What's so bad about the dark side anyway?

[Darth Mortis]

'Good' people can often do 'evil' things and justify them as being for the best in the long run-for example invading another country today to prevent a war tomorrow. By the same token 'evil' people can often do 'good' things because it is, unltimatly, in their best interests to do so-an 'Evil' man might save someones life because it might lead people to trust them more.

 

Not only do we treat good and evil as being absolute concepts, but we tend to view people in the same way-which is to say that we view people as being either good or evil (right or wrong) all the time. People tend, for example, to view polititions or the police as good or evil depending on what they see and hear of them. This is regardless of the fact that a truely evil person can do good acts out of a desire to be trusted by more people, and a good person can do evil acts by accident or because they genuinely believe in the long run its in the greater interest to do so.

 

Humans like absolutes, it gives us the impression that we understand things and hence can, if not control them, at least predict whats going to happen. Unfortinatly 'good and 'evil' depend on context, and are in any case are only concepts invented by humans that are hard to define in the first place, and we have a very real problem in seeing or understanding this which makes defining them even harder.

[Guest The Architect]

Why was Xard's post deleted? It was completely fine and on topic.

[Musopticon?]

On topic, yeah. Fine, no.

[Xard]

Just what exactly did I write?

[Barzarel]

Ive studied a bit as of late since we had a debate about if or not evil character were able of love, on a bioware discussion so i looked up the universal word for evil, and in the encyclepedia it state for a act to be evil the person has to morally know that it is wrong, which in a large view would render most Sith most non evil since they to not view themselves as evil, so in their moral sense they doing what they believe is right, as for insane maybe in our sense of moral or justice, but evil no, so i suppose in their cultural belief they doing what they view as best for the universe.

 

Suppose that what Anakin says to obiwan "In my view the jedi

[Musopticon?]

Hunger for power at the expense of everything else is not really doing "what's best for the universe". These are people that might have initially been misled and uncorrupted, but ended up doing murders for their cause, giving up their humanity to corruption in exchange for power and attacking the established societal order, in this case Republic, to achieve their goals. That's a murderer, a tyrant and a terrorist all wrapped into one neat package. They also are willing to even kill their comrades, unlike your good old religious zealots, to attain a higher rank in power. Greed, anyone? Also, I can't remember a Sith that hasn't thrown lightning and kinetic force on whomever is on their path and absolutely revelled in the surges of their perverted use of the Force. And since the Force is an all-encompassing semi-sentient lifeforce, doing that is pretty much like gouging eyes from a puppy and being happy about it.

 

I'd call that pretty evil. You can sugarcoat their ascendance to power as "culture", but I'd call it a religo-political-paramilitary sect on civilization's underbelly. Pretty damn evil.

 

Just what exactly did I write?

 

Lots of stuff about how this teeter-tootering on the pseudo-ethical precipice was complete crap and useless.

 

Wait...why can't you remember? We talked about this "post on the internet when drunk"-thing of yours before, right?

Edited July 19, 2007 by Musopticon?

[DeathScepter]

Evil is evil regardless of culture, Morals or state of mind.

[Xard]

Just what exactly did I write?

 

Lots of stuff about how this teeter-tootering on the pseudo-ethical precipice was complete crap and useless.

 

Wait...why can't you remember? We talked about this "post on the internet when drunk"-thing of yours before, right?

 

No memories of that either

 

Anyway, I guess that post was little bit too harsh and mean in that post. I'm not safe from fanwanking. And talking about ethics and morals are one of my keen interests, but I tend to get little bit... annoyed when they're implemented too heavily into Star Wars Galaxy. SW is fairy tale world, there's Good and there's Bad. Of course there are many shades of grey too (K2 brought these things upfront nicely), but when someone starts to claim and prove that there isn't "evil" in Star Wars Galaxy either... It goes against the core parts of world of SW as well as against words and intentions of its creator, Lucas.

 

Hunger for power at the expense of everything else is not really doing "what's best for the universe". These are people that might have initially been misled and uncorrupted, but ended up doing murders for their cause, giving up their humanity to corruption in exchange for power and attacking the established societal order, in this case Republic, to achieve their goals. That's a murderer, a tyrant and a terrorist all wrapped into one neat package. They also are willing to even kill their comrades, unlike your good old religious zealots, to attain a higher rank in power. Greed, anyone? Also, I can't remember a Sith that hasn't thrown lightning and kinetic force on whomever is on their path and absolutely revelled in the surges of their perverted use of the Force. And since the Force is an all-encompassing semi-sentient lifeforce, doing that is pretty much like gouging eyes from a puppy and being happy about it.

 

I'd call that pretty evil. You can sugarcoat their ascendance to power as "culture", but I'd call it a religo-political-paramilitary sect on civilization's underbelly. Pretty damn evil.

 

That, Mus?, was awesome. especially your "perverted use of Force" reasoning should finally make dark jedi (we're misunderstood!) fanboys to be silent

 

GL never bothered to give that fine reasoning why sith were evil. Great job and should finally answer question of this topic.

[Barzarel]

Its not evil in the term of universal evil then the person has to morally know its wrong i guess that why psykatrist often called in to anolyse a criminal person to clarify if the person knew they were at sense and knew what they were doing and intended to do it.

 

But there are cultural views on evil and indifferences in people aswell, in some of the places we call uncivilized there still tribe that kill people and eat people they believe is pratictising magic, and i dont believe they view themselves as evil, other countries like ours may possible do that but then its would be a cultural view on evil wouldnt it?

 

In the letter of the word evil a person would have to know inside themselves they doing something morally wrong if not they not evil, they may be a several amount of other things in your society, possible viewed as criminal insane or things like that but not evil.

 

Here another famous example back in the old days science that wasent coexistent with Christianity was viewed as a crime and possible heresy.

 

But today we feel no way near the same way.

 

If we go back to stone age i am pretty sure there were alot things we view as evil now that werent back then, which Aka means that alot of the evil is cultural belief and things we change throughout history.

 

Greed always been a society sickness does it make all people evil? honestly can you say you couldnt relive something off your pockets to somebody less fortunate, if you consciencely know there people out there starving and you could afford to help them and had extra, wouldnt that make you greedy aswell, not to help when you have more than them does that mean our whole society is evil?

 

Greed if i am not wrong is keeping more to yourself than you actually need while other have less right?

Edited July 19, 2007 by Barzarel

[Darth Mortis]

Here another famous example back in the old days science that wasent coexistent with Christianity was viewed as a crime and possible heresy.

 

Quite true, Galeleo was, if I remember right, burnt as a heretic because his scientific ideas were not in keeping with the teachings of the church at that time. In his case he clamed that the Earth orbited the Sun, not the other way around. (Correct me if I've got that confused)

 

But today we feel no way near the same way.

 

Some people might argue otherwise, at least in some parts of the world.

 

If we go back to stone age i am pretty sure there were alot things we view as evil now that werent back then, which Aka means that alot of the evil is cultural belief and things we change throughout history.

 

It is worth considering (as you have) that there are two ways to define good and evil. The first (and the one that applies to the StarWars Universe) is that of morals. The second way is social good and evil. Some of the things that would have been considered 'evil' in years past were social concepts. Not all the laws of a society are written down, many are hidden or knowledge that is or the most part known only to the people within that society. Consider that a strong willed independant woman who refused to marry could have been considered 'evil' not all that long ago. This was (as far as I know) never specifically written down as a law, but was part of the hidden social laws of that time. A more up to date example would be that giving a twelve year old a pint of rum every day would, in the present time, be considered evil (or just bad parenting). However it was only 150 or so years ago that this would have been quite normal in the Royal Navy and considered a good thing. (And just to top things off they would then let the kids climb and play something like 80+ feet above the deck in the ships rigging while drunk)

 

Greed always been a society sickness does it make all people evil? honestly can you say you couldnt relive something off your pockets to somebody less fortunate, if you consciencely know there people out there starving and you could afford to help them and had extra, wouldnt that make you greedy aswell, not to help when you have more than them does that mean our whole society is evil?

 

Greed if i am not wrong is keeping more to yourself than you actually need while other have less right?

 

Greed in and of itself is not evil any more than love could be considered evil on its own. What makes them evil-or makes someone do something 'evil' is taking them to extremes. Eating one last slice of cake-even if you've already had most of the rest-is genrally not considered evil. Stealing the cake or killing someone so you can have the whole thing for yourself is evil, and is greed taken to far. Loving someone is never considered evil, unless you take it so far you are willing to do anything for that person even when you know it is wrong.

 

In Starwars terms it might be better to consider Evil as the act of taking something that is not yours to take, either by force or deception, where you give nothing, or nothing of equal or near equal value back in return. In essance all evil acts are acts of theft-from taking someones life to (as the Sith do) taking power from the Force without giving anything back in return.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Darth Mortis

[Xard]

Barzarel can't you just understand that you CAN NOT USE HISTORY OF ETHICS AND CULTURES OF REAL WORLD AS ARGUMENTS in Star Wars world goddamnitchristsakes!

Edited July 19, 2007 by Xard

[metadigital]

I still believe that for every action you could find claiming a good one there a opposite that would contradict it aswell, if there werent there wouldnt be as much conflict of opions and wars and misery as we often see in news everyday.

 

I am sure i could find as many examples of DS being a hero in the end as LS cases, simply because morals can always hit grey zones where nothing is either good or evil but merely a mean to provide a greater good of the whole.

 

If you dont believe me then let me ask you holding to ropes at a cliff side where you know eventually you can only save one would you save a person you viewed as good or a evil person that held information you knew 10 people would die less you got.

 

In the grey if you choose to save who you viewed as evil in hopes he would let you save the 10 others, youd have to let a innocent(good die), there no absolute that the evil person would even help you if you helped him but would you try save the 10 or settle for saving one good?

 

Theres a boat you out on a cruise and there no land anywhere near, you boat break but there only a means survival for one would you collectively decide to die together or pick one out, id imagine most good people would insist they stayed butt in the end would you be able as good person to leave anyone behind to save yourself or would you all decide to die together, if you did would the world as a whole better off with the one less person that could actually made it away alive?

 

If you and a best friend were on a road trip but got trapped without food or any means for food and you know if one of you laid down your life for the other to live from consuming well you get the picture, would you be able to let you best friend make the offer or would he/she let you make the offer or if both could because of moral or ethic not do it would the world be a better place because none of you could make the decision to let the other life?

 

My point is true evil people to things for themselves only but often good people cant allow a evil act in order to let other survive so in general they both can contribute to loss/evil and both can willing or unwilling constribute to good, of any person to presume they can judge whats good and what not would be making themselves gods because they can possible know that the choice they made wouldnt have stopped a greater good from happening, but hey we can always say we acted in what we believed to be the greater good, so does many war criminals insist on saying does that make it right?

 

If you decided to judge a person for murder and sentence him to death you would do what you moral and coinscience would tell you to do given your "good", but you cant possible know the future only gods can given they exist, there no saying that a epidemic couldnt break out and kill 100000people or more and that the man you just killed couldnt have had the cure to in his blood to save them sure its likely he wouldnt have it but could you be 100% sure?

 

So are you a greater being of good to make that choice do you have the right to make it?

 

What good what is dark and what isnt grey?

 

I wont argue i am right but nor would i ever claim to know that there a greater truth to what evil and what not, sure one can claim indivudual case for each person but you cant possible be certain that they wouldnt contribute to a greater good some point in their life willing or unwilling, and sure as race we have developed moral compass but still i believe there no general in life you cant generalise things.

 

Good has what ever way you look at it constributed as much misery as evil has, sure on can argue its the way it was done that matter but then its a moral opion is it not?

There are innate concepts of "fair play" (morality) in all humans (and possibly other species) that belie your logic. Given a conundrum, 98% (i.e. everyone as a first approximation, and allowing for the special case of psychopathy) will respond the same way to ethical dilemm

[Musopticon?]

Would you recommend The Lucifer Effect? I'll be finally able to have access to university library, finding originals and even translations when you live in a little town is difficult, so I'll consider reading it. The book came up when I was reading about that Prison Experiment, whose proprietor I can't remember, and the study results thereof.

[DAWUSS]

[Atton_love]

THe dark side has a bad and okay side to it. SUre, emotions like love are needed in the world, love itself doesnt lead to the darkside... But what is bad about it is that they kill willingly and just for fun.. THat is disgusting to me.. But you would use the force as a gift(be its master) dont serve it. But when if you abused it, thats where it's bad...

[Sturm]

But what is bad about it is that they kill willingly and just for fun..

 

Yes, but the Nazi's did that, they arent evil

[Xard]

True, but that's sick nonetheless

 

Also, awesome post meta, you made me interested in that book

[Sturm]

Is not!

[Musopticon?]

Yeah, perception tends to get warped, if Erwin Rommel is like a god to one.

[Darth Mortis]

Yeah, perception tends to get warped, if Erwin Rommel is like a god to one.

 

Bad example, Rommel was not a Nazi.

[Musopticon?]

You walked straight into it.

[Darth Mortis]

You walked straight into it.

 

Walked into what? Rommel wasn't a Nazi he was a patriot who was implicated in the plot to kill Hitler. Implying that he was a Nazi-or that all the seniour members of the military were Nazi's-is somewhat offensive to them. I can't remember if he was even a member of the Nazi party, but even if he was many military officers had to join the party so as not to be excluded from high office. This did not mean that they agreed, or even knew, what the party was getting up to let alone that they took part in such things.

 

(Before you ask I'm not German, and my grandfarther fought against Rommel in North Africa. He always talked of Rommel with a degree of respect, even though his attitude to Germans in general wasn't exactly good).

 

This does raise and interesting question; Does supporting an evil group, even if you do not believe in what they are doing and don't help them directly by taking part in their activities make you evil by default? It would be easy for us to say yes, considering that we are not the ones who have to worry about someone turning up in the night to cart us and our families off to god knows where.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Darth Mortis

[Sturm]

Last time I checked, Rommel was a Field Marshal in the German armed forces, and commanded Afrika Korps

Rommel only decided to assasinate Hitler when it came to the end of the war and the Germans begun losing, many of Hitler's advocates suggested that he accepted defeat and surrended.

Rommel swore his allegiance to the German Empire, (WWI) Weimar Republic (Post WWI govt.) and then Nazi Germany.

 

"Nazi" is such a harsh word, people assume that they were evil and taking into acount the whole German population was under the Nazi rule, so hypothetically the whole German population is evil. But take the SS for example, normal men... trained to become to elite of the Third Reich ended up becoming murderers from their actions but originally were just normal men.

[Darth Mortis]

Last time I checked, Rommel was a Field Marshal in the German armed forces, and commanded Afrika Korps

 

By 1944 Rommel was in charge of the Western German army-he was more accuratly the comander of the forces intended to repulse the allied invasion of France (He wasn't in France on June 6 as he was on his way back to Germany on leave at the time). Rommel had been promoted to Field Marshal in North Africa, but moved out of that theater when it became evident even to Hitler that the Afrika Korps was going to lose there.

 

Rommels exact position in regards how much authority he really had was always unclear-even to him-since the German Army at that time had so many overlapping areas of command that the technical commander often couldn't give orders to some of the units that were under his command. On June 6 for example the Panzer devisions could only be given the order to move out by Hitler himself, which is why they never took part in the fighting. Hitler never liked to give any one commander to much authority, in case they decided to use it against him, even when it was clear it would prove detrimental to a campain.

 

Rommel only decided to assasinate Hitler when it came to the end of the war and the Germans begun losing, many of Hitler's advocates suggested that he accepted defeat and surrended.

 

Rommel was, like many in the German high command, wary of overthrowing the German Goverment for a number of reasons. It should also be considered that Rommel was a very well known and well respected German general, and as such Hitler kept a close eye on him-something Rommel was well aware of. (Rommel was respected by the Allies as well, one of the reasons his name came up in regards to the plot against Hitler was that it was assumed that the Allies would respect him more than anyone else. The Germans were more willing to surrender to the British and the Americans than the Russians-understandable considering what the Germans did in Russia-and felt that they needed someone Britain and America would trust to make the initial overtures towards peace, and someone who they would take seriously. Had Hitler been killed as intended Rommel would, most likey, have been the one to try and work out a peace treaty with Britan and America)

 

There were many reasons why Rommel tried to stear clear of any potential plots against Hitler, and why it took him a long time and a lot of convincing for him to take a side. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that Rommel, while aware of the plot against Hitler, wasn't really part of it and may have been implicated more because Hitler Feared a man who could count on the support of a large proportion of the military yet wasn't one of his cronies, than because Rommel had any part in it.

 

Rommel swore his allegiance to the German Empire, (WWI) Weimar Republic (Post WWI govt.) and then Nazi Germany.

 

Anyone in a high ranking position within Germany at that time would have had to swear allegience to Nazi Germany.

 

"Nazi" is such a harsh word, people assume that they were evil and taking into acount the whole German population was under the Nazi rule, so hypothetically the whole German population is evil. But take the SS for example, normal men... trained to become to elite of the Third Reich ended up becoming murderers from their actions but originally were just normal men.

 

A distinction needs to be made between those who were 'Nazi's' as in a member of the party because they had to be-Goverment officials would have been required to have been a member of the party for example-And those who were Nazi by pholsophy. The SS were all Nazi's in the latter sense, as were most if not all of the senoir Goverment officials. While the average German was not a Nazi in idelogy, being more loyal to Germany as a country than to Hitler or the Nazi party. The problem for them was that since the Nazi's were in total control of Germany being loyal to ones country also meant being loyal to the the party. It should also be remembered that Hitler did take a country that had been badly mis-treated after 1918 and was falling apart, and turned it into a country that could be considered a world superpower at the time. He managed to bring order to a country that was slipping into chaos and self respect to a Germany that had none. I'm not defending any thing he did later on, just trying to explain why so many Germans would have trusted him and the Nazi's.

 

It was, and still is, next to impossible to work out quite how many Germans truely believed Hitler or the Nazi's. Many would, understandably, be wary of admitting to being a Nazi after the war. Others would have never seen beyond the propoganda to the real face of what the Nazi's stood for until after the war, and most would in any case never brought the subject up post 1945.

 

It is likewise difficult to say if Hitler was, given the explinations above, truely evil. Were his actions against (amongst others) the Jews brought about because he truely believed they were in the best interests for the country, or because he simply needed someone to blaime all Germanys problems on? They only person who would really know has been dead since 1945, and maybe even he didn't know the answer-assuming he ever asked himself that question. It all comes back to this gray area-and yes many people would disagree here-but was Hitler (and the rest of the Nazi party) evil scum willing to do anything to stay in power? Or were they just trying to do the right thing by their country, and justifyied the means by the desired ends?

 

And for the record I am not defending anything the Nazi's did, or saying that you could justify their actions. I'm just asking if, in the classic sense, you could consider them as truely evil.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Darth Mortis

[Sturm]

You practically over emphasised my previous post, I was being overly vague myself as there wasnt much point in going into much detail, the only point I was proving that Rommel was a Nazi, and that I personally dont see what the Nazi's did as being evil to an extent.