one difference between a dark jedi and a sith is a sith actually tries to rationalize what they're doing and a dark jedi just knows they're wrong

this affects their playstyle as a dark jedi has fear as they are expecting to be judged

This most common arguement against the Light being the wrong path and Dark being good is actually a sidestep on the issue and criticism of those who report to follow the Light.  If they do something wrong, we conclude, it is because the Light is wrong.

Fortunately for gray jedi they realize that while the Light is right and Dark is wrong, that sometimes the jedi council is wrong (they interpret the Light incorrectly).

Some people confuse dark jedi, like anakin, who think they can use both Light and Dark whenever they feel like it, for gray jedi who know better, that you can't abuse morality like that.  You either have an allegiance with one or the other.  Your habitual actions may sometimes do something against your allegiance, but you can only have on allegiance.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by Gestankfaust

because morals are morals...the moral code is inherent...and not swayed by opinion. You are either morale...or you are not.

 It's like asking whether or not you would rape.....morality tells you you should not....it doesn't ask "what if"

 

 

There is your problem right there.  There is no "the moral code."  There are many competing moral codes, all with their own perspective on what is moral.

Hell, without you telling us *which* moral code you are talking about, there isn't even any way for us to know that you are representing it correctly, except taking your word for it.

you....just are clueless....

There is no "moral code". Just morality....and it is defined and non swaying to your views.....you are the weak point in morality.....period

Originally posted by Sabradin

This most common arguement against the Light being the wrong path and Dark being good is actually a sidestep on the issue and criticism of those who report to follow the Light.  If they do something wrong, we conclude, it is because the Light is wrong.

Fortunately for gray jedi they realize that while the Light is right and Dark is wrong, that sometimes the jedi council is wrong (they interpret the Light incorrectly).

Some people confuse dark jedi, like anakin, who think they can use both Light and Dark whenever they feel like it, for gray jedi who know better, that you can't abuse morality like that.  You either have an allegiance with one or the other.  Your habitual actions may sometimes do something against your allegiance, but you can only have on allegiance.

I would argue that this is a seperate discussion.  Jedi vs. Sith, especially in terms of their codes, is nowhere near the same as Light vs. Dark.  One could follow either code, and tilt either to the Light or the Dark.

Assuming of course, that one buys into the practice of segmenting the force and labelling the "parts" with names carrying heavy moral connotations.  One could just as easily describe them as the "Consequence Free and Sporadically Useful" side of the force and the "Consequence commensurate with it's greater power" side of the force.  A bit wordy though, Light and Dark do fall off the tongue more easily.

As to your description of Dark Jedi, "knowing they are wrong,"  I disagree.  Dark Jedi know they are in violation of the Jedi code, and the Jedi indoctrination process may have led them to believe that this makes them "wrong," but wrong is in truth a matter of perspective, what is wrong for one is not necessarily wrong for another, and many Dark Jedi choose to view themselves as right.

Originally posted by Gestankfaust

you....just are clueless....

 There is no "moral code". Just morality....and it is defined and non swaying to your views.....you are the weak point in morality.....period

  

Wikipedia:

"In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be "common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time."

Not seeing where this is some absolute thing that doesn't sway according to anyone's views.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by Sabradin

This most common arguement against the Light being the wrong path and Dark being good is actually a sidestep on the issue and criticism of those who report to follow the Light.  If they do something wrong, we conclude, it is because the Light is wrong.

Fortunately for gray jedi they realize that while the Light is right and Dark is wrong, that sometimes the jedi council is wrong (they interpret the Light incorrectly).

Some people confuse dark jedi, like anakin, who think they can use both Light and Dark whenever they feel like it, for gray jedi who know better, that you can't abuse morality like that.  You either have an allegiance with one or the other.  Your habitual actions may sometimes do something against your allegiance, but you can only have on allegiance.

 

I would argue that this is a seperate discussion.  Jedi vs. Sith, especially in terms of their codes, is nowhere near the same as Light vs. Dark.  One could follow either code, and tilt either to the Light or the Dark.

Assuming of course, that one buys into the practice of segmenting the force and labelling the "parts" with names carrying heavy moral connotations.  One could just as easily describe them as the "Consequence Free and Sporadically Useful" side of the force and the "Consequence commensurate with it's greater power" side of the force.  A bit wordy though, Light and Dark do fall off the tongue more easily.

As to your description of Dark Jedi, "knowing they are wrong,"  I disagree.  Dark Jedi know they are in violation of the Jedi code, and the Jedi indoctrination process may have led them to believe that this makes them "wrong," but wrong is in truth a matter of perspective, what is wrong for one is not necessarily wrong for another, and many Dark Jedi choose to view themselves as right.

Ding ding ding, can we give this man here a prize?

Originally posted by jusomdude

This is a pretty silly discussion altogether, no matter what twisted reasoning some people come up with to try and show those filled with unruly hatred towards everything and pure selfishness as good, any rational person can see through it.

I'd say the OP is a pro at trying to twist minds and dismissing anything that doesn't go along with his point of view but that doesn't work in HUMANITY which is what this is really about.

For instance someone came in here with a quote from George Lucas saying that the nature of the Sith is hatred yet the OP came up with some crap like it's irrelevant, I'm sorry but if anyone is absolutely relevant in this discussion it's George Lucas. He's more relevant than me, the OP, or anyone else posting in this thread.

Is the purest of hatred which is a part of every single Sith evil? Without a doubt.

Ah by this quote you are really saying is the op is a JEDI ??? because that sounds just like a jedi to me... This makes more sense to me now, the op is a jedi trying to make people hate the sith more ..ahhhhh.

Originally posted by Gestankfaust

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by Gestankfaust

because morals are morals...the moral code is inherent...and not swayed by opinion. You are either morale...or you are not.

 It's like asking whether or not you would rape.....morality tells you you should not....it doesn't ask "what if"

 

 

There is your problem right there.  There is no "the moral code."  There are many competing moral codes, all with their own perspective on what is moral.

Hell, without you telling us *which* moral code you are talking about, there isn't even any way for us to know that you are representing it correctly, except taking your word for it.

 

you....just are clueless....

 

There is no "moral code". Just morality....and it is defined and non swaying to your views.....you are the weak point in morality.....period

 

 

 

Ok, though I was on your side in disagreeing with CazNeerg about the OP, I am going to step in and add my 2 cents. Morality is a phenomenon that we as humans have constructed in order to live in a society and escape the ordinary chaos that accompanies humanity without rules. Though you seem to believe that morality is set in stone, in truth morality is just what a collection of people believe to be the proper way to conduct themselves. For instance shaming a wife in certain countries is acceptable if she is raped.... she has at that point been unfaithful to her husband.... even though it was her who was violated. She is the one believed to be immoral, not the person who raped her. (parts of Africa by the way).

Though you seem to strongly wish that there is some divine rule-set, deep down you must know that morality is not something that is permanent, otherwise we would all behave the same. Because we each have individual ideas of morality, we are able to be individuals. You are guilty of being close-minded, though you seem to accuse the OP of that very thing, however you are extremely intolerant when it comes to this issue. That is not uncommon and in most cases expected.

1. Are you religious?  (it seems that most religious people have difficulty fathoming that morality is just a subjective concept) *not always the case for all those who wish to sit here and bash me for a simple observation*

2. Why is it so hard to believe that morality is subjective? Do you have a list that tells you what way to act/think/feel/judge for every event that could ever possibly take place? Most likely not....though you might say the 8-fold-path or the 10 commandments.... though they  hardly touch the surface of what such a bold list would attempt. 

If you look at any society and ask yourself why they have their laws... the answer should turn up around the area of "they are established because at some point someone thought that the law would benefit society". Without arrests/trials for murder then people would murder more often (not that much more depending on what you believe, but the killers would have less reason to be cautious and therefore become more proficient in their task). Without proper punishment to a child (not restricting the word punishment to violent/physical actions...all punishment) the child will not learn a specific lesson that is being taught to him/her. However at the end of the day it is up to the individual to decide what rules or lesson he/she will follow. You can tell someone what you believe to be right and what you believe to be wrong, but  when someone makes the decision to pull the trigger... in their mind it is the "right" decision...otherwise they would not do it. What you believe...though they know your answer, is often of  little use to them.

I respect a gay man or woman's right to get married... however that does not mean that I believe it is right/wrong. Society (majority rule) would tell me it is wrong, and I might know that. Surly the gay couples might know that, however just because someone else has told you that it is wrong, doesn't make it empirically wrong. It makes it different; People are afraid of different.

Night :P

I agree morality itself is entirely subjective.   In the eye of the beholder.

However, this topic is about a specific religious faction, the sith and the jedi.  Both of these groups have clear moral codes of their own.  So I would imagine that both sides view their own viewpoints and "good" and the other side as "bad."

Hence the Sith think they're the good guys.

The Jedi think they're the good guys.

Eternal conflict, isn't that wonderful?

Its all because they both have sperate moral codes that dictate the other side's viewpoint cannot be right.  Almost like they are designed to fight one another...  Imagine that.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

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.

Sith say that peace is a lie, Jedi say that passion is destructive.

I'm confident a Jedi, if you asked him, would say "Its not that passion in itself is destructive, its thinking that passion and the following of your passions will bring you peace.  All it will do is increase your passions even more."

Jedi say attaining peace is good, Sith say satisfying your passions is good.

I disagree with Sith because satisfying a passion is inherently neither good nor bad, it just is.  Only when you think it is good or think it will bring you what you need will you start to actually begin destroying what peace you have left and the peace of others around you.

A jedi is like a buddhist, a sith is like a drug addict.

A jedi will say passions won't bring you happiness, only following after the Light.

If you think the satisfaction of passion is happiness, then I can see why you'd consider them evil.

A jedi argues the soul longs for the Light but is distracted by passions.

Personally, if I were a jedi, I would say that if a non-destructive passion is becomming that much of a distraction its best to just fulfill it.. though you must prepare to live the rest of your life like that; and it will always be a distraction.

Ever watch the Devil's Advocate?  He (devil) was trying to explain how he WANTS keanue to get everything he wants.
You're not going to find peace that way.  But the sith rule that out from the start - "Peace is a lie, there is only passion."

I agree with Jedi that passions distract us, and destroy us when we misplace them (i.e. think that their fulfillment will bring us peace).  Unfortunately theres also a fact, which is no matter how much good you do, evil will be there.

Anywho I also think jedi get it wrong, because I think Force is just energy, and that Light/Dark are actually moral codes written within each moral or sentient being.  So in a sense I agree with Darth Sedious that the force is just energy, but disagree that moral codes are "petty" but instead are the two paths we may take when using the force.

"Force is energy"
"How we choose to use our energy determines our destiny"

Originally posted by CoffeeGrunt

why so complicated

 

Jedi = all the mixture of all known religions apply here

makes it sacred , pure

LMAO

 

Sith =nothing  realy applies here , its all bout you goals you wanna reach

 

so in terms of modern day 'good guys' 

Its the Jedi

so your telling me that religion is good? when probably most the wars in mankinds history was because the other country was a different religion? thats a bunch of shit with what your saying i would rather be a sith.

Originally posted by Gigget

 dude, you have it all wrong.  The sith is about themselves, hence the "I" part -- everything is for their personal gain.  The jedi is not about oneself, but being humble and striving for the betterment of those around them; not about personal gain.

So basicly sith are for personal freedom and jedis are dirty, no good commies.

There is no definitive good or evil, only what one person or group deems to be good or evil, thus making it so for them.

This is one thread in which everyone can be right.

May I have a cookie now please? :D

Originally posted by Joppari

There is no definitive good or evil, only what one person or group deems to be good or evil, thus making it so for them.

 

This is one thread in which everyone can be right.

 

May I have a cookie now please? :D

Unless you try to argue you're set of morals is the only one ;)

Originally posted by sanders01

Originally posted by Joppari

There is no definitive good or evil, only what one person or group deems to be good or evil, thus making it so for them.

 

This is one thread in which everyone can be right.

 

May I have a cookie now please? :D

Unless you try to argue you're set of morals is the only one ;)

It wouldn't matter at all in this case, that's what makes this such a happy, friendly thread that all the family can enjoy.

In 5,000 BBY, the Sith Lord Naga Sadow fled to Yavin 4 on his flagship along with an army of Massassi warriors following the defeat of his Sith forces during the Great Hyperspace War by the Galactic Republic. He then conducted Sith alchemic experiments on his Massassi warriors, causing them to mutate from red-skinned humanoids into fearsome, savage, hunchbacked predators. Despite these abuses, his Massassi slaves treated him like a god, building huge temples, filled with treasure, to honor their Sith Lord.

Sadow also encased himself in a Sith sarcophagus where he remained in a coma-like trance for centuries, waiting for someone to call upon his power and continue the history of the Sith. He remained in suspended animation until 4,400 BBY, when a fallen Jedi named Freedon Nadd arrived on Yavin 4. By then, the descendants of the Massassi had devolved into a primitive hunter-warrior society. At first, the Massassi attacked him though his use of the Force amazed them, who recalled the Golden Age of the Sith. They then showed him where the Dark Lord rested, waiting for other Dark Jedi. Nadd then awoke Naga Sadow, who taught him in the ways of the Sith, until, as was the Sith's nature, Nadd killed him, becoming Dark Lord himself.

Centuries later, in 3,997 BBY, the fallen Jedi Exar Kun went to Yavin 4 at the advice of the dark side spirit of Freedon Nadd. There he discovered the Massassi, who tried to sacrifice him to a monstrous beast of alchemical origins beneath their main temple. However, using his dark powers, he managed to save himself. The dark side manifestation of Freedon Nadd appeared, delighted with Kun's actions and claiming him as his ally - though Exar Kun would hear none of this and instead used his newly-found Sith powers to destroy Nadd.

As the new Dark Lord of the Sith, he enslaved the Massassi and took over Yavin 4. He then used his Massassi slaves to construct new Sith temples and palaces, based on Sith architecture and designed to focus dark powers. His slaves also discovered the flagship of Naga Sadow beneath the ruins of an ancient Massassi temple. He also created vicious Sithspawn including the battle hydras, terentateks, Night Beast. The Sith Lord also imprisoned the souls of the children of the Massassi in a malevolent Dark Side device known as the Golden Globe.

Later, Kun allied himself with the Krath - another group of dark-siders based in the Empress Teta system under the leadership of Aleema Keto and another fallen Jedi Ulic Qel-Droma. He then went to the Jedi world of Ossus and recruited twenty Jedi to his cause, thus starting the Brotherhood of the Sith. In 3,996 BBY, Exar Kun along with his Krath and Mandalorian allies waged war on the Republic and the Jedi. The Jedi eventually prevailed and gathered their forces for an assault on Yavin 4. However, as the orbiting Jedi fleet launched a wall of light side power which bombarded the jungle moon, Kun gathered his Massassi followers into the Great Temple and drained their life energies in order to free his spirit from his body and invest it into the surrounding structures where he would remain for millennia.

Yep. Sounds like the good guys to me :)

I dont know whether the Sith are evil or the Jedi are good,

but you all are definitely nerds.

---

Originally posted by logangregor
I dont know whether the Sith are evil or the Jedi are good,

but you all are definitely nerds.

---

And proud of it.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

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.

This is my code:

Cake is a lie, there is only pie

Yeah, Frederich Nietzsche was a 'good guy' too i bet huh. Individualism=pride=war. Now, i am not a communist or anything. I believe in the rights of the individual. That doesnt change the facts that MOST 'individuals' on this planet are self-serving hypocrits. 

Originally posted by Fraugnutz

 

Yeah, Frederich Nietzsche was a 'good guy' too i bet huh. Individualism=pride=war. Now, i am not a communist or anything. I believe in the rights of the individual. That doesnt change the facts that MOST 'individuals' on this planet are self-serving hypocrits. 

Nietzsche was a very smart man.  Your logic is flawed.  Even if individualism did inherently lead to pride, which I do not necessarily grant you, since I am not sure exactly what your definitions of individualism and pride are, pride does not automatically lead to war.  That is a big leap.  Also, all individuals are self-serving, but the ones who are self-aware and self-honest enough to admit it are not hypocrites.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by Fraugnutz

 

Yeah, Frederich Nietzsche was a 'good guy' too i bet huh. Individualism=pride=war. Now, i am not a communist or anything. I believe in the rights of the individual. That doesnt change the facts that MOST 'individuals' on this planet are self-serving hypocrits. 

 

Nietzsche was a very smart man.  Your logic is flawed.  Even if individualism did inherently lead to pride, which I do not necessarily grant you, since I am not sure exactly what your definitions of individualism and pride are, pride does not automatically lead to war.  That is a big leap.  Also, all individuals are self-serving, but the ones who are self-aware and self-honest enough to admit it are not hypocrites.

A jedi can be honest about his or her imperfections and admit that they don't get it right. 

More importantly a jedi understands the difference between self-interest and selfishness.

Its the difference between focusing on loving someone, and focusing on the pleasure that comes from loving someone.  The former does it because its right (and pleasure is an after-effect), the latter does it just for the pleasure (and right or wrong is no matter to them.

Originally posted by Sabradin

A jedi can be honest about his or her imperfections and admit that they don't get it right. 

More importantly a jedi understands the difference between self-interest and selfishness.

Its the difference between focusing on loving someone, and focusing on the pleasure that comes from loving someone.  The former does it because its right (and pleasure is an after-effect), the latter does it just for the pleasure (and right or wrong is no matter to them.

The former tells himself he is doing it because he is right, because that makes him feel even better than just doing it.  What is happening there is two seperate pleasures, the pleasure that comes from loving someone, and the pleasure that comes from being "right."  Two for one sale!

The only difference between self-interest and selfishness is the capacity of the individual in question to understand and be honest about his own motivations.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by Sabradin

A jedi can be honest about his or her imperfections and admit that they don't get it right. 

More importantly a jedi understands the difference between self-interest and selfishness.

Its the difference between focusing on loving someone, and focusing on the pleasure that comes from loving someone.  The former does it because its right (and pleasure is an after-effect), the latter does it just for the pleasure (and right or wrong is no matter to them.

 

The former tells himself he is doing it because he is right, because that makes him feel even better than just doing it.  What is happening there is two seperate pleasures, the pleasure that comes from loving someone, and the pleasure that comes from being "right."  Two for one sale!

The only difference between self-interest and selfishness is the capacity of the individual in question to understand and be honest about his own motivations.

if you ever love a person you'll realize you aren't doing it for your own selfish pleasures, because thats not love.

Originally posted by Sabradin

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.