Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vigil

The Empire is evil.

Recommended Posts

As ethical theories and legal tribunals have found time and time again, "just following orders" is not a moral or legal justification that alleviates one of their culpability in a greater system. One always has the option to not follow orders. Biggs, Finn, and many others defected from the Empire/FO. Others sabotaged from the inside. Anyone could refuse to participate, even if meant their death. It's hard to imagine the operators of the super-laser could go back to their bunks after destroying Alderaan thinking "jeez..that was pretty bad...no that was terrible in fact..all those peoples...oh well, no blood on my hands, I was just following orders! I'm a good guy! Nothing I could have done differently! I had no choice!"PS: I know the vast majority of fans who say that the Empire are the good guys are obviously trolling. But I've met some who genuinely feel that way. and I think it's a product of modern nihilism and gritty morally-gray morally-ambiguous outlooks (which in reality is sometimes the case). But one of the timeless features of Star Wars has always been that it has adhered to a very clear "Good vs Evil" framework at its core.

Unless you are on the victorious side, then just following orders is perfectly fine.

We generally only punish the losers in conflict, do you think if Germany had won WW2 the orchestrators of the fire bombing of dresdin would not have been tried as war criminals? And I could name many other things.

History is written by the victors. (Not saying the nazi regime was not evil) just saying if your side wins then just following orders seems to be just fine.

Uneven punishment after warfare leads to things like WW2 if the world (specifically France) had not utterly crushed out the future of the German economy after WW1 we may not have had a second world war.

Lastly evil is very subjective, how many people did the rebels kill before alderon? How many terror style attacks were done in the name of the rebellion? In a conflict there is rarelly someone on the side of good, just groups with there own agendas doing what they have justified to peruse those agendas in the next of good.

Well, "just perfectly fine if you were the victor" is ambiguous.  It might be the case that people committing such atrocities under a victor are not legally punished or held accountable.  But that doesn't mean they haven't acted immorally.  Morality and legality are not always the same.

Also, to say that 'evil is subjective' is to fully embrace Moral Relativism, which very few ethicists, theologians, or philosophers have done throughout human history.  The vast majority of Ethical Theory is an attempt to identify the nature of an objective morality (independent of an individual's personal position or desires).  Otherwise you're not really talking about morality.

 

Moral Relativism is the spirit of the day.  I have a Christian friend that speaks at college campuses and he says it's not uncommon for him to run into kids who can't even commit to something as terrible as r a p e being wrong.

Stdh.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is it tine to point out the similarities between the Empire testing the Death Star on Alderaan to Anerica dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

 

Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

 

Is it tine to point out the similarities between the Empire testing the Death Star on Alderaan to Anerica dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

 

Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

It's the closest real-life analogue to the use of the Death Star in human history. America wiped out two major civilian population centers with the press of a button.

It remains the only country to have deployed WMDs to this day.

If you think that's "dumb", you need to go and take a long, hard look at yourself.

 

 

America warned not on the government of that nation but also the citizens with leaflets and radio broadcasts. 

 

Japan was no Alderaan and neither them or Germany would have hesitated to do the same thing.  That was back when we fought a war we did it under our own authority and actually knew why we were there and did whatever it took to win and get the thing over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AllWingsStandyingBy, on 05 Oct 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

 

AllWingsStandyingBy, on 05 Oct 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

I will say it's humbling to travel the World and gain a new appreciation for America's utter youth.  For instance, walking around a place like London or Oxford you're literally among buildings and institutions that are nearly a thousand years old...roughly four times as old as the US itself.  That helps one remain humbled, respectful, and appreciative.  The world is an old, big place, full of many wonderful people and their contributions.  It's good to never lose that amidst one's own views and experiences.

 

 

 

The saying goes: In America 200 years is old and 2,000 miles is far.  In Europe 2,000 years is old and 200 miles is far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As ethical theories and legal tribunals have found time and time again, "just following orders" is not a moral or legal justification that alleviates one of their culpability in a greater system. One always has the option to not follow orders. Biggs, Finn, and many others defected from the Empire/FO. Others sabotaged from the inside. Anyone could refuse to participate, even if meant their death. It's hard to imagine the operators of the super-laser could go back to their bunks after destroying Alderaan thinking "jeez..that was pretty bad...no that was terrible in fact..all those peoples...oh well, no blood on my hands, I was just following orders! I'm a good guy! Nothing I could have done differently! I had no choice!"PS: I know the vast majority of fans who say that the Empire are the good guys are obviously trolling. But I've met some who genuinely feel that way. and I think it's a product of modern nihilism and gritty morally-gray morally-ambiguous outlooks (which in reality is sometimes the case). But one of the timeless features of Star Wars has always been that it has adhered to a very clear "Good vs Evil" framework at its core.

Unless you are on the victorious side, then just following orders is perfectly fine.

We generally only punish the losers in conflict, do you think if Germany had won WW2 the orchestrators of the fire bombing of dresdin would not have been tried as war criminals? And I could name many other things.

History is written by the victors. (Not saying the nazi regime was not evil) just saying if your side wins then just following orders seems to be just fine.

Uneven punishment after warfare leads to things like WW2 if the world (specifically France) had not utterly crushed out the future of the German economy after WW1 we may not have had a second world war.

Lastly evil is very subjective, how many people did the rebels kill before alderon? How many terror style attacks were done in the name of the rebellion? In a conflict there is rarelly someone on the side of good, just groups with there own agendas doing what they have justified to peruse those agendas in the next of good.

Well, "just perfectly fine if you were the victor" is ambiguous.  It might be the case that people committing such atrocities under a victor are not legally punished or held accountable.  But that doesn't mean they haven't acted immorally.  Morality and legality are not always the same.

Also, to say that 'evil is subjective' is to fully embrace Moral Relativism, which very few ethicists, theologians, or philosophers have done throughout human history.  The vast majority of Ethical Theory is an attempt to identify the nature of an objective morality (independent of an individual's personal position or desires).  Otherwise you're not really talking about morality.

 

Moral Relativism is the spirit of the day.  I have a Christian friend that speaks at college campuses and he says it's not uncommon for him to run into kids who can't even commit to something as terrible as r a p e being wrong.

Because that's relative to the society you're talking about its wrong in ours but may not be in another society.

In the past human sacrifice was a part of some societies like the Aztec empire, we wouldn't allow it but for them it was normal.

Ancient Rome had animal sacrifice, most had slavery at some point etc.

Morality is directly related to the society it exists in, it's not inconceivable a society that condones such assault could exist and in that culture it would be moral.

Our societies laws have nothing to do with religion after all no one's stoned to death for working Sunday's and we don't allow revenge killing like the bible says you must commit if someone kills a family member (accidental manslaughter included).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it tine to point out the similarities between the Empire testing the Death Star on Alderaan to Anerica dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

Is it tine to point out the similarities between the Empire testing the Death Star on Alderaan to Anerica dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

It's the closest real-life analogue to the use of the Death Star in human history. America wiped out two major civilian population centers with the press of a button.

It remains the only country to have deployed WMDs to this day.

If you think that's "dumb", you need to go and take a long, hard look at yourself.

America warned not on the government of that nation but also the citizens with leaflets and radio broadcasts.

Japan was no Alderaan and neither them or Germany would have hesitated to do the same thing. That was back when we fought a war we did it under our own authority and actually knew why we were there and did whatever it took to win and get the thing over.

It was a massive strick at civilian population in order to intimidate the leaders of Japan into surrender.

It is literally the exact same thing the empire did to alderon. The empire was attempting to do what ever it took to put an end to the conflict.

It did not work for the empire, they did it once and moved on to military targets, it also did not work for America so they did it again...

Maybe if the empire had the balls of the us leadership and just kept exploding civilian targets the rebels may have capitulated?

Personally I believe the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually lead to much less loss of life due to them causing an end to the conflict. (It kind of makes me sick justifing away that amount of death however)

Edited by Icelom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AllWingsStandyingBy, on 05 Oct 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:AllWingsStandyingBy, on 05 Oct 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

 

Cr0aker, on 05 Oct 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:Cr0aker, on 05 Oct 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

For all its flaws it is the longest lasting government currently existing today.

Umm...what?  You might need to go back to history class.  Or else you're using some very loose interpretations of "lasting government," I suppose.

 

 

The usual definition is 'without major changes' and that is what hands it to the US.  I don't know all the nuances but people can argue what constitutes 'major changes' till blue in the face.  The other top 3 candidates are usually UK and Iceland, so your not off the mark there (however when the US came to be, king George exercised real power, and that has changed significantly since).

 

I believe the Haudenosaunee win longest lasting modern government under a single legal tradition by at least a few centuries (Oral Histories make getting an exact date nigh impossible), although given how much power they've lost as the U.S. and Canada grew, you could argue their current status constitutes "major changes."

 

(For the unfamiliar- You may be more familliar with the name their enemies gave them, which Europeans decided to use- the Iroquois league)

 

 

 

 

Is it tine to point out the similarities between the Empire testing the Death Star on Alderaan to Anerica dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

 

 

Is it tine to point out the similarities between the Empire testing the Death Star on Alderaan to Anerica dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

 

It's the closest real-life analogue to the use of the Death Star in human history. America wiped out two major civilian population centers with the press of a button.

It remains the only country to have deployed WMDs to this day.

If you think that's "dumb", you need to go and take a long, hard look at yourself.

 

America warned not on the government of that nation but also the citizens with leaflets and radio broadcasts.

Japan was no Alderaan and neither them or Germany would have hesitated to do the same thing. That was back when we fought a war we did it under our own authority and actually knew why we were there and did whatever it took to win and get the thing over.

 

It was a massive strick at civilian population in order to intimidate the leaders of Japan into surrender.

It is literally the exact same thing the empire did to alderon. The empire was attempting to do what ever it took to put an end to the conflict.

It did not work for the empire, they did it once and moved on to military targets, it also did not work for America so they did it again...

Maybe if the empire had the balls of the us leadership and just kept exploding civilian targets the rebels may have capitulated?

Personally I believe the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually lead to much less loss of life due to them causing an end to the conflict. (It kind of makes me sick justifing away that amount of death however)

 

Japan was still at war with the U.S. Alderaan was not at war with the Empire.

 

Beyond that... there have been a lot of arguments made about why the U.S. dropped the bombs, and if they were justified. I'm not certain a discussion board, or at least, a miniatures discussion board, is the proper place for an informed discussion about a complex topic like this.

Edited by Squark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

As ethical theories and legal tribunals have found time and time again, "just following orders" is not a moral or legal justification that alleviates one of their culpability in a greater system. One always has the option to not follow orders. Biggs, Finn, and many others defected from the Empire/FO. Others sabotaged from the inside. Anyone could refuse to participate, even if meant their death. It's hard to imagine the operators of the super-laser could go back to their bunks after destroying Alderaan thinking "jeez..that was pretty bad...no that was terrible in fact..all those peoples...oh well, no blood on my hands, I was just following orders! I'm a good guy! Nothing I could have done differently! I had no choice!"PS: I know the vast majority of fans who say that the Empire are the good guys are obviously trolling. But I've met some who genuinely feel that way. and I think it's a product of modern nihilism and gritty morally-gray morally-ambiguous outlooks (which in reality is sometimes the case). But one of the timeless features of Star Wars has always been that it has adhered to a very clear "Good vs Evil" framework at its core.

Unless you are on the victorious side, then just following orders is perfectly fine.

We generally only punish the losers in conflict, do you think if Germany had won WW2 the orchestrators of the fire bombing of dresdin would not have been tried as war criminals? And I could name many other things.

History is written by the victors. (Not saying the nazi regime was not evil) just saying if your side wins then just following orders seems to be just fine.

Uneven punishment after warfare leads to things like WW2 if the world (specifically France) had not utterly crushed out the future of the German economy after WW1 we may not have had a second world war.

Lastly evil is very subjective, how many people did the rebels kill before alderon? How many terror style attacks were done in the name of the rebellion? In a conflict there is rarelly someone on the side of good, just groups with there own agendas doing what they have justified to peruse those agendas in the next of good.

Well, "just perfectly fine if you were the victor" is ambiguous.  It might be the case that people committing such atrocities under a victor are not legally punished or held accountable.  But that doesn't mean they haven't acted immorally.  Morality and legality are not always the same.

Also, to say that 'evil is subjective' is to fully embrace Moral Relativism, which very few ethicists, theologians, or philosophers have done throughout human history.  The vast majority of Ethical Theory is an attempt to identify the nature of an objective morality (independent of an individual's personal position or desires).  Otherwise you're not really talking about morality.

 

Moral Relativism is the spirit of the day.  I have a Christian friend that speaks at college campuses and he says it's not uncommon for him to run into kids who can't even commit to something as terrible as r a p e being wrong.

Because that's relative to the society you're talking about its wrong in ours but may not be in another society.

In the past human sacrifice was a part of some societies like the Aztec empire, we wouldn't allow it but for them it was normal.

Ancient Rome had animal sacrifice, most had slavery at some point etc.

Morality is directly related to the society it exists in, it's not inconceivable a society that condones such assault could exist and in that culture it would be moral.

Our societies laws have nothing to do with religion after all no one's stoned to death for working Sunday's and we don't allow revenge killing like the bible says you must commit if someone kills a family member (accidental manslaughter included).

 

 

 

While the perception of morality is "directly related to the society it exists in," there are morally right and wrong things that transcend the laws of any state.  When we lose that truth we lose everything. 

 

If there is no God, and there is no final authority, then nothing is black-and-white and we are all animals and who really is to say what is right or wrong anyways?  Conscience, legality, and morality are all relics of the past and we should dismiss them and progress to a brave new amoral world without limitations. 

 

...or regress back to the jungle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is it tine to point out the similarities between the Empire testing the Death Star on Alderaan to Anerica dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

 

Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

 

Is it tine to point out the similarities between the Empire testing the Death Star on Alderaan to Anerica dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

 

Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

It's the closest real-life analogue to the use of the Death Star in human history. America wiped out two major civilian population centers with the press of a button.

It remains the only country to have deployed WMDs to this day.

If you think that's "dumb", you need to go and take a long, hard look at yourself.

 

No, it's not a "real-life analogue." It's an ignorant ahistorical bull statement. Japan was waging a war of aggression; google "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." They're the empire (literally and in any analogy). They brutalized occupied countries (google "**** of Nanking") and saw themselves as a superior race. In the battle of Iwo Jima, which took place in 1945, around 18,000 Japanese soldiers died and only 200 or so were captured. Iwo Jima is a **** hole volcanic island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I've seen it. In Okinawa, the civilians, persuaded by Japanese propaganda, jumped off cliffs to avoid the American forces. I've been to the memorials at those cliffs. The US was justifiably concerned about the mass casualties we would face if we invaded Japan. We had already been destroying major population centers in Europe and Japan; it just took a lot more bombers (Google "Dresden bombing"). Maybe you get the self-righteous fuzzies by making such comparisons, but they're simply not true. You need to take a long, hard look at some history books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wasn't there a theory that Palpatine militarised the Republic and made it into an Empire in order to combat the threat of the invading Yuuzhan Vong?

There's also a theory that Ja Jar is Snoke.

 

Mace Windu is Snoke.

 

The Empire isn't evil. It's an idealistic endeavor to protect and populate the universe that was lead for 20ish years by a Sith lord. He did evil things with the empire but he was not the empire and the empire was not him. If the empire itself was evil it would not have been given legitimacy with those treaties with the new republic that turned it into the first order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, there were a lot of innocent people on the Death Star when it blew up...

While it is true that there were a lot of coerced contractors and even slaves on the Death Star, anything that heavily armed is a military target. The worst light I can see painting the Rebellion blowing up the Death Star is that they unfortunately caused many civillian casualties because they could not afford to let the Empire use masses of human shields to prevent them from destroying a super weapon.

 

----

As far as Japan being "The Empire"... Well, yeah. The Galactic Empire was based upon the Axis powers, and Lucas was heavily influenced by pulp fiction, including those with Japanese Influences- Darth Vader's mask, particularly in early concept art, bears a strong resemblance to old Japanese Armor.

 

That being said... exactly how willing Japan was to continue fighting the war on their home territory has been discussed to death, and I don't see how this is going to do anything more unless someone breaks out some actual peer reviewed history.

Edited by Squark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

As ethical theories and legal tribunals have found time and time again, "just following orders" is not a moral or legal justification that alleviates one of their culpability in a greater system. One always has the option to not follow orders. Biggs, Finn, and many others defected from the Empire/FO. Others sabotaged from the inside. Anyone could refuse to participate, even if meant their death. It's hard to imagine the operators of the super-laser could go back to their bunks after destroying Alderaan thinking "jeez..that was pretty bad...no that was terrible in fact..all those peoples...oh well, no blood on my hands, I was just following orders! I'm a good guy! Nothing I could have done differently! I had no choice!"PS: I know the vast majority of fans who say that the Empire are the good guys are obviously trolling. But I've met some who genuinely feel that way. and I think it's a product of modern nihilism and gritty morally-gray morally-ambiguous outlooks (which in reality is sometimes the case). But one of the timeless features of Star Wars has always been that it has adhered to a very clear "Good vs Evil" framework at its core.

Unless you are on the victorious side, then just following orders is perfectly fine.

We generally only punish the losers in conflict, do you think if Germany had won WW2 the orchestrators of the fire bombing of dresdin would not have been tried as war criminals? And I could name many other things.

History is written by the victors. (Not saying the nazi regime was not evil) just saying if your side wins then just following orders seems to be just fine.

Uneven punishment after warfare leads to things like WW2 if the world (specifically France) had not utterly crushed out the future of the German economy after WW1 we may not have had a second world war.

Lastly evil is very subjective, how many people did the rebels kill before alderon? How many terror style attacks were done in the name of the rebellion? In a conflict there is rarelly someone on the side of good, just groups with there own agendas doing what they have justified to peruse those agendas in the next of good.

Well, "just perfectly fine if you were the victor" is ambiguous.  It might be the case that people committing such atrocities under a victor are not legally punished or held accountable.  But that doesn't mean they haven't acted immorally.  Morality and legality are not always the same.

Also, to say that 'evil is subjective' is to fully embrace Moral Relativism, which very few ethicists, theologians, or philosophers have done throughout human history.  The vast majority of Ethical Theory is an attempt to identify the nature of an objective morality (independent of an individual's personal position or desires).  Otherwise you're not really talking about morality.

 

Moral Relativism is the spirit of the day.  I have a Christian friend that speaks at college campuses and he says it's not uncommon for him to run into kids who can't even commit to something as terrible as r a p e being wrong.

Because that's relative to the society you're talking about its wrong in ours but may not be in another society.

In the past human sacrifice was a part of some societies like the Aztec empire, we wouldn't allow it but for them it was normal.

Ancient Rome had animal sacrifice, most had slavery at some point etc.

Morality is directly related to the society it exists in, it's not inconceivable a society that condones such assault could exist and in that culture it would be moral.

Our societies laws have nothing to do with religion after all no one's stoned to death for working Sunday's and we don't allow revenge killing like the bible says you must commit if someone kills a family member (accidental manslaughter included).

 

 

 

While the perception of morality is "directly related to the society it exists in," there are morally right and wrong things that transcend the laws of any state.  When we lose that truth we lose everything. 

 

If there is no God, and there is no final authority, then nothing is black-and-white and we are all animals and who really is to say what is right or wrong anyways?  Conscience, legality, and morality are all relics of the past and we should dismiss them and progress to a brave new amoral world without limitations. 

 

...or regress back to the jungle.

 

So things are moral and immoral on the whim of a being whose only proof is itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You know, there were a lot of innocent people on the Death Star when it blew up...

While it is true that there were a lot of coerced contractors and even slaves on the Death Star, anything that heavily armed is a military target. The worst light I can see painting the Rebellion blowing up the Death Star is that they unfortunately caused many civillian casualties because they could not afford to let the Empire use masses of human shields to prevent them from destroying a super weapon.

 

----

As far as Japan being "The Empire"... Well, yeah. The Galactic Empire was based upon the Axis powers, and Lucas was heavily influenced by pulp fiction, including those with Japanese Influences- Darth Vader's mask, particularly in early concept art, bears a strong resemblance to old Japanese Armor.

 

That being said... exactly how willing Japan was to continue fighting the war on their home territory has been discussed to death, and I don't see how this is going to do anything more unless someone breaks out some actual peer reviewed history.

 

 

Well, the Rebellion was obviously evil for blowing up a military target and killing untold innocents in the process.  Clearly the moral thing to do was to neutralize the threat of the Death Star somehow without killing people in the process.  Perhaps a surgical strike force or massive ion blast? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

As ethical theories and legal tribunals have found time and time again, "just following orders" is not a moral or legal justification that alleviates one of their culpability in a greater system. One always has the option to not follow orders. Biggs, Finn, and many others defected from the Empire/FO. Others sabotaged from the inside. Anyone could refuse to participate, even if meant their death. It's hard to imagine the operators of the super-laser could go back to their bunks after destroying Alderaan thinking "jeez..that was pretty bad...no that was terrible in fact..all those peoples...oh well, no blood on my hands, I was just following orders! I'm a good guy! Nothing I could have done differently! I had no choice!"PS: I know the vast majority of fans who say that the Empire are the good guys are obviously trolling. But I've met some who genuinely feel that way. and I think it's a product of modern nihilism and gritty morally-gray morally-ambiguous outlooks (which in reality is sometimes the case). But one of the timeless features of Star Wars has always been that it has adhered to a very clear "Good vs Evil" framework at its core.

Unless you are on the victorious side, then just following orders is perfectly fine.

We generally only punish the losers in conflict, do you think if Germany had won WW2 the orchestrators of the fire bombing of dresdin would not have been tried as war criminals? And I could name many other things.

History is written by the victors. (Not saying the nazi regime was not evil) just saying if your side wins then just following orders seems to be just fine.

Uneven punishment after warfare leads to things like WW2 if the world (specifically France) had not utterly crushed out the future of the German economy after WW1 we may not have had a second world war.

Lastly evil is very subjective, how many people did the rebels kill before alderon? How many terror style attacks were done in the name of the rebellion? In a conflict there is rarelly someone on the side of good, just groups with there own agendas doing what they have justified to peruse those agendas in the next of good.

Well, "just perfectly fine if you were the victor" is ambiguous.  It might be the case that people committing such atrocities under a victor are not legally punished or held accountable.  But that doesn't mean they haven't acted immorally.  Morality and legality are not always the same.

Also, to say that 'evil is subjective' is to fully embrace Moral Relativism, which very few ethicists, theologians, or philosophers have done throughout human history.  The vast majority of Ethical Theory is an attempt to identify the nature of an objective morality (independent of an individual's personal position or desires).  Otherwise you're not really talking about morality.

 

Moral Relativism is the spirit of the day.  I have a Christian friend that speaks at college campuses and he says it's not uncommon for him to run into kids who can't even commit to something as terrible as r a p e being wrong.

Because that's relative to the society you're talking about its wrong in ours but may not be in another society.

In the past human sacrifice was a part of some societies like the Aztec empire, we wouldn't allow it but for them it was normal.

Ancient Rome had animal sacrifice, most had slavery at some point etc.

Morality is directly related to the society it exists in, it's not inconceivable a society that condones such assault could exist and in that culture it would be moral.

Our societies laws have nothing to do with religion after all no one's stoned to death for working Sunday's and we don't allow revenge killing like the bible says you must commit if someone kills a family member (accidental manslaughter included).

 

 

 

While the perception of morality is "directly related to the society it exists in," there are morally right and wrong things that transcend the laws of any state.  When we lose that truth we lose everything. 

 

If there is no God, and there is no final authority, then nothing is black-and-white and we are all animals and who really is to say what is right or wrong anyways?  Conscience, legality, and morality are all relics of the past and we should dismiss them and progress to a brave new amoral world without limitations. 

 

...or regress back to the jungle.

 

So things are moral and immoral on the whim of a being whose only proof is itself?

 

 

Of course not.  We are all our own gods and we decide what we think is right and wrong, and therefore might makes right. 

 

And once again, we are back in the jungle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, the Rebellion was obviously evil for blowing up a military target and killing untold innocents in the process.  Clearly the moral thing to do was to neutralize the threat of the Death Star somehow without killing people in the process.  Perhaps a surgical strike force or massive ion blast?

That's only slightly less silly than saying the U.S. shouldn't have bombed Japan, but instead sent Superman in to destroy all the Japanese soldiers' weapons. Nobody had an ion weapon big enough to take out the Death Star, and the only people with the resources to build one was the Empire itself. And a surgical strike wouldn't suffice unless it destroyed the Death Star's weapons beyond repair, which would still claim the lives of many on board (Not to mention, such an endeavor was wholly beyond the Rebellion's resources in ep. IV). You can't argue the ethical course of action was to do something blatantly impossible.

Edited by Squark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, the Rebellion was obviously evil for blowing up a military target and killing untold innocents in the process.  Clearly the moral thing to do was to neutralize the threat of the Death Star somehow without killing people in the process.  Perhaps a surgical strike force or massive ion blast?

That's only slightly less silly than saying the U.S. shouldn't have bombed Japan, but instead sent Superman in to destroy all the Japanese soldiers' weapons. Nobody had an ion weapon big enough to take out the Death Star, and the only people with the resources to build one was the Empire itself. And a surgical strike wouldn't suffice unless it destroyed the Death Star's weapons beyond repair, which would still claim the lives of many on board (Not to mention, such an endeavor was wholly beyond the Rebellion's resources in ep. IV). You can't argue the ethical course of action was to do something blatantly impossible.

 

 

Exactly.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did evil things with the empire but he was not the empire and the empire was not him. If the empire itself was evil it would not have been given legitimacy with those treaties with the new republic that turned it into the first order.

 

The First Order is not descended from those formerly Imperial worlds that surrendered to the New Republic - but from those Imperials that fled into the Unknown Regions, signing no treaties, and instead rebuilding in secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sleep in, and this thread is what happens.....

Well to throw my 2 cents into the argument, a government is never inherently good or evil (unless it's founded on evil principles, like human sacrifice, or the NSDAP). There can be evil republics, and good monarchies, and vice-versa. The ruler and the people in power are what is responsible for the good and evil. If persons in a government commit evil actions (Example Hitler). That means those people are evil, not the government, unless the government was founded expressly to commit those evil acts. In the case of the Empire, While the type of government (Autocratic Monarchy) isn't necessarily evil (although there haven't been very many good ones), The Empire was founded specifically to serve the Emperor, making it as evil as the person who founded it. After the Emperors death, it could've easily reformed into a better government, but for the duration of Palpatine's rule, it was an evil government.

Also, as someone who isn't overly fond of the bombing of Japan (or the fire bombings of Germany for that matter), comparing America to the Empire, and nukes to the Death Star is silly. America was fighting a defensive war against an opponent who wouldn't surrender until their entire country was overrun, where's the Empire was wiping out a loyal state who was discontent with their rule. Huge difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morality can easily be based upon the autonomous agency of rational creatures. The action of an autonomous being, when it impedes the ability of another autonomous being to self-govern, is the defining characteristic of an immoral act. This account is insensitive to culture or society, it is only sensitive to the nature of the interacting agents. It allows you to rule upon the rightness or otherwise of an act, regardless of whether that act is legal or not. 

 

Now most people already recognise this account, especially when they are the offended agent. 

 

You don't need a divine figure, and you certainly don't have to take the east way out into relativism (or indeed nihilism.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the perception of morality is "directly related to the society it exists in," there are morally right and wrong things that transcend the laws of any state.  When we lose that truth we lose everything. 

That would, of course, be your definitions of "truth" and "everything" we're talking about right? Because something tells me that they don't match mine.

 

If there is no God, and there is no final authority, then nothing is black-and-white and we are all animals and who really is to say what is right or wrong anyways?

Well that would be a group of people with both sufficient agreement and sufficient means to reinforce their version of right and wrong amongst themselves. Or you know, how humanity has always done things whether in the guise of religion, softly enforced societal norms, or government

 

Conscience, legality, and morality are all relics of the past and we should dismiss them and progress to a brave new amoral world without limitations.

...or regress back to the jungle.

I love how these discussions are always framed as having only two legitimate outcomes. Either one persons perfect shining personal beliefs on one hand or degenerate Lord of the Flies style anarchy on the other. There have been many successful societies with many different views on various moral issues and even those tend not to be static but evolve over time. To think that whatever system of morality you personally ascribe to as being the end all be all of moral reckoning is blatant hubris and will inevitably see you end up on the wrong side of history as whatever direction future societies take inevitably deviates from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to put words in my mouth, Mak!  I never said my sense or morality was the only one acceptable or that it wasn't compatible with others, but only that if we lose all sense of morality we are doomed. 

 

There are things that are hard-wired and self-evidently right and wrong and that's only point I was making.  That is a foundational truth and if we lose it we're toast and it's only a matter of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...