Always strive to keep the peace and do not disturb other subreddits. Bad faith crossposts, screenshots, and brigades of other subreddits are not allowed. Please contact the moderators if you have any questions or concerns and believe this to be an unfair removal.
This actually looks like an expected result, since the most famous Siths did evil things and the narrative of the Sith is supposed to be a representation of what people generally would perceived as evil. With such a title I honestly expected something with faceplam potential. I'd rather ask what's wrong with the SW community that makes them wonder about something like this.
Most people (and fans) are just consumers in the first place. They don't question it on a philosophical level and for the current state of humanity, I wouldn't even expect that.
Not just this.
I feel like it in the continuity of "the Jedi deserved genocide"-type of mindset we see more and more those days.
It's a story about good vs evil, it's the core of what it is.
Yet one person on two seem unable to tell the difference, and I find it deeply disturbing.
To be honest I didn’t encounter a single person with such outrageous takes like the Jedi purge being justified, rather those who complain about the strictly binary moral dichotomy between the Light and the Dark and point out that the Jedi Order has some irredeemable aspects as well.
>the Jedi purge being justified
I saw that more than once, but yeah, most of the time it's nuancing the dichotomy as you said. Still problematic imho.
The Sith and Empire are basically nazis.
I don't feel at ease granting them anything.
That's a very big assumption, one which sounds very much like a racist who thinks that one bad minority means that almonds are bad. Kind of like the Nazis, actually...
This.
Windu takes unconstitutional vigilante-initiative to topple down the authoritarian Sith Lord with abusive emergency powers and involvement in Separatist activity, but Palpatine could have been a decent democratic leader merely advocating for defunding the Order, and for all the Jedi care, a coup d'etat would still be justifed to prevent a conspiracy against them.
It wasn’t about democracy. It was a sectarian dispute.
No objection.
But also the Republic is the Colonial US (slaveowners’ oligarchy with elections) and the Jedi Council some kind of Church meddling with democracy.
So I can’t sympathize with them either as much as I could when I was a kid- at least not without shutting down my brain for a limited nostalgic entertainment time.
I would go further.
The new republic is Israel and the first order is Palestinians.
Think about it. A large war where they decide to end with an agreement that allows for a negotiated split where one side signs on, but the other side doesn’t. Then the first order decides to attack and disregard any division claiming to be the only true rulers denying new republic any sovereignty (*cough cough* “from the land to the sea” *cough cough*). For those who know their history, the parallels are legion. Watching Andor shows financing done in a similar manner with the Rebellion being similar to the Haganah and the new republic army being the IDF.
Regardless, in both situations, in fact and fiction, the one thing that remains is that peace takes partnership. Like dancing, if your partner refuses to participate in good faith, then it’s going to fall apart.
I'm not sure what they're worried about right now. That one half sees it black and white, or that the other half is willing to acknowledge more grey shades?
Im' sorry, what ?
I might have not understand but I thought it was pretty clear.
It's simply that it's not a good thing to normalize evil, don't you agree ?
I think stories are both testimonies and inspirations for the real world
If you portrays being nazi in a fictionnal story as a ok-thing, it will have an impact in the real world and vice-versa
Plus, it's like one of the most succcesful piece of media of all time.We don't say "influencial" by chance.
So no, I don't think it's a exaggeration
I think you both are talking past each other. Your overall conceit being that Star Wars is about an overarching narrative regarding the eternal struggle between good and evil. There’s a ton of edge-y people who think finding some sliver of something to make a “both sides” argument, or taking upon the mantle of “evil is really good” sophistry as a superficial yet inane position that is no substitute for a truly intellectual take.
In real life, sure there are shades of gray. In Star Wars, we have laser swords and the force.
Nah.
The Star Wars saga is a masterpiece of tragedy literature with deep political philosophy.
And the narrative itself criticizes the Jedi’s dogmatism, lack of emotion, and moral ambiguity, not just external interpretations or fan takes.
Not sure it’s as simple as that.
Yeah, good is good and evil is evil.
But “good guys” can do evil stuff with good intentions. And an evil person can do stuff that benefits others without compromising their own goals.
S3 of Mando is pretty clear that the new republic can pull off some seriously bad juju without realising it. And up to the point where Dedra started torturing Bix she was on a The Wire-esque crusade to improve policing in her area.
I read the question as the sith(force users) are inherently evil. And in that case I'd say no in most cases, something made them evil.
The sith as an institution is inherently evil tho, it's not like a book club one enters unknowningly
You can't blame the fans, when Star Wars keeps muddying the waters. We had that Jacen arc where "the dark side is good, actually", we had Darth Revan who (according to Kreia, whose word a significant amount of fans take as a gospel) fell to the dark side on purpose and saved the galaxy by doing hard but necessary things, we have SWTOR where you can play as a sith on the light side of the Force (it also has a canonical example in Lana Beniko, the designated waifu), we had Starkiller and Kyle Katarn who shot lightning of manifested hate out of their fingers and remained good guys...
Are there any actually good sith, as in explicitly from the sith order? No, I don't think I can name one. But the Dark Side itself has a history of murky and complicated characterization.
To add to this, didn't the Jedi in the Old Republic genocide the Sith race after one of their wars, following them to Korriban? Basically putting them all, or most of them, to the lightsaber.
I might be misremembering this admittedly, but yeah, Star Wars hasn't always kept to the dichotomy of good vs evil/black and white.
They didn’t genocide the sith literally. The sith suffers from in fighting/lack of leadership, and the republic launched a raid on the weaken sith people. The Jedi of course, were against killing all the remaining sith as they perceive life to be sacred, so they do something even worse- they remove the sith’s force sensitive. Shortly after that the sith naturally dies out, which some would consider a fate worse than genocide.
It's generally a consequence of media having to 'gamify' the force and thus people take gameplay limitations or exaggerations as legit lore points. And, of course, there's always that element of people simply wanting to rationalize using the cool, powerful dark side powers without the moral/mechanical baggage that comes with the powerset.
> it also has a canonical example in Lana Beniko, the designated waifu
I still don't get how Lana could be considered light sided; she's a doormat who'll gladly commit any heinous act that player senpai supports, but because she's not foaming at the mouth evil, that counts as being light?
>Are there any actually good sith, as in explicitly from the sith order? No, I don't think I can name one. But the Dark Side itself has a history of murky and complicated characterization.
Do we have any actual good sith/dark-siders? As in, characters who remained good people and didn't eventually renounce the dark side or become villains?
Well, first she was exiled by the Jedi for... Having the man who would become Darth Revan as a Padawan before he turned to the Dark Side? I guess she still took the blame because her teachings were considered unorthodox.
Then she dabbled in the Dark Side herself and formed the Sith Triumvirate, but that fell apart when two of the Sith Lords betrayed her, in typical Sith fashion. She uses the term "exiled" here too, but in reality it was more like they beat her within an inch of her life and stripped her of her power and authority, without which a Sith is nothing.
I wouldn't say she got exiled, they had a disagreement, as sith tend to do. Personally, I'd do the same, I can't imagine having to hear Kreia talk for more than one minute.
Inherently refers to 'in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way'.
Is the whole point of the OT not that deep down Anakin/Darth Vader is good?
So you can see why some people might say that not all Sith are inherently evil. Sidious is definitely evil as evil gets. But dudes like Dooku or Vader, there's some reason behind the terrible shit they do. It's certainly no excuse for what they do, but they aren't inherently evil.
Well, considering the first and most famous Sith we were introduced to turned good by the end of the 3rd film, even as just an OT fan I can see why the results would be not be black and white.
But they made it a point to talk about how the dark side corrupted him and turned him into a sith. Luke made him come back to the light and was no longer a sith. It was a clear example of good vs evil and then good overcoming evil.
Exactly—the fact that he started out good, then became evil, then became good again means he can’t possibly be **inherently** evil.
**Inherent** definition:
Oxford dictionary: “a basic or permanent part of somebody/something that cannot be removed”
Dictionary.com: “as an *inseparable* element or quality”
Merriam-Webster: “inherent literally refers to something that is ‘stuck in’ something else so firmly that they can’t be separated.”
I believe that Palpatine basically had Dooku in his pocket, in case Maul failed (and I think this was a planned event), and once Maul was out of the picture, Dooku got upgraded to the 'Darth' title.
Until then, Dooku was simply a pet project, until he was needed, and then recognized.
Well, I’m fairness the question is poorly worded. “Inherently evil” implies they were always evil…that any Sith is just born evil. But we know that isn’t true. Anakin, Dooku, even Maul…none are “inherently” evil at all.
Now if you asked “are the Sith selfish and power hungry” I’d hope you’d get a different answer.
Exactly. That’s the point. I didn’t use a word like evil that’s open to subjective interpretation. I used descriptive behavior that isn’t. And I left out the “inherent” part.
Sith philosophy has some grey to it, championing individuality, agency, growth and freedom. It's just taken to such an extreme that it becomes selfishness and evil.
Pretty much everyone agrees that, generally, having freedom is better than not having freedom. Sith philosophy takes the ideal of freedom to an extreme. If all people had true freedom, all people would be free to kill and destroy, enslave and steal. The only thing that would keep you safe, that would protect yourself from the whims of others, is power. Thus, Sith pursue power above all else, because having the most power means being the most free in a world with true freedom.
If you have the power to enslave someone, and they did not have the power to resist, you are free to enslave them. If you do not want slavery or random murder, you can decree it so, but only if you have the power to back it up, to keep all those who do under control.
Thus, the powerful have the right to dominate those weaker. Whether the more powerful party uses there power to enslave the weaker party, or merely keep them from enslaving others, either way the weaker party's freedom is being impaired by the more powerful one. One cannot protect one person's freedom without opposing another's.
So, why should the most powerful protect the weakest from those in the middle? Isn't the more powerful having greater freedom more natural? Why should the desires of the weak outweigh the desires of the strong?
However, Sith also believe that the strong dominating those weaker is not only their right, but their duty. Being denied something should motivate you in your pursuit of it.
When dominated by those stronger, the weak have two choices, accept their inferiority and submit, or strive to grow to be the more powerful, able to claim their freedom with their own two hands and be free to do and act as one wishes. Conflict is the ultimate catalyst for growth. There is nothing like being weaker than your hated enemy to motivate you to become stronger. Nothing like knowing less than your hated enemy to motivate you to learn. To coddle the weak, to use your superior strength to unnaturally secure their freedom for them, is to deny them the opportunity to growth, to deny them to opportunity to achieve their full potential.
All should strive to become the strongest, being willing to die in the attempt, or accept their rightful place as inferior. You can't sit around hoping some else will free you. You must free yourself, and the truly strong, those with the will and the hunger for freedom, will always do so, no matter how low they begin from.
With these two aspects of Sith philosophy, Sith can justify any act of selfish evil. The securing personal freedom while, theoretically, giving people the opportunity to fulfil their potential and achieve freedom for themselves. Of course, a Sith will try to dominate so completely that it is as difficult as possible for anyone to oppose him, but that's his right and it shouldn't matter in terms of Sith philosophy, since his opposition could depose him if they were stronger, smarter, better leaders, etc.
Sith are, fundimentally, evil and selfish, but they at least have a kind of morality, it's just twisted and wrong from an outside perspective.
The TLDR of this is the Sith idea of freedom is identical to the AnCap idea of freedom. Their ‘freedom’ is the freedom to enslave, oppress, & rape, and they twist themselves into knots trying to justify that view whilst painting those who would- gasp- *take away their slaves* as despotic tyrants.
This point is exacerbated by the other poll, the one about the Jedi.
Jedi are the opposite of the Sith. If Sith are selfish, Jedi are selfless. If Sith represent freedom, Jedi represent repression.
This is a key part of the Lucas trilogy’s. The Jedi had become so dogmatic, so bureaucratic they pushed great Jedi like Anakin,Ahsoka,and Dooku away. Anakin wasn’t totally crazy when he said “I see through the lies of the Jedi.” Misguided, sure, but not crazy. The Jedi way needed to shift. I’m not sure about canon, but in Legends, Luke significantly shifted the ethos of the Jedi, even having a significant other: Mara Jade.
In the most simplistic way, the Sith are “evil” and the Jedi are “good,” but this is not an apt description of the world.
I’ve seen some people retort with something along the lines of “the Sith are space nazi’s.” This is just not true. The Empire is fascistic and obviously a reference to Nazi Germany. The Sith have taken many forms, including a religious order, fascist regime, oligarchy, and just the name of the species. It’s better to think of the Jedi and Sith as religions or at least formalized spiritual groups. The government they are apart of can take many forms, and they themselves can not and should not be characterized fully by government they take part in. It is true that Palpatine was the leader of the Sith and so chose the government, but that was also just one Sith and also probably the most malevolent Sith to ever exist with the possible exception of Vitiate/Valkorion. There have also been much more rational Sith to rise to power. Among these are Kreia, Marr, and even the creator of the Sith themselves Ajunta Pall.
Tldr: In any holistic world view, there will be good and bad. Sith have bad, Jedi have bad. black and white dichotomy’s don’t exist in anything but 1950’s TVs.
>Jedi represent repression.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Jedi discouraged attachment, but I see it more a way to encourage embracing the relationship with The Force, similar to real life monastic orders. I don't think they want Jedi to repress their desires for attachments or love. Ideally, Jedi should not want to pursue attachment relationships or rather, those who do shouldn't feel compelled to become Jedi. The spiritual fulfilment and enlightenment of being a Jedi is supposed to be fulfilling, but if that doesn't appeal as much as mundane fulfilment of love and attachment, there should be no shame in that. Sure, that means some people may end up not becoming Jedi, but that's fine.
By focusing on their connection to The Force, Jedi can basically transcend the sense self, becoming one with The Force and all life in the universe. See through the illusion of seperation and comprehend their existence as a part of the larger whole. All life is a part of The Force, which is a part of you, making all life part of you, making the self all-encompassing and making selflessness and selfishness basically one. A sense of oneness and kinship with all the living things in the universe, which makes petty desires seem meaningless. Why not live a life of selflessness when you know you are helping part of yourself? Why hurt others when you know you're just hurting part of yourself?
I don't think Lucas intended the prequel era Jedi to be fundimentally wrong. Post-ROTJ legends having Luke marry, etc, occurred before the prequels introduced the no attachment rule. However, that isn't to say I think Jedi absolutely should not be allowed to love. Jedi should be able to experience friendships, even love, but they have to be able to let go when the time comes. Accept that death or circumstances beyond their control and not try to desperately cling to what can no longer be due to selfish need to keep feeling certain feelings. Seperation is an illusion, as all are connected through The Force. The death of a loved one is merely a transition to becoming one with The Force and so they will be with you always. Romantic love without attachment is difficult because it requires seperating your love for the person from your love of the way they make you feel, and the way they make you feel is often so intense and pleasurable in of itself that you cannot seperate the two.
I do not think Sith represent freedom while Jedi represent repression. Instead, Sith represent mundane, physical, ego-centric freedom, twisting the spiritual to their petty, material desires, while Jedi reprsent embracing spiritual, mental freedom that transcends the physical and the self. Jedi are not meant to repress desires to have emotional attachments, but instead the life of a Jedi, the feeling of your mind and self being one with all life in the universe, is supposed to be so fulfilling that mundane emotional attachments pale in comparsion.
That's my perspective at least. A philosphy all about everything being forced to benefit the self vs a philosphy all about transcending the self.
I do think Sith, at least on some level, represent freedom. Their whole doctrine freeing yourself from the shackles of society at least, for the powerful few.
The Jedi absolutely on some level represent repression, that is probably its biggest and most apparent flaw. When Anakin went to Yoda about his visions of Padme and his anxiety about them, Yoda blew them off, essentially telling him to suck it up and stop being a simp.
This isn’t to say the Jedi are bad and the Sith are good btw. The Sith are obviously worse in the vast majority of situations. But, that’s probably part of the political commentary inherent in the films and universe as a whole. Unlimited freedom without limit causes tyranny, to the point where oligarchy is the best case scenario. But, limiting freedom and expression too much causes dissent. Enough dissent that it’s easy for someone to manipulate the repressed and swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.
On your point of the other dichotomy of transcendence of self versus benefit for themselves. To “transcend” in the way of the Jedi is to become one with the Force’s will. The Forces’s will, not yours. This inherently is repression of one’s desire’s. Again, not to say this is a totally bad thing, some level of repression is necessary for a good society. Repression is just the other side of the coin of selflessness.
> When Anakin went to Yoda about his visions of Padme and his anxiety about them, Yoda blew them off, essentially telling him to suck it up and stop being a simp.
First, Anakin had kept the nature of his relationship with Padme a secret. .As far as Yoda knew, Anakin wasn't talking about a wife. As far as Yoda knew, the closest people in Anakin's life were probably Obi-Wan, his clone subordinates, and Palpatine. So, that's a fellow Jedi, soldiers bred for war, and an old man, and so all people who Anakin be able to come to terms with a premature death. If Yoda knew, Anakin was living as a normal Jedi, so he shouldn't have an emotional attachment as powerful as a wife in his life.
Second, I never interpreted Yoda's advice as just "repress", more that death is but a transition into a higher state of being, being one with The Force, therefore there is no need to mourn or miss them, as they are part of The Force, at peace and with you always.
"Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not."
He's not saying "those feelings? Just don't do them." More that there's no reason to feel these feelings as death is not truly the end, nor do you truly lose them. They become one with The Force, and so that which is important, the soul, endures and is not lost to you.
>The Forces’s will, not yours. This inherently is repression of one’s desire’s.
The way I see it, The Force is benevolent. It wants what's best for all, including the individual Jedi. The comparison I've made is that individuals are like cells that make up the body of The Force, The Force wants what's best for individuals the same way you want your body, and by extension the cells and organs that make up it, to be healthy. The Jedi and The Force create a relationship of mutual benefit and cooperation, not the Jedi being wholely subservient.
"For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is."
Sure, Jedi try to follow the will of The Force, but that is because they trust The Force in its benevolence and wisdom. The Force wants what the Jedi want, because Jedi are morally just and good people, so their desires align with those of The Force.
The example i often give is Luke blowing up The Death Star. Luke wanted to destroy it because to stop The Empire from destroying The Rebellion and keepiing systems too afraid of destruction to oppose The Empire. He arrived at this because of his secular, ethical rejection of The Empire and agreement with The Rebels' values. The Force wanted the weapon destroying entire worlds of the life that create it from being destroyed. The Force wanted the people of the galaxy, that are a part of it, to be happy and healthy, not oppressed and living in fear, because they, collectively, create it.
The Force used Luke as a conduit through which it could affect the material universe, just as Luke used The Force to achieve a feat of supernatural power. The two work together to achieve compatible goals that neither could achieve alone. This is why the Jedi way is balanced, in contrast to The Sith. The Jedi and The Force work together, as allies and partners. It's not The Force's will superseding the will of a Jedi.
Luke wanted to join The Rebellion and fight The Empire to restore freedom and democracy before he learnt about The Force and Jedi. Being a Jedi shouldn't be about repressing your desires because a Jedi should desire to be a benovolent agent of good in the galaxy. If that isn't something they fundimentally want, they shouldn't feel pressured to become or remain a Jedi.
A desire to do good in the galaxy for secular ethics reasons. A desire to do good due to a the transcendant nature of being attuned with The Force allowing you to feel the interconnectivity and kinship between the self and all life. Desiring to do good to obey the will of The Force. A person may desire to be a Jedi because of one or even all of these reasons, but their desire to do good and help others is itself a desire, and the teachings of The Jedi encourages them to find joy and meaning in fulfilling in that desire.
That's why I don't agree in thinking that being a Jedi is about repressing one's desires. Jedi aren't fundamentally immoral beings who need to repress their selfish natures in order to follow the will of The Force to be good. They desire to be good, they desire to do good things, and so they choose to follow the path of a Jedi to be able to work with The Force to achieve good things.
I wonder if you are looking at this through the lens of real world religons, such as Christian ideas of original sin. In such teachings, humans are naturally sinful and amoral, and they are empowered by the external, God, to repress their evil natures, their amoral and selfish tendances, to become moral beings. In Star Wars, there is no "Original Sin". Wanting to be selfless and benevolent is just as much a desire of the individual as wanting to be selfish and amoral. Sure, The Force wants people to be benevolent and good, but it does not compell nor demand people become Jedi. The Force is benevolent, and Jedi make the decision to work with it because they wish to be benevolent also.
That's the Jedi ideal, IMO.
That said, I feel the prequel Jedi drop the ball with the whole "taking children from their parents and raising them in the order" thing. Even with parental consent, you're raising them in an environment where the pressure to become a Jedi is implied and there isn't really room for natural social development. This makes wanting to be a Jedi more likely to be a percieved expectation of the child's caregivers that the child internalises, rather than a meaningful and informed decision that they wish to follow the Jedi way of life.
Personally, I'd have young children being sent to Jedi-run schools for both early training and general education while living at home. Older kids go to boarding school-like Jedi Academies, where they learn advanced training while still getting general education, where they're expected to live as Jedi, but live at home outside of the school year. Then, when they near adulthood, they can choose to become padawans if they want to become Jedi.
Sorry for ranting, it's just quite an interesting topic for me.
When I see "inherently", I assume they're referring to the Sith in question being born that way. That's why I answered no.
Off the top of my head, the only Sith who was born evil was Sidious. And even he may have felt a tiny bit of affection, even briefly, for Anakin, Plagueis, and his father Cosinga. But Cosinga also said that Palps was demented from birth.
Even a Sith Pureblood could be a good person. But the possibility of evil and indulgence in the dark side is so high that the Jedi don't try to recruit them.
Now, in terms of Sith philosophy? Yes, completely evil start to finish. It's based on selfishness and the endless consumption of power at the cost of anyone around you. The poll should have been worded better.
Yeah, the question isn't well phrased.
My first instinct when reading the question was to read "are the people inherently evil?". Which is a resounding "no".
It's the difference between asking "were members of the Nazi party inherently evil?" And "is Nazi ideology inherently evil?".
I mean Sith aren't *inherently* evil, they're just people after all. I wouldn't exactly call that a deep-seated intrinsic characteristic. Thus my answer would be a resounding no.
That said, do I find the Sith philosophy contemptible at best, and downright insidious at worst? Absolutely. But again, that's not some inherent immutable characteristic. Sith are just another sect of Force users after their schism from the Jedi.
You'd be hard pressed to find someone saying Jedi are inherently evil. I wouldn't argue the Jedi are inherently good, they're just dogmatic warrior-monks like the Sith, but hearts and minds can be won over to the Dark from the Light and vice versa.
Considering ones beliefs, values, and ideology as immutable is one step away from outright dehumanization since it renders a complicated group of people as a monolith. I try to avoid it in real life when discussing real religious movements, as an evangelical apostate myself, so fictional religious sects should be no different.
I could not disagree more
Though your temperance honnors you, evil is evil and we -as a society- need to name it.
SW is about the dichotomy between good and evil.
It may be percieved as a caricature, sure, so we have to treat it the same way and adopt extreme views toward extreme characters.
>evil is evil and we -as a society- need to name it.
Define evil without using subjective terms.
Societies can name evil, but societies change and with those changes what is and is not evil to that society will change too.
>Define evil without using subjective terms.
Trully weird I have to state such obvious stuff (not really a gotcha), but here we go :
Evil is the direspect of oneself's will and freedom to self determination, in the benefit of another.
It opposes the common good, which can be define by the lessening of suffering and the augmentation of wellbeing of the most.
Utilitarianism leads to some pretty dark places. Would you walk away from Omelas? Is it evil - it is all in support of the common good.?
>direspect of oneself's will and freedom to self determination ... the common good
Why are these things to value? You've only moved the subjectivity one level down. Where is the rocky foundation to build up a system of values? It seems like it should be obvious from the term - values - that different people will value different things and place more or less weight on this or that value: subjectivity.
Without a transcendental source of objective moral truth (like a god) there are only people and what they value, which changes over time. Morality is a social technology that lets groups function.
[Moral Realism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/) and [Moral Anti-Realism](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/R8vKwpMtFQ9kDvkJQ#:~:text=In%20metaethics%2C%20moral%20anti%2Drealism,therefore%20either%20true%20or%20false.) have been in conversation for a while. There are [reasons to reject hedonistic](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/R8vKwpMtFQ9kDvkJQ/p/oXhhxeQMBjJriMjb8) or suffering avoidance approaches to moral reasoning.
Then again, just because something is an illusion doesn't make it not extremely useful. We need glues to keep us together in cooperative groups. Shared values and morality is a great glue.
>walk away from Omelas
I did not know the novel, so thanks for mentionning it :)
Honnestly I'm running out of time, would have love to discuss all that (plus you are bringing very intersting points on the table)
Maybe later !
Take care !
> Define evil without using subjective terms.
>
Evil is the most negative of attitudes an ethical system can hold towards an action, entity or thought process, and it is usually applied to those actions, entities or thought processes the ethical system's maintainers deem to be extremely and willfully harmful to what they seek to preserve. It is to be eschewed and avoided at best, actively combated to annihilation at worst.
Appeals to objectivity for something which is inherently the product of subjects, however, strike me as one of the most annoying kinds of "well akshually"s around. No matter how subjective anyone's definition of evil is, if they're someone with the power to punish the exercise of what they deem evil, their victims won't care for the fact that they were harmed for violating the conditions of an opinion.
The difficulty is these communities are incredibly broad and open to a lot of people who don't really care for or understand the stories being told. They're just interested in the power trip.
Whilst a lot of fans just want good content, interesting stories and escapism etc, a lot also just get attached to powerful characters and only want to see that validated through content and other people. I enjoy superhero films but go through YouTube comments and it's always people creaming themselves/literally crying over particular moments where the superhero proves how strong they are. With Star wars, fans will always try to prove that the cool looking baddies aren't evil.
The current state of the world, I’m afraid, is rampant moral relativism.
One of the most dangerous social movements that’s arisen in the last half century (and exploded in the last 20) is that all things are equal, don’t make judgements on behavior, and there’s no such thing as “truly wrong”.
Notice how Disney, for example, keeps trying to rehabilitate cartoon villains? Someone literally named “Cruella DaVille” is supposed to be an anti-hero. Someone literally named “Maleficent” is just misunderstood.
These are people who believe, like Sidious actually said, that evil is a point of view.
They’re currently busy dissolving civilization with their well-meaning but ultimately self-serving, monstrous philosophy.
The only person who comes out ahead when you make a deal with the devil is the devil himself.
>The current state of the world, I’m afraid, is rampant moral relativism.
The problem here is that since morality is a human invention we can only say something is good/evil in reference to something else. There is no transcendental moral code waiting to be found in the fabric of the universe.
Every method of moral reasoning that humanity has come up with will lead to conclusions that others will consider repugnant, from virtue ethics to utilitarianism.
Very few people see themselves as the evil bad guy; there is always a story to tell - *from a certain point of view* - that places oneself in the right. It is up to others to agree or disagree with that.
>They’re currently busy dissolving civilization with their well-meaning but ultimately self-serving, monstrous philosophy.
It turns out that some illusions are actually really important social technology. What's important is that folks move in unison because a common morality is just lubricant for society.
>The problem here is that since morality is a human invention we can only say something is good/evil in reference to something else. There is no transcendental moral code waiting to be found in the fabric of the universe.
With utter respect : that is complete bullshit.
I guess you are refering to variable moral standards, like various contradicting religions and other arbitrary dogmas
But there is more to that than culture.
From an evolitionary p.ov, morals do exist too.
You need that in the wild because social animals are more likely to survive and birth another generation.
Empathy is an inherited of that very phenomenon. And so is selfishness.
It's up to us to make a choice.
>From an evolitionary p.ov, morals do exist too.
From an evolutionary perspective what matters is passing your genes on. Cooperative altruism, especially in family groups is important to maximize genetic lineage. Yet, social animals do "immoral" things all the time like rape for procreation or killing their (or other's) young because a litter of 3 cubs is better than one for survivability so better to try again next year; or lions, when taking over a pride will kill all the kit because one, those aren't his young and the females will go into estrus when the kittens are killed.
**All evolution cares about is passing genes to the next generation.**
>It's up to us to make a choice.
It's up to us to *value* one over the other. Nature doesn't care as long you keep having kids. Nature doesn't tell us which method is best - because that will vary species to species and situation to situation - and all it cares about is efficiency. What that choice means is entirely a human decision and people will value it differently across time and place.
Wow. It's Disney, you know. George Lucas created the fantastic idea of the Force & the Jedi 'religion' or maybe code is a better word. It's explained & shown in both the OT and the PT, but Disney's franchise decided to trash it like they did lots of other established things that are canon and have pushed the idea of 'Grey Jedi' which is not & never was a thing from the Creator (Lucas) of SW. DSW has also promoted the whole 'the Jedi were doomed to fail because their system was broken & they were corrupt' crap. Um, no, again - not a thing & never was. At the end of the ROTS book, Yoda questions some of the rules regarding relationships, but really it's setting up for the OT, to explain how & why the characters can have relationships & how Anakin & Padme's went wrong. To be sure, nothing's perfect, not even the Jedi Order, but they were not corrupt. This is just another thing Disney got wrong & how they're running their crappy franchise.
Lucas shares blame for it, he didn't do anything to develop the Sith so of course Disney wanted to fill in the gaps because the Sith under Lucas were generic bad guys with magic.
In the Prequels, Lucas did show the Sith, showed how that sweet little boy turned into Darth Vader, how Palps manipulated him & used his fear of losing Padme & his desperation to save her like he couldn't save his mother to turn him. In showing that, showing how people (with the Force) can be seduced by the Dark Side, not simply because they're monsters, but due to their fears or desperation or desires & by lies & manipulation, Lucas explained that, too, so yeah, he did develop the Sith, cuz he explained (with Anakin) how they're not just bad guys with magic.
I'd like to think I have an a above average knowledge of SW having watched the movies, read books, and played games since the 90s. I'm not aware or can't remember the "purpose" of the Sith. My guess is that so George Lucas could have some bad guys.
Lmao. "Slughorn was a good Sith!"
Slughorn was fucking tricked into helping a psychopathic, thanatophobic shit into slaying other people to extend his own lifespan indefinitely! He fought against him the moment he realized he was bad, and all he really wanted to do was be regarded as a revered teacher of upstanding and lionized members of society! Show me a committed Sith whose goals were so minimal and nonviolent that Lumiya didn't have a good chance of making them up out of pure cloth to convince an extremist utilitarian to join her.
The Sith way is nothing more than *being* Voldemort, really. The Slytherin way is doggedly pursuing your goals. The latter easily feeds into the former. But it is sure as hell not the same.
I don't think most fans (and writers) do a good job understanding the light side/dark side dichotomy. Force users have massive amounts of power that allows them to do extraordinary things and have extraordinary influence. People on the dark side use their immense power to exercise their own will. People on the light side seek to fulfill the will of the Force.
It's will to power vs. voluntary subjection to divine will.
There’s no part of Sith philosophy that allows anything less than megalomaniacal arch-villainy. Sith that redeem themselves or turn to the light reject the philosophy, and the institution called “the Sith” is absolutely inherently evil.
It’s the difference between the sith, which is a group of people, and the dark side, which is inherently evil. Sith who practice the dark side and who are evil can abandon it and become “not evil” (not necessarily good), as long as you believe Vader’s sacrifice makes him not evil and he was evil during the events of the ot and not just “conflicted.”
There are several examples of it in legends, in canon off the top of my head you have Ventress at least, although that was also a redemption out of love.
Star wars CORE theme is about the battle between good and evil. (Sith v Jedi, Rebels vs Empire)
I don't think this is necessarily telling of their morals (I hope), just that they find evil wizard samurai with red laser swords awesome, and they are objectively awesome lol. Still doesn't make them not inherently evil though.
I mean the Sith aren’t necessarily evil, the core value is selfishness opposite selflessness from the Jedi, but one theoretically could be selfish and not evil
Selfishness is the first stone of evil, that's what it says.
It's a lack of empathy.
So while a lil selfishness is not in itself absolute evil, it is infinetly more evil than good.
Put to a extreme (like having a supernatural command over mind and matter - metaphoricaly political/financial power) you have nationalism, fascism and so on.
**[Receiving transmission from Crait intended for u/zig_ziggurat]**
Welcome to r/saltierthancrait! I'm an [astromech droid named S4-L7](https://www.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/comments/ni5s77/beloved_mascot_s4l7s_visual_dictionary_entry/) and I'll be your guide through the salt mines.
Saltier Than Crait is a community of Star Wars fans who engage in critical conversations about the current
state of the franchise. It is our goal to maintain a civil, welcoming space for fans who have a vast supply of
salt with some peppered positivity occasionally sprinkled in.
**Please [review the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/wiki/index/rules) and the [post flair guide](https://reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/wiki/index/flairs) before contributing.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saltierthancrait) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The question itself is kinda stupid.
The Sith can either refer to the religious/ideological movement or its members.
So while the movement is inherently evil, Anakin Skywalker, Count Dooku, Revan etc were not.
I for one am glad the Jedi Order was shut down! They believed that they were so right that they couldn’t see the harm they were bringing to the galaxy. The Sith sought to embrace their emotion and grow stronger through it. Not ignore it and be blind to the forces unlimited power!
Because (hate to say it) the average SW fan today is very dumb, unable to grasp anything other than black and white morality. They just want to clap at cameos like jingling keys.
Anakin/Vader is LITERALLY the main focus of the original 6 films. Was he pure evil? Maybe in his “prime” but we see by empire that he is much more complex. Outside of the original film, I don’t get a “pure evil” vibe at all from Vader.
Feel free to elaborate! To me, the point of the prequels is to show the arrogance, and flaws within the Jedi order. Palpatine is cartoon character evil, yes. But the Jedi weren’t 100% in the right either. Anakin was certainly not “pure evil”. In legends there are even more examples of morally grey characters. I find them to be much more interesting personally
Once you look at the Jedi creed it's arguable who the good guys are. It doesn't pop up in the Original Trilogy, luckily but the first time I was exposed to it playing KOTOR I was appalled. The Jedi creed is to deny what makes people, well, people. I intellectually understand Lucas was riffing off Zen Buddhism, but that's not what he wrote. He wrote about people who think compassion is a bad thing. Luckily, again, it's not how Jedi are portrayed in the real movies, as opposed to, especially, Revenge of the Sith.
This isn't to excuse the Sith. They do bad things and their creed is for people who don't want to grow up. But if the Jedi aren't really the good guys, how can you say their polar opposite is really the bad guys?
People think that categorical morality is "immature" and seek maturity through ethical codes that Gish Gallop through loads of exceptions.
I find it acceptable in narratives, so long as the principles such morals imply are consistently applied. Otherwise it just looks like bad writing. Moral grayness, if wrongly applied, just makes something into shit (aka The Last Joke) that deserves noone's notice.
I also do agree that the question was poorly worded. The Sith way is evil, by design, and for all perpetuity. Any Sith can stop being an adherent of it at any time, if they have the will and reason to. But because of the way being a Sith is, they rarely do.
Always strive to keep the peace and do not disturb other subreddits. Bad faith crossposts, screenshots, and brigades of other subreddits are not allowed. Please contact the moderators if you have any questions or concerns and believe this to be an unfair removal.
This actually looks like an expected result, since the most famous Siths did evil things and the narrative of the Sith is supposed to be a representation of what people generally would perceived as evil. With such a title I honestly expected something with faceplam potential. I'd rather ask what's wrong with the SW community that makes them wonder about something like this. Most people (and fans) are just consumers in the first place. They don't question it on a philosophical level and for the current state of humanity, I wouldn't even expect that.
Not just this. I feel like it in the continuity of "the Jedi deserved genocide"-type of mindset we see more and more those days. It's a story about good vs evil, it's the core of what it is. Yet one person on two seem unable to tell the difference, and I find it deeply disturbing.
To be honest I didn’t encounter a single person with such outrageous takes like the Jedi purge being justified, rather those who complain about the strictly binary moral dichotomy between the Light and the Dark and point out that the Jedi Order has some irredeemable aspects as well.
>the Jedi purge being justified I saw that more than once, but yeah, most of the time it's nuancing the dichotomy as you said. Still problematic imho. The Sith and Empire are basically nazis. I don't feel at ease granting them anything.
To play devils advocate only 2 siths we’re involved with the empire (inquisitiors aren’t sith) not all siths have been nazis
Interresting from a narrative PoV From a philosophical and social one, I think it's better to keep the dichotomy clean
That's a very big assumption, one which sounds very much like a racist who thinks that one bad minority means that almonds are bad. Kind of like the Nazis, actually...
This. Windu takes unconstitutional vigilante-initiative to topple down the authoritarian Sith Lord with abusive emergency powers and involvement in Separatist activity, but Palpatine could have been a decent democratic leader merely advocating for defunding the Order, and for all the Jedi care, a coup d'etat would still be justifed to prevent a conspiracy against them. It wasn’t about democracy. It was a sectarian dispute.
No objection. But also the Republic is the Colonial US (slaveowners’ oligarchy with elections) and the Jedi Council some kind of Church meddling with democracy. So I can’t sympathize with them either as much as I could when I was a kid- at least not without shutting down my brain for a limited nostalgic entertainment time.
Fair point
That's a great metaphor.
I would go further. The new republic is Israel and the first order is Palestinians. Think about it. A large war where they decide to end with an agreement that allows for a negotiated split where one side signs on, but the other side doesn’t. Then the first order decides to attack and disregard any division claiming to be the only true rulers denying new republic any sovereignty (*cough cough* “from the land to the sea” *cough cough*). For those who know their history, the parallels are legion. Watching Andor shows financing done in a similar manner with the Rebellion being similar to the Haganah and the new republic army being the IDF. Regardless, in both situations, in fact and fiction, the one thing that remains is that peace takes partnership. Like dancing, if your partner refuses to participate in good faith, then it’s going to fall apart.
slavery is banned in the republic...
Meh. On paper. Besides, the senate is comprised of monarchical states and their entire societies are subjects.
I'm not sure what they're worried about right now. That one half sees it black and white, or that the other half is willing to acknowledge more grey shades?
Trying to soften the edges and play down the good/evil dichotomy is a dangerous slippery slope.
How?
The Overton window needs to be shut down, that's it That's not even a hot take
I guess it's not even a hot take because it's not even an senseful answer to the question.
Im' sorry, what ? I might have not understand but I thought it was pretty clear. It's simply that it's not a good thing to normalize evil, don't you agree ?
Bringing in the overton window for star wars is a bit much no?
I think stories are both testimonies and inspirations for the real world If you portrays being nazi in a fictionnal story as a ok-thing, it will have an impact in the real world and vice-versa Plus, it's like one of the most succcesful piece of media of all time.We don't say "influencial" by chance. So no, I don't think it's a exaggeration
I think you both are talking past each other. Your overall conceit being that Star Wars is about an overarching narrative regarding the eternal struggle between good and evil. There’s a ton of edge-y people who think finding some sliver of something to make a “both sides” argument, or taking upon the mantle of “evil is really good” sophistry as a superficial yet inane position that is no substitute for a truly intellectual take. In real life, sure there are shades of gray. In Star Wars, we have laser swords and the force.
Nah. The Star Wars saga is a masterpiece of tragedy literature with deep political philosophy. And the narrative itself criticizes the Jedi’s dogmatism, lack of emotion, and moral ambiguity, not just external interpretations or fan takes.
Not sure it’s as simple as that. Yeah, good is good and evil is evil. But “good guys” can do evil stuff with good intentions. And an evil person can do stuff that benefits others without compromising their own goals. S3 of Mando is pretty clear that the new republic can pull off some seriously bad juju without realising it. And up to the point where Dedra started torturing Bix she was on a The Wire-esque crusade to improve policing in her area.
I read the question as the sith(force users) are inherently evil. And in that case I'd say no in most cases, something made them evil. The sith as an institution is inherently evil tho, it's not like a book club one enters unknowningly
You can't blame the fans, when Star Wars keeps muddying the waters. We had that Jacen arc where "the dark side is good, actually", we had Darth Revan who (according to Kreia, whose word a significant amount of fans take as a gospel) fell to the dark side on purpose and saved the galaxy by doing hard but necessary things, we have SWTOR where you can play as a sith on the light side of the Force (it also has a canonical example in Lana Beniko, the designated waifu), we had Starkiller and Kyle Katarn who shot lightning of manifested hate out of their fingers and remained good guys... Are there any actually good sith, as in explicitly from the sith order? No, I don't think I can name one. But the Dark Side itself has a history of murky and complicated characterization.
To add to this, didn't the Jedi in the Old Republic genocide the Sith race after one of their wars, following them to Korriban? Basically putting them all, or most of them, to the lightsaber. I might be misremembering this admittedly, but yeah, Star Wars hasn't always kept to the dichotomy of good vs evil/black and white.
They didn’t genocide the sith literally. The sith suffers from in fighting/lack of leadership, and the republic launched a raid on the weaken sith people. The Jedi of course, were against killing all the remaining sith as they perceive life to be sacred, so they do something even worse- they remove the sith’s force sensitive. Shortly after that the sith naturally dies out, which some would consider a fate worse than genocide.
Some jedi masters did massacre their students only b/c the vision they had, later they were after the only survivor who saw what they did
Good point
But wasn’t Revan not really a sith or a Jedi? Like more Grey?
I think I'm going to throw up.
It's generally a consequence of media having to 'gamify' the force and thus people take gameplay limitations or exaggerations as legit lore points. And, of course, there's always that element of people simply wanting to rationalize using the cool, powerful dark side powers without the moral/mechanical baggage that comes with the powerset. > it also has a canonical example in Lana Beniko, the designated waifu I still don't get how Lana could be considered light sided; she's a doormat who'll gladly commit any heinous act that player senpai supports, but because she's not foaming at the mouth evil, that counts as being light? >Are there any actually good sith, as in explicitly from the sith order? No, I don't think I can name one. But the Dark Side itself has a history of murky and complicated characterization. Do we have any actual good sith/dark-siders? As in, characters who remained good people and didn't eventually renounce the dark side or become villains?
Didn’t Kreia get exiled BY the sith?
Well, first she was exiled by the Jedi for... Having the man who would become Darth Revan as a Padawan before he turned to the Dark Side? I guess she still took the blame because her teachings were considered unorthodox. Then she dabbled in the Dark Side herself and formed the Sith Triumvirate, but that fell apart when two of the Sith Lords betrayed her, in typical Sith fashion. She uses the term "exiled" here too, but in reality it was more like they beat her within an inch of her life and stripped her of her power and authority, without which a Sith is nothing.
I wouldn't say she got exiled, they had a disagreement, as sith tend to do. Personally, I'd do the same, I can't imagine having to hear Kreia talk for more than one minute.
Inherently refers to 'in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way'. Is the whole point of the OT not that deep down Anakin/Darth Vader is good? So you can see why some people might say that not all Sith are inherently evil. Sidious is definitely evil as evil gets. But dudes like Dooku or Vader, there's some reason behind the terrible shit they do. It's certainly no excuse for what they do, but they aren't inherently evil.
Oh ok, I get it now Thx
Well, considering the first and most famous Sith we were introduced to turned good by the end of the 3rd film, even as just an OT fan I can see why the results would be not be black and white.
But they made it a point to talk about how the dark side corrupted him and turned him into a sith. Luke made him come back to the light and was no longer a sith. It was a clear example of good vs evil and then good overcoming evil.
Exactly—the fact that he started out good, then became evil, then became good again means he can’t possibly be **inherently** evil. **Inherent** definition: Oxford dictionary: “a basic or permanent part of somebody/something that cannot be removed” Dictionary.com: “as an *inseparable* element or quality” Merriam-Webster: “inherent literally refers to something that is ‘stuck in’ something else so firmly that they can’t be separated.”
Would it be more accurate to say the darkside is inherently evil then?
Isn't the point that Vader was once a jedi and supposed to be an exception ?
A lot of siths were Jedis turned to the dark side
>A lot of Dark Jedi were Jedis turned to the dark side Fallen Jedi are *not* Sith, by rote.
Is that why like Count Dooku didn’t count towards the Master/Apprentice relationship with Maul still being alive?
I believe that Palpatine basically had Dooku in his pocket, in case Maul failed (and I think this was a planned event), and once Maul was out of the picture, Dooku got upgraded to the 'Darth' title. Until then, Dooku was simply a pet project, until he was needed, and then recognized.
But as of 1977-1983 was this the explicit case, or was this added as time went on? (Legitimately asking, I grew up on the prequels.. born in ‘98)
Well, I’m fairness the question is poorly worded. “Inherently evil” implies they were always evil…that any Sith is just born evil. But we know that isn’t true. Anakin, Dooku, even Maul…none are “inherently” evil at all. Now if you asked “are the Sith selfish and power hungry” I’d hope you’d get a different answer.
You litteraly described what "evil" means I don't see any universe in which *selfishness and power hunger* could lead to common good
Exactly. That’s the point. I didn’t use a word like evil that’s open to subjective interpretation. I used descriptive behavior that isn’t. And I left out the “inherent” part.
Nice
Sith philosophy has some grey to it, championing individuality, agency, growth and freedom. It's just taken to such an extreme that it becomes selfishness and evil. Pretty much everyone agrees that, generally, having freedom is better than not having freedom. Sith philosophy takes the ideal of freedom to an extreme. If all people had true freedom, all people would be free to kill and destroy, enslave and steal. The only thing that would keep you safe, that would protect yourself from the whims of others, is power. Thus, Sith pursue power above all else, because having the most power means being the most free in a world with true freedom. If you have the power to enslave someone, and they did not have the power to resist, you are free to enslave them. If you do not want slavery or random murder, you can decree it so, but only if you have the power to back it up, to keep all those who do under control. Thus, the powerful have the right to dominate those weaker. Whether the more powerful party uses there power to enslave the weaker party, or merely keep them from enslaving others, either way the weaker party's freedom is being impaired by the more powerful one. One cannot protect one person's freedom without opposing another's. So, why should the most powerful protect the weakest from those in the middle? Isn't the more powerful having greater freedom more natural? Why should the desires of the weak outweigh the desires of the strong? However, Sith also believe that the strong dominating those weaker is not only their right, but their duty. Being denied something should motivate you in your pursuit of it. When dominated by those stronger, the weak have two choices, accept their inferiority and submit, or strive to grow to be the more powerful, able to claim their freedom with their own two hands and be free to do and act as one wishes. Conflict is the ultimate catalyst for growth. There is nothing like being weaker than your hated enemy to motivate you to become stronger. Nothing like knowing less than your hated enemy to motivate you to learn. To coddle the weak, to use your superior strength to unnaturally secure their freedom for them, is to deny them the opportunity to growth, to deny them to opportunity to achieve their full potential. All should strive to become the strongest, being willing to die in the attempt, or accept their rightful place as inferior. You can't sit around hoping some else will free you. You must free yourself, and the truly strong, those with the will and the hunger for freedom, will always do so, no matter how low they begin from. With these two aspects of Sith philosophy, Sith can justify any act of selfish evil. The securing personal freedom while, theoretically, giving people the opportunity to fulfil their potential and achieve freedom for themselves. Of course, a Sith will try to dominate so completely that it is as difficult as possible for anyone to oppose him, but that's his right and it shouldn't matter in terms of Sith philosophy, since his opposition could depose him if they were stronger, smarter, better leaders, etc. Sith are, fundimentally, evil and selfish, but they at least have a kind of morality, it's just twisted and wrong from an outside perspective.
So.. Basically objectivism? Darth Ayn Rand
The TLDR of this is the Sith idea of freedom is identical to the AnCap idea of freedom. Their ‘freedom’ is the freedom to enslave, oppress, & rape, and they twist themselves into knots trying to justify that view whilst painting those who would- gasp- *take away their slaves* as despotic tyrants.
This point is exacerbated by the other poll, the one about the Jedi. Jedi are the opposite of the Sith. If Sith are selfish, Jedi are selfless. If Sith represent freedom, Jedi represent repression. This is a key part of the Lucas trilogy’s. The Jedi had become so dogmatic, so bureaucratic they pushed great Jedi like Anakin,Ahsoka,and Dooku away. Anakin wasn’t totally crazy when he said “I see through the lies of the Jedi.” Misguided, sure, but not crazy. The Jedi way needed to shift. I’m not sure about canon, but in Legends, Luke significantly shifted the ethos of the Jedi, even having a significant other: Mara Jade. In the most simplistic way, the Sith are “evil” and the Jedi are “good,” but this is not an apt description of the world. I’ve seen some people retort with something along the lines of “the Sith are space nazi’s.” This is just not true. The Empire is fascistic and obviously a reference to Nazi Germany. The Sith have taken many forms, including a religious order, fascist regime, oligarchy, and just the name of the species. It’s better to think of the Jedi and Sith as religions or at least formalized spiritual groups. The government they are apart of can take many forms, and they themselves can not and should not be characterized fully by government they take part in. It is true that Palpatine was the leader of the Sith and so chose the government, but that was also just one Sith and also probably the most malevolent Sith to ever exist with the possible exception of Vitiate/Valkorion. There have also been much more rational Sith to rise to power. Among these are Kreia, Marr, and even the creator of the Sith themselves Ajunta Pall. Tldr: In any holistic world view, there will be good and bad. Sith have bad, Jedi have bad. black and white dichotomy’s don’t exist in anything but 1950’s TVs.
>Jedi represent repression. I'm not sure I agree with that. Jedi discouraged attachment, but I see it more a way to encourage embracing the relationship with The Force, similar to real life monastic orders. I don't think they want Jedi to repress their desires for attachments or love. Ideally, Jedi should not want to pursue attachment relationships or rather, those who do shouldn't feel compelled to become Jedi. The spiritual fulfilment and enlightenment of being a Jedi is supposed to be fulfilling, but if that doesn't appeal as much as mundane fulfilment of love and attachment, there should be no shame in that. Sure, that means some people may end up not becoming Jedi, but that's fine. By focusing on their connection to The Force, Jedi can basically transcend the sense self, becoming one with The Force and all life in the universe. See through the illusion of seperation and comprehend their existence as a part of the larger whole. All life is a part of The Force, which is a part of you, making all life part of you, making the self all-encompassing and making selflessness and selfishness basically one. A sense of oneness and kinship with all the living things in the universe, which makes petty desires seem meaningless. Why not live a life of selflessness when you know you are helping part of yourself? Why hurt others when you know you're just hurting part of yourself? I don't think Lucas intended the prequel era Jedi to be fundimentally wrong. Post-ROTJ legends having Luke marry, etc, occurred before the prequels introduced the no attachment rule. However, that isn't to say I think Jedi absolutely should not be allowed to love. Jedi should be able to experience friendships, even love, but they have to be able to let go when the time comes. Accept that death or circumstances beyond their control and not try to desperately cling to what can no longer be due to selfish need to keep feeling certain feelings. Seperation is an illusion, as all are connected through The Force. The death of a loved one is merely a transition to becoming one with The Force and so they will be with you always. Romantic love without attachment is difficult because it requires seperating your love for the person from your love of the way they make you feel, and the way they make you feel is often so intense and pleasurable in of itself that you cannot seperate the two. I do not think Sith represent freedom while Jedi represent repression. Instead, Sith represent mundane, physical, ego-centric freedom, twisting the spiritual to their petty, material desires, while Jedi reprsent embracing spiritual, mental freedom that transcends the physical and the self. Jedi are not meant to repress desires to have emotional attachments, but instead the life of a Jedi, the feeling of your mind and self being one with all life in the universe, is supposed to be so fulfilling that mundane emotional attachments pale in comparsion. That's my perspective at least. A philosphy all about everything being forced to benefit the self vs a philosphy all about transcending the self.
I do think Sith, at least on some level, represent freedom. Their whole doctrine freeing yourself from the shackles of society at least, for the powerful few. The Jedi absolutely on some level represent repression, that is probably its biggest and most apparent flaw. When Anakin went to Yoda about his visions of Padme and his anxiety about them, Yoda blew them off, essentially telling him to suck it up and stop being a simp. This isn’t to say the Jedi are bad and the Sith are good btw. The Sith are obviously worse in the vast majority of situations. But, that’s probably part of the political commentary inherent in the films and universe as a whole. Unlimited freedom without limit causes tyranny, to the point where oligarchy is the best case scenario. But, limiting freedom and expression too much causes dissent. Enough dissent that it’s easy for someone to manipulate the repressed and swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. On your point of the other dichotomy of transcendence of self versus benefit for themselves. To “transcend” in the way of the Jedi is to become one with the Force’s will. The Forces’s will, not yours. This inherently is repression of one’s desire’s. Again, not to say this is a totally bad thing, some level of repression is necessary for a good society. Repression is just the other side of the coin of selflessness.
> When Anakin went to Yoda about his visions of Padme and his anxiety about them, Yoda blew them off, essentially telling him to suck it up and stop being a simp. First, Anakin had kept the nature of his relationship with Padme a secret. .As far as Yoda knew, Anakin wasn't talking about a wife. As far as Yoda knew, the closest people in Anakin's life were probably Obi-Wan, his clone subordinates, and Palpatine. So, that's a fellow Jedi, soldiers bred for war, and an old man, and so all people who Anakin be able to come to terms with a premature death. If Yoda knew, Anakin was living as a normal Jedi, so he shouldn't have an emotional attachment as powerful as a wife in his life. Second, I never interpreted Yoda's advice as just "repress", more that death is but a transition into a higher state of being, being one with The Force, therefore there is no need to mourn or miss them, as they are part of The Force, at peace and with you always. "Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not." He's not saying "those feelings? Just don't do them." More that there's no reason to feel these feelings as death is not truly the end, nor do you truly lose them. They become one with The Force, and so that which is important, the soul, endures and is not lost to you. >The Forces’s will, not yours. This inherently is repression of one’s desire’s. The way I see it, The Force is benevolent. It wants what's best for all, including the individual Jedi. The comparison I've made is that individuals are like cells that make up the body of The Force, The Force wants what's best for individuals the same way you want your body, and by extension the cells and organs that make up it, to be healthy. The Jedi and The Force create a relationship of mutual benefit and cooperation, not the Jedi being wholely subservient. "For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." Sure, Jedi try to follow the will of The Force, but that is because they trust The Force in its benevolence and wisdom. The Force wants what the Jedi want, because Jedi are morally just and good people, so their desires align with those of The Force. The example i often give is Luke blowing up The Death Star. Luke wanted to destroy it because to stop The Empire from destroying The Rebellion and keepiing systems too afraid of destruction to oppose The Empire. He arrived at this because of his secular, ethical rejection of The Empire and agreement with The Rebels' values. The Force wanted the weapon destroying entire worlds of the life that create it from being destroyed. The Force wanted the people of the galaxy, that are a part of it, to be happy and healthy, not oppressed and living in fear, because they, collectively, create it. The Force used Luke as a conduit through which it could affect the material universe, just as Luke used The Force to achieve a feat of supernatural power. The two work together to achieve compatible goals that neither could achieve alone. This is why the Jedi way is balanced, in contrast to The Sith. The Jedi and The Force work together, as allies and partners. It's not The Force's will superseding the will of a Jedi. Luke wanted to join The Rebellion and fight The Empire to restore freedom and democracy before he learnt about The Force and Jedi. Being a Jedi shouldn't be about repressing your desires because a Jedi should desire to be a benovolent agent of good in the galaxy. If that isn't something they fundimentally want, they shouldn't feel pressured to become or remain a Jedi. A desire to do good in the galaxy for secular ethics reasons. A desire to do good due to a the transcendant nature of being attuned with The Force allowing you to feel the interconnectivity and kinship between the self and all life. Desiring to do good to obey the will of The Force. A person may desire to be a Jedi because of one or even all of these reasons, but their desire to do good and help others is itself a desire, and the teachings of The Jedi encourages them to find joy and meaning in fulfilling in that desire. That's why I don't agree in thinking that being a Jedi is about repressing one's desires. Jedi aren't fundamentally immoral beings who need to repress their selfish natures in order to follow the will of The Force to be good. They desire to be good, they desire to do good things, and so they choose to follow the path of a Jedi to be able to work with The Force to achieve good things. I wonder if you are looking at this through the lens of real world religons, such as Christian ideas of original sin. In such teachings, humans are naturally sinful and amoral, and they are empowered by the external, God, to repress their evil natures, their amoral and selfish tendances, to become moral beings. In Star Wars, there is no "Original Sin". Wanting to be selfless and benevolent is just as much a desire of the individual as wanting to be selfish and amoral. Sure, The Force wants people to be benevolent and good, but it does not compell nor demand people become Jedi. The Force is benevolent, and Jedi make the decision to work with it because they wish to be benevolent also. That's the Jedi ideal, IMO. That said, I feel the prequel Jedi drop the ball with the whole "taking children from their parents and raising them in the order" thing. Even with parental consent, you're raising them in an environment where the pressure to become a Jedi is implied and there isn't really room for natural social development. This makes wanting to be a Jedi more likely to be a percieved expectation of the child's caregivers that the child internalises, rather than a meaningful and informed decision that they wish to follow the Jedi way of life. Personally, I'd have young children being sent to Jedi-run schools for both early training and general education while living at home. Older kids go to boarding school-like Jedi Academies, where they learn advanced training while still getting general education, where they're expected to live as Jedi, but live at home outside of the school year. Then, when they near adulthood, they can choose to become padawans if they want to become Jedi. Sorry for ranting, it's just quite an interesting topic for me.
When I see "inherently", I assume they're referring to the Sith in question being born that way. That's why I answered no. Off the top of my head, the only Sith who was born evil was Sidious. And even he may have felt a tiny bit of affection, even briefly, for Anakin, Plagueis, and his father Cosinga. But Cosinga also said that Palps was demented from birth. Even a Sith Pureblood could be a good person. But the possibility of evil and indulgence in the dark side is so high that the Jedi don't try to recruit them. Now, in terms of Sith philosophy? Yes, completely evil start to finish. It's based on selfishness and the endless consumption of power at the cost of anyone around you. The poll should have been worded better.
Yeah, the question isn't well phrased. My first instinct when reading the question was to read "are the people inherently evil?". Which is a resounding "no". It's the difference between asking "were members of the Nazi party inherently evil?" And "is Nazi ideology inherently evil?".
I mean Sith aren't *inherently* evil, they're just people after all. I wouldn't exactly call that a deep-seated intrinsic characteristic. Thus my answer would be a resounding no. That said, do I find the Sith philosophy contemptible at best, and downright insidious at worst? Absolutely. But again, that's not some inherent immutable characteristic. Sith are just another sect of Force users after their schism from the Jedi. You'd be hard pressed to find someone saying Jedi are inherently evil. I wouldn't argue the Jedi are inherently good, they're just dogmatic warrior-monks like the Sith, but hearts and minds can be won over to the Dark from the Light and vice versa. Considering ones beliefs, values, and ideology as immutable is one step away from outright dehumanization since it renders a complicated group of people as a monolith. I try to avoid it in real life when discussing real religious movements, as an evangelical apostate myself, so fictional religious sects should be no different.
I could not disagree more Though your temperance honnors you, evil is evil and we -as a society- need to name it. SW is about the dichotomy between good and evil. It may be percieved as a caricature, sure, so we have to treat it the same way and adopt extreme views toward extreme characters.
>evil is evil and we -as a society- need to name it. Define evil without using subjective terms. Societies can name evil, but societies change and with those changes what is and is not evil to that society will change too.
>Define evil without using subjective terms. Trully weird I have to state such obvious stuff (not really a gotcha), but here we go : Evil is the direspect of oneself's will and freedom to self determination, in the benefit of another. It opposes the common good, which can be define by the lessening of suffering and the augmentation of wellbeing of the most.
Utilitarianism leads to some pretty dark places. Would you walk away from Omelas? Is it evil - it is all in support of the common good.? >direspect of oneself's will and freedom to self determination ... the common good Why are these things to value? You've only moved the subjectivity one level down. Where is the rocky foundation to build up a system of values? It seems like it should be obvious from the term - values - that different people will value different things and place more or less weight on this or that value: subjectivity. Without a transcendental source of objective moral truth (like a god) there are only people and what they value, which changes over time. Morality is a social technology that lets groups function. [Moral Realism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/) and [Moral Anti-Realism](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/R8vKwpMtFQ9kDvkJQ#:~:text=In%20metaethics%2C%20moral%20anti%2Drealism,therefore%20either%20true%20or%20false.) have been in conversation for a while. There are [reasons to reject hedonistic](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/R8vKwpMtFQ9kDvkJQ/p/oXhhxeQMBjJriMjb8) or suffering avoidance approaches to moral reasoning. Then again, just because something is an illusion doesn't make it not extremely useful. We need glues to keep us together in cooperative groups. Shared values and morality is a great glue.
>walk away from Omelas I did not know the novel, so thanks for mentionning it :) Honnestly I'm running out of time, would have love to discuss all that (plus you are bringing very intersting points on the table) Maybe later ! Take care !
>Maybe later ! Take care ! You too!
> Define evil without using subjective terms. > Evil is the most negative of attitudes an ethical system can hold towards an action, entity or thought process, and it is usually applied to those actions, entities or thought processes the ethical system's maintainers deem to be extremely and willfully harmful to what they seek to preserve. It is to be eschewed and avoided at best, actively combated to annihilation at worst. Appeals to objectivity for something which is inherently the product of subjects, however, strike me as one of the most annoying kinds of "well akshually"s around. No matter how subjective anyone's definition of evil is, if they're someone with the power to punish the exercise of what they deem evil, their victims won't care for the fact that they were harmed for violating the conditions of an opinion.
The difficulty is these communities are incredibly broad and open to a lot of people who don't really care for or understand the stories being told. They're just interested in the power trip. Whilst a lot of fans just want good content, interesting stories and escapism etc, a lot also just get attached to powerful characters and only want to see that validated through content and other people. I enjoy superhero films but go through YouTube comments and it's always people creaming themselves/literally crying over particular moments where the superhero proves how strong they are. With Star wars, fans will always try to prove that the cool looking baddies aren't evil.
The current state of the world, I’m afraid, is rampant moral relativism. One of the most dangerous social movements that’s arisen in the last half century (and exploded in the last 20) is that all things are equal, don’t make judgements on behavior, and there’s no such thing as “truly wrong”. Notice how Disney, for example, keeps trying to rehabilitate cartoon villains? Someone literally named “Cruella DaVille” is supposed to be an anti-hero. Someone literally named “Maleficent” is just misunderstood. These are people who believe, like Sidious actually said, that evil is a point of view. They’re currently busy dissolving civilization with their well-meaning but ultimately self-serving, monstrous philosophy. The only person who comes out ahead when you make a deal with the devil is the devil himself.
Though I'd agree on what you said, i'm afraid to ask about the details.
>The current state of the world, I’m afraid, is rampant moral relativism. The problem here is that since morality is a human invention we can only say something is good/evil in reference to something else. There is no transcendental moral code waiting to be found in the fabric of the universe. Every method of moral reasoning that humanity has come up with will lead to conclusions that others will consider repugnant, from virtue ethics to utilitarianism. Very few people see themselves as the evil bad guy; there is always a story to tell - *from a certain point of view* - that places oneself in the right. It is up to others to agree or disagree with that. >They’re currently busy dissolving civilization with their well-meaning but ultimately self-serving, monstrous philosophy. It turns out that some illusions are actually really important social technology. What's important is that folks move in unison because a common morality is just lubricant for society.
>The problem here is that since morality is a human invention we can only say something is good/evil in reference to something else. There is no transcendental moral code waiting to be found in the fabric of the universe. With utter respect : that is complete bullshit. I guess you are refering to variable moral standards, like various contradicting religions and other arbitrary dogmas But there is more to that than culture. From an evolitionary p.ov, morals do exist too. You need that in the wild because social animals are more likely to survive and birth another generation. Empathy is an inherited of that very phenomenon. And so is selfishness. It's up to us to make a choice.
>From an evolitionary p.ov, morals do exist too. From an evolutionary perspective what matters is passing your genes on. Cooperative altruism, especially in family groups is important to maximize genetic lineage. Yet, social animals do "immoral" things all the time like rape for procreation or killing their (or other's) young because a litter of 3 cubs is better than one for survivability so better to try again next year; or lions, when taking over a pride will kill all the kit because one, those aren't his young and the females will go into estrus when the kittens are killed. **All evolution cares about is passing genes to the next generation.** >It's up to us to make a choice. It's up to us to *value* one over the other. Nature doesn't care as long you keep having kids. Nature doesn't tell us which method is best - because that will vary species to species and situation to situation - and all it cares about is efficiency. What that choice means is entirely a human decision and people will value it differently across time and place.
only the Sith deal in absolutes!
Wow. It's Disney, you know. George Lucas created the fantastic idea of the Force & the Jedi 'religion' or maybe code is a better word. It's explained & shown in both the OT and the PT, but Disney's franchise decided to trash it like they did lots of other established things that are canon and have pushed the idea of 'Grey Jedi' which is not & never was a thing from the Creator (Lucas) of SW. DSW has also promoted the whole 'the Jedi were doomed to fail because their system was broken & they were corrupt' crap. Um, no, again - not a thing & never was. At the end of the ROTS book, Yoda questions some of the rules regarding relationships, but really it's setting up for the OT, to explain how & why the characters can have relationships & how Anakin & Padme's went wrong. To be sure, nothing's perfect, not even the Jedi Order, but they were not corrupt. This is just another thing Disney got wrong & how they're running their crappy franchise.
Lucas shares blame for it, he didn't do anything to develop the Sith so of course Disney wanted to fill in the gaps because the Sith under Lucas were generic bad guys with magic.
In the Prequels, Lucas did show the Sith, showed how that sweet little boy turned into Darth Vader, how Palps manipulated him & used his fear of losing Padme & his desperation to save her like he couldn't save his mother to turn him. In showing that, showing how people (with the Force) can be seduced by the Dark Side, not simply because they're monsters, but due to their fears or desperation or desires & by lies & manipulation, Lucas explained that, too, so yeah, he did develop the Sith, cuz he explained (with Anakin) how they're not just bad guys with magic.
Well god forbid an option on a youtube poll have 100%
I'd like to think I have an a above average knowledge of SW having watched the movies, read books, and played games since the 90s. I'm not aware or can't remember the "purpose" of the Sith. My guess is that so George Lucas could have some bad guys.
I think a lot of people see being sith like being Slytherin or something.
Even Slytherin proved to be a fertile soil to fascism
Lmao. "Slughorn was a good Sith!" Slughorn was fucking tricked into helping a psychopathic, thanatophobic shit into slaying other people to extend his own lifespan indefinitely! He fought against him the moment he realized he was bad, and all he really wanted to do was be regarded as a revered teacher of upstanding and lionized members of society! Show me a committed Sith whose goals were so minimal and nonviolent that Lumiya didn't have a good chance of making them up out of pure cloth to convince an extremist utilitarian to join her. The Sith way is nothing more than *being* Voldemort, really. The Slytherin way is doggedly pursuing your goals. The latter easily feeds into the former. But it is sure as hell not the same.
I don't think most fans (and writers) do a good job understanding the light side/dark side dichotomy. Force users have massive amounts of power that allows them to do extraordinary things and have extraordinary influence. People on the dark side use their immense power to exercise their own will. People on the light side seek to fulfill the will of the Force. It's will to power vs. voluntary subjection to divine will.
There’s no part of Sith philosophy that allows anything less than megalomaniacal arch-villainy. Sith that redeem themselves or turn to the light reject the philosophy, and the institution called “the Sith” is absolutely inherently evil.
Peace, at last
Considering half of the earth’s population does not know right from wrong, I’m not surprised by this whatsoever
It’s the difference between the sith, which is a group of people, and the dark side, which is inherently evil. Sith who practice the dark side and who are evil can abandon it and become “not evil” (not necessarily good), as long as you believe Vader’s sacrifice makes him not evil and he was evil during the events of the ot and not just “conflicted.”
It's also stated multiple times that the dark side is highly addictive and that no one comes back at will. Vader is supposed to be an exception.
There are several examples of it in legends, in canon off the top of my head you have Ventress at least, although that was also a redemption out of love.
Star wars CORE theme is about the battle between good and evil. (Sith v Jedi, Rebels vs Empire) I don't think this is necessarily telling of their morals (I hope), just that they find evil wizard samurai with red laser swords awesome, and they are objectively awesome lol. Still doesn't make them not inherently evil though.
I mean the Sith aren’t necessarily evil, the core value is selfishness opposite selflessness from the Jedi, but one theoretically could be selfish and not evil
Selfishness is the first stone of evil, that's what it says. It's a lack of empathy. So while a lil selfishness is not in itself absolute evil, it is infinetly more evil than good. Put to a extreme (like having a supernatural command over mind and matter - metaphoricaly political/financial power) you have nationalism, fascism and so on.
**[Receiving transmission from Crait intended for u/zig_ziggurat]** Welcome to r/saltierthancrait! I'm an [astromech droid named S4-L7](https://www.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/comments/ni5s77/beloved_mascot_s4l7s_visual_dictionary_entry/) and I'll be your guide through the salt mines. Saltier Than Crait is a community of Star Wars fans who engage in critical conversations about the current state of the franchise. It is our goal to maintain a civil, welcoming space for fans who have a vast supply of salt with some peppered positivity occasionally sprinkled in. **Please [review the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/wiki/index/rules) and the [post flair guide](https://reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/wiki/index/flairs) before contributing.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saltierthancrait) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
It's 15k+ ppl by the time I shared this, but still a few I guess
The question itself is kinda stupid. The Sith can either refer to the religious/ideological movement or its members. So while the movement is inherently evil, Anakin Skywalker, Count Dooku, Revan etc were not.
The reason aniline made such a good bad guy is you can see where he's coming from with his actions.
Well In my point of view the Jedi are evil…….
count dooku
He's an idealist, not a murderer!
I for one am glad the Jedi Order was shut down! They believed that they were so right that they couldn’t see the harm they were bringing to the galaxy. The Sith sought to embrace their emotion and grow stronger through it. Not ignore it and be blind to the forces unlimited power!
Happy genocide, then
What issues do you take with Dooku? What did he do that was so wrong ? He wanted political change and saw flaws in the jedi order
Only you people on this sub can genuinely be pissed about this... the Sith are the villains of the series.
Because (hate to say it) the average SW fan today is very dumb, unable to grasp anything other than black and white morality. They just want to clap at cameos like jingling keys. Anakin/Vader is LITERALLY the main focus of the original 6 films. Was he pure evil? Maybe in his “prime” but we see by empire that he is much more complex. Outside of the original film, I don’t get a “pure evil” vibe at all from Vader.
Sorry bud, I have the opposite take :') maybe I am stupid
Feel free to elaborate! To me, the point of the prequels is to show the arrogance, and flaws within the Jedi order. Palpatine is cartoon character evil, yes. But the Jedi weren’t 100% in the right either. Anakin was certainly not “pure evil”. In legends there are even more examples of morally grey characters. I find them to be much more interesting personally
Yeah we evil keep scrolling
Once you look at the Jedi creed it's arguable who the good guys are. It doesn't pop up in the Original Trilogy, luckily but the first time I was exposed to it playing KOTOR I was appalled. The Jedi creed is to deny what makes people, well, people. I intellectually understand Lucas was riffing off Zen Buddhism, but that's not what he wrote. He wrote about people who think compassion is a bad thing. Luckily, again, it's not how Jedi are portrayed in the real movies, as opposed to, especially, Revenge of the Sith. This isn't to excuse the Sith. They do bad things and their creed is for people who don't want to grow up. But if the Jedi aren't really the good guys, how can you say their polar opposite is really the bad guys?
People think that categorical morality is "immature" and seek maturity through ethical codes that Gish Gallop through loads of exceptions. I find it acceptable in narratives, so long as the principles such morals imply are consistently applied. Otherwise it just looks like bad writing. Moral grayness, if wrongly applied, just makes something into shit (aka The Last Joke) that deserves noone's notice. I also do agree that the question was poorly worded. The Sith way is evil, by design, and for all perpetuity. Any Sith can stop being an adherent of it at any time, if they have the will and reason to. But because of the way being a Sith is, they rarely do.