What's so bad about the dark side anyway?

[Darth Mortis]

Evil could be considered theft (Stealing anything, which would include killing which is a type of theft) for no reason other than you can. Meaning that your survival or someone elses does not require such a course of action.

 

Good could be considered providing someone with something (An item, idea or just help) without any requirement to do so for any reason.

 

Of course there are shades of grey between these two extremes. Killing someone is widely considered an evil act, unless its to save a life or during wars when it can be praised. Providing help to someone can sometimes be for nothing more than the satisfaction at having provided such help. What defines good and evil is context, and a lot of that context comes from what you consider good and evil to start with.

 

Jedi, for example, would consider killing someone when you are angry as an evil (or maybe that should be wrong) act. Even if you didn't kill them because you were angry but because you had no choice. Sith on the other hand would consider sparing someones life as bad (or maybe that should be good) act, even if you didn't spare their life because you didn't want them dead but because you believe they might be helpful at some point down the line.

 

Such a definition would mean that very few Jedi or Sith could be considered truely good or evil-Anakin didn't become Darth Vader because he wanted to destroy the Jedi, but because he wanted to save his wife. It could be argued that Obi-Wan helped Luke at least in part because in doing so he was helping himself undo some of his mistakes with Anakin.

[Barzarel]

Well technically there arent any thing such as theft, well according to jedi

[ghosta]

their is no good and their is no evil. These are just abstract terms that are meant to control the way people act. Interestingly the abstract of Good and evil are each other just like Bliss and Depression. A most noteworthy example is "The Scream."

 

The most obvious downside to DS is that you git buck ugly. Try getting a date with yellow eyes, bleach white skin, and an asthmatic cough, It ain't gonna happen.

[SilentScope001]

Try getting a date with yellow eyes, bleach white skin, and an asthmatic cough, It ain't gonna happen.

 

Exile: "Hey, go on a date with me."

 

Mira: "No way, you're ugly."

 

Exile: [Force Contorl]"Go on a date with me."

 

Mira: "Sure. Want to come over to my bunk afterwards?"

Edited March 31, 2007 by SilentScope001

[Darth Mortis]

The most obvious downside to DS is that you git buck ugly. Try getting a date with yellow eyes, bleach white skin, and an asthmatic cough, It ain't gonna happen.

 

Money and power can work wonders....as can the knowledge the person asking you out is capable of killing you, everyone you know and destroying your planet for good measure.

[D. Kain]

You know I think both jedi and sith are STUPID!

 

I just don't understand them. Can't you just love your friends and hate your enemys without becoming psihotic?

 

Why the heck do you have to kill your alies or show mersy to your enemys?

 

Strange people..

Edited April 8, 2007 by D. Kain

[Rosbjerg]

their is no good and their is no evil. These are just abstract terms that are meant to control the way people act. Interestingly the abstract of Good and evil are each other just like Bliss and Depression. A most noteworthy example is "The Scream."

 

So if I torture you for no apperant reason I'm just trying to enforce an archaic view of catagorization on you, simply for the reason of making you act a certain way?

 

--

 

Let's for arguments sake just assume that GL was trying to make a statement about the inherint qualities in humans. Saying that emotions like greed, anger, fear and hatred were all associated with corruption of the mind and soul - while on the opposite side benevolance, compassion, forgivness and respect were signs of enlightment and purity of mind and soul.

 

But the question posed in this thread is "What's so bad about the dark side anyway" - well it's a symbol of human weakness and that classical statement "the road to Hell is paved with good intensions".

 

You're essentially asking what's so bad with fear, anger, hate and greed. One of the most simple answers would be, that such emotions causes us to be clouded by our own illusions. On the other hand though - compassion, benevolance and forgivness without true purpose is just as dangerous - but that's why the road to Hell is indeed paved with good intensions.

 

Edit: Sorry about the double posting - my browser went insane for a moment.

Edited April 8, 2007 by Rosbjerg

[Barzarel]

their is no good and their is no evil. These are just abstract terms that are meant to control the way people act. Interestingly the abstract of Good and evil are each other just like Bliss and Depression. A most noteworthy example is "The Scream."

 

So if I torture you for no apperant reason I'm just trying to enforce an archaic view of catagorization on you, simply for the reason of making you act a certain way?

 

--

 

Let's for arguments sake just assume that GL was trying to make a statement about the inherint qualities in humans. Saying that emotions like greed, anger, fear and hatred were all associated with corruption of the mind and soul - while on the opposite side benevolance, compassion, forgivness and respect were signs of enlightment and purity of mind and soul.

 

But the question posed in this thread is "What's so bad about the dark side anyway" - well it's a symbol of human weakness and that classical statement "the road to Hell is paved with good intensions".

 

You're essentially asking what's so bad with fear, anger, hate and greed. One of the most simple answers would be, that such emotions causes us to be clouded by our own illusions. On the other hand though - compassion, benevolance and forgivness without true purpose is just as dangerous - but that's why the road to Hell is indeed paved with good intensions.

 

Edit: Sorry about the double posting - my browser went insane for a moment.

 

Its still a view of mind nature or the universe gave ous both to make ous able to survive as a race, when you see a animal they both able to do good and evil and they often do what is viewed as good and evil, but we rarely call them evil do we?

 

Most think thier house cat is a awesome and sweet nature, but who hasent seen their cat ever torture and play with mouse or birds, but i dont know many people who call their cat evil, just because we more intelligent as a race would should be suspected to do everything that is good or be naturally viewed as insane or evil?

 

Not helping a person can be as good or bad as the opposite, while you may think you at time doing charity you may just push a person in the complete opposite direction, pain, hurt and hardship is part of ous and part it shaping ous and making ous able to survive.

 

Think looking at the larger picture i think as many died from being beneviolent as not, because the universe consist of both you cant always put ourself in one box if you do youll lose your ability to survive.

 

If some big clasmem happened in the world that erupted everything we know how many do you think would die as it happen and how many after? i bet there would die alot first when it happen and proably 1/3 later simply because they do not know how to survive on their own because they dependent on structures and the society around them.

 

What we view as evil is mostly just natures own way of balancing things, if people never died in this world the world would be over crowded and people would die from starvation or being forced to live in certain exposed area of danger from naturals castrophes.

 

I bet ya if all diseases and all violence in this world was gone tomorrow youd see the world over crowded in 10years from now simply because without hardship in the world we would produce as rabit because there would be nothing to give ous second thoughts.

 

Things that *evil* are meant to stabilize as a opposite to *good* to make things able to coexist, and prevent races from going extinct.

Edited June 17, 2007 by Barzarel

[Dark Wastl]

I wouldn't agree with your cat example

There is a difference between a being going after prey and a being going after one of it's own kind. The latter does happen with quite a few animals as well, but it's because of an entirely different reason. No animal was build to eat its own kind as main food.

 

 

I don't agree with evil being needed for balance, either.

Nature doesn't let beings destroy themself for balance reasons. If there are too many humans, famine or catastrophes would kill them, not humans themselves. There is no reason to suspect that humans killing each other has any real reason. Humans have been killing each other way before they grew in such a large number.

 

The only trouble for nature is, that mankind has developed in such a way that it does things no other being does. No animal tries to change the nature, nor do they transport things to areas with a low supply. Animals either leave or die if there is a shortage in something they need, humans do pretty much the opposite.

[Rosbjerg]

[1]Its still a view of mind nature or the universe gave ous both to make ous able to survive as a race, when you see a animal they both able to do good and evil and they often do what is viewed as good and evil, but we rarely call them evil do we?

 

Most think thier house cat is a awesome and sweet nature, but who hasent seen their cat ever torture and play with mouse or birds, but i dont know many people who call their cat evil, just because we more intelligent as a race would should be suspected to do everything that is good or be naturally viewed as insane or evil?

 

[2]Not helping a person can be as good or bad as the opposite, while you may think you at time doing charity you may just push a person in the complete opposite direction, pain, hurt and hardship is part of ous and part it shaping ous and making ous able to survive.

 

[3]Think looking at the larger picture i think as many died from being beneviolent as not, because the universe consist of both you cant always put ourself in one box if you do youll lose your ability to survive.

 

[4]If some big clasmem happened in the world that erupted everything we know how many do you think would die as it happen and how many after? i bet there would die alot first when it happen and proably 1/3 later simply because they do not know how to survive on their own because they dependent on structures and the society around them.

 

What we view as evil is mostly just natures own way of balancing things, if people never died in this world the world would be over crowded and people would die from starvation or being forced to live in certain exposed area of danger from naturals castrophes.

 

[5]I bet ya if all diseases and all violence in this world was gone tomorrow youd see the world over crowded in 10years from now simply because without hardship in the world we would produce as rabit because there would be nothing to give ous second thoughts.

 

Things that *evil* are meant to stabilize as a opposite to *good* to make things able to coexist, and prevent races from going extinct.

 

[1] Ethics and Morale are not a design of nature - in nature there is simply survival - no regret or conscience. Animals can not be considered evil because they don't "enjoy" inflicting pain and they can't grasp the true consequences of their actions. Lions won't kill you for fun or out of belief, they will only kill you if they see you as a threat or food. The same goes for your cat, it's not playing with the mouse because it enjoys it (in our understanding of enjoyment) - it's simply following it's nature; to hunt living prey.

 

[2] You've been listening to Kreia? I wouldn't call you evil if you decide not to give a dollar to a beggar. Neither would I call you good if you do. If we view good and evil as the consequence of our actions, then none of us are able to commit evil or good acts deliberatly. We may decide to help someone, but in the process end up hurting them - like giving money to a drugaddict, which he then uses to buy some bad drugs that end up killing him. Well the question here is; who is responsible? true, you did allow him to buy it, by supplying the money - but he made the choice of buying it - and the dealer was the one who sold him the bad drugs. And then it becomes really abstract, because let's say that everyones decision was influenced by various factors such as their upbringing, their friends, their immediate surroundings etc - then suddenly a rather large group of people are indirectly responsible for actions that led to this single death. Is everyone evil because they allowed it to happen or supplied the circumstances required?

 

[3] No you can't put yourself in just one box - we all commit good or evil acts (only taking about the immediate conscient acts here - where you know that you are hurting/helping someone). But your argument here is actually that we are slaves to a much larger system of control - nature balancing itself out - which puts you in a box as well - and a much more confining box at that. You also argue that this system allows us to live - and if we go against nature we will die (if nature should "decide" to test us) this makes no sense to me - I don't believe you have a better chance of surviving, say a Tsunami, if you are "evil" and I would like to see a general argument proving that. Of course you would have to clarify what being evil actually is first.

 

[4] What does this have to do with anything? Take one wolf out of it's group and it won't last long either - Humans are a social animal - we need each other to survive. It has nothing to do with being good or evil - it's just our design, we were made physically weak (individually). And are you arguing now that natural disasters are evil?

 

[5]Again you are arguing that we are slaves to nature - I would argue that humans have a vested interest in surviving as a whole, even if that means the individual must suffer/be restricted a little - like say, only 1 child per couple.

 

The real deal here is free will in many cases this is what seperates us from animals - we are given responsiblity for our actions, because we had the choice. Animals have choices as well, but they are much more influenced by their instincts. We can only consider someone evil who made the choice willingly to do evil acts. Where I would say evil is doing something that purposefully hurts others, when other options were available that wouldn't cause as much pain. But then another question arises; if something is bad for the individual, but good for the species as a whole - can it be considered evil? or alternatively - does the end justify the means? Like willingly killing one man to save five others.

 

Let's take a controversial example - a charasmatic leader rises in a country which has been in decline for years - eventually he will start a war in an effort to stabilize the entire continent - he is not like say Hitler - he wants peace - but he is willing to kill in order to achieve what he believes is a greater good. If he succedes in his war, the entire continent will fall under one banner and there will be peace for untold years. If he fails many smaller wars will be fought over the years and in whole a few more will die than if he succeded. In both examples a democracy (or democracies) would be formed and individual freedom would be assured, the only difference is the amount of people that dies.

 

The question is, can we accept one big evil or would we rather suffer many smaller evils? Can we justify his actions because they ultimately brought peace?

[Eclipse]

It all really has to do with your point of view and how you look at the world. If you think its acceptable to kill one person to save another, then its your choice. I think every individual person really defines their own dark side. The dark side as what the average population sees is just what is acceptable and what is not. That idea will change over time.

[Darth Mortis]

From the point of view of survival creatures can either be solitary, which allows them to find food in a smaller area, since they do not have to compete with each other that much. Or they can be part of a group, which provides safety in numbers but also requires more resorces as you need enough for the group as a whole. In terms of of survival natural disasters are either irrelivent to species as a whole, or will wipe out species regardless of what survival path they took-Solitary animals are spead out so few will really be killed, although they might have trouble finding mates in the short term. More social animals stand a better chance of some of them surviving and moving on-at at least that viable populations will survive elsewhere and be able to continue breeding.

 

Since Humans are, as has been noted, physically weaker than most animals of comparible size (We lack natural weapons such as claws and don't even have any form of natural armour) we took the group option. But from the view point of nature both are viable survival options for a species-Big Cats are for the most part solitary hunters, but they are just as sucessful in terms of survival as a rabbits, which are group animals.

 

Humans are social animals, our strength is our ability to work and function in groups to ensure the survival of the whole, rather than the survival of one individual. In order for any group to function the individuals within that group have to be pressured to work together as efficently as possible-in other words they need rules-which may or may not be written down, and may not have any formal punishment-or laws, which are written down and have a stated punishment.

 

Good and evil, only exist in a social context, and are not something included in nature as such, they are rules at how individuals within a group-no matter how large-should or should not act. Killing within your own group is nearly always considered wrong, or evil, since it weakens the group as a whole by deminishing the number of individuals who can contribute to the groups ability to survive. Other social animals follow similar rules, the difference being that humans can consider another group a threat not because they happen to be eating the food we want, but because they have ideas that are different to ours. The Crusades were not faught because the people in the middle east were a physical threat to the westen kingdoms, but ultimatly because they had differning ideas to the west which was seen as a threat.

 

For example; Killing outside your group can be seen as a good thing, if that other group is considered as a threat to yours. Which is why shooting twenty people outside your front door is considered an evil act, while doing the samething to members of a group that are considered a threat (ie-your at war with them) is considered a good thing.

 

(The only way to get humans to stop viewing differing groups as threats-and therefore fighting each other-would be for us to realise that humans are a group as a species, and not just because of what we wear, what our religon happens to be, what our skin colour is or where we we born.....)

 

Socially 'Good' can be considered as actions that strengthen the group overall. While 'Evil' can be considered actions that benefit an individual but not the group. They are both, therefore artifical constructs of a group animal (humans) to help them survive. Even if you loose the laws of a larger group humans will tend to form smaller groups, which will have their own laws and rules and therefore have a better chance of survival than the individuals within that group would have alone. Put another way there will always be 'Good' and 'Evil' as long as humans are around to create societies/groups, but what they consider to be good actions is not always going to be the same-The Nazi's considered the concentration camps to be a 'Good' thing in regards to their group/society for example.

 

Does this sound familiar? It should because this seems to be the different between the Jedi and Sith in Starwars. Jedi are the 'Good' ones in Starwars, and the Jedi code is about placing the good of the many above oneself. Sith are the 'Evil' ones who always place themselves over the group. I have no idea if George Lucas thought of this when he was writing the inital scrips for Starwars, or even if such a thought has occured to him or any of the other writers who've ever written Starwars material. But it conforms to human social structure, and is the basis for how all human societies stay stable.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Darth Mortis

[Xard]

Fuyutsuki: There's no allowance for the existence of living things in this

world of death called Antarctica.

 

Fuyutsuki: Maybe we should just call it "Hell".

 

Gendou: Nevertheless, we human beings are standing here, existing as

living things.

 

Fuyutsuki: Because we're protected by the power of science.

 

Gendou: Science is humanity's power.

 

Fuyutsuki: It's that arrogance that caused the tragedy 15 years ago, the

Second Impact. This scene is the result. It's too harsh a

punishment for us, though, considering the crime. This is just

like the Dead Sea!

 

Gendou: And yet this is a purified world, a world lacking the impurity

of the original sin.

 

Fuyutsuki: I hope for a world where people can live, no matter how steeped

in sin.

 

That's always what comes in mind when talking about strenght of humanity and comparing it to strenght of e.g. animals

Edited June 18, 2007 by Xard

[metadigital]

It all really has to do with your point of view and how you look at the world. If you think its acceptable to kill one person to save another, then its your choice. I think every individual person really defines their own dark side. The dark side as what the average population sees is just what is acceptable and what is not. That idea will change over time.

You'd be a Moral relativist, then.

 

I.e. you don't hold that there are any absolute ethical truths. Like eating babies is wrong under all circumstances, for example.

[Xard]

After being moral relativist as long as I can remember, I have suddenly realized that I have some trails of Moral absolutism in my worldview, although mainly I'm still relativist

[Musopticon?]

What's wrong with eating babies?! They don't mind, sheesh.

[Revan1127]

I agree with korr

 

The DS is evil while the light side is good

 

DS people put themselves first and harm others in their way

 

While the jedi put the common good of others first

 

although i kinda of want to a civil war in the star wars universe where both sides are somewhat right and there are good guys on both sides no side ruled by sith lord (LOF books kinda of did this but they are heading in the direction os sithy on one side)

[Eclipse]

It all really has to do with your point of view and how you look at the world. If you think its acceptable to kill one person to save another, then its your choice. I think every individual person really defines their own dark side. The dark side as what the average population sees is just what is acceptable and what is not. That idea will change over time.

You'd be a Moral relativist, then.

 

I.e. you don't hold that there are any absolute ethical truths. Like eating babies is wrong under all circumstances, for example.

 

 

Thats not what I meant when I said the DS is your own choice and views. I'm not saying I support it, I'm just trying to say that the "DS" is not absolute in the fact that the "boundaries" of the dark side can be changed and peoples view of the DS will change with their circumstances. Just look at our world today. 300 years ago, white europeans saw nothing wrong with having slaves or treating them like dirt, not like actual people. Today, the very idea of slavery is disgusting and revolting to everybody, even those whose ancestors probably had slaves. The view of society just changes over time.

[Xard]

Morals and ethics of real world has nothing to do with those of fairytale Star Wars.

 

There's Good (LS) and there's Evil (DS).

 

It really is simple as that.

[Omelette]

I thought it was cute.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Omelette

[Xard]

 

[Omelette]

That's enough of a reason for me to join the Dark Side. Screw the Light Side. They have morales and boringness. I want sugary evil fun.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Omelette

[metadigital]

It all really has to do with your point of view and how you look at the world. If you think its acceptable to kill one person to save another, then its your choice. I think every individual person really defines their own dark side. The dark side as what the average population sees is just what is acceptable and what is not. That idea will change over time.

You'd be a Moral relativist, then.

 

I.e. you don't hold that there are any absolute ethical truths. Like eating babies is wrong under all circumstances, for example.

 

 

Thats not what I meant when I said the DS is your own choice and views. I'm not saying I support it, I'm just trying to say that the "DS" is not absolute in the fact that the "boundaries" of the dark side can be changed and peoples view of the DS will change with their circumstances. Just look at our world today. 300 years ago, white europeans saw nothing wrong with having slaves or treating them like dirt, not like actual people. Today, the very idea of slavery is disgusting and revolting to everybody, even those whose ancestors probably had slaves. The view of society just changes over time.

There have always been people who didn't buy into the populist view that slavery was justified because the slaves were less than human, despite being human. Slavery was always justified primarily on economic grounds (it makes the slavers and business owners very, very wealthy ... which tends to help assuage any doubts of the ethically weaker members of society) ... one of the reasons that slavery became untenable in the eighteenth century was because the public found out about the details of the trade ... and the public weren't the direct beneficiary of the pecuniary windfall.

 

And irrespective of the populist position, the fact is that it has always been wrong.

[Barzarel]

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?

Edited July 15, 2007 by Barzarel

[Musopticon?]

What's "evil"? Is it "greed" or "lust"? Both of those have changed countries, given opportunists the will to carry on revolutions, created art that enriches the mind and soul. Maybe evil is sociiopathy? But it's a disorder, you can't control it: a force of nature is not evil, only amoral. Is evil tyranny? Sometimes it's done to chastise a majority going against a minority, to clear former warzones of hot elements, just under a different nomer. Is the rigid bureocracy that doesn't hurry to save a transplant patient evil, if slavishly keeping to that bureocracy's dictum keeps hundreds of employees and their families fed and clothed?

 

Funny thing, this moral grey area.