No, not "the" Jedi. At least not if this is about Mace Windu.Mace Windu would have been a Cop who killed a criminal in custody. That's his crime, not that of the Jedi order. It's not sure if the Jedi order would have tolerated it or if Windu would have been removed from the Council.

Nor am I, which is what I was attempting to find out. Walsh's defense of Windu's actions, however, make it perfectly clear he believes they would not only have tolerated it, but considered it de rigeur for a Jedi. That's the assertion I've been arguing against because, frankly, it seems ludicrous.

Nor am I, which is what I was attempting to find out. Walsh's defense of Windu's actions, however, make it perfectly clear he believes they would not only have tolerated it, but considered it de rigeur for a Jedi. That's the assertion I've been arguing against because, frankly, it seems ludicrous.

It all depends.

In the novelization we get a look into Mace's mindset about that moment that the movie doesn't show. The Council, most likely, wouldn't have kicked him off the Council for it, but might have cautioned him about his actions. You do understand that Palpatine had just killed 3 Jedi Masters in less than a second and had revealed himself to be the Sith Lord who orchestrated the war and killed trillions of sentient beings.

That has to be taken into account and the Jedi Order clearly would have.

It all depends.

 

In the novelization we get a look into Mace's mindset about that moment that the movie doesn't show. The Council, most likely, wouldn't have kicked him off the Council for it, but might have cautioned him about his actions. You do understand that Palpatine had just killed 3 Jedi Masters in less than a second and had revealed himself to be the Sith Lord who orchestrated the war and killed trillions of sentient beings.

 

That has to be taken into account and the Jedi Order clearly would have.

So we can also add, "As long as the Jedi's upset enough, it's cool if he executes a prisoner attempting to surrender," to, "As long as he's pretty sure it's not a genuine attempt to surrender, it's cool if he executes a prisoner attempting to surrender," to the Jedi code of conduct?

Look, I realize you're on the Jedi's side in any argument you engage in about them, but you're painting yourself into some pretty amusing corners here.

Cavell hit it on the nose. While HK was wrong in defining Jedi as pacifists (they obviously are not), there is the central Jedi hypocrisy: We only attack in defense of ourselves or others, but we define defense of ourselves or others as anything we don't like.

His point #2 is absolutely correct. The definition of "defense" is so broad that it is pretty much meaningless. As shown by this debate itself, any action no matter how hostile or aggressive can be justified as defensive, rendering the entire concept useless.

Cavell hit it on the nose. While HK was wrong in defining Jedi as pacifists (they obviously are not), there is the central Jedi hypocrisy: We only attack in defense of ourselves or others, but we define defense of ourselves or others as anything we don't like.

 

His point #2 is absolutely correct. The definition of "defense" is so broad that it is pretty much meaningless. As shown by this debate itself, any action no matter how hostile or aggressive can be justified as defensive, rendering the entire concept useless.

Not every Jedi and not every Jedi council is hypocritical on that. Some do it like you described, some don't. The Jedi Council didn't like Palpatine for a long time, but they did only attack him after finding out the truth. They didn't like the corruption of the Senate, but the accepted it.

Luke didn't like Jabba, but he only attacked when Jabba left him no choice.

Of course you have to draw the line of "defense of ourselves and others" yourself, but most Jedi don't do it in a hypocritical way.

Not every Jedi and not every Jedi council is hypocritical on that. Some do it like you described, some don't. The Jedi Council didn't like Palpatine for a long time, but they did only attack him after finding out the truth. They didn't like the corruption of the Senate, but the accepted it.

Luke didn't like Jabba, but he only attacked when Jabba left him no choice.

 

Of course you have to draw the line of "defense of ourselves and others" yourself, but most Jedi don't do it in a hypocritical way.

He's right. You are lumping every Jedi in the same category and that's not right. Yes some will find any reason to "defend" but yet there are some that will try every means available not to draw their lightsaber until they have exhausted every means possible.

You have to look at every single jedi and judge the jedi by her/his actions alone not based on some other Jedi or even the Council itself. Each jedi has her/his own views and they play a large factor into how she/he will handle things.

He's right. You are lumping every Jedi in the same category and that's not right. Yes some will find any reason to "defend" but yet there are some that will try every means available not to draw their lightsaber until they have exhausted every means possible.

 

You have to look at every single jedi and judge the jedi by her/his actions alone not based on some other Jedi or even the Council itself. Each jedi has her/his own views and they play a large factor into how she/he will handle things.

Actually, I am doing the exact opposite. I agree with you that not every Jedi is like that - the point however remains that SOME are. You can't just say "well they don't count!" The fact that some do abuse the flexibility means that the flexibility exists, and the original point stands.

I agree with you, and it confirms the original posters point: the jedi allow for such flexibility and render the concept "defense" as meaningless.

Actually, I am doing the exact opposite. I agree with you that not every Jedi is like that - the point however remains that SOME are. You can't just say "well they don't count!" The fact that some do abuse the flexibility means that the flexibility exists, and the original point stands.

 

I agree with you, and it confirms the original posters point: the jedi allow for such flexibility and render the concept "defense" as meaningless.

Not completely. The Jedi are taught they shall only kill in defense. When you want to justify something you do with this, you have to think about it. And if you are honest to yourself, you might notice that it's not defense. And even then you have to justify it to the Jedi council and the council might see it otherwise.

The "Luke didn't kill Jabba until Jabba left him no choice," defense is an interesting one. I'd argue that's a pretty clear example of a Jedi 'gaming the system,' so to speak, and forcing his opponent to provide him with an excuse for the Jedi to initiate violence. If a Jedi deliberately puts himself under his enemy's power to goad his enemy into trying to off him, that really counts as self-defense?

Did he? He first tried to pay Jabba for leaving his friends free. And later he warned him, before they were taken to the Sarlacc pit.

What should Luke have done as a Jedi?

The Jedi Code is simple:

 

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..

That's all you need to know, right there. The Code is really, really flexible. You can do anything as a Jedi - so long as...

- you're doing it without emotions affecting your decision

- you're basing your decision on knowledge of the current situation

- you're being objective

- you're doing something that'll benefit harmony in the end

- you're making sure to listen for the Force telling you not to do it

Killing a Sith Lord? The Force is usually pretty ok with that, and the death of a Sith usually removes an unharmonious force from the galaxy. All that's left is doing it emotionlessly and knowing that it's probably the best thing to do in the situation you're in.

Jedi usually don't fight because fighting leads to discord, and killing hurts the Force. But if a fight needs to happen, they'll fight it. And they'll do everything they have to, in order to end a fight once it starts, as quickly and cleanly as possible.

There's no hypocrisy there. The Code is so open because the Jedi don't do absolute thinking - they have no hard and fast rules about what they must not do. They just do what they have to.

The "Luke didn't kill Jabba until Jabba left him no choice," defense is an interesting one. I'd argue that's a pretty clear example of a Jedi 'gaming the system,' so to speak, and forcing his opponent to provide him with an excuse for the Jedi to initiate violence. If a Jedi deliberately puts himself under his enemy's power to goad his enemy into trying to off him, that really counts as self-defense?

If I remember the scene correctly when Luke arrived at Jabba's palace and was brought to talk to Jabba he greeted Jabba respectfully and offered to baragin for them.

So how is this goading his enemy?

Jabba had a choice he could have baragin and ended up with credits but he chose to be stubborn.

If I remember the scene correctly when Luke arrived at Jabba's palace and was brought to talk to Jabba he greeted Jabba respectfully and offered to baragin for them.

 

So how is this goading his enemy?

 

Jabba had a choice he could have baragin and ended up with credits but he chose to be stubborn.

The argument is that he knew Jabba would say no, and he had no other justification. Consider this: did Jabba do anything wrong? Aside from the fact that Han is Luke's friend, what crime did Jabba commit? Han was a smuggler who dropped his cargo. He owed Jabba a lot of money and did not deliver on his promises. The Jedi walks in, ignoring all of this, offers a petty sum that knows will be rejected, then uses the rejection as an excuse to "defend" his friend and incite violence against the Hutts.

Do I buy that? Well no, it is just an exaggerated argument to illustrate the point being made: the Jedi wanted his friend back, even though it wasn't necessarily in his right (the bounty was legal, the debt was real, it was Hutt space) and put himself in danger to claim self defense and attack his friend's captor.

Exaggerated, but illustrative

The argument is that he knew Jabba would say no, and he had no other justification. Consider this: did Jabba do anything wrong? Aside from the fact that Han is Luke's friend, what crime did Jabba commit? Han was a smuggler who dropped his cargo. He owed Jabba a lot of money and did not deliver on his promises. The Jedi walks in, ignoring all of this, offers a petty sum that knows will be rejected, then uses the rejection as an excuse to "defend" his friend and incite violence against the Hutts.

 

Do I buy that? Well no, it is just an exaggerated argument to illustrate the point being made: the Jedi wanted his friend back, even though it wasn't necessarily in his right (the bounty was legal, the debt was real, it was Hutt space) and put himself in danger to claim self defense and attack his friend's captor.

 

Exaggerated, but illustrative

No, that's not true. Luke even tried to Force persue Jabba.

For if it was legal: No. But that's not about defense. Luke was already a criminal form imperial perspective and to free a friend he broke Hutt law. But he tried doing it the peaceful way first.

If you want to, you may say Jedi see themselves above non-Jedi laws. That's a claim with a lot of arguments in favor.

That's all you need to know, right there. The Code is really, really flexible. You can do anything as a Jedi - so long as...

 

- you're doing it without emotions affecting your decision

- you're basing your decision on knowledge of the current situation

- you're being objective

- you're doing something that'll benefit harmony in the end

- you're making sure to listen for the Force telling you not to do it

 

Killing a Sith Lord? The Force is usually pretty ok with that, and the death of a Sith usually removes an unharmonious force from the galaxy. All that's left is doing it emotionlessly and knowing that it's probably the best thing to do in the situation you're in.

 

Jedi usually don't fight because fighting leads to discord, and killing hurts the Force. But if a fight needs to happen, they'll fight it. And they'll do everything they have to, in order to end a fight once it starts, as quickly and cleanly as possible.

 

There's no hypocrisy there. The Code is so open because the Jedi don't do absolute thinking - they have no hard and fast rules about what they must not do. They just do what they have to.

Yes the very definition of a heartless killing machine.

No, that's not true. Luke even tried to Force persue Jabba.

 

For if it was legal: No. But that's not about defense. Luke was already a criminal form imperial perspective and to free a friend he broke Hutt law. But he tried doing it the peaceful way first.

If you want to, you may say Jedi see themselves above non-Jedi laws. That's a claim with a lot of arguments in favor.

No Luke broke the jedi code when he did this but that's not a bad thing. I prefer people that do the right thing then those who cling to codes or laws.

The argument is that he knew Jabba would say no, and he had no other justification.

Just because you knew the other person wouldn't agree doesn't take away the fact that you offered.

Consider this: did Jabba do anything wrong? Aside from the fact that Han is Luke's friend, what crime did Jabba commit?

Considering Jabba is a crime lord I'm pretty sure we can come up with a huge list of crimes he committed. In that case kidnapping and illegal imprisonment are two of them.

Han was a smuggler who dropped his cargo.

Sure.

He owed Jabba a lot of money and did not deliver on his promises.

Irrelevant. It doesn't give Jabba the right to freeze him in carbonite (which equates to years of torture) against his will. It doesn't give Jabba the right to imprison Chewbacca. It doesn't give Jabba the right to imprison Leia.

Jabba could have filed legal action against Han Solo and had his wages garnished I guess, he might have legally been in the right to impound the Millennium Falcon as well... He didn't do that though.

Jabba can't hold Chewbacca responsible as he was technically only in the employ of Han Solo as far as smuggling contracts went.

Jabba could have had Leia Organa taken away by the proper authorities as well after her attempted freeing of an illegally imprisoned and currently being tortured sentient being failed.

The Jedi walks in, ignoring all of this, offers a petty sum that knows will be rejected, then uses the rejection as an excuse to "defend" his friend and incite violence against the Hutts.

Actually the sum Luke offered was the amount that Han owed. Also I didn't see Jabba try to have Luke calmly escorted out. I seem to remember something about Jabba's reaction being to dump Luke into a pit with a Rancor.

Do I buy that? Well no, it is just an exaggerated argument to illustrate the point being made: the Jedi wanted his friend back, even though it wasn't necessarily in his right (the bounty was legal, the debt was real, it was Hutt space) and put himself in danger to claim self defense and attack his friend's captor.

Ahh you are on some sticky Star Wars legal ground.

The Bounty was legal inside Hutt Space. Han Solo, however, was grabbed outside of that legal jurisdiction. Also since Tatooine wasn't Hutt space at the time, Tatooine was Imperial space, and Jabba's actions were against Imperial law he doesn't even have that leg (if he had legs) to stand on.

Exaggerated, but illustrative

A more accurate description would be:

Jabba the Hutt was illegally imprisoning three of Luke Skywalker's friends. Luke Skywalker made an offer equal to the debt the Hutt was owed. The Hutt refused the offer and Luke, who was unarmed at the time, assured him that he was taking his friends when he left. The Hutt reacted with attempted murder. After the attempted murder failed Jabba planned to execute Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca, and Han Solo. Before the crime lord could give the final order Luke Skywalker made one final forceful appeal telling Jabba to release them or he would react as though his life were threatened. The criminal gave the order and Luke Skywalker and his companions, made good on the response.

The argument is that he knew Jabba would say no, and he had no other justification. Consider this: did Jabba do anything wrong? Aside from the fact that Han is Luke's friend, what crime did Jabba commit? Han was a smuggler who dropped his cargo. He owed Jabba a lot of money and did not deliver on his promises. The Jedi walks in, ignoring all of this, offers a petty sum that knows will be rejected, then uses the rejection as an excuse to "defend" his friend and incite violence against the Hutts.

How do you know that Luke knew the offer would be refused? Was it likely? Certainly. That doesn't alter that making the offer is a clear attempt to avoid violence and destruction. The fact that Luke expected Jabba would say no and planned accordingly doesn't make him a hypocrite or dishonest; it means he knew the person he'd be negotiating with and planned for a likely contingency. It's logical, not aggressive or vindictive.

You could make this argument if he had followed through with the attack et al. AFTER Jabba accepted the money, but just because an offer was made and not taken, and wasn't likely to be taken in the first place, does not negate it or change the fact that a non-violent path was offered.

All of Jabba's actions were also crimes as they were not part of Imperial law. Technically, it wasn't really Han who owed Jabba money for the lost cargo, it was the Empire for causing him to ditch it. But since the cargo was illegal in the first place, appealing to a sense of Jabba the Hutt as a law abiding citizen unjustly persecuted is a bit of a reach.

A point's been made a few times in this thread that's worth repeating as well. The Jedi Code is not about violence at all; it is about maintaining harmony and peace. That's a key point because it means that the Jedi do not look at violence as an end but a means, and one they prefer to avoid if possible. In the examples of Luke Skywalker and Mace Windu above, both Jedi gave their opponents the opportunity to surrender without bloodshed or outright be paid for their trouble and left alone. The fact that neither enemy accepted isn't on the Jedi; let us not take the responsibility for their own actions from either Sidious or Jabba. They made choices too; hardly being passive individuals who did not act to affect the outcomes around them.

There's also a strong element of Utilitarianism in Jedi philosophy in general; a weighing of actions and consequences. Using violence is something that disrupts peace, which is bad in itself, but if doing so gains longer lasting harmony for more sentient beings then it is a correct action. The relative "weights" or the goods and bads must be considered, as well as the final outcome. The one that results in the most good for the most people is correct, even if it involves violence or attacking.

If my Jedi Knight flies a space mission where he attacks an Imperial Space Station that's being used to attack outlying Republic systems, that is a defensive action. Because it's goal is not to counter an immediate attack but future assaults that will come and therefore harm others, destroy life and property, and defend the rights and long term peace and happiness of those systems. The act is an aggressive action but the reasoning behind it is defensive. Disorder and harm already exist; committing the attack, while harmful and violent, will make peace possible again, thus it is correct from the Jedi perspective. If the Station was just floating there or was a hydroponics plant, it wouldn't be attacked by a Jedi as that would be creating discord where there was none.

An earlier poster also mentioned that this isn't an absolute thing and they are exactly right. Obi-Wan Kenobi says that only Sith deal in absolutes. Expecting an absolute rule and seeing the absence of one does not make the Jedi hypocrites for not having it; it simply reveals deep seated differences in point of view and philosophical approach.

Auraleus;4943566]The argument is that he knew Jabba would say no, and he had no other justification. Consider this: did Jabba do anything wrong? Aside from the fact that Han is Luke's friend, what crime did Jabba commit? Han was a smuggler who dropped his cargo. He owed Jabba a lot of money and did not deliver on his promises. The Jedi walks in, ignoring all of this, offers a petty sum that knows will be rejected, then uses the rejection as an excuse to "defend" his friend and incite violence against the Hutts.

Whether he knew or not he would say no, the fact of the matter he offered to baragin. Bargaining means both parties come to an agreement on the amount. There was no baragaining as Jabba refused to bargain. As far as the amount there is no evidence showing it was a petty amount since Jabba refused to even enteratain the idea.

I will grant you it was not Jabba's idea to freeze Han that was Vader's but when Jabba received Han did he unfreeze him and put him to work to pay off his debts? No he left him frozen.

Then we come to Leia. What crime did she commit against Jabba? Nothing other than trying to free someone she loved. There is no crime in that but instead of turning her over to the Imperial he chained her. The debt Han owed had nothing to do with Leia.

Do I buy that? Well no, it is just an exaggerated argument to illustrate the point being made: the Jedi wanted his friend back, even though it wasn't necessarily in his right (the bounty was legal, the debt was real, it was Hutt space) and put himself in danger to claim self defense and attack his friend's captor.

The debt was legal but the way it was done was not. He could and should have taken the ship if he was really interested in having the debt paid back. He didn't.

Now anyone (jedi or not) will want to free their friends from the situation they were in. Luke tried to negogiate but Jabba refused. You can argue that he knew that Jabba would say no but that doesn''t negate the fact that he tried and Jabba refused.

Had Jabba negogiated things could have turned out differently.

Yes the very definition of a heartless killing machine.

Such are the demands of serving the Force, dude. No-one said it was easy...

Such are the demands of serving the Force, dude. No-one said it was easy...

I'd argue it's incredibly easy, actually. You're never going to have to worry about making a living again, you're given a vague code that you're free to do anything you like by so long as you can justify it to a bunch of contemplatives, you're free to intervene or not intervene anywhere you see fit, on whatever scale...honestly doesn't seem like a bad life.

All the 'downsides' of being a Jedi are largely mitigated by seemingly every named Jedi in existence contravening them at some time or another. It wouldn't shock me to learn that Yoda had a girl in every port at this point.

I'd argue it's incredibly easy, actually. You're never going to have to worry about making a living again, you're given a vague code that you're free to do anything you like by so long as you can justify it to a bunch of contemplatives, you're free to intervene or not intervene anywhere you see fit, on whatever scale...honestly doesn't seem like a bad life.

 

All the 'downsides' of being a Jedi are largely mitigated by seemingly every named Jedi in existence contravening them at some time or another. It wouldn't shock me to learn that Yoda had a girl in every port at this point.

You have to justify your actions to yourself too. Don't assume that everyone has no problem with bending the rules to fit him. Sometimes people are honest to themselves.

Whether he knew or not he would say no, the fact of the matter he offered to baragin. Bargaining means both parties come to an agreement on the amount. There was no baragaining as Jabba refused to bargain. As far as the amount there is no evidence showing it was a petty amount since Jabba refused to even enteratain the idea.

 

I will grant you it was not Jabba's idea to freeze Han that was Vader's but when Jabba received Han did he unfreeze him and put him to work to pay off his debts? No he left him frozen.

 

Then we come to Leia. What crime did she commit against Jabba? Nothing other than trying to free someone she loved. There is no crime in that but instead of turning her over to the Imperial he chained her. The debt Han owed had nothing to do with Leia.

 

 

 

 

The debt was legal but the way it was done was not. He could and should have taken the ship if he was really interested in having the debt paid back. He didn't.

 

Now anyone (jedi or not) will want to free their friends from the situation they were in. Luke tried to negogiate but Jabba refused. You can argue that he knew that Jabba would say no but that doesn''t negate the fact that he tried and Jabba refused.

 

Had Jabba negogiated things could have turned out differently.

You try to apply our laws. No matter how much you try to weasel your way out of it legally the SW-crew where all in the wrong. Morally they where not. But the jedi are supposed to respect the law. Which is why the republic is such a corrupt place and the jedi cannot do anything about it.

Such are the demands of serving the Force, dude. No-one said it was easy...

No one said it was smart either. The jedi have willingly let them be enslaved to a corrupt republic for thousands of years and they cannot do anything about the corruption because of their code.

I think that every attempt at "accusing" the Jedi of hypocrisy is inherently flawed. Why? Because it's easy to idealize something and condemn it when it inevitably steps away from that ideal.

Stop idealizing Jedi. Stop idealizing the Order. Stop idealizing the Code. Stop taking Jedi ideals literally. And everything will start making sense.

There are plenty "shades of grey" situations, in which Jedi codes of conduct can be interpreted in multiple ways. Just like real-life laws and morals. Morals and codes of conduct guide - they do not dictate. And it is for each person to determine - within his perception of the spirit of the code - how to apply it.

The Sith code, can be interpreted in a ridiculous number of ways that have nothing to do with the Dark Side. The Jedi Code, taken literally, won't take one far either (that's why I prefer the Old code. It was a bit more obscure, but it has an accent on acceptance, while the new code seems to "deal in absolutes").

No one said it was smart either. The jedi have willingly let them be enslaved to a corrupt republic for thousands of years and they cannot do anything about the corruption because of their code.

"Struggle is an illusion. The tide rises, the tide falls. Victory is in the Qun". Replace Qun with Force.

No need to overthrow corrupt governments when new ones will take their place. Cannot destroy governments because civilization cannot exist without them. Cannot take over, lest you expose yourself to the danger of becoming a tyrant.

Civilization will evolve. The Jedi protect, observe, assist. They do not struggle to change the Galaxy. It's the credo of the Sith.