- I beleive that torture is a state instrument in Jordan.)

 

For an historical perpective, England did have a policy a couple of hundred years ago, but dispensed with it (shortly after the Hundred Years' war, I think) whereas France was contraversially using torture during the Algerian crisis late last century (the General in charge recently wrote about it in a book that made him persona non grata with a bullet). And, of course, the US is currently exploring the boundaries of mental torture with the "Enemy Combatants".

[metadigital]

chivalry is overrated, win war at all costs (so long as your own side doesnt suffer too badly)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:D "History is written by the victors."

[Cloris]

I knew I'd be called on it. I honestly can't remember (it was years ago I saw/read it), I would estimate it was before Henry V, but even that is just an educated guess. (Henry V did conduct a lot of bloodthirsty battles in France.) I know it ushered in a new era of post-chivalry, because (naturally enough) everyone else stopped being chivalrous back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to be a pain. "

 

Cloris

[Cloris]

oh if you are talking about what is right from people's point of view then yes annie was totally right.

But he didnt have the full facts and i'm not even sure how much the dark side was influencing him at that point. I doubt he protested due to their being a lack of justice he protested because he saw palps as the only way to prevent his worst nightmare from coming true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe that, by default, when you discuss right and wrong then you must take point of view into account; to a large extent point of view is what determines right or wrong. Dark side or no, he defended his friend and the Code; in my opinion that was the right thing to do. Even the misguided can sometimes do the right thing...

 

III will be a much more interesting movie thanks to this discussion.

 

Thanks!

 

Cloris

[Darth Somethingorother]

oh if you are talking about what is right from people's point of view then yes annie was totally right.

But he didnt have the full facts and i'm not even sure how much the dark side was influencing him at that point. I doubt he protested due to their being a lack of justice he protested because he saw palps as the only way to prevent his worst nightmare from coming true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe that, by default, when you discuss right and wrong then you must take point of view into account; to a large extent point of view is what determines right or wrong. Dark side or no, he defended his friend and the Code; in my opinion that was the right thing to do. Even the misguided can sometimes do the right thing...

 

III will be a much more interesting movie thanks to this discussion.

 

Thanks!

 

Cloris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oooo, very Ben Kenobi with the point of view thing, lol

 

Influence Gained: Darth Somethingorother

[metadigital]

Oooo, very Ben Kenobi with the point of view thing, lol 

 

Influence Gained: Darth Somethingorother

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Relativistic morals are indicative of chaotic alignment. I would have thought that the Jedi Council were more monastic and therefore Lawful and even Good.

[Cloris]

Forgiveness doesn't measure the size of the infraction. Forgiveness (when done properly, and this requires commitment from the criminal and the victims) enhances both parties and gives them a rejuvenating effect.

 

Punishment is a different kettle of fish. You can go prehistoric: for every wrong, pay back double; or biblical: an eye for an eye (and not two eyes for an eye), or modern (deprivation of liberty or, in some backward societies ( " ), the death penalty).

 

What might be more interesting to discuss is state sanctioned torture. I don't mean to be flippant; either. I would never make light of those poor people who have suffered under disgusting despotic governments.

 

I am talking about the legitimate, codified, use of torture on known criminals. For example, I heard recently that a self-confessed hostage-taker was threatened with torture when he refused to divulge the location of the hostage. He soon changed his mind when he was threatened with torture. This obviously would only be possible with extreme cases with people of known, demonstrable and proven guilt. (Cloris, before you ask ( :D ), I think the country was Germany -- I beleive that torture is a state instrument in Jordan.)

 

For an historical perpective, England did have a policy a couple of hundred years ago, but dispensed with it (shortly after the Hundred Years' war, I think) whereas France was contraversially using torture during the Algerian crisis late last century (the General in charge recently wrote about it in a book that made him persona non grata with a bullet). And, of course, the US is currently exploring the boundaries of mental torture with the "Enemy Combatants".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree -- forgiveness measures the humanity and strength of the person forgiving, in my unasked-for opinion. It has little to do with the person being forgiven: repentance measures the commitment and character of the forgiven. I also believe that punishment is a poor substitute for justice.

 

You're right, state-sanctioned torture would probably be the best parallel we can draw between the fictional Revan's state and our own experiences. The Jedis do what they believe is best, of course, but best for whom? Was it in Revan's best interest to implant her with a personality of their choosing. Or, since Revan was considered evil, was her interest not of any value? If the crux of life is the choice of good, evil, or somewhere in-between then isn't it the greatest wrong to eliminate (or in this case, negate) the capacity to make that choice for oneself?

 

Your parallel between the Council's choices and current U.S. policy is creepy -- but it is creepy because it is close to home. When one sacrifices the tenants that comprise an identity of "the good guys" in order to win, it seems to me that one has already lost.

 

Okay, now I'm just rambling...

 

Cloris

[Darth Flatus]

Relativism does not belong in star wars, moralistic POV is irrelevant.

[Cloris]

Oooo, very Ben Kenobi with the point of view thing, lol 

 

Influence Gained: Darth Somethingorother

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Teehee! Thanks!

 

Everybody is falling for the sith lies !!! aaaaaaaaarrrgh!

 

For the nth time i reiterate anakin's actions have nothing to do with the jedi code or the greater good. Point of view doesnt come into it, relativsm doesnt belong in SW!! Obi wan saw alternatives to fightitng but when it came down to it he did what he had to do and did not hesitate, his point of view remark was not connected with morality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

True, and I have been reading what you've written, Flatus, but it just doesn't ring true to me. Morality is all about relativism, and it doesn't get any more moral than the Jedi and the Sith. I'd like to know how you percieve these groups to be without moral implication, if you don't mind explaining.

 

If debating the morality in SW leaves you cold, by all means feel free to ignore those of us that do enjoy the discussion, no offense could be taken. I am having a good time with all of this, and plan on continuing to do so until the talk dies down on its own. No offense meant or implied, but I don't understand why one would contribute to a thread that one doesn't enjoy or find to be of value.

 

Cloris

[metadigital]

I agree -- forgiveness measures the humanity and strength of the person forgiving, in my unasked-for opinion. It has little to do with the person being forgiven: repentance measures the commitment and character of the forgiven. I also believe that punishment is a poor substitute for justice.

 

You're right, state-sanctioned torture would probably be the best parallel we can draw between the fictional Revan's state and our own experiences. The Jedis do what they believe is best, of course, but best for whom? Was it in Revan's best interest to implant her with a personality of their choosing. Or, since Revan was considered evil, was her interest not of any value? If the crux of life is the choice of good, evil, or somewhere in-between then isn't it the greatest wrong to eliminate (or in this case, negate) the capacity to make that choice for oneself?

 

Your parallel between the Council's choices and current U.S. policy is creepy -- but it is creepy because it is close to home. When one sacrifices the tenants that comprise an identity of "the good guys" in order to win,  it seems to me that one has already lost.

 

Okay, now I'm just rambling...

 

Cloris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You aren't rambling (and you ain't whistling Dixie, either). That was my point exactly. When the end justifies the means (at least when this is codified into state law) than the society is no longer a "good" one, from a moral point of view. It is a sinister autocracy. Welfare of the State is greater than the collective welfare of the individuals that make it up. 1984.

[jedipodo]

Relativism does not belong in star wars, moralistic POV is irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed, just remember the massive cloning of thinking individuals. There isn't even a moralistic POV on this issue in the SW universe.

[jedipodo]

Relativistic morals are indicative of chaotic alignment.

 

Interesting thesis.

 

Maybe relativistic moral is only reserved to supernatural beings like gods or something like that.

[jedipodo]

I believe that, by default, when you discuss right and wrong then you must take point of view into account; to a large extent point of view is what determines right or wrong.  Dark side or no, he defended his friend and the Code; in my opinion that was the right thing to do. Even the misguided can sometimes do the right thing...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

@Cloris:

From what you said earlier I thought I got your point. But now I'm not sure anymore.

 

Please tell me, when you say "right thing to do", from what point of view are you looking at it?

The only POV I could imagine you are refering to would be Darth Sidious'.

 

Also I think Anakin did have all the facts.

In his life he met several Sith Lords, hated them for good reason, and

was even the one who betrayed the real identity of Palpatine to Mace Windu

.

Oh, and, I almost forgot, the irony is that

it had been "good old" Palpatine who tought Anakin to kill defenseless prisoners if they are too dangerous (Dooku)

.

 

If you reduce the deed of Anakin to defending a helpless person and the Jedi Code (= ignoring the fact that Palpatine is the mighty Sith Lord in person, needless to say, who is already in control of the senate, the military and the courts) there would be no explanation why the Jedi (Yoda and Windu in particular) consider it the *false* and not the *right* thing to do.

Is it that what you call relativism?

[edu11]

I believe that, by default, when you discuss right and wrong then you must take point of view into account; to a large extent point of view is what determines right or wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Amen. Some POVs do not even have right or wrong as options. They only have: successful move and unsuccessful move.

[metadigital]

I believe that, by default, when you discuss right and wrong then you must take point of view into account; to a large extent point of view is what determines right or wrong.  Dark side or no, he defended his friend and the Code; in my opinion that was the right thing to do. Even the misguided can sometimes do the right thing...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

@Cloris:

From what you said earlier I thought I got your point. But now I'm not sure anymore.

 

Please tell me, when you say "right thing to do", from what point of view are you looking at it?

The only POV I could imagine you are refering to would be Darth Sidious'.

 

Also I think Anakin did have all the facts.

In his life he met several Sith Lords, hated them for good reason, and

was even the one who betrayed the real identity of Palpatine to Mace Windu

.

Oh, and, I almost forgot, the irony is that

it had been "good old" Palpatine who tought Anakin to kill defenseless prisoners if they are too dangerous (Dooku)

.

 

If you reduce the deed of Anakin to defending a helpless person and the Jedi Code (= ignoring the fact that Palpatine is the mighty Sith Lord in person, needless to say, who is already in control of the senate, the military and the courts) there would be no explanation why the Jedi (Yoda and Windu in particular) consider it the *false* and not the *right* thing to do.

Is it that what you call relativism?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A non-relativistic moral code is something fundamental, like "Under no circumstances would a living being have their life taken from them."

 

Relative Morality starts to list the conditions under which it is okay to "Bend the rules", until you reach the other extreme, "Whatever you have to do to get what you want, regardless of the consequences to anyone else."

[Cloris]

@Cloris:

From what you said earlier I thought I got your point. But now I'm not sure anymore.

 

Please tell me, when you say "right thing to do", from what point of view are you looking at it?

The only POV I could imagine you are refering to would be Darth Sidious'.

 

Also I think Anakin did have all the facts.

In his life he met several Sith Lords, hated them for good reason, and

was even the one who betrayed the real identity of Palpatine to Mace Windu

.

Oh, and, I almost forgot, the irony is that

it had been "good old" Palpatine who tought Anakin to kill defenseless prisoners if they are too dangerous (Dooku)

.

 

If you reduce the deed of Anakin to defending a helpless person and the Jedi Code (= ignoring the fact that Palpatine is the mighty Sith Lord in person, needless to say, who is already in control of the senate, the military and the courts) there would be no explanation why the Jedi (Yoda and Windu in particular) consider it the *false* and not the *right* thing to do.

Is it that what you call relativism?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*Contains spoilers!*

 

Sorry, I thought that regarding this, I was clear that I was talking about Anakin's point of view. As I understand it, the scene that he walks in on is Mace standing over a downed Palpatine, preparing to kill him. Rather than simply attack Windu, Anakin reminds him of the Code, insisting that the Chancellor must stand trial if Mace is right but that the Jedi do not kill unarmed opponents. Mace blows him off rather than explain anything and proceeds to attack Anakin's mentor and friend, and so the boy fights Windu. How is that a reduction of the deed?

 

I understand that this was totally engineered by Sidious, and that both Windu and Anakin were played hardcore -- but that's the bloody brilliance of it. All the Sith Lord had to do was count on them both to try to do "the right thing," and everything would fall into place. If I remember correctly, Paplatine doesn't reveal that he is Sidious, the Sith Lord until after Mace's attempt on his life when he declares all other Jedi to be enemies of the Republic and activates Order 66.

 

From Mace's point of view, he was doing what was right; but so was Anakin, from his own point of view.

 

Cloris

[Cloris]

Amen. Some POVs do not even have right or wrong as options. They only have: successful move and unsuccessful move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Too true. Like this discussion -- I feel like I have suceeded because I am discussing a topic I find interesting. Someone else may not feel like they have suceeded unless they convert someone to their own point-of-view away from one that they find flawed.

 

Cloris

[metadigital]

Amen. Some POVs do not even have right or wrong as options. They only have: successful move and unsuccessful move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Too true. Like this discussion -- I feel like I have suceeded because I am discussing a topic I find interesting. Someone else may not feel like they have suceeded unless they convert someone to their own point-of-view away from one that they find flawed.

 

Cloris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... with the understanding that the merits of a particular moral code would sell themselves: a voluntary moral meritocracy.

[jedipodo]

If you reduce the deed of Anakin to defending a helpless person and the Jedi Code (= ignoring the fact that Palpatine is the mighty Sith Lord in person, needless to say, who is already in control of the senate, the military and the courts) there would be no explanation why the Jedi (Yoda and Windu in particular) consider it the *false* and not the *right* thing to do.

Is it that what you call relativism?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A non-relativistic moral code is something fundamental, like "Under no circumstances would a living being have their life taken from them."

 

Relative Morality starts to list the conditions under which it is okay to "Bend the rules", until you reach the other extreme, "Whatever you have to do to get what you want, regardless of the consequences to anyone else."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought relativistic morality as described by relativism philosophy is when two sides look at one and the same issue with different point of views. What is "good" for somebody could be "evil" for somebody else.

 

Therefore morality would be only a matter of how you judge an action and not whether it is fundamental or not. In my opinion this philosophy leads to a personal redefinition of morality in which any point of view can be justified.

[jedipodo]

@Cloris:

From what you said earlier I thought I got your point. But now I'm not sure anymore.

 

Please tell me, when you say "right thing to do", from what point of view are you looking at it?

The only POV I could imagine you are refering to would be Darth Sidious'.

 

Also I think Anakin did have all the facts.

In his life he met several Sith Lords, hated them for good reason, and

was even the one who betrayed the real identity of Palpatine to Mace Windu

.

Oh, and, I almost forgot, the irony is that

it had been "good old" Palpatine who tought Anakin to kill defenseless prisoners if they are too dangerous (Dooku)

.

 

If you reduce the deed of Anakin to defending a helpless person and the Jedi Code (= ignoring the fact that Palpatine is the mighty Sith Lord in person, needless to say, who is already in control of the senate, the military and the courts) there would be no explanation why the Jedi (Yoda and Windu in particular) consider it the *false* and not the *right* thing to do.

Is it that what you call relativism?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*Contains spoilers!*

 

Sorry, I thought that regarding this, I was clear that I was talking about Anakin's point of view. As I understand it, the scene that he walks in on is Mace standing over a downed Palpatine, preparing to kill him. Rather than simply attack Windu, Anakin reminds him of the Code, insisting that the Chancellor must stand trial if Mace is right but that the Jedi do not kill unarmed opponents. Mace blows him off rather than explain anything and proceeds to attack Anakin's mentor and friend, and so the boy fights Windu. How is that a reduction of the deed?

 

It is a reduction of the deed because Anakin knew about the power of Palpatine and that the Chancellor of the Republic is the mighty Sith Lord who is behind the war and everything. The Sith Lord even controlled the Senate and the courts; it's a ridicioulous assumption that a trial could send this "overlord" to prision.

Additionally, Palpatine is the one who encouraged Anakin to kill defenseless Dooku. And, very remarkably, Anakin didn't hesitate then.

 

I think Anakin's conscience was aware that his deed was wrong, even from his own moral point of view. But he simply didn't care at this very moment.

 

He behaved egoistic and thinks that the Sith Lord is the only one with the ability to save Padme from certain death.

 

How could it not be morally wrong from Anakin's point of view? He mutilated one of the most respectable Jedi, a member of Anakin's "family", and betrayed everything he fighted for up to now, including his old friend and "father" Obi-Wan.

 

Is relativism, in your opinion, an attempt to factor out the existence of "wrong", because anything you do can be justified as your own point of view which is always "right"?

 

I come to the conclusion that Anakin definitely considered his deed to be morally wrong, but did it anyhow to save Padme.

 

I understand that this was totally engineered by Sidious, and that both Windu and Anakin were played hardcore -- but that's the bloody brilliance of it. All the Sith Lord had to do was count on them both to try to do "the right thing," and everything would fall into place.

 

Let me summarize: Everbody does the right thing at every time, so that everything fulfilled as predicted.

Just as I supposed, this is exactly Darth Sidious' point of view...

 

If I remember correctly, Paplatine doesn't reveal that he is Sidious,  the Sith Lord until after Mace's attempt on his life when he declares all other Jedi to be enemies of the Republic and activates Order 66.

 

No, he did reveal himself to Anakin before the climatic battle with Windu (see spoiler tags above).

 

From Mace's point of view, he was doing what was right; but so was Anakin, from his own point of view.

 

No room for people who knowingly do the wrong?

[Cloris]

I thought relativistic morality as described by relativism philosophy is when two sides look at one and the same issue with different point of views. What is "good" for somebody could be "evil" for somebody else.

 

Therefore morality would be only a matter of how you judge an action and not whether it is fundamental or not. In my opinion this philosophy leads to a personal redefinition of morality in which any point of view can be justified.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is my understanding that relative morality involves the consideration of culture, circumstances or other similar functions in determining degrees of good and evil. I find that it's polar opposite, absolute morality, to be rather childish at best and biligerently ignorant at worst (the concept itself, not necessarily the people that claim to practice it). It is easy to say that killing someone is wrong, for example, but that doesn't take into account, say, shooting the man that's about to throttle your child, burn down your home, and rape your spouse.

 

Most people are simply not comfortable with the fact that outside of divine justice (which I do not believe in -- in any way) that all standards of behavior codified by human beings are, by their very nature, relative. They are relative to our location, our culture, our time period, and our society. Two centuries ago, it was perfectly acceptable for a 12-13 year old girl (woman) to get married, and there was no scandal if the husband-to-be was three decades her elder or more. Well, we're still people, men are still men and women are still women, marriage still exists, and this is still the United States (that's where I am writing from anyway), what's changed? The relative point of view on marriage, and what is or is not considered acceptable.

 

Jedipodo, can you give an example of absolute morality, accepted universally across nations, cultures and time periods? (I had to try to do this for a class, so I'm not asking you to do anything that I haven't or wouldn't try to do, I promise!). If I haven't bored you tears, that is!

 

Cloris

 

It is the perception of an act as deviant that makes it so, no action is by and of itself deviant.

[metadigital]

A non-relativistic moral code is something fundamental, like "Under no circumstances would a living being have their life taken from them."

 

Relative Morality starts to list the conditions under which it is okay to "Bend the rules", until you reach the other extreme, "Whatever you have to do to get what you want, regardless of the consequences to anyone else."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought relativistic morality as described by relativism philosophy is when two sides look at one and the same issue with different point of views. What is "good" for somebody could be "evil" for somebody else.

 

Therefore morality would be only a matter of how you judge an action and not whether it is fundamental or not. In my opinion this philosophy leads to a personal redefinition of morality in which any point of view can be justified.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's cultural relativism of ethics / morality and assumes a (weak) pluralist view of morality (ie cultures have different moral codes, and they are not necessarily based on values that are not equally valid); also known as Moral Relativism.

 

I was talking about relative morality.