do jedi kill their prisoners

[metadigital]

... an example of absolute morality, accepted universally across nations, cultures and time periods? ... It is the perception of an act as deviant that makes it so, no action is by and of itself deviant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is a short summary of moral absolutism; also, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an example of moral universalism.

 

:D

[Cloris]

Let's see if I can reply without screwing up the whole quotes & quotes & quotes thing (one more quote and we'd have a gallon!).

 

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.

 

Okay, that isn't how I understand it to play out. Granted, I've only read the scripts (supposedly the uncut and shooting scripts, but how much can you trust what you see on the Internet?) and watched the plot and cut-scenes that made it into the licensed game. I suppose, then, that until the 19th we'll just have to say that we'll get back to one another after that (unless you've got some "in" with Lucas, and then you'd better spill, you!).

 

Now that I think about it, I've removed most of my written reply because the is almost entirely a debate about Episode III at this point, which I have yet to view. I would, however, enjoy picking up the subject of Anakin and morality after said viewing, and would be perfectly content to return to our discussion of TSL or the hypothetical duel between Malak and Kavar.

 

I would appreciate it, though, if you would kindly not imply that I do not believe in right or wrong. I do. And, if it is not oversharing to say so, after living through certain wrongs that I would not wish on the worst Sith Lord, I came to an important understanding about human beings: no matter how wicked their actions, almost no one ever believes that they are "the bad guy." Sometimes perspective is the only difference between hero and villian, between revolutionary freedom fighter and terrorist, between dangerous fundimentalist and deity-fearing church goer.

 

Okay, that is perhaps a bit over-the-top for a video game discussion board...

 

Cloris

 

PS: Has anyone else here read "The Killing Joke?"

[metadigital]

Let's see if I can reply without screwing up the whole quotes & quotes & quotes thing (one more quote and we'd have a gallon!).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And, if it is not oversharing to say so, after living through certain wrongs that I would not wish on the worst Sith Lord, I came to an important understanding about human beings: no matter how wicked their actions, almost no one ever believes that they are "the bad guy."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Michael Douglas is "Falling Down".

PS: Has anyone else here read "The Killing Joke?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope. Read "The Lottery" at school, about 25 years ago, though. Any good?

[Darth Flatus]

batman graphic novel? no, but i would like to, alan moore is cool.

 

As for ep 3 i was going on the novelisation i am not sure about jedipodo but i agree with his version of events - but yes we have talked about ep 3 a little too much :D

 

Can you remind me of the situation with kavar and malak again?

[metadigital]

Can you remind me of the situation with kavar and malak again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We were about here, I think:

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:cool:

[Darth Flatus]

i agree with that perception of them , but i think maybe cloris had something else to add.

[Cloris]

Sorry, can't do the quotes thing right now -- today I am Darth Sinus, Queen of Headaches! Bwaaahahaha!!!

 

Metadigital:

Falling Down is a great example!

 

"The Lottery" works here too. "The Killing Joke" is a Batman graphic novel, detailing the making of the Joker from his own point of view. At one point, when he's torturing Gordon and his daughter, he tells Batman that the only difference between him and the rest of the world is "one bad day." I found it oddly appropriate to this discussion. :cool:

 

Yeah, from all of this you might never guess that I'm a almost-middle-aged wife and mother, starting her own company and working on her degree, would ya'? I look just like any other fangirl/boy.

 

 

Darth Flatus:

"From Hell" is one of my favorites, I picked it up on a trip to the Museum of Words and Pictures -- if comics are your thing, then you have to go there someday! Frank Miller will always be my favorite though, and has been since the Dark Knight saga. See, told you I dig the anti-hero thing!

 

 

Cloris

 

PS: I thought that monastic had to do with monks, nuns, and/or simple living...

[metadigital]

"The Killing Joke" is a Batman graphic novel, detailing the making of the Joker from his own point of view. At one point, when he's torturing Gordon and his daughter, he tells Batman that the only difference between him and the rest of the world is "one bad day." I found it oddly appropriate to this discussion.  :cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'"You created me!"!; what are you talking about, "You created me!"' (try and interpret the inverted commas there and, if your fangirl knowledge is up to snuf, you'll know I'm referring to the denouement on the first Batman movie, just after Nicholson's "Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?" ... :cool: )

Yeah, from all of this you might never guess that I'm a almost-middle-aged wife and mother, starting her own company and working on her degree, would ya'? I look just like any other fangirl/boy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Age has nothing to do with coefficient of fanaticism. :D

PS: I thought that monastic had to do with monks, nuns, and/or simple living...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are referring to my earlier comparison of Jedi to monks, that's because the Jedi are (allegedly) based on the Samurai/Ninja, who lead a fairly spartan existence. If you aren't, then I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Cloris]

Can you remind me of the situation with kavar and malak again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Malak and Kavar are dueling. Considering that the Jedi do not kill their prisoners, if Malak conceeds then can Kavar (in good consious as a member of the Jedi Order) kill Malak?

 

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That depends... okay, just kidding!

 

Housework calls, more from me in a bit.

 

I will look up monastic, though, because I don't think that it necessarily implies good or lack of it, it just relates to nuns, monks, or living like a monk or a nun.

 

Thanks, Metadigital, for helping getting us back on track!

 

Cloris

[metadigital]

I will look up monastic, though, because I don't think that it necessarily implies good or lack of it, it just relates to nuns, monks, or living like a monk or a nun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know of many evil monks (only one springs to mind: Rasputin, and he wasn't even a monk :D ); certainly I am not aware of any evil orders ... I don't think the Kali devotees are regarded as monks, for example.

 

I think I am quite within idiomatic boundaries, if not literal ones, to use monastic as a synonym for "lawful good". And anyway, monastic definition 3 is "self-abnegating"; and as "Dark Side" is generally accepted as "selfish", I think I'm right and you're wrong. Nya nya nya.

[Cloris]

As, the first Batman movie, what fun!

 

This is where my fandom thing gets weird: I'm not really a SW fan. I thought Episodes 4-6 were okay, but not the spectalar thing that so many fans spend years and thousands of dollars collecting on. If I hadn't read a review of TSL saying "Hey, equal to or better role-playing than Fable," then I wouldn't have bought it. Course, I wouldn't have an Xbox if I hadn't gone through the nightmarish hell of having my tonsils removed last June, either.

 

But there is no coincidence, right? :D

 

I don't know of many evil monks (only one springs to mind: Rasputin, and he wasn't even a monk  :D ); certainly I am not aware of any evil orders ... I don't think the Kali devotees are regarded as monks, for example.

 

I think I am quite within idiomatic boundaries, if not literal ones, to use monastic as a synonym for "lawful good". And anyway, monastic definition 3 is "self-abnegating"; and as "Dark Side" is generally accepted as "selfish", I think I'm right and you're wrong. Nya nya nya.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, you are probably within accepted usage -- I tend to be too specific with words, both written and spoken, for reasons too tiresome to go into here. As a child of modern times, I don't seem to consider people of the cloth to be "good" by default. Or if I ever did, I don't anymore.

 

Pssst... (this may be boring, you have been warned) De Sade received his first lessons in lechery from his uncle, an abbe.

 

I went to Merriam-Webster, shame on me:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...onastic&x=0&y=0

 

*laugh* Here's a fandom question: are the Jedi only sworn to protect the Republic, or are they also sworn to uphold its laws?

 

Cloris

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

A person is who they are because of their experiences and knowledge. Take that away and they are nothing. That person is effectively killed.

[Cloris]

A person is who they are because of their experiences and knowledge.  Take that away and they are nothing.  That person is effectively killed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, does that bring us back to Revan?

 

Cloris

[metadigital]

A person is who they are because of their experiences and knowledge.  Take that away and they are nothing.  That person is effectively killed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What if they are trapped in a vicious cycle of acting in accordance with their reputation?

 

Then perhaps it is possible that a person taken out of that behaviour pattern would be pleased: thankful to be able to live the life they wanted to live before they were taken hostage by their own mistakes.

 

E.g. Performing an intervention on a heroine addict (assuming the ex-addict is one of those that really wants to live and not just exist in a living death until they stop breathing).

 

Just a thought.

[metadigital]

True, you are probably within accepted usage -- I tend to be too specific with words, both written and spoken,  for reasons too tiresome to go into here.  As a child of modern times, I don't seem to consider people of the cloth to be "good" by default. Or if I ever did, I don't anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

I went to Merriam-Webster, shame on me:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...onastic&x=0&y=0

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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).

*laugh* Here's a fandom question: are the Jedi only sworn to protect the Republic, or are they also sworn to uphold its laws?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[edu11]

A person is who they are because of their experiences and knowledge.  Take that away and they are nothing.  That person is effectively killed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What if they are trapped in a vicious cycle of acting in accordance with their reputation?

 

Then perhaps it is possible that a person taken out of that behaviour pattern would be pleased: thankful to be able to live the life they wanted to live before they were taken hostage by their own mistakes.

 

E.g. Performing an intervention on a heroine addict (assuming the ex-addict is one of those that really wants to live and not just exist in a living death until they stop breathing).

 

Just a thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

i understand your thought but i believe that the "trapped" person should have the will to "free" himself. I don't think they asked Revan if he wanted to be "freed".

[metadigital]

i understand your thought but i believe that the "trapped" person should have the will to "free" himself. I don't think they asked Revan if he wanted to be "freed".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was for Revan's own good. (Lots of puns intended, there.)

The Dark Side is an insidious and slippery canker that changes the way a person thinks inasmuch as it changes their abilities. I think the horrible drug addiction life is an apt analogy.

 

Revan is free to choose after the intervention to either resume the previous life or continue the previous previous life of Jedi goodness. (One of the reasons Vrook looks suspiciously at Revan all the time.)

 

Also, don't forget that, according to the Jedi Council, Revan wasn't brain-targeted on purpose: it was a consequence of trying to save Revan from the critical near-fatal damage of Malak's attack.

[Darth Somethingorother]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and @ Darth Flatus

 

For the Jedi as a whole, i would agree on the alignment point. However, was "what I told you was true from a certain point of view" not Obi Wan's line in TESB?

Besides which, have you never done anything out of character because you felt it was the right thing to do?

P.s. sorry to backtrack, i've been busy, so haven't been on, but I felt that had to be said.

[kid]

You guys shoudl step back and look at the picture as a whole: what were all the possible choices one could do with near-death Revan?

 

1) Kill her.

2) Restore her original identity.

3) Let her live as an empty shell with no memory or personality at all; a vegatable.

4) Give her an identity that wouldn't screw the galaxy over.

 

Of all the possible choices, only number 4 makes any sense at all - both from the point of view of "modern ethics" and the jedi code. The fact that the jedi council subsequently used her is irrelevant.

[edu11]

You guys shoudl step back and look at the picture as a whole: what were all the possible choices one could do with near-death Revan?

 

1) Kill her.

2) Restore her original identity.

3) Let her live as an empty shell with no memory or personality at all; a vegatable. 

4) Give her an identity that wouldn't screw the galaxy over. 

 

Of all the possible choices, only number 4 makes any sense at all - both from the point of view of "modern ethics" and the jedi code.  The fact that the jedi council subsequently used her is irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Irrelevant? Did they use him/her by accident? lol. I believe that ethics was never in the Jedi's mind. They only wanted to exploit Revan for his/her knowledge of the Star Forge. That was it. If Revan didn't have a clue about the Star Forge he would be history. 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.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

If you make a mistake you deal with the consequences. If that Consequence is death, then S.O.L..

[metadigital]

You guys shoudl step back and look at the picture as a whole: what were all the possible choices one could do with near-death Revan?

 

1) Kill her.

2) Restore her original identity.

3) Let her live as an empty shell with no memory or personality at all; a vegatable. 

4) Give her an identity that wouldn't screw the galaxy over. 

 

Of all the possible choices, only number 4 makes any sense at all - both from the point of view of "modern ethics" and the jedi code.  The fact that the jedi council subsequently used her is irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, option 2 is what a group of Paladins would do. Right or wrong, Revan is Revan and, unless Revan wants to change, they have no business forcing Revan to do so -- or killing Revan, either. Killing your opposition comes about because the killer is not able to excert sufficient control on a given situation to prevent the evil-doer from harming others and themself. It is the least-worst option.

 

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

 

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.)

[jedipodo]

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

 

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.

[jedipodo]

Okay, that isn't how I understand it to play out. Granted, I've only read the scripts (supposedly the uncut and shooting scripts, but how much can you trust what you see on the Internet?) and watched the plot and cut-scenes that made it into the licensed game. I suppose, then, that until the 19th we'll just have to say that we'll get back to one another after that (unless you've got some "in" with Lucas, and then you'd better spill, you!). 

No, sorry, no "in" with Lucas. I've read the novel. But I'm still looking forward to 19th.

 

Now that I think about it, I've removed most of my written reply because the is almost entirely a debate about Episode III at this point, which I have yet to view.  I would, however, enjoy picking up the subject of Anakin and morality after said viewing, and would be perfectly content to return to our discussion of TSL or the hypothetical duel between Malak and Kavar.

 

I would appreciate it, though, if you would kindly not imply  that  I do not believe in right or wrong. I do.

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

 

And, if it is not oversharing to say so, after living through certain wrongs that I would not wish on the worst Sith Lord, I came to an important understanding about human beings: no matter how wicked their actions, almost no one ever believes that they are "the bad guy." Sometimes perspective is the only difference between hero and villian, between revolutionary freedom fighter and terrorist, between dangerous fundimentalist and deity-fearing church goer.

Or maybe it is, as brain science found out, the lack of a morallity brain area?

[metadigital]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is called the "Golden Rule" in philosophy. Confucius said "Don't do anything to others that you don't want them to do to you" 150 years before Christ is attributed with saying "Do unto others what you wish done unto you."

 

Is it a universal moral law? I don't think you will ever answer that -- otherwise we wouldn't have philosophers subscribing to "cultural relativity / moral relativism" and the polemical "moral universalism".