The Jedi sacrifice truth and justice are sacrificed to ambition. If good and evil utilize identical methods and the justifications of expediency, they become mere factions instead of opposites, allied together in a common war against liberty. May this serve as a warning to all who see in emergency circumstances a reason to betray principles and adopt the methods of the Dark Side. In the name of doing good, one only becomes part of the problem, no matter how many excuses seem to be at hand. [Full Article]
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/3738/the-corruption-of-the-jedi/
The Corruption of the Jedi
Previous post: Kemp inches toward monetary sense?
{ 49 comments }
While there’s no doubt that Mace Windu crossed the line, I think there are other interpretations possible.
First, Palpatine’s quick recovery after Anakin stopped Windu indicates that Palpatine was faking his weakness, in order to get Anakin’s sympathy. Had Anakin not intervened, Palpatine would still have won the fight. Anakin might’ve escaped, been killed, or turned to the dark side a slightly different way. But Windu’s violation of the rules of justice would’ve been moot.
Second, we all know that if Windu had killed Palpatine, the galaxy would’ve been much better off. I don’t know about you, but when I was watching the movie, I was thinking that Windu should shut up and kill Palpatine. Also, at the end, Obi-Wan should shut up and kill Anakin; just don’t assume he’s going to die! Forget human rights: I had an omniscient view of the future, having seen episodes 4 thru 6, and I knew what had to be done.
So now, let’s twist around the moral of the story: sympathy for the rights of the accused is Anakin’s path to the dark side. Therefore, do not have sympathy for the accused. (Obviously, I say this with tongue in cheek.)
BTW, movie morality is different from real world morality. In the real world, there’s always a doubt about someone’s guilt, and so we have juries and due process. In the movies, we know without a doubt that the guy Dirty Harry just shot is guilty, and we know that Palpatine is evil, and we know that James Bond’s enemy tried to take over the world. So the good guys in movies are allowed to dispense justice while remaining good guys in our eyes.
The ultimate moral of all this is: don’t try to gleen morals from Hollywood popcorn movies.
This movie was fairly disappointing. It was meant to be the focal point of the entire series and as this analysis reiterates in theory it was; however, the execution was poor. It shows that Lucas has lost touch with his audience and good story telling. Despite the limited movie-tech of the time, Empire Strikes Back (episode V) was superior and even more introspective in to who Vader was.
Nonetheless, the point is made that means do NOT justify ends in a world with an uncertain future. Windu was excessive and decided to be so in a matter of seconds. Anakin was easily seduced, far too easily. Yoda expressed caution but did nothing. Palpatine’s seductive words were neither eloquent nor seductive, Anakin was a simple dupe. Obi Wan made the decision to duel with and kill Anakin rather hastily and then he pulled an old Bond villain move and left assuming he was dead, what kind of powers and intelligence do these Jedi posses? Weak movie and difficult to glean liberal ideas from although the spirit of Star Wars is one of freedom over government.
The most eloquent words were actually used by the Emperor (even though they seemed out of place with the rest of his dialogue) – when he mentioned to Anakin that “good is a point of view”. That, of course is BS. Good is simply good. The confusion about what is good and bad results from the subjective value humans assign to their actions and we are all capable of rationalizing bad behavior to satisfy our ends. A good person will not rationalize but take the right action. No one in the movie did that, despite the weak script, it shows that the failure of freedom is the failure of humanity – it is what occurs when good people look the other way – often from themselves. Of course, Vader redeems himself in episode VI by saving Luke and the Empire is destroyed, which leaves a vacuum which is filled by a rebellious group of militant activists. Makes you wonder what kind of government would the Galaxy have in episode VII?
When Windu decided to kill Palpatine, there was no difference between the Jedi and the Sith.
Having the Jedi take over the Senate would be something like Renquist deposing Bush and congress.
And the first big step toward the dark side for Anakin was when he wanted to save Padme. ObiWan said he needed to be detached (I’m adding my interpretation here) or he would not think straight – he would let the ends justify the means.
All abandonments of principles are done with good intentions, but they still pave the road to hell.
Lincoln did hold the Union together. FDR boosted the economy by banning gold and changing the dollar (I know, it was only temporary and largely illusory, but believed illusions affect behavior). The commerce clause was expanded to allow anything to allow so much good to be done. The Interstates would help the military. We are bringing Democracy to Iraq…
Ron Paul still votes “no” on lots of “good” things and good for him. There is one man in DC with principles.
In current movies, as well as the good guy engaging in immediate justice, they tend to engage in immediate fornication (this is the correct word for the acts) with whomever they happen to be helping, saving, or just happen to run into on the street apparently demonstrating their idea of meaningful relationships. The hero gets the girl within the 1st 30 minutes, and things like an idea of marriage and raising a family which were implicit in movies of the past aren’t even visible.
Pride and Anger become not deadly sins but virtues along with Lust, and the true virtues of justice, temperance, and prudence are gone.
That is one of the things Star Wars has managed to avoid and I can give Lucas credit for it. He creates morally charged situations where the easy thing and the right thing are different, but it requires virtue to do the right thing. In some situations, the characters choose the easy thing – the dark side – in others they do the right thing even when it is very difficult.
The media tends to be a mirror – you cannot so much glean morality from it as it exposes what you might do in such situations.
Peter Kreeft has noted Morality is easy to know, but hard to do, and I think that is right.
One assumes the reason Windu personally attempted to kill Palpatine was that he did not trust the government (no doubt seeded with Palpatine stooges) to punish him.
If you are given the chance to assassinate a terrible dictator, and the society you live in is unwilling to punish him, surely you should take it? If you hand him over to “justice” and that system frees him to do more evil, you have merely served his cause. Also, it is quite obvious that the Emperor, given reprieve, would instantly have turned on Windu — as he did.
“When Windu decided to kill Palpatine, there was no difference between the Jedi and the Sith.”
Is there no moral difference between killing random innocents and killing tyrannical despots? Remember, Windu is not trying to eliminate Palpatine because he believes he may, in a future Empire, harm people. He is eliminating him because he knows he has already done so.
Our current morality pays people to kill random innocents and protects tyrants.
If there is a “moral difference between killing random innocents and killing tyrannical despots”, I would simply note that the leader of Uzbekistan (known for boiling his opponents to death) is our friend, Saddam is not dead, nor many others, yet Terri Schiavo is, as well as 3,500 unborn lives per day, amounting to well over 40 million.
We allow, or encourage the former and say it is immoral to even engage in petty vandalism to prevent the latter (See the “I Blew up the Clinic Real Good – but it was in fallujah post on my blog for the longer version). About all you can do is maybe try sidewalk counseling outside of the freespeech bubble, or pray rosaries to stop the killing of random innocents (or sign meaningless laws which judges simply ignore as in the case of Bush defending Terri). I do make the case that if you can’t justify vandalism to stop a holocaust, it is hard to justify war against Iraq or such.
I would also note the juries failed to nullify convictions of those who killed abortionists or damaged their clinics. And even awarded large damages for drawing an X through the picture of one on a website (which is when I left the LP – web censorship, thoughtcrime, excessive fines, all ok if it is against pro-lifers).
So your point is?
If their justice system frees Palpatine to do more evil (somehow he remains emporer even though clear evidence of his crimes is brought forth), then the Jedi have already lost utterly – for they would have to then kill the entire senate or whatever portion of the system would let that happen, and in anything close to democratic, it means killing over 50% of the population.
I misspoke the former/latter in the above post –
“We allow, or encourage the former and say it is immoral to even engage in petty vandalism to prevent the latter”
(I should learn not to over edit things)
Should read “We allow or encourage abortion and say it is immoral to even engage in petty vandalism to prevent such acts even if we accept they are murder”.
But to law and morality – is the point that we each can pick and choose any standard to justify killing? Just relabel the unborn as “tyrannical despots” instead of “blob of tissue”, and the problem goes away? “Tyrannical Despot” is whomever someone says they are?
Capital Punishment is not murder precisely and only because a serious crime has been proven (e.g. being a “tyrannical despot”) in a forum set up for the purpose – a system of justice – and they have been found guilty of such.
The only other time I can think of when killing is not murder is when they present an immediate threat to life and there is no means to prevent them from carrying out their intent without killing.
Let us remember that Windu initially went in for the arrest. Palpatine then attacked and killed three of Windus’s companions. Windu and Palpatine’s engagment was to the death. I seriously doubt that if Windu had let up and said, “Ok, you’ve been defeated, now hands behind your back” that Sidious, the Sith Lord, would have said, “Ok, you’ve got me, I give up”. Any show of weakness or letting up on the part of Windu would have meant immediate counter-attack on the part of Palpatine. Windu perceived the situation correctly, and knew what had to be done.
We must accept that good is good, and Jedis are good. Windu had every rigt and reason to kill Palpatine, because he was the manifestation of evil. Windu came to arrest him with other Jedi’s, not kill him. He only killed him when he killed other Jedis and attempted to kill Windu. It’s simple escalation of force. If a criminal starts shooting at cops and kills them, and then kills a few, are not the remaining cops justified in killing the criminal??
Interesting point, but the counter-points are strong, too. Palpatine was feigning weakness to play to Anakin’s sympathies, and he was still strong enough that it’s not clear that Windu would have been able to win, even if Anakin had not interfered. I don’t think a clear moral can be drawn from this scene.
Andy D. wrote:
“We must accept that good is good, and Jedis are good.”
I don’t think George Lucas would agree with you. He created six movies that revolve around a very good boy who becomes a Jedi and then turns bad.
(Not to mention Count Dooku.)
“If there is a “moral difference between killing random innocents and killing tyrannical despots”, I would simply note that the leader of Uzbekistan (known for boiling his opponents to death) is our friend, Saddam is not dead, nor many others, yet Terri Schiavo is, as well as 3,500 unborn lives per day, amounting to well over 40 million.”
I’m definitely not going to get into an abortion (or Terry Schiavo) debate with you. They are irrelevant to this discussion.
Nor am I going to defend our government’s friendship with the Uzbek leader.
We are talking about a single instance:
“The only other time I can think of when killing is not murder is when they present an immediate threat to life and there is no means to prevent them from carrying out their intent without killing.”
And this criteria was achieved in the scene described. Windu said “you’re under arrest” and Palpatine said “no” and then killed 3 people. You don’t need a jury to convict him of death in this case. That’s the whole point — he even says it “he’s too dangerous to be left alive.” There wasn’t any way to stop him from killing more people without killing him, right then and there. Windu made the right choice.
“If their justice system frees Palpatine to do more evil (somehow he remains emporer even though clear evidence of his crimes is brought forth), then the Jedi have already lost utterly – for they would have to then kill the entire senate or whatever portion of the system would let that happen, and in anything close to democratic, it means killing over 50% of the population.”
No, you’re constructing a straw man. Just because the rest of the population would allow Palpatine to go on doesn’t mean they must also die. There’s an easy solution — kill the dictator. And the implication is that the Jedi HAVE lost utterly — so they should start fighting this new regime which opposes them — and the best place to start is the leader who drives it.
Tz, if you ever have the opportunity to knife Robert Mugabe or another such tyrant, please, for the sake of his future victims, do it.
But Anakin didn’t do evil until after he was a sworn sith. By stopping Windu, there is a strong case that he was doing right, because they came to arrest Palpatine, not kill him.
At first, I wasn’t going to comment on this, because imo, Star Wars III was really a mediocre movie, at best. The acting was atrocious, sometimes downright comical.
But I fail to see how anyone could say that killing a tyrant is somehow not justified by libertarian principles.
The Jedi were not perfect, but they certainly didn’t act illegitimately with regards to Palpatine.
Let’s review precisely what they did:
1. Told him he was under arrest, or something to that effect, once they knew he was the Sith Lord.
2. Palpatine then immediately killed 3 of them.
3. The remaining Jedi, Mace Windu, fought Palpatine, but was obviously not strong enough to win.
4. Palpatine feigned weakness for Anakin Skywalker’s sake. This much was obvious, given that he overpowered Yoda in a later encounter.
So, how exactly was Windu acting wrongly in trying to kill him? Sounds like self-defense for himself, and justified retribution/restitution for Palpatine’s other victims.
Only by pacifist principles was there anything wrong with what Mace Windu did. And even there, there was nothing illegal about it. As Prof. Murphy might point out, had Mace Windu remained pacifist (as he basically was originally), the Emperor’s trick would not have worked, and Anakin Skywalker might not have converted over to the dark side.
bottom line, as much as a threat as the terrorists are, giving the government more power is a bigger threat.
Liberty is never taken, it is handed over.
My favorite quote from the movie:
“So this is how Liberty dies, with thunderous applause” – Padme – Episode III
Anakin was the pivotal person – help or hinder Windu. Anakin with Windu could have captured the Emporer. “Too dangerous to live” was something said in anger, at least from my perception of the script. Anger is not reason. Revenge (for Palpatine killing the other 3 jedi) is not justice.
I think the alternate path Lucas may propose is Windu saying to Anakin – ok, We’re Jedi and must follow the good. If at that point Palpatine attacked, Anakin would have sided with Windu and triumphed over Palpatine. Of course I can’t know what the actual thought was.
When a criminal drops his gun and appears unarmed (feigned or not), the policeman cannot justly shoot to kill.
Palpatine and Yoda appeared equally matched, and it isn’t certain that Windu was so much weaker, and again the key is Anakin.
With Windu momentarily and maybe only for a single purpose going to the dark side (I think of a similar moment when I think it was Daniel Webster decided to go against abolitionism and helped pass a tyrannical fugitive slave act), that the dark side won Anakin, and Palpatine won.
I think I could also make the case that the senate would “in memory of the murdered palpatine – the Jedi stuped to murder, why not falsify evidence”, either become the enemy of the Jedi to hold them to account, or act like a collective tyrant.
And your last statement exposes the weakness of your position in NOT taking me on abortion. There are many clinics where I live with personnel that slaugher many victims on a daily basis. You have said if I can find a Robert Mugave (I assume in a state of freedom, not in a prison cell or somewhere he can be handled by an authority), I should kill him – for the sake of the victims he might kill tomorrow? Or Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan’s dictator)? You said you would avoid talking about him too? If he were here on a trip, and you were armed and near enough to him, what would YOU do?
(I also use this against the LP’s “individual choice” as to personhood plank – under a LP will I be free to consider abortionists as murderers so the state woudn’t interfere with my protection of defenseless 3rd parties, or will my “wrong choice” be penalized, while only the right choice be protected? They say the state should stay completely out of the conflict…)
Killing or murder occurs in the real world, and that is a problem in considering movies. But I think if I hit “pause” at the moment Palpatine was on the floor beneath Windu’s raised lightsaber, and asked you “do you think he is faking it or not – and how sure are you”, you would not know. The plot could just as easily have Anakin saving Palpatine because only he could save Padme. We only know he was feigning weakness because he counterattacked a few seconds later (when Anakin wouldn’t defent Windu because of his abandonment of principle). “This much was obvious…” was nothing of the sort at that moment in time. This is too much like another movie – “Minority Report”.
If you remove the monday morning quarterbacking and consider Windu, Palpatine, and Anakin playing the part of Windu’s conscience – it WAS illegal. Unless Mace Windu had a preminition and thus knowledge of the future if he let him live that was left on the cutting room floor, and he didn’t tell Anakin about at the critical moment.
Killing (the judical execution) of a tyrant is justified by libertarian principles. We could even do letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Killing without an immediate clear threat and without due process is murder.
Said due process would result in the tyrant’s right to life being declared null – even if he wasn’t in custody, and would list the charges, evidence (I would be bothered about the inability to confront accusers, but I assume the tyrant would not submit to or recognize the body where proceedings could occur).
I wonder how much people really love liberty if they would deny the right to life on a whim, or by acclamation, or by something other than proper due process when it is not in the heat of battle.
If we could read each other’s hearts, or see the future, things would be a lot simpler. Because we cannot do such things, we create tribunals which establish the truth of such matters. They are often imperfect, but (when not corrupt) are the best we have come up with so far.
The article suffers from two false premises. First of all, it would have been impossible to arrest and try him. As pointed out, Palpatine controlled the justice system. Moreover, Windu was not capable of actually arresting Palpatine. It was simply too dangerous to let him live, especially when they couldn’t even give him a real trial anyway.
The second, and most important fault in the article is to assume that all killing is necessarily the same act (or “means.”) Do the ends justify the means? Probably not, but you must be very careful with how you define the means. When Palpatine killed the Jedi Knights who were trying to arrest him, he was commiting murder, a crime. If Windu had been successful in killing Palpatine, he would not have been commiting a murder but rather a just (albeit somewhat extra-judicial) execution. The distinction between different kinds of killing must be scrupulously maintained. You cannot simply say that the means are the same just because the physical act is. The end goal can change the very nature of the means to achieve it.
I find the conclusion that it was wrong for Windu to try to kill Palpatine very strange.
First of all. As Windu pointed out: had Palpatine been arrested and put on trial he would have been freed because of his control of both the Senate and the Courts. And after he because of his influence in the corrupt State-apparatus of the Eepublic he wiould have undertaken the steps he in the movie undertook after being saved by Anakin: that is eliminate the Jedi and replace the Republic with a Empire. Clearly, Adam Young was wrong to assert that the Republic would have survived had Windu not tried to kill Palpatine.
Secondly, this article leaves the impression that complete pacifism is the libertarian way. Palpatine after all was not only guilty of trying to impose a dictatorship, of having killed a largeb number of people through the war he started as well as a having killed a large number of people directly, but he was directly attacking Windub with his dark force ligtning (Given their knowledge of the force the term “unarmed” is completely inapplicable to both the Jedi and the Sith). Only a pure pacifist could object to the killing of Palpatine. If Palpatine would have been killed that would have meant the total annihilation of the Sith, with Darth Tyranus/Count Dooku already being dead and Anakin not yet converted.
I noticed a couple of thumbs down on this movie. Would any of you folks recommend it? I was thinking of taking my kids to it.
tz,
Killing the emperor was in perfect alignment with libertarian principles of justice. Justice is three things, in the following order: (1) Prevention; (2) Restitution; (3) Retribution. See Kinsella, Stephan. Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach.
For those who think that killing Palpatine would have been wrong, that is a pacifist position. I really respect that position. However, that is, imo, a moral position. It still does not mean that such an action was criminal by libertarian principles.
Paul Edwards,
My opinion on this movie is that it was simply terrible. Aside from the atrocious “acting” (I use that word liberally), incredibly boring opening scene, and gross over-use of special effects, the movie was dark and not appropriate for children. They show, for example, a man being burned, and appendages being severed.
I will admit that the ending part of the movie was actually decent, but aside from that, the only redeeming feature of this movie, in my opinion, is its ability to act as a conduit for the discussion of libertarianism and anti-statism.
Yikes. OK, thanks David.
Well, remember the point of the article is this. Anakin was decieved. He did not see that Palpatine killed three jedi,he came in to see that Windu was standing over palpatine ready to kill him. Since Anakin was confused because now “Good was a point of view” his point of view is that he couldn’t tell who was the threat to the other, windu or palpatine. When palpatine struck back with lightening, Anakin was not sure if Palpatine was practicing self-defense or trying to murder Windu (hence the whole “i’m too weak” scene) Lucas did a great job on that scene, but it was all too dissapointing with the scence of anaking surrendering himself to Palpatine i.e. the dark side. I mean, if you’re looking for passion and acting, you won’t find it there. Ha! Anyway, Windu died because he went in for the kill despite the principles of the Jedi (and if anakin can’t trust windu to uphold jedi principles, then who can he trust?) I’m not saying windu was morally wrong to attempt to kill palpatine, but take a look at it from Anakin’s shoes and the idea of “beyond a reasonable doubt” and how easily palpatine mislead the jedi and anakin into violence and anger (the whole point of the first three movies). Then there is the Gandhi-thoroeu principled Yoda, Who never made the first move of any attack. “The best way to see right and wrong is to see who is the impartial one” is apparently yoda’s creed. Dooku assaulted him full on, then palpatine, and even during the battles he never became angry (which was, in restospect, Windu’s downfall because his anger was a trait used by the dark side, and Anakin could not sense at all who was good now). Anyway, the movie is a great message on how classic liberalism is betrayed, as impartiality was ignored (why Locke argued people chose to have governments at all), and the dark side comes to power. It’s just the package (tha acting, dialogue) looked almost like garbage. Ha!
I see people calling this movie bad, but really, I can’t say that. While it won’t become a classic by any means, it remains an entertaining movie, with a bit of philosophy thrown in to counter the fluff. And, as a prequel to A New Hope, it literally brings the Star Wars saga full circle, giving a sense of completion to it all.
As has been pointed out, this movie is a bit darker than the others, so it’s not recommended for younger kids, but older kids should have no trouble with it. I’d give it a 3, maybe a 3-1/2 out of 5 stars.
Anakin could see the dead Jedis laying about the floor! The siths have already had judgement passed against them by the jedi council. Would it be to justice’s advantage to have citizens in the jury at a courts martial? No, because there is no legal justice when a soldier kills another, becuase that in no way makes him a criminal or immoral. They are in a different “world” than citizens. Thus, it is perfectly moral to kill palpatine on the spot – they are fighting a war. Imagine that palpatine had on dynomite and that if windu didn’t kill him it would have gone off.
I can imagine lots of things. But that goes beyond the freezeframe moment in the movie – we know how it ends, what motives were, etc.
Yet I think you can find over the last year plenty of articles here where the government has killed people, imprisoned them, or seized their property with similar justification from the government agents. If they didn’t, something bad or worse would happen.
If Windu was justified because of what happened over the next minutes of the film, the argument assumes precognition, something which neither the Jedi, Sith, or we have on tap.
If Windu was justified because the whole system was corrupt, then my other point about killing the Senate (alternate – Windu kills Palpatine, Anakin kills (justly – based on his knowledge) Windu and properly charges the Jedi with sedition, so he becomes Darth Vader as master instead of apprentice).
If Windu was justified because he was acting as a soldier, then when we have inconvenient situations, instead of asking for a warrant and sending in the police, just send in troops – I think Lincoln did that to Maryland’s legislature if I remember correctly. Soldiers are above any law? You justify Abu Gharib and Gitmo and every current atrocity with that one stroke.
The way I think of it, were a bomb to hit washington and kill various parts of government (e.g. the supreme court, or just the deconstructionists, or the senate, or the executive branch through several levels), would it make a difference? I suppose if the only justice left was Clarence Thomas, and the next in line for the president to survive were Ron Paul, maybe. Most other outcomes are likely to be as bad or worse.
Is the SWE3 Senate corrupt because of Palpatine, or because the Senate is corrupt? Same question to the courts. Do the Jedi fight corruption with corruption, or with justice and integrity?
I worry when I hear people propose liberty without virtue. Corruption needs the freedom to be corrupt, and it just shifts forms. Liberty also needs freedom, but must use its liberty to maintain justice and integrity.
Combine “justice is prevention” with “imagine…”, and there is no tyranny you cannot excuse.
Justice – the cardinal virtue – seeks to restore the balance to the order in question – civil or societal, or whatever. Some things can’t be restored or where restitution is impossible.
Retribution – vengance, hurting for the sake of hurting is not justice. It reduces the victim to the level of the criminal. If the act was intrinsically evil, merely reversing roles after it has occurred does not make it good.
Punishment is a different thing – if people won’t listen to reason, sometimes they need the message be sent at a deeper level. But even here it needs great care not to be done out of anger instead of justice.
(I don’t have PDF at this computer, though I’ll try to read the article).
I’m actually far less pacifistic than I come off here, but I live in interesting times, and I base my action on what the current leadership in various countries are doing, especially here in the US of A.
Most people would tell me I cannot use violence to prevent what I and many others consider an ongoing holocaust of Abortion – actually not even do petty vandalism which might save lives.
But then they would have me utterly abandon that standard for some convenient killing for some far lesser level of evil.
My point is “both or neither” (though if you can resolve the contradiction on principle, I would be interested).
If the Jedi are the pole of integrity and justice, Windu ought not kill Palpatine – he should bring him to the judicial system – even if it is corrupt and either expose their corruption as well or overcome it. If the Jedi are merely Sith-light, there is nothing to respect in them, except in the way that hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.
It seems even many lovers of liberty would rather have a corrupt and gamed system that will find in their favor – and would use their liberty to corrupt it. The PATRIOT act is a perfect model – destroy liberty to preserve “the american way” whatever that means now, if anything.
The only way liberty and rights can be respected and preserved is if you will apply them to your worst and most hated enemy, not merely people you like or respect. Even a Sith Lord. We humans don’t have the force nor anything equivalent to determine the future, intent, or even exactly what happened today. Either the law is above both me and my enemy, or there is no law. And then it is merely might makes right.
Liberty is like justice and integrity – both priceless and far too often sold cheaply.
Truth to say, Star Wars was as close to a religion as I ever had growing up. You may wail and gnash your teeth at that thought all you like, but I think a lot of people felt the same way, and that’s why the older generation of fans was so disappointed in the last three films, and why even the smallest problems in the first trilogy are endlessly debated. The story was too perfect for there to have been any flaws in its execution! Lucas does not understand, cannot understand, how important these films really are.
I know they will never be remade, but I do wonder what might have been if Lucas had 1) started with a better idea of the progression of the backstory before filming A New Hope (not that it wasn’t a great movie), just to eliminate those nagging gaps of logic, and 2) got some help with the scripts!!!
But, y’know, come to think of it, perhaps the films should be remade. Eliminate the weaknesses in the story line, punch up the script, get actors worthy of the story (please!!!), and make it more clear that Anakin was the central character the whole time. Can you imagine? Get Peter Jackson’s agent on the phone!
Were the 4 Jedi including Windu that went to Palpatine sent there to arrest/seize him, or kill him?
If you say to arrest him (as I think the storyline would assert), then why do some maintain that this would have been futile – why send 4 Jedi or 40 if Palpatine was going to get off anyway?
If it was to assassinate him (didn’t Palpatine tell this to Anakin?), then why did Windu hesitate when Anakin say he should be tried as assassination was his mission anyway?
You might say it changed after he killed the 3 Jedi, but Palpatine was apparently defeated at that moment. Windu could not have killed him anyway if he was that powerful. But I also think it was written with Anakin as the pivot – at that moment, help Windu or Palpatine. But Windu didn’t give Anakin a choice other than to help him kill Palpatine, and Anakin was going to help Windu arrest Palpatine.
tz- You seem to have gotten this all wrong. Only the initation of force is incompatible with liberty. And killing Palpatine would not have been initation of force since Palpatine was the one that initiated force. Instead it would have been a case of both defensive and retiliatory force.
Moreover if you argue against killing him from a pacifist perspective it would also make it wrong to merely arrest him since that too would involve action which would be unjust against any peaceful person.
Iit is true that it is strange that Windu at first merely tried to arrest Palpatine given the fact that his control of the courts and the senate would have meant that he would soon be freed and reinstated into power (This is one of the many contradictions in the movie) but later events clearly prove the latter view was right. Such as the “thunders of applause” that he received when he made the Republic an Empire and himself Emperor.
I read the Estoppel article, so let me state a variant of something I just posted on the Ridiculous Scenarios post comments.
My main problem is there are different kinds of things being confused. By forcing things into categories, you can end up with a solution, but it won’t be a correct one.
Here is my version of a thought experiment if we just use the single principle.
One Able bodied person and one (wealthy) handicapped person find out on the radio that they are going to be stuck for two months in a rented cabin in an unseasonable snow storm or volcanic blast or something, but only Able can get to the food. A discussion (recorded by Handi) ensues about whether there is such a thing as the right to life or any duty to preserve it. Able says he will just eat the food himself since there is no such thing as a right to life, and no claim on his labor to get the food, but won’t stop him from doing what he can’t anyway. At which point Handi pulls a gun, uses the threat of death to get Able to move the food to an accessible point, then kills Able. When rescuers arrive, Handi points out that Able said “life” is not a right (presenting the recording), so the estate is estopped from claiming anything like murder, but Handi can easily pay a multiple of the “stolen” labor and whatever the equivalent future earnings to the estate or the value of Able’s body.
At some point we must assume rational people will reach common, rational conclusions. 2+2=4 is not a belief. Maybe someone can create a mathematical construct where 2+2=4 is not true, but it would not apply to calculating how much I pay for an item as that occurs in the common world. Either there are rights we must all respect because they exist independent of us (maybe in an abstract way or like a Platonic form), or there are no such things – if I don’t respect simple rights to life, liberty, and property, why should I bother with something more complex like estoppel?
Stefan’s points brings us closer to home. When force is initiated, as Palpatine did by killing the Jedi, defense is clearly justified, and Windu had the right to fight back and stop Palpatine, even killing him if that was the only way to stop Palpatine’s attack.
But retaliatory force requires a judgment and constitutes a punishment. I’ve come to the conclusion that retaliatory force is unjustified unless a fair and reasonable process is used to determine that judgement, such as a trial. So the question boils down to this: was killing Palpatine the only way to stop his attack, or could Windu subdue him with non-fatal force and was thus crossing the line into retaliation?
Again, the scene doesn’t make it easy to answer this question, as it was focused on Annakin’s pivotal role and decision instead of Windu’s decision.
I think tz made some great points about the fact that the Jedi were originally going there to arrest Palpatine. For what it’s worth, to me it was “obvious” that Lucas was trying to show that Windu was making the same argument that Palpatine made in the beginning vis-a-vis Count Dooku.
In any event (since someone asked), I loved the movie but I wouldn’t take little kids to it.
Defense and revenge (or immediately dispensing justice) are not the same things.
It isn’t quite on topic, but it isn’t right to escalate the use of force – if I shove you, you can’t kill me in response.
When a criminal de-escalates, it ought to be a duty for the police to de-escalate. If a suspect throws down his gun and puts his hands over his head, do we consider it proper to shoot the criminal?
In the tableaux Lucas gave us, it shows a defeated Palpatine attempting to surrender and begging for mercy from Windu, with Anakin trying to be Windu’s conscience.
If Windu knew (or had good reason to expect) Palpatine was going to attack, he might have been justified, but he could have just as easily asked Anakin to put his lightsaber to Palaptine’s neck and tell him to “kill him if he even breathes hard”.
When there is a viable alternative of lesser or no violence, it ought to be used, since if you don’t, the violence has ceased to be defensive.
The difficulty is anger, agressiveness, “testosterone”, and other things get mixed in with the heat of the moment for most who do violence (maybe serial killers are an exception), so it is very hard to stop once started. But that is why we must demand reason rule passion.
I also assume most haven’t missed the parallel scene:
Luke and Vader are fighting, while the emperor is sitting there and his friends are getting killed, and Luke eventually overpowers Vader, with Vader on the Floor unable to mount any further defense.
Luke is Jedi – he shuts off his lightsaber. (Windu didn’t).
Yet the emperor arises and attacks Luke and turns the tables.
Vader eventually gets up and throws the emperor to fall to his death.
This scene Episode 6 is a recast of 3, although we all viewed them in the wrong sequence. Yet when you straighten the timeline, this scene is being replayed the right way the second time – with evil conquered, Vader leaving the dark side to become a Jedi again with his son, Luke.
Luke would have either turned dark or been defeated by the emperor had he killed Vader.
As far as Palpatine surrendering, I don’t think you’re right. I’ve only seen it once, so maybe I’m misremembering the scene, but Palpatine was actively attacking Windu at the same time as he was begging. If you say “I surrender!” while shooting at me, I’m sure not going to be taking you at your word…
/relevance
tz, when you say “Luke would have either turned dark or been defeated by the emperor had he killed Vader.” are you assuming that Luke would, after finishing Vader off, likewise try to strike down the Emperor, and in so doing would (probably) be slain by him?
I always assumed that had Luke killed Vader, he would have rejected the light side by giving in to his anger and thus turn to the dark side, becoming, with his predecessor slain, the Emp’s new boytoy (well, apprentice), just as Anakin did, just as Dooku did, just as Maul did…
Man, that Palpatine goes through apprentices like Junior Mints
And kudos to Murphy; I thought his take on Episode III was superb; I only take slight issue with his dismissal of the Empire being modeled on the US, I think there’s some evidence from Lucas that may refute that, and Obi-Wan is supposed to be 37-8 in Episode III (Lucas does give him some shadings of grey hair), and 56-7 at the time of Episode IV — Alec Guinness wasn’t much older than that in 1977 — just about 62-3.
…and don’t delude yourself; everyone knows the greatest movie series of all time is the
Michael Chem: Having a trial is not a self-end. Trials are mearly means to determine whether or not a defendant is guilty or not. And if a criminal is given a punishment he deserves without a trial no injustice is being made. As a practical manner to avoid innocents from being convicted we should as often as possible have trials, and to avoid border line cases we should of course as a rule try to put even the obviously guilty before trial . But again no injustice is made if a guilty is being given a just punishment if it isn’t and if there are good reasons not to do it, such as the risk of the criminal killing people during a arrest or that a ineffective justice system would likely free him then there is in fact a compelling case for punishing him without a trial.
And this case certainly existed in the case of Palpatine who with his great force powers including dark force lightning and the ability to move things with his mind the term “unarmed” is inapplicable and who had proven that he would use these every way he could first by killing the three Jedi and then attacking Windu with dark force lightning.
Moreover there is good reason to believe that he wouldn’t be convicted at a trial by the Senate who were under his control as was shown by how the Senate cheered his creation of an Empire with him as the Emperor with “thunders of applause”.
And given the risk that he would during the arrest try to attack Windu again -possible after having “given up”- and that he would return to power after having been acquited by a justice system under his control there was a strong case that killing Palpatine was a act of not merely just punishment but of self-defence also.
In this context I would say that the film was quite good for the most part but it contained some strange and contradictory themes. Such as why did Windu first try to arrest Palpatine if he knew that he wouldn’t be convicted by the Senate?
And while it is first claimed that the Sith are moral relativists with Palpatine saying “Good is a point of view” but then Obi-wan says “Only a Sith deals in absolutes”. A statement which also seems a bit strange given his and Yoda’s absolute rejection of the Sith and the dark side of the force.
Moreover here we are supposed to get the explanation for why in the first movies (Episode IV-VI) when the Jedis died their bodies disappeared and they came back as ghosts while in the newer movies the Jedis bodies so not disappear and they do not return as ghosts. Supposedly Qui-Gon Jinn had learned the secret (no further details are given) of immortality and told Yoda about it and then later tells Obi-wan about it. But Qui-Gons body did not disappear in Episode I after he was killed by Darth Maul so how could he have lived on as a ghost?
Although I think killing Vader would have turned Luke to the dark side, but I make the secondary point that even if Luke had not turned, he could not defeat the emperor (which is a point to the parallel scene in E3). Not only that, had he not joined the emperor, he would have been attacked and defeated by the emperor, whether Luke attacked first or not – remember his friends were being killed (though ended up winning against the empire, though Luke didn’t know that at the time).
In the scene, the Emperor had (just) lost his lightsaber and wasn’t doing the purple lightning thingy against Windu yet – he was on the bottom of the window sill on his back with Windu holding his lightsaber ready to strike downward. Anakin comes in at that point.
It would not make sense for Anakin to discuss arrest while the other two were going at it.
My favorite scene from Episode III:
(the much discussed) [Anakin]: “Either you’re with me, or you’re my enemy.”
[Obi-wan]: “Only the Sith deal in absolutes.”
Question: Is Obi-wan then saying that he is a Sith?! I’m so confused.
tz,
You haven’t produced a valid argument against estoppel as applies to punishment and proportionality. Estoppel is based on a contradiction between actions (in the everyday sense of the word) and later claims in the courtroom. In your example, the able-bodied person who refuses to give food to the handicapped person in a cabin (when both are trapped), hasn’t done anything to make one suggest that he thinks there is no right to life, irrelevant of his phraseology. By “right to life”, I mean such that it is criminal to use coercive force to end someone else’ life. The person in your example engaged in no action that suggest such. All that his actions said is that he doesn’t think that he had any obligation to feed someone else; that in no way estops him from objecting to being murdered.
I stand by my assertion that there was nothing criminal (by natural law), nothing against libertarian principles, qua libertarianism, about what Windu did. Retribution is justified by libertarian principles, irrelevant of the “emotion” behind it. There’s nothing wrong with being angry with criminals. If someone steals $10 from me, I’m entitled to my $10 back (because it’s mine after all) and $10 as punishment.
Irrelevant of Windu’s knowledge of whether the Emperor was going to attack, he was justified in trying to kill the emperor. The emperor had murdered 3 Jedis, and numerous others. As those Jedi’s closest family member as far as we know (especially as the Jedi were supposedly a brotherhood), Windu was in position to determine punishment. If there were a device that could transfer the life from the the Emperor to the Jedi he killed, Windu would’ve been justified in using it. Hence, he’s justified in taking the emperor’s life.
Aside from that, he was justified in attacking the emperor in self-defense, by libertarian principles. Eveyone here watched the movie. The emperor over-matched 4 Jedi at once, and was too strong for Yoda. I think it’s obvious he was only feigning weakness against Windu.
–Dave H.
In my example, he explicitly states it (denying there is any right to life) and is taped doing so. I need not use coercive force to end someone’s life – as I point out, there are such things as sins of omission.
If we respect and value life and liberty, we must act to preserve them when that of others are threatened, even at cost to ourselves.
If you don’t think there is a duty or obligation for such rights, then you don’t really believe in such rights, except maybe as a platonic idea, but nothing that requires action in the real world. But then the rights aren’t real or don’t apply in the real world.
I wouldn’t disagree that you would be entitled to your $10 back, and compensation for trouble, but there the problem with self help. It is a very different thing to go to a tribunal, state your case with the thief having an opportunity to respond and get a declaration, and simply going after the thief yourself on the street. If I walk around the corner, all I see is you stealing $20 from someone else. I have no knowledge of what went on before. Do I step in to stop you or help you?
Windu might have had a right even to be the executioner of Palpatine, but only after due process was followed. We might all wish to be judge jury and executioner as individuals, at best it is chaos, and there are few men of sufficient virtue in the best of times to judge cases in a slow and cold manner. In a world where many have imagined or inflated wrongs, it would be far worse than eye for an eye.
Actually that blows the calculation. If I put out one of your eyes, you can still see and thus function. If you put out one of mine, you get retribution, but if you also blind my second eye, I’ve suffered far worse.
tz,
Irrelevant of what the person in your example said, what he did shows otherwise. He did not do anything that would allow for an estoppel argument against him objecting to being murdered. All he did was refuse to be a good summaritan, which means that he can’t object to anyone refusing to help him either.
Individuals have the right not to be aggressed against (or rather, not to have aggression initiated against themselves). Saying that someone else has the legal obligation to help another person, and backing that up with force, is initiating aggression. What you are talking about is positive rights, which means a claim against someone else and his property & negative rights: in other words, and initiation of aggression. There can be no such thing.
The NAA does not (normally) require action in the real world. It is prohibitive. It requires that we don’t do certain things (initiate aggression against others). Refusing to help someone doesn’t constitute initiating aggression, with one exception. If the able-bodied person had kidnapped this handicapped person and brought him to a cabin, and then they were trapped there, he’d be obligated (by libertarian principles) to help that person, because by initiating aggression against him, he put him in that situation to begin with.
Likewise, the victim of a crime doesn’t have the right to steal from anyone else to prosecute their victimizer.
The problems you point out with justice outside of the courts are just practical problems.
Also, the emphasis of justice is on the victim. Within proportionality, what is just is whatever gets the victim closest to the state he or she was in prior to the crime. The first eye merely constitutes restitution; the second (or equivalent) constitutes punishment. If the criminal objects, it’s his obligation to prove otherwise. That is, if there’s a gray area, it is the criminal’s fault for putting the victim in the unfortunate situation to begin with, and proof of burden should be on him.
Trials are mearly means to determine whether or not a defendant is guilty or not. And if a criminal is given a punishment he deserves without a trial no injustice is being made.
Perhaps “unjustified” was the wrong word. Punishing a criminal without due process or trial may not be immoral in itself, but a trial serves more than one purpose. Obviously, as you point out, it is used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused–punishing innocents would be wrong. But it also serves the function of letting the public know of a criminal’s status, so that when retaliatory force is used, bystanders (like Annakin was) will know that the force is justified and not an initiation of force, and will not interfere (as Annakin did).
Annakin thought that Windu was doing something wrong, and the fault for that isn’t entirely Annakin’s–Windu may not have been wrong, but he didn’t justify his use of force to Anakin, with fatal results.
Palpatine told Anakin that the Jedi wanted to assassinate him. So the Jedi that showed up with Windu – were they there to arrest him or assassinate him? Would Anakin think assassination or arrest upon seeing the three dead Jedi – was it self-defense or an attempt to evade capture?
Where was the warrant? Can the Jedi council issue their own warrants?
Is there a legal obligation to help enforce nonagression? If so, then how is that different. If not, then nonaggression is a nice but utterly abstract concept as it has no legal force.
There are no angels or justice fairies or retribution gnomes that come in and redress grievances (though General Grevious did look like something from another world).
A natural law may create a positive obligation of enforcement as well as a negative obligation of noninfringement. I would argue the former would be very narrow.
If you see a big thug robbing an unarmed elderly person, and you have a weapon (or even a cell phone) – if you believe in rights you have an obligation to interviene to a minimal extent to stop it – though you do not have to endanger yourself.
Which now allowed me to discover a second rule:
Free men’s first rule: You only believe in rights which you will respect and enforce for your most hated enemy (as well as friends and strangers).
Free men’s second rule: You only believe in rights which you will actively enforce, for example when you will interviene to stop a 3rd party’s rights from being violated or abriged, (even if it is inconvienient or might cause a lesser abridgement of your rights).
I agree that Palpatine is faking his terror – it is a comforting illusion to think that tyrants are always cowards. They are sometimes not cowards.
Palpatine clearly wants Windu to try and murder him – in order to make Anakin kill to defend him (or lose the chance to learn how to cheat death), and to show Anakin that the Jedi are no better than the Sith.
Of course Windu has an argument against arrest and trial “he controls the Senate, he controls the courts”.
tz,
“Is there a legal obligation to help enforce nonagression? If so, then how is that different. If not, then nonaggression is a nice but utterly abstract concept as it has no legal force.”
You are misunderstanding what the NAA means. The very idea of the non-aggression axiom means there is no legal obligation to enforce non-aggression. Using coercive force to force someone to enforce non-aggression is in fact the initiation of aggression. Furthermore, it goes on in an endless circle.
The NAA is a principle of justice. It states that no-one is entitled to (no-one has the right to) initiate aggression against anyone; that is, everyone has the right to be free of the initiation of aggression. Consequentially, we are entitlted to (have the right) to use preventative, retaliatory, and restitutive force against initiators of aggression.
To say that someone can have a positive obligation to enforce the non-aggression axiom is self-contradictory, as saying that implies that someone else would be justified in forcing someone to enforce the non-aggression axiom (which begs the question, why not enforce it themselves), which would constitute the initiation of aggression.
“Free men’s first rule: You only believe in rights which you will respect and enforce for your most hated enemy (as well as friends and strangers).”
This is incorrect. It is possible to know that something is morally right and not do it, and to know that doing something is wrong, yet still do it. It is perfectly possible for an anarcho-capitalist, someone who believes in the NAA, to violate the NAA. That makes them perhaps hypocritical and perhaps human. It does not mean they don’t believe in it.
Of course, I see your point, and agree with it. But it needs restating. That is, you only have a sound dedication to principles that you know are right if you consistently stand behind them. Some inconsistency merely means that you are human (that is, are not Jesus Christ). Gross inconsistency — that is, someone who believes that libertarian principles are correct, but commits murder — means that you are an evil person.
“Free men’s second rule: You only believe in rights which you will actively enforce, for example when you will interviene to stop a 3rd party’s rights from being violated or abriged, (even if it is inconvienient or might cause a lesser abridgement of your rights).”
Again, the same objections (and modifications) as above apply.
“In this scene, it is Mace Windu’s decision to himself act as judge, jury, and executioner that leads to the series of events that produces Darth Vader and the Empire. If Windu had instead listened to Anakin, Palpatine could have been arrested and imprisoned and the Republic, although badly abused and deformed, would have continued. InsteadWindu—and the Jedi—openly and directly decided to act like a despot in finding solutions to the problems plaguing the Republic. Ironically in this decision they were acting just as Palpatine himself was in his great efforts to undermine and overthrow the Republic.”
This is a good point, but you had failed to mention that Yoda had committed the same mistake, later in the movie. He appeared at the Senate to kill Palpatine without informing the Senate about his discovery regarding the former’s identity or anything. Like Mace before him, Yoda tried to take matters into his own hands. And like Mace before him, he failed.
Comments on this entry are closed.