I always liked this analysis and I think it is more true than most would care to admit :P

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp

Good is in the eye of the culture, meaning if a race from a far galaxy killed there first born child for millions of years because they beleaved It was the right thing to do , Are they really evil? Yes in our eyes but not in theres.

Originally posted by ZoeMcCloskey

I always liked this analysis and I think it is more true than most would care to admit :P

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp

Yes, I'm sure he'd be a great support of Nazi Germany too if he really believes reasoning so idiotic.  Pity any Germans who wanted to eliminate Hitler without a 10-point plan on how to govern after he was dead (that said, the Rebel Alliance DID have plans, they just don't go over them in the movies because they aren't very relevant).
 

Order is nice, I grant that.  Societies need a level of order, because a bit of order provides security, safety, and increases public trust.  However, if on the quest to order one starts enslaving large groups, killing people who disagree with you, and committing genocide, then you are no longer providing those essential societal needs.  People can't trust the government anymore at that point, and "security" only exists if you think the right thoughts and do the right deeds.  This is disastrous in the long run as well, since a government that enforcing blind obedience stops being able to change and adapt with the times, and eventually will collapse under its own intertia (to say nothing of the gross evils the Empire regularly employed).

This is fine and dandy, but remember how the Empire functioned in practice.  It instituted racist policies, ruthlessly oppressing non-human races.  It used "fear" to "keep the local systems in line" (Grand Moff Tarken).  It destroyed a planet, mostly out of spite.  Its main tactic was military occupation and martial law, like when it descended on Cloud City.  There is nothing "good" about the Empire.  We just relate more to the problems of a bloated, squabbling, corrupt bureaucracy in the US because that's what we have.  Palpatine fits right in with Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, make no mistake.

if anyone thinks good is evil and evil is good ought to have thier head examined. The empire was evil in everyway possible with corruption, racism, repression, destruction, and so on and so forth.

(AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH laughts at Darth maul for letting Obiwan win the duel)

To me it is also very clear cut. The truth is the rebellion did have a form of government ready and ran an army well enough that outnumbered and outgunned they took the Empire down. The senate was slow to act but the risks one takes while helping someone sometimes work against them however helping someone beaten on the road and bleeding is always better than walking by.

The Jedi never asked anyone to use the force that was not a jedi or was not going to become one.

All this and more work against the article but the fact that the Empire enslaved worlds, destroyed worlds and cultures for the express reason to gain power and wealth of the few at the top of the imperial food chain is evidence enough to warrant their utter destruction.

Palpatine benign? Well as long as your not a Grand Moff that steps out of line of oh say billions of creatures in his way or say desiring freedom...yes he is benign.

Sure I could laught at that author... but the way he's looking at the universe, I'm afraid he could actually mistake that for laughing with him, rather than at him.

They are the same.

Just like all political parties are essential the same so are the republic and the sith. Both parties are baesed on centralized control and the exploitation of every natural resource within reach. The republic is cloacked in good while doing evil and the sith is directly evil. Different route, same result: oppression and slavery for all except those on top (Senator Vs. Sith Lords etc). The jedi are basically 'henchmen' doing the dirty work for the senat to maintain status quo.

Give me a small group of people (~50) where all are cultural equal and understand the fundemental principel of living in equilibrium with their natural enviroment (e.g. stop making a zillion babies and exploiting the land through mono-agriculture)  and maybe something different will emmerce.

tl;dr: same sh!t

Originally posted by Lundorff

Just like all political parties are essential the same so are the republic and the sith. Both parties are baesed on centralized control and the exploitation of every natural resource within reach. The republic is cloacked in good while doing evil and the sith is directly evil. Different route, same result: oppression and slavery for all except those on top (Senator Vs. Sith Lords etc). The jedi are basically 'henchmen' doing the dirty work for the senat to maintain status quo.

That's perhaps the most ignorant statement on politics I have EVER read.  Bonus points for being extremely defeatist.
 

Very interesting article indeed. I enjoyed that read. Thanks for the find.

A very complex topic.

Combines morality with politics.

Doing the right thing does not neccessarily mean that you are serving greater good. It is clear that Empire with a tyrant as a leader is both capable and responsible for questionable acts. However, if you do disregard those morally questionable acts and look at the landscape of Galaxy as a whole, the Empire did stand for order and Republic for chaos, if one over simplifies it.

This theme is later explored, perhaps in a bit more mature ways, in Expanded Universe as well, when Han Solo's And Leia's son becomes Sith Lord. I think the main argument is that Sith also aims for GREATER GOOD, which for them ultimately is order. They do see the universe in more black and white terms. And want to eradicate or CONTROL the shades of grey. Their methods to achieve that are often questionable and their philosophy does not leave room for doubt. That is why they are also concerned about things like attachments and compassion because it gets in the way what needs to be done in order to achieve something greater. One loses objectivity. And yes, this with sensibilities of modern society can be regarded as "evil".  Often expressed with the catch phrase, "The end justifies the means".

Now, you can also read up on Plato and his argument for a benevolent dictator as being the best form of government. While Palpatine's Empire was not benevolent by any means, Plato does provide a pretty good argument for the concept that a version that might be.

You can also note that in Empire run a pretty tightly controlled meritocracy also advocated in Plato's Republic.

Philosophical debates about best form of government and rule do not have a right or wrong answers.

---

Originally posted by thexrated
Doing the right thing does not neccessarily mean that you are serving greater good.

---

---

Originally posted by thexrated
It is clear that Empire with a tyrant as a leader is both capable and responsible for questionable acts. However, if you do disregard those morally questionable acts and look at the landscape of Galaxy as a whole, the Empire did stand for order and Republic for chaos.

---

The Empire and Republic both stood for order. If anything, one could argue the Empire was more chaotic, after all, the Republic lasted for 10,000 years (with some wars and near annihilations by outside parties, but 10,000 years nontheless). The Empire lasted for what, 60? Beyond that, "order" and "good" are not the same thing.

---

Originally posted by thexrated
This theme is later explored, perhaps in a bit more mature ways, in Expanded Universe as well, when Han Solo's And Leia's son becomes Sith Lord. I think the main argument is that Sith also aim for GREATER GOOD, which for them ultimately is order.

---

The Sith SOMETIMES try to make that argument (more often it is just about power and those with power, e.g. the Sith, should rule). That said, all Sith inevitably get wrapped up in their own pettiness, greed, wrath, etc to rule effectively. To say nothing of the fact that their methods always result in needless wars and suffering. The "greater good" line they might use isn't true, but is more something they use to rationalize their behavior to themselves.

---

Originally posted by thexrated
They do see the universe in more black and white terms. And want to eradicate or CONTROL or shades of grey. Their methods to achieve that are often very questionable and their philosophy does not leave room for doubt. That is why they are also concerned about things like attachments and compassion because it gets in the way what needs to be done in order to achieve something greater. And yes, this with sensibilities of modern society can be regarded as "evil".  Often expressed with the catch phrase, "The end justifies the means".

---

While some pain or suffering is sometimes needed for the greater good -- Surgery is an excellent example. That doesn't mean that anyone can go around doing whatever they want for their goals and claim it actually is for the greater good. The Empire, for instance, enslaved the Wookies. There was no "greater good" there, they just enslaved a race they didn't like. In general the Empire was racist, and that certainly doesn't do anything for the greater good -- bigotry hinders things more than anything else.

If the ends are good and certain, then they can justify the means. The Empire doesn't follow this philosophy in a utilitarian manner however. They follow a philosophy of domination and power invested by the Emperor. The Sith, in general, follow a similar philosophy (though power is invested in the Sith, and more power in those who can TAKE more power). This is a "might makes right" philosophy, however much they try to pretty it up. They certainly aren't serving the needs of the galaxy by what they are doing.

---

Originally posted by thexrated
Now, you can also read up on Plato and his argument for a benevolent dictator as being the best for of government. While Palpatine's Empire was not benevolent by any means, it does provide a pretty good argument for the concept.

---

Like you say though, Palpatine wasn't benevolent. No Sith ever was, in fact.

---

Originally posted by thexrated
You can also note that in Empire run a pretty tightly controlled meritocracy also advocated in Plato's Republic.

---

Not really. They were highly bigoted, and the Emperor/Empire wasn't interested in compassionate people, even if that got the job done better.

---

Originally posted by thexrated
Philosophical debates about best form of government and rule do not have a right or wrong answers.

---

While the right answers might be hard to find, there are certainly wrong answers (e.g. false statements).
 

---

Originally posted by Drachasor
That's perhaps the most ignorant statement on politics I have EVER read.  Bonus points for being extremely defeatist.

---

*Shrugs*

Was just offering my point of view, no need for personal attacks.

100% agree with the article.  I would liken the Rebel alliance to a group of glbalization anarchists,.  They go around smashing shit up, and causing trouble because they dont like it.  Grow up u silly little bastards.  The Empire brings order, and these rebels cause the chaos, so the Empire has to crackdown or all these royal aharchists will be running around everywhere just destroying shit.

 Plus like the Nazis they have the better fashion sense.

That article was clearly meant as satire :)

If you actually agree with whats written in the article and dont think its satire, you really have to think about what you agree with. The author condones the destroying of an inhabited planet to "set an example" and blames it on the lie of a interrogated prisoner lol.

"Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction."

I have to agree here. The destroying of Alderaan was certainly not a random act of terror lol. There is nothing random about terror to begin with.

Not to mention that he blames the killing of an innocent family on Luke and Obi wan. Luke's family wasnt assisting fugitives. They didnt even know that the droids were  fugitives of the Empire and certainly didnt try hide them. The hiding and assisting didnt take place untill AFTER the family was murdered. 

Furthermore, the author clearly states that he just wants to discuss this based on the movie. But as aid for proving that the Rebellion didnt do any good by killing the Empire, he starts assuming what might happen next after the movies?!

Oh, but yes the Old Republic was evil! Its evil because he blames the system for the corruption of senators (thanks to Senator Palpatine, who will reap the benefits of his plot later on to start the Empire). Not to mention that the seperatists mainly joined based on business interests.

Originally posted by Varny

 Plus like the Nazis they have the better fashion sense.

Lol

Originally posted by thexrated

A very complex topic.

Combines morality with politics.

Doing the right thing does not neccessarily mean that you are serving greater good. It is clear that Empire with a tyrant as a leader is both capable and responsible for questionable acts. However, if you do disregard those morally questionable acts and look at the landscape of Galaxy as a whole, the Empire did stand for order and Republic for chaos, if one over simplifies it.

This theme is later explored, perhaps in a bit more mature ways, in Expanded Universe as well, when Han Solo's And Leia's son becomes Sith Lord. I think the main argument is that Sith also aims for GREATER GOOD, which for them ultimately is order. They do see the universe in more black and white terms. And want to eradicate or CONTROL the shades of grey. Their methods to achieve that are often questionable and their philosophy does not leave room for doubt. That is why they are also concerned about things like attachments and compassion because it gets in the way what needs to be done in order to achieve something greater. One loses objectivity. And yes, this with sensibilities of modern society can be regarded as "evil".  Often expressed with the catch phrase, "The end justifies the means".

Now, you can also read up on Plato and his argument for a benevolent dictator as being the best form of government. While Palpatine's Empire was not benevolent by any means, Plato does provide a pretty good argument for the concept that a version that might be.

You can also note that in Empire run a pretty tightly controlled meritocracy also advocated in Plato's Republic.

Philosophical debates about best form of government and rule do not have a right or wrong answers.

You really are an idiot if dont see the logical fallacies of that article.

Take a closer look how he defends certain actions of Palpatine (order 66, even the chilrden! ) or the Empire (destroying of Alderaan and murdering Luke's family) and completely overlooks Palpatine's plotting against the Old Republic in his role as Sith Lord.

Its satire.

Sorry, but I was not replying to the article, but dicussion on this thread.

"If the ends are good and certain, then they can justify the means. The Empire doesn't follow this philosophy in a utilitarian manner however. They follow a philosophy of domination and power invested by the Emperor. The Sith, in general, follow a similar philosophy (though power is invested in the Sith, and more power in those who can TAKE more power). This is a "might makes right" philosophy, however much they try to pretty it up. They certainly aren't serving the needs of the galaxy by what they are doing."

Actually most Empire's actions were utilitarian. Domination and use of military might  were means to the end. So you are correct about your comment on "might makes right". Power is means to the end. The vision of Sith Empire is about being very orderly, efficient and uniform while continying to promote progress through strife. This concept is discussed a lot more in Expanded Universe and very superficially in the films.

Also about meritocracy, yes, Empire did promote and give power to people based on a merit above anything else. Also a lot more information outside the films.

No doubt a lot of concepts about Empire vs Republic were taken from history of Rome.

---

Originally posted by thexrated
"If the ends are good and certain, then they can justify the means. The Empire doesn't follow this philosophy in a utilitarian manner however. They follow a philosophy of domination and power invested by the Emperor. The Sith, in general, follow a similar philosophy (though power is invested in the Sith, and more power in those who can TAKE more power). This is a "might makes right" philosophy, however much they try to pretty it up. They certainly aren't serving the needs of the galaxy by what they are doing."
Actually most Empire's actions were utilitarian. Domination and use of military might  were means to the end. So you are correct about your comment on "might makes right".

---

The Utilitarian ethical system is based on the principle of maximizing happiness. The Empire doesn't give a dang about the happiness of their citizens. They are NOT Utilitarian.

---

Originally posted by thexrated
Power is means to the end. The vision of Sith Empire is about being very orderly, efficient and uniform while continying to promote progress through strife. This concept is discussed a lot more in Expanded Universe and very superficially in the films.

---

No Sith Empire was EVER that orderly in the long run. Conflict through strife and killing superiors when you feel you are better then them (and plotting against each other), inevitably makes things very chaotic. Sure, the Sith claim they love order and that their way is the best, but they don't remotely approach having a stable, orderly government at any point. Palpatine was the closest, and that was only because he was much stronger than Vader (and THAT was only because Vader got all his limbs chopped off and lit on fire). Even his Empire was far from stable or orderly in the long run. Compared to that, the Republic was a far more stable and orderly system.

---

Originally posted by thexrated
Also about meritocracy, yes, Empire did promote and give power to people based on a merit above anything else. Also a lot more information outside the films.
No doubt a lot of concepts about Empire vs Republic were taken from history of Rome.

---

Yeah, because they sure let all those aliens into positions of power. Oh wait....they didn't. And they also encouraged ideas like using fear to keep order, which is idiotic -- that sort of thinking ALWAYS results in rebellions and trouble. There were ASPECTS of merit to their processes, but those aspects were highly distorted by racism and a foolish philosophy. 

Originally posted by Lundorff

---

Originally posted by Drachasor
That's perhaps the most ignorant statement on politics I have EVER read.  Bonus points for being extremely defeatist.

---

*Shrugs*

Was just offering my point of view, no need for personal attacks.

I was attacking the statement, not you.  The idea that there is no difference between a political ideology that blows up planets and believes in tyranny and slavery, and another political idealogy that believes and peace, cooperation, and democracy is blatantly ridiculous.
 

Originally posted by someforumguy

That article was clearly meant as satire :)

If you actually agree with whats written in the article and dont think its satire, you really have to think about what you agree with. The author condones the destroying of an inhabited planet to "set an example" and blames it on the lie of a interrogated prisoner lol.

"Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction."

I have to agree here. The destroying of Alderaan was certainly not a random act of terror lol. There is nothing random about terror to begin with.

Not to mention that he blames the killing of an innocent family on Luke and Obi wan. Luke's family wasnt assisting fugitives. They didnt even know that the droids were  fugitives of the Empire and certainly didnt try hide them. The hiding and assisting didnt take place untill AFTER the family was murdered. 

Furthermore, the author clearly states that he just wants to discuss this based on the movie. But as aid for proving that the Rebellion didnt do any good by killing the Empire, he starts assuming what might happen next after the movies?!

Oh, but yes the Old Republic was evil! Its evil because he blames the system for the corruption of senators (thanks to Senator Palpatine, who will reap the benefits of his plot later on to start the Empire). Not to mention that the seperatists mainly joined based on business interests.

It does seem like satire, especially with the giveaway line:

 "Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy. The Empire runs academies throughout the galaxy (Han Solo begins his career at an Imperial academy), and those who show promise are promoted, often rapidly. In "The Empire Strikes Back" Captain Piett is quickly promoted to admiral when his predecessor "falls down on the job."

but after seeing it's from the weekly standard, which "has been described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neo-con bible", it seems far less likely.

Neo-cons make a career or rationalizing more power for the rich and connected.  This article fits right into their philosophy.

I get the same feeling watching Glenn Beck sometimes.  I think "This HAS to be Satire".  But it's not.

Evil is not a state of mind. Or a walk of life. To call someone "Evil" is one's judgement or rationalization of another. I could go on about this for months, literally. But for the sake of being brief, I will only state a few opinions and facts.

• There is no good or evil, only wrong or right. How you choose to interpret that is entirely up to you. There are people in our world that believe that murder is evil (or wrong). There are others who justify killing innocent and guilty people alike with religion or politics at the forefront of their reasoning. But judgement is arguably just as wrong as murder. With the few points I give here, I won't be able to help you understand. Instead, take any doctrine you've learned throughout the years, any religious preference, throw it out and just look at the world as a whole. Killing happens hourly. Death surrounds us. It is a part of the evolution of life. But murder is merely an over-lying subject.
• The real issue is power. Absolute and corrupt. No matter WHO HAS the power, if that power is absolute, then it is always corrupt. Corruption is often looked at as evil. This is simply a way for people to rationalize (or accept at their own terms) the fact that there are those out there who are corrupt and corrupt others, in return. I am neither good nor evil. I am right and wrong, simultaneously. I am corrupt in ways, but I mean well. I always mean well. For that, I feel I am right. Feelings are the stones from which we step to cross a rolling river who's waters are rising. If we choose the wrong one, we may fall in. Or we may just have to struggle more to stay out of the water. The wrong rocks are more slippery. But they're also the fastest way across. So to reach the other side, we must choose carefully between the two types of rocks.
• The same could be said of a Sith Lord. Anakin, for instance, meant well at first. I feel that his vengeful hatred towards others (as he fully accepted the dark side) was a little over-the-top, but then again, that could've been the midiclorians talking. Lucas may have some opinion on that, but the transition from good to evil was over-simplified drastically in that story.However, some people do choose to be wrong all the time. They prefer to walk on that side of the line. Their reasoning can be relative to yours. Religion plays a key factor in many instances. Extremist Musslims, while very wrong, are not really evil. They do not comprehend the full consequences of their actions, and for the most part, they do not care. But that's corruption, not evil nature. Monkeys oft kill other monkeys just as sharks often kill other sharks. The same could be said for any other species on the planet. The problem with our species is that we feel we have the power to justify right and wrong and label it "good" or "evil", when we don't really bother to understand the entirety of the situation.

But I've said enough. And to anyone who might feel offended (Christians for example) by my rhetoric, please just keep it to yourself. Believe what you want in life, and I'll do the same. Whether you are "right or wrong" remains to be seen.

:)

I like seeing this prompted some fun discussion.