if you ever love a person you'll realize you aren't doing it for your own selfish pleasures, because thats not love.
If I accepted your premise that it is possible for an action to be non-selfish, I might agree. I do not accept it. I believe that the unwillingness many exhibit to acknowledge that all action is fundamentally taken out of self-interest is due to an inability to shake the impression of self-interest as "bad" which has been drilled into people by illogical and unfounded societal indoctrination. Self-interest is not bad. It is not good. It simply is how people work. It has no more moral character than breathing.
Love is when the good of another becomes important to the self, and thus in the interest of the self to preserve. There can be no love without self-interest as it's root.
Take that and try to love somebody who can't love you back (or show that they love you) for whatever circumstantial reason. A selfless person will love them, a selfish person will only love themself and those who can show love in return.
Just when you think you have all the answers, I change the questions.
its also impossible for a selfish person do things that are even in self-interest as the selfish person is self-destructive and is pleasure focused and not principal or moral focused.
Just when you think you have all the answers, I change the questions.
I love posts like this. It comes up with every MMO out there that has two sides to it..such as War..WoW and all the other games. What is evil..what is good. if you look at the way the human society is our ideas of good and evil change though out time. The first two world wars we "KNEW" who the bad guys were. And now no one is truely sure who the "bad guy is" our own social standings have changed as well. the Siths code to me screams of a way out of making an "evil" or "bad" choice. When confronted they can simply say "well i'm just living up to my code..this is what i follow so that is the reason i did this." Where as the jedi to me would take the responsiblity for their own action. This is where good and evil are defined really, on if people take responsibilty for their own actions or try to play pass the buck. here is a good example of the whole is the person "Evil" or "Good" Prince Vlad the Impaler...everyone knows him as the oh so loveable blood thirsty dracula. Anyways most people would consider him "Evil" but in Rominai he is considered a savior. So what one person's idea of evil is could be anothers good.
Personaly I want to play a sith simply because i'm a sick twisted SoB and that kind of power just screams come play with the darkside..we have cookies...at least to me it does!!!
if theories won't help you, all I can say is live it out
everytime you love someone or try to do something good imagine that you're really doing nothing different than shooting up herroine, that, in the motive, they are really no different.
theres a problem though, you'll find. your conscience will no longer be clean and then ask yourself
If there really was no difference between giving money to the poor out of a good heart, and shooting up on heroine then why is there a different effect when I give money with a bad heart? If the heart is the same in both situations why is the heart clean when you focus on selflessness and dirty when you focus on selfishness?
you have two conclusions at that point. 1, you were wrong and THE WAY you think about what you're doing when you're doing it is right or wrong
or 2, peace is a lie
either way all i can say is live it out to your fullest
Just when you think you have all the answers, I change the questions.
Take that and try to love somebody who can't love you back (or show that they love you) for whatever circumstantial reason. A selfless person will love them, a selfish person will only love themself and those who can show love in return.
Not true. Love is an involuntary emotional response, not a choice. It is entirely possible to love someone who does not love you back, and to do things to help that person because not helping would cause you pain, and you experience a degree of pleasure when you cause that person to be happy. You control only your choices, and choices are self-interested. Love is not a choice.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
if theories won't help you, all I can say is live it out everytime you love someone or try to do something good imagine that you're really doing nothing different than shooting up herroine, that, in the motive, they are really no different. theres a problem though, you'll find. your conscience will no longer be clean and then ask yourself If there really was no difference between giving money to the poor out of a good heart, and shooting up on heroine then why is there a different effect when I give money with a bad heart? If the heart is the same in both situations why is the heart clean when you focus on selflessness and dirty when you focus on selfishness?
Two words. Social conditioning. People are trained by their cultures to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. The heart is not "clean" or "dirty" due to any inherent moral quality in the choices themselves, the individual perceives the heart as clean or dirty depending on the way society has taught him to view the choices he has made. The choices themselves are still selfish, because they are made out of a desire to be able to view oneself as having a "clean" heart.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
CazNeerg you are a very wise man. It is a pitty that wisdom is frowned upon in the society of today's world.
The primary issue here, the main reason people disagree with you, is because of the "Social Responsibility" sweeping across much of the civilized world. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The social cog. The age of Individual Freedom and Individual Responsibility is slowly dying. As always in human history, however, it will return. And, likely, it will return after a major revolution or war that yet again turns the world upside down. They will be seen as anarchists, but they will really be a reaction to the social order forcing its views and lifestyle onto all under it.
It kind of reminds me of way back when, in US History. There was a party, which though it still exists today is not the same. It is the Republican party. I know what your thinking, its the "Family Values" party. Well...it wasnt always. Certainly not under lincoln. Primarily established as an Abolishonist party, it became a party of "Individual Liberty and Responsibility". This meant that each individual was charged with taking care of himself, making his own choices, and living with all of their consequences without blame of anyone else. They pushed for smaller government. The government wasnt to dictate to people what was right or wrong, no matter what they themselves personally felt.
Many republicans, indeed, did have the whole "Housewife and 3 children" stereotype of a life going on, particularly in the 1900's, and especially in the 50's. At somepoint, their lifestyle ended up transmuting into their politics, and their politics became a way of preserving their lfiestyle and beliefs, rather than creating a small government and a society of individuals. They became the same as democrats. They want to engineer society just like the democrats. Except instead of "Social Responsibility" and the like of various social and more highly regulated and constricted forms of economic policy that democrats want, they wish to enforce religious lifestyle on doctrine, mixed with the oldshcool less restrictive economic policies that have always existed in the party, but instead of calling it "Religious views" its "Family Values" to avoid Seperation of Church and State coming up..
Now i myself am a Registered republican, but because i believe in what the party originally and inherently stands for. A Small non-interference government. And this is where i come back to the OP. Why is this a good thing? Because unlike views of Social Engineering or that of the Jedi in which they try to enforce specified and biased views of Morality and duty, all views are allowed to co-exist. In a society based on the Individual, you are in control of your own life. You can go as your own views see fit, and so can the next person. That is why it is not inherently good or Evil, and thus why the Sith are not inherently good or Evil. It is based, largely, on an individualistic Philosophy. Do what is necessary for YOU, not what society thinks is necessary. One can perform percieved Evil Actions, and another good actions. But it is all THEIR actions.
Some, wrongly, like to think this would lead to social collapse and the world couldnt maintain itself because of Apathy because of selfish outlooks. This is not true, because being an individual you do care about your own well being and the well being of those you know and love. And this means you still need a secure and stable region. People will still join militaries, become police, and donate to charity. But they just wont do it because someone told them to. They'll do it because they feel it is necessary in accordance to their own, personal beliefs. The Jedi, however, disagree. It is why they indoctrinate Children from birth.
And i think while the OP is more about how the Jedi views are restrictive and inherently evil in that they are designed from the getgo as an oppressionist group which forces its views down all those it can, its also even more about how the sith ARENT evil. Are they good? No. But they arent evil. Thats what being an INDIVIDUAL is all about. The Sith code is not inherently good or evil because it preaches being your own man. Let go of trying to achieve galactic peace or sets of conditions. Take control of your own life and do what is necessary for your success. It is largely a philosophy of "Being your own man" drenched in "Oh, and use the darkside".
Many like to say "Well arent the Sith forcing their beliefs on the Jedi, being just as bad them?". No, they're retaliating against the Jedi. Because the Jedi have a single mindset that their way is the only way, and any other way is a Path to evil and chaos, they have set themselves up where they have to destroy those who do not follow their way. Because they are evil. And thus, just by existing, the Sith are in the Jedi's crosshairs. They know that to truly thrive and prosper, the Jedi have to be eliminated. It is a endless war that, literally, was brought on by the Jedi itself.
I kind of rammed off point sometimes, i wrote this without much sleep. My main points however - Morality is subjective, thus why a philosphy which allows for focus on the individual and allowing each to make their own choices is good, since there is no "true way", and why a view held by the Jedi can be seen as evil and overly restrictive, indoctrinating and enforcing 1 set of values and beliefs.
Generally speaking, they're both just two extremes, and for all of the bluster of their canon I've never seen or read about a single Jedi or Sith that truly abided by their core tenants to the letter. Well, maybe a few Sith, but they ended up being shallow and uninteresting because of it.
However, in the sense of right and wrong that I feel sane and sober people believe in, the faction that actively pursues personal empowerment via the death and suffering of others is obviously not "the good guys". The truly benevolent faction, however naive and intolerable they may be in some ways, that practices sacrifice for the betterment of all others, is a better alternative and in my opinion good.
Speaking in terms of Sith vs. Jedi, not Empire vs. Republic. Just look at the different codes of the two orders. First, the Sith: Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me. Then look at the code of the Jedi: There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force. All that is required of the Sith is that they be themselves and make their own choices, acknowledging the truth that real peace does not exist and pursuing their goals with the fullness of their passion. This is not, in and of itself, evil. The good or evil of the Sith code lies solely in the goals of the individual Sith. It is, at it's core, a celebration of freedom and humanity. The ideal of the Jedi on the other hand is essentially to be soulless droids. A Jedi is not allowed to know love, the greatest motivator and purpose of life, the Jedi is not allowed anger, even when anger is called for, the Jedi is not allowed grief, no matter how great the loss, the Jedi is not allowed fear, even though fear leads to self-preservation. The Jedi is not allowed humanity, in the philosophical sense, though supposedly his goal is to preserve it. The Jedi code is inherently evil, because it asks of it's followers that they be less than human, that they sacrifice in their own lives all of the aspects that make those lives worth living, to the point that the last line of their code becomes sad prophecy. There truly is no death for a Jedi, because before something can die, it must first live, and for the Jedi there is no life, only the Force. An order dedicated to the eradication of the soul and opposed to the very idea of the individual cannot be considered good.
The Jedi code is Flaw,I'll give you that but they were good guys following a outdated flawed code. If you read the books or better yet the movie Starwars, I forget which one its in its in either 4,5, or 6 that Yoda tells Luke that the old Jedi code was flaw and that its alright to feel love or passion or saddness but to use those feelings for good. One other thing, in the later books Luke rewrites parts of the jedi code and says that there is no light or dark side of the force that the force is just the force and it depends on how those Individuals use it for good or evil or light & dark. Sorry that I could not give you exact book or movie but its been a long time since I read any or watched any.
The Jedi code is Flaw,I'll give you that but they were good guys following a outdated flawed code. If you read the books or better yet the movie Starwars, I forget which one its in its in either 4,5, or 6 that Yoda tells Luke that the old Jedi code was flaw and that its alright to feel love or passion or saddness but to use those feelings for good. One other thing, in the later books Luke rewrites parts of the jedi code and says that there is no light or dark side of the force that the force is just the force and it depends on how those Individuals use it for good or evil or light & dark. Sorry that I could not give you exact book or movie but its been a long time since I read any or watched any.
I know what you are referring to, so no need for anyone to go rifling through source materials. TOR however is going to be set in the time period when the Jedi still strictly held to this code, so it is relevant for the purpose of judging the Order as it will exist in this setting. Also, I did not actually say the individual Jedi themselves were "bad" or "evil," I said only that the code they followed was, and that the method used by the Order to indoctrinate people into believing it precluded free and informed choice.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I think to compare the two codes that the Sith one is more dangerous on a day to day basis. If someones negative passions get the better of their reason they could become twisted.
Both are flawed but I think the Sith one appeals to me slightly more. I would like to add a few conditionals to it such as do no inflict pain on innocents. Do not allow passion to overrule your reason. Because if I really think about the Sith code its not so much talking about individual freedoms as it is being guided solely by emotions and passions and I think reason is an important element in individual behaviour that their code neglects which reigns in a lot of the negative emotion effect. The Jedi by contrast shouldnt blanket condemn all passion.
Basically the Jedi are too controlled by reason and authority at the expense of their emotion and individualism and the Sith are too blind due to their lack of logic and reason and their blind faith in emotions and power.
(Note: I skimmed through most of the thread, so I apologize in advance if the contents of my post were addressed elsewhere)
Ordinarily, I would completely agree with the OP. However, it is my understanding that, unlike our world, in the realm of Star Wars, Good and Evil are not just ideals, moral judgments and/or values, but tangible forces that actually shape and influence the universe. This is made evident by the way that users of the Dark Side suffer from various forms of physical corruption and disfigurement, not to mention the degradation their minds inevitably succumb to. In addition, there are several locations said to be "strong" in either the Light Side or Dark Side, as in they are physically permeated with the respective forces, and the appearance of the area can actually reflect this.
In a reality such as this, the unyielding and uncompromising code of the Jedi Order is probably necessary in order to ensure the continued survival and prosperity of the civilized races of the Galaxy. Their draconian methods of "acquiring" young force users and indoctrinating them into the Jedi Order assures them the highest probability of success in keeping said force users from turning to the Dark Side, a temptation that apparently befalls all of them at one point or another.
On the flipside, young prospective Sith quickly learn that to survive, the greatest tools at their disposal will be deception, ambition, raw power, and uncompromising selfishness. Any "moderate" Sith that simply wanted the powers of the Force at their disposal, and the freedom to use them and live their lives without the constraints of the Jedi Code, but did not want to murder, backstab, steal, bully, etc. in order to accomplish their aims, would be quickly annihilated by less picky Sith. In order to survive, a moderate Sith would have to distance him or herself from other Sith, and even then the gesture would be futile, as it has been established that every time a Dark Side power is used, it furthers the user down the “Path of the Dark Side,” and inevitably even a Sith with the best of intentions (i.e. using the powers of the Dark Side for the greater good) will eventually succumb and become as treacherous and genocidal as any of their brethren. The only solution would be to abandon the Dark Side altogether (which would no longer qualify them as being Sith IIRC), or to use the Dark Side so infrequently that the corruption was kept at an acceptable minimum, which would be pointless as it would effectively render the force user impotent. On paper, the philosophy of the Sith sounds good; in practice, you get massacres, genocides, planetary destruction and misery on a galactic scale.
Now, if we were discussing our own reality, I’d actually have to side with the OP on this one. I mean, you have to give up sex to be a Jedi. Come on.
P.S. please excuse my low post count. I prefer to lurk.
I've seen the movies so many times... that whatever codes you write in this forum I can't think of any reason to think Jedi's are evil. And I'm trying.
I've seen the movies so many times... that whatever codes you write in this forum I can't think of any reason to think Jedi's are evil. And I'm trying.
But why is the Jedis always the ones to draw thier weapons first in combat then?? Think about it!
I've seen the movies so many times... that whatever codes you write in this forum I can't think of any reason to think Jedi's are evil. And I'm trying.
But why is the Jedis always the ones to draw thier weapons first in combat then?? Think about it!
Maybe because they are well aware of the dark side intentions and dont wanna get caught off guard? Thats a possibility
However, thats details that can have 3 bilion explanations for. Now, building death stars or killing a bunch of 6 year old kids, or almost strangulate our own pregnant wife doesnt seem good to me.
The Jedi are based on Zen. In Zen there is no good or evil only balanced and unbalanced. The Jedi code is directed inward while the Sith is directed outward. On the face the Sith code holds more chance for being evil than the Jedi. The Jedi struggle with themselves for balance while the Sith have to achieve "victory" over others and I doubt that victory is a moral one.
As to the friend on a battlefield. A Jedi might help if it preserved his balance as a Sith might act. The only difference is a Sith most likely would not risk himself and his self preservation would override his desire to help. While a Jedi would die to help you to preserve his balance.
In the sense of the universe Jedi is stronger because they are balanced. That strength in Zen is not physical, but in personal strenght. that is why Jedi do not die when they are struck down, but because stronger. they are still able to operate in the universe they were in balance with. Sith instead just corrupt where they die and have no influence outside that spot.
I think that the term "good" is a loaded term. "Good" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I believe more people would agree on what evil is before they would agree on what good is. Is it good to steal to feed a starving family? Is it good to kill a man that is threatening to kill another. Many would say yes, some would say no, and others would say it depends. Zen defines "good" as balance. For every wrong there is a right. Every death has a birth. Every ending is a beginning. Good is found in trying to balance what you do in your life.
Try to do not harm, but realize that everything you do in one way or another can harm another. That is why Jedi contemplate actions before doing them. Balance the result of your action against the cost. Sith just act without thought and only the result matters. In Zen this is what evil is. Living only for one side of the scale. Killing itself is not evil in Zen...killing for no benefit to balance it is.
I always thought of the jedi in this period like monks with special powers. They aren't evil they just believe in controlling their emotions and not letting it cloud their judgement. They choose to make those sacrifices because they want to devote their life to their beliefs. Yes it is a strict code, but then it would cease to be special if it was easy and everyone could do it. The whole jedi thing is a copy from ancient religions.
In response to the original topic, I believe someone pointed out that the Jedi code was based on Zen - I don't know if this is true or not, but it seems to be the best consideration of the topic thus far. Labeling the Jedi "good" and the sith "evil" or vice versa and then arguing about it is a waste of time without establishing a baseline definition as to what "good" and "evil" are. Since, as this thread has shown, the definitions of both are highly variable with respect to the person attempting to define them, a better point may be to make the distinction between order and chaos.
The Jedi code seems to be clearly espousing a canon of order - there is a strong sense of self-regulation and control. The Sith code, however, is built from "passion". As others have suggested, "passion" could be attributed to anything, and is often generated from within the individual in an unknown way. Conventionally, the jedi have been aligned with "good" probably because order is often associated with "good". However, it can just as easily work the other way - one can design a set of rules that is strictly adhered to that promotes "evil" ends - e.g. maximizes suffering.
On an off-note, I agree with others that the Jedi and Sith are characterized in extreme terms. They are highly polarized and represent two sides of a spectrum. However, that spectrum is on a different axis than the one we are interested in "good vs. evil". It was probably a philosophical error on part of the creators of the Star Wars universe to convey the distinction between the Jedi and Sith as one of "good/evil". However, it is much easier to sympathize with a morally charged side than a side abstractly defined by a few descriptive properties.
Also, to just address this comment:
[quote]Not true. Love is an involuntary emotional response, not a choice.[/quote]
I can see why you would make this claim - however, I feel that this statement is misleading and may have been the result of either a failed distinction or misattributed definition. Attraction and infatuation are emotional responses that are biologically driven. However, I think love can be a personal choice by the following arugment: I think it is reasonable to say that humans can choose to care or not care about something - it is a common practice for us to either invest ourselves or to not. Love, can perhaps be broadly defined as caring about something with a certain depth and intensity.
Now, usually, love IS brought about by some emotional response; we are attracted to a person, so we invest ourselves and grow to care for him/her. However, I think it is just as plausible that one can make the choice to care about something deeply without having that be first elicited as a response.
I'd take a Jedi as a friend over a Sith anyday. Just by the Sith code, you can see that they have a high chance of screwing you over. While not every one is black and white I'd say a Sith would more likely leave you to die if you were wounded on a battlefield. Being good is often about self sacrifice for the benefit of others which every Jedi strives to do.
It works if there is a balance.
If everyone is a Sith, it would be total chaos and civil war in every dimension, even inside a family (if it exists). Much like a ffa pvp, backstabbing community.
If everyone is a jedi, we might all starve as we all try to help each other, just a bit too much.
There has to be some selfish folks looking for his own interest, but checked by others so they won't abuse too far. A few jedis to help out where there is dire trouble.
just wondering isnt real life like this anyway ???
Speaking in terms of Sith vs. Jedi, not Empire vs. Republic.
Just look at the different codes of the two orders. First, the Sith:
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Then look at the code of the Jedi:
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.
-------
As has already been mentioned, the Sith Code doesn't strike me as being inherently evil. It promotes individualism and self-improvement, and is a step above the claptrap that is the Jedi Code. Unfortunately, almost every Sith in existence appears to be a sadistic asshole.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to post this far back in a thread... odds are no one is going to be reading way back here anyways. But oh well.
It seems like a lot of you have the Sith code read incorrectly. To me it seems to work a lot like objectivism (Ayn Rand ring a bell?). Sure, a person following the Sith code is selfish. But that doesn't mean he is going to betray anyone and everyone who he gets close to. He would only do that if it were in his best interests to do so... the very definition of selfishness. And how many people who have ever been born, or who ever will be born, can stand against the rest of the universe all by themselves? None, of course. A non-idiot Sith would realize this.
Also, doesn't it seem like Luke, in Episode 6, basically follows that Sith code mentioned by the OP to the freaking letter? I mean, he ignored Yoda and Obi-Wan and went off to save his friends because of his passion for them. That passion fueled him, made him strong... helped him to defeat Vader when he had been unable to defeat Vader in the past (when he wasn't so passionate!). In his victory, he realized he was free... free even from the code that led him to this point (the Sith code)... and so did not succumb to his rage to kill Vader.
Oddly, at this point he proclaimed himself as a Jedi, and the Emperor (who would know a Jedi by looking at him, if anyone would) seems to agree that Luke is a Jedi... even though Luke acted on emotion, was ignorant of the consequences of his actions, was passionate, and was chaotic (unpredictable?)... exactly what the Jedi code says he cannot be.
The Sith = It's not Sempre Fi, it's Sempre I... F that other guy.
The Sith motto would translate to something like "always faithful to myself." It would NOT translate to "lol I'm going to screw everyone else over just because I want to and/or can, even though I'm obviously not omnipotent and therefore it would actually be in my best interests to have some allies and maybe even be nice to people sometimes."
Comments
If I accepted your premise that it is possible for an action to be non-selfish, I might agree. I do not accept it. I believe that the unwillingness many exhibit to acknowledge that all action is fundamentally taken out of self-interest is due to an inability to shake the impression of self-interest as "bad" which has been drilled into people by illogical and unfounded societal indoctrination. Self-interest is not bad. It is not good. It simply is how people work. It has no more moral character than breathing.
Love is when the good of another becomes important to the self, and thus in the interest of the self to preserve. There can be no love without self-interest as it's root.
Take that and try to love somebody who can't love you back (or show that they love you) for whatever circumstantial reason. A selfless person will love them, a selfish person will only love themself and those who can show love in return.
Just when you think you have all the answers, I change the questions.
its also impossible for a selfish person do things that are even in self-interest as the selfish person is self-destructive and is pleasure focused and not principal or moral focused.
Just when you think you have all the answers, I change the questions.
I love posts like this. It comes up with every MMO out there that has two sides to it..such as War..WoW and all the other games. What is evil..what is good. if you look at the way the human society is our ideas of good and evil change though out time. The first two world wars we "KNEW" who the bad guys were. And now no one is truely sure who the "bad guy is" our own social standings have changed as well. the Siths code to me screams of a way out of making an "evil" or "bad" choice. When confronted they can simply say "well i'm just living up to my code..this is what i follow so that is the reason i did this." Where as the jedi to me would take the responsiblity for their own action. This is where good and evil are defined really, on if people take responsibilty for their own actions or try to play pass the buck. here is a good example of the whole is the person "Evil" or "Good" Prince Vlad the Impaler...everyone knows him as the oh so loveable blood thirsty dracula. Anyways most people would consider him "Evil" but in Rominai he is considered a savior. So what one person's idea of evil is could be anothers good.
Personaly I want to play a sith simply because i'm a sick twisted SoB and that kind of power just screams come play with the darkside..we have cookies...at least to me it does!!!
if theories won't help you, all I can say is live it out
everytime you love someone or try to do something good imagine that you're really doing nothing different than shooting up herroine, that, in the motive, they are really no different.
theres a problem though, you'll find. your conscience will no longer be clean and then ask yourself
If there really was no difference between giving money to the poor out of a good heart, and shooting up on heroine then why is there a different effect when I give money with a bad heart? If the heart is the same in both situations why is the heart clean when you focus on selflessness and dirty when you focus on selfishness?
you have two conclusions at that point. 1, you were wrong and THE WAY you think about what you're doing when you're doing it is right or wrong
or 2, peace is a lie
either way all i can say is live it out to your fullest
Just when you think you have all the answers, I change the questions.
Not true. Love is an involuntary emotional response, not a choice. It is entirely possible to love someone who does not love you back, and to do things to help that person because not helping would cause you pain, and you experience a degree of pleasure when you cause that person to be happy. You control only your choices, and choices are self-interested. Love is not a choice.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Two words. Social conditioning. People are trained by their cultures to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. The heart is not "clean" or "dirty" due to any inherent moral quality in the choices themselves, the individual perceives the heart as clean or dirty depending on the way society has taught him to view the choices he has made. The choices themselves are still selfish, because they are made out of a desire to be able to view oneself as having a "clean" heart.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
CazNeerg you are a very wise man. It is a pitty that wisdom is frowned upon in the society of today's world.
The primary issue here, the main reason people disagree with you, is because of the "Social Responsibility" sweeping across much of the civilized world. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The social cog. The age of Individual Freedom and Individual Responsibility is slowly dying. As always in human history, however, it will return. And, likely, it will return after a major revolution or war that yet again turns the world upside down. They will be seen as anarchists, but they will really be a reaction to the social order forcing its views and lifestyle onto all under it.
It kind of reminds me of way back when, in US History. There was a party, which though it still exists today is not the same. It is the Republican party. I know what your thinking, its the "Family Values" party. Well...it wasnt always. Certainly not under lincoln. Primarily established as an Abolishonist party, it became a party of "Individual Liberty and Responsibility". This meant that each individual was charged with taking care of himself, making his own choices, and living with all of their consequences without blame of anyone else. They pushed for smaller government. The government wasnt to dictate to people what was right or wrong, no matter what they themselves personally felt.
Many republicans, indeed, did have the whole "Housewife and 3 children" stereotype of a life going on, particularly in the 1900's, and especially in the 50's. At somepoint, their lifestyle ended up transmuting into their politics, and their politics became a way of preserving their lfiestyle and beliefs, rather than creating a small government and a society of individuals. They became the same as democrats. They want to engineer society just like the democrats. Except instead of "Social Responsibility" and the like of various social and more highly regulated and constricted forms of economic policy that democrats want, they wish to enforce religious lifestyle on doctrine, mixed with the oldshcool less restrictive economic policies that have always existed in the party, but instead of calling it "Religious views" its "Family Values" to avoid Seperation of Church and State coming up..
Now i myself am a Registered republican, but because i believe in what the party originally and inherently stands for. A Small non-interference government. And this is where i come back to the OP. Why is this a good thing? Because unlike views of Social Engineering or that of the Jedi in which they try to enforce specified and biased views of Morality and duty, all views are allowed to co-exist. In a society based on the Individual, you are in control of your own life. You can go as your own views see fit, and so can the next person. That is why it is not inherently good or Evil, and thus why the Sith are not inherently good or Evil. It is based, largely, on an individualistic Philosophy. Do what is necessary for YOU, not what society thinks is necessary. One can perform percieved Evil Actions, and another good actions. But it is all THEIR actions.
Some, wrongly, like to think this would lead to social collapse and the world couldnt maintain itself because of Apathy because of selfish outlooks. This is not true, because being an individual you do care about your own well being and the well being of those you know and love. And this means you still need a secure and stable region. People will still join militaries, become police, and donate to charity. But they just wont do it because someone told them to. They'll do it because they feel it is necessary in accordance to their own, personal beliefs. The Jedi, however, disagree. It is why they indoctrinate Children from birth.
And i think while the OP is more about how the Jedi views are restrictive and inherently evil in that they are designed from the getgo as an oppressionist group which forces its views down all those it can, its also even more about how the sith ARENT evil. Are they good? No. But they arent evil. Thats what being an INDIVIDUAL is all about. The Sith code is not inherently good or evil because it preaches being your own man. Let go of trying to achieve galactic peace or sets of conditions. Take control of your own life and do what is necessary for your success. It is largely a philosophy of "Being your own man" drenched in "Oh, and use the darkside".
Many like to say "Well arent the Sith forcing their beliefs on the Jedi, being just as bad them?". No, they're retaliating against the Jedi. Because the Jedi have a single mindset that their way is the only way, and any other way is a Path to evil and chaos, they have set themselves up where they have to destroy those who do not follow their way. Because they are evil. And thus, just by existing, the Sith are in the Jedi's crosshairs. They know that to truly thrive and prosper, the Jedi have to be eliminated. It is a endless war that, literally, was brought on by the Jedi itself.
I kind of rammed off point sometimes, i wrote this without much sleep. My main points however - Morality is subjective, thus why a philosphy which allows for focus on the individual and allowing each to make their own choices is good, since there is no "true way", and why a view held by the Jedi can be seen as evil and overly restrictive, indoctrinating and enforcing 1 set of values and beliefs.
Generally speaking, they're both just two extremes, and for all of the bluster of their canon I've never seen or read about a single Jedi or Sith that truly abided by their core tenants to the letter. Well, maybe a few Sith, but they ended up being shallow and uninteresting because of it.
However, in the sense of right and wrong that I feel sane and sober people believe in, the faction that actively pursues personal empowerment via the death and suffering of others is obviously not "the good guys". The truly benevolent faction, however naive and intolerable they may be in some ways, that practices sacrifice for the betterment of all others, is a better alternative and in my opinion good.
The Jedi code is Flaw,I'll give you that but they were good guys following a outdated flawed code. If you read the books or better yet the movie Starwars, I forget which one its in its in either 4,5, or 6 that Yoda tells Luke that the old Jedi code was flaw and that its alright to feel love or passion or saddness but to use those feelings for good. One other thing, in the later books Luke rewrites parts of the jedi code and says that there is no light or dark side of the force that the force is just the force and it depends on how those Individuals use it for good or evil or light & dark.
Sorry that I could not give you exact book or movie but its been a long time since I read any or watched any.
I know what you are referring to, so no need for anyone to go rifling through source materials. TOR however is going to be set in the time period when the Jedi still strictly held to this code, so it is relevant for the purpose of judging the Order as it will exist in this setting. Also, I did not actually say the individual Jedi themselves were "bad" or "evil," I said only that the code they followed was, and that the method used by the Order to indoctrinate people into believing it precluded free and informed choice.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I think to compare the two codes that the Sith one is more dangerous on a day to day basis. If someones negative passions get the better of their reason they could become twisted.
Both are flawed but I think the Sith one appeals to me slightly more. I would like to add a few conditionals to it such as do no inflict pain on innocents. Do not allow passion to overrule your reason. Because if I really think about the Sith code its not so much talking about individual freedoms as it is being guided solely by emotions and passions and I think reason is an important element in individual behaviour that their code neglects which reigns in a lot of the negative emotion effect. The Jedi by contrast shouldnt blanket condemn all passion.
Basically the Jedi are too controlled by reason and authority at the expense of their emotion and individualism and the Sith are too blind due to their lack of logic and reason and their blind faith in emotions and power.
Very interesting debate. Clearly the two sides need eachother to function. I suppose I see both good and bad sides of both creeds.
(Note: I skimmed through most of the thread, so I apologize in advance if the contents of my post were addressed elsewhere)
Ordinarily, I would completely agree with the OP. However, it is my understanding that, unlike our world, in the realm of Star Wars, Good and Evil are not just ideals, moral judgments and/or values, but tangible forces that actually shape and influence the universe. This is made evident by the way that users of the Dark Side suffer from various forms of physical corruption and disfigurement, not to mention the degradation their minds inevitably succumb to. In addition, there are several locations said to be "strong" in either the Light Side or Dark Side, as in they are physically permeated with the respective forces, and the appearance of the area can actually reflect this.
In a reality such as this, the unyielding and uncompromising code of the Jedi Order is probably necessary in order to ensure the continued survival and prosperity of the civilized races of the Galaxy. Their draconian methods of "acquiring" young force users and indoctrinating them into the Jedi Order assures them the highest probability of success in keeping said force users from turning to the Dark Side, a temptation that apparently befalls all of them at one point or another.
On the flipside, young prospective Sith quickly learn that to survive, the greatest tools at their disposal will be deception, ambition, raw power, and uncompromising selfishness. Any "moderate" Sith that simply wanted the powers of the Force at their disposal, and the freedom to use them and live their lives without the constraints of the Jedi Code, but did not want to murder, backstab, steal, bully, etc. in order to accomplish their aims, would be quickly annihilated by less picky Sith. In order to survive, a moderate Sith would have to distance him or herself from other Sith, and even then the gesture would be futile, as it has been established that every time a Dark Side power is used, it furthers the user down the “Path of the Dark Side,” and inevitably even a Sith with the best of intentions (i.e. using the powers of the Dark Side for the greater good) will eventually succumb and become as treacherous and genocidal as any of their brethren. The only solution would be to abandon the Dark Side altogether (which would no longer qualify them as being Sith IIRC), or to use the Dark Side so infrequently that the corruption was kept at an acceptable minimum, which would be pointless as it would effectively render the force user impotent. On paper, the philosophy of the Sith sounds good; in practice, you get massacres, genocides, planetary destruction and misery on a galactic scale.
Now, if we were discussing our own reality, I’d actually have to side with the OP on this one. I mean, you have to give up sex to be a Jedi. Come on.
P.S. please excuse my low post count. I prefer to lurk.
I've seen the movies so many times... that whatever codes you write in this forum I can't think of any reason to think Jedi's are evil. And I'm trying.
But why is the Jedis always the ones to draw thier weapons first in combat then?? Think about it!
But why is the Jedis always the ones to draw thier weapons first in combat then?? Think about it!
Maybe because they are well aware of the dark side intentions and dont wanna get caught off guard? Thats a possibility
However, thats details that can have 3 bilion explanations for. Now, building death stars or killing a bunch of 6 year old kids, or almost strangulate our own pregnant wife doesnt seem good to me.
The Jedi are based on Zen. In Zen there is no good or evil only balanced and unbalanced. The Jedi code is directed inward while the Sith is directed outward. On the face the Sith code holds more chance for being evil than the Jedi. The Jedi struggle with themselves for balance while the Sith have to achieve "victory" over others and I doubt that victory is a moral one.
As to the friend on a battlefield. A Jedi might help if it preserved his balance as a Sith might act. The only difference is a Sith most likely would not risk himself and his self preservation would override his desire to help. While a Jedi would die to help you to preserve his balance.
In the sense of the universe Jedi is stronger because they are balanced. That strength in Zen is not physical, but in personal strenght. that is why Jedi do not die when they are struck down, but because stronger. they are still able to operate in the universe they were in balance with. Sith instead just corrupt where they die and have no influence outside that spot.
I think that the term "good" is a loaded term. "Good" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I believe more people would agree on what evil is before they would agree on what good is. Is it good to steal to feed a starving family? Is it good to kill a man that is threatening to kill another. Many would say yes, some would say no, and others would say it depends. Zen defines "good" as balance. For every wrong there is a right. Every death has a birth. Every ending is a beginning. Good is found in trying to balance what you do in your life.
Try to do not harm, but realize that everything you do in one way or another can harm another. That is why Jedi contemplate actions before doing them. Balance the result of your action against the cost. Sith just act without thought and only the result matters. In Zen this is what evil is. Living only for one side of the scale. Killing itself is not evil in Zen...killing for no benefit to balance it is.
I always thought of the jedi in this period like monks with special powers. They aren't evil they just believe in controlling their emotions and not letting it cloud their judgement. They choose to make those sacrifices because they want to devote their life to their beliefs. Yes it is a strict code, but then it would cease to be special if it was easy and everyone could do it. The whole jedi thing is a copy from ancient religions.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
The Sith = It's not Sempre Fi, it's Sempre I... F that other guy.
In response to the original topic, I believe someone pointed out that the Jedi code was based on Zen - I don't know if this is true or not, but it seems to be the best consideration of the topic thus far. Labeling the Jedi "good" and the sith "evil" or vice versa and then arguing about it is a waste of time without establishing a baseline definition as to what "good" and "evil" are. Since, as this thread has shown, the definitions of both are highly variable with respect to the person attempting to define them, a better point may be to make the distinction between order and chaos.
The Jedi code seems to be clearly espousing a canon of order - there is a strong sense of self-regulation and control. The Sith code, however, is built from "passion". As others have suggested, "passion" could be attributed to anything, and is often generated from within the individual in an unknown way. Conventionally, the jedi have been aligned with "good" probably because order is often associated with "good". However, it can just as easily work the other way - one can design a set of rules that is strictly adhered to that promotes "evil" ends - e.g. maximizes suffering.
On an off-note, I agree with others that the Jedi and Sith are characterized in extreme terms. They are highly polarized and represent two sides of a spectrum. However, that spectrum is on a different axis than the one we are interested in "good vs. evil". It was probably a philosophical error on part of the creators of the Star Wars universe to convey the distinction between the Jedi and Sith as one of "good/evil". However, it is much easier to sympathize with a morally charged side than a side abstractly defined by a few descriptive properties.
Also, to just address this comment:
[quote]Not true. Love is an involuntary emotional response, not a choice.[/quote]
I can see why you would make this claim - however, I feel that this statement is misleading and may have been the result of either a failed distinction or misattributed definition. Attraction and infatuation are emotional responses that are biologically driven. However, I think love can be a personal choice by the following arugment: I think it is reasonable to say that humans can choose to care or not care about something - it is a common practice for us to either invest ourselves or to not. Love, can perhaps be broadly defined as caring about something with a certain depth and intensity.
Now, usually, love IS brought about by some emotional response; we are attracted to a person, so we invest ourselves and grow to care for him/her. However, I think it is just as plausible that one can make the choice to care about something deeply without having that be first elicited as a response.
It works if there is a balance.
If everyone is a Sith, it would be total chaos and civil war in every dimension, even inside a family (if it exists). Much like a ffa pvp, backstabbing community.
If everyone is a jedi, we might all starve as we all try to help each other, just a bit too much.
There has to be some selfish folks looking for his own interest, but checked by others so they won't abuse too far. A few jedis to help out where there is dire trouble.
just wondering isnt real life like this anyway ???
um.... they are not real?
either of them.
but if you must debate this, the argument boils down to the very basic philosophical argument of individualism vs. communalism
Jedi are based off of eastern philosophy, i.e. buddhism( as i beleive lucas has stated)
Sith are based off of a western philosophy ( i think)
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to post this far back in a thread... odds are no one is going to be reading way back here anyways. But oh well.
It seems like a lot of you have the Sith code read incorrectly. To me it seems to work a lot like objectivism (Ayn Rand ring a bell?). Sure, a person following the Sith code is selfish. But that doesn't mean he is going to betray anyone and everyone who he gets close to. He would only do that if it were in his best interests to do so... the very definition of selfishness. And how many people who have ever been born, or who ever will be born, can stand against the rest of the universe all by themselves? None, of course. A non-idiot Sith would realize this.
Also, doesn't it seem like Luke, in Episode 6, basically follows that Sith code mentioned by the OP to the freaking letter? I mean, he ignored Yoda and Obi-Wan and went off to save his friends because of his passion for them. That passion fueled him, made him strong... helped him to defeat Vader when he had been unable to defeat Vader in the past (when he wasn't so passionate!). In his victory, he realized he was free... free even from the code that led him to this point (the Sith code)... and so did not succumb to his rage to kill Vader.
Oddly, at this point he proclaimed himself as a Jedi, and the Emperor (who would know a Jedi by looking at him, if anyone would) seems to agree that Luke is a Jedi... even though Luke acted on emotion, was ignorant of the consequences of his actions, was passionate, and was chaotic (unpredictable?)... exactly what the Jedi code says he cannot be.
The Sith motto would translate to something like "always faithful to myself." It would NOT translate to "lol I'm going to screw everyone else over just because I want to and/or can, even though I'm obviously not omnipotent and therefore it would actually be in my best interests to have some allies and maybe even be nice to people sometimes."
Moron.