I've seen this topic come up a number of times, and it's gotten me to thinking: Are the Sith really a truly evil organization, or are they just completely misrepresented by people like Palpatine?

 

I'll start this off by presenting my own opinion on the matter. I personally believe the Sith to be a morally-neutral organization, one that has a select few bad seeds scattered here and there. The Sith use passion and emotion as conduits of the Force, as opposed to the Jedi, who use Inner Peace instead. The Jedi recognize that there are areas of the Force that cannot truly be understood or entirely controlled... Areas that they dare not access. Therefore, they practice restraint, dubbing this unexplored territory the "Dark Side" of the Force, and condemning any and all practitioners of its arts.

 

Now, this next part is what really sells me to the Sith... The Jedi detested Dark Side users do much that they hunted them to near extinction, in a manner quite similar to the Crusades. The Jedi hold themselves on a mantle above the Sith, declaring themselves "Good" and their enemies "Evil." But I now present to you the question... Are the Jedi truly good? And are the Sith, by extension, evil? Let's look at the facts.

 

Jedi:

1. The Jedi cut themselves off from all physical attachment, considering emotion and attachment dangerous and dark. But last I checked, wasn't love a good thing? The same goes for joy, attachment, and many forms of passion. Take the love and attachment of a mother and child, for instance. What could be more good and pure than a love such as this? Yet the Jedi's principles condemn such a love, seeing it as a lure for the forces that they don't understand (AKA, the Dark Side)

2. The Jedi are hypocrites to their own code. They condemn pride, yet declare themselves the single good, holy force in the galaxy, and condemn their opponents as evil. Is such a declaration not prideful?

3. As Yoda himself stated in the novel-version of Revenge of the Sith, the Jedi's downfall came about because they stayed true to their old ways, while the Sith embraced change and adapted to a growing universe, taking on new ways and adapting to be as versatile as possible.

 

Sith:

1. The Sith embrace all emotions and physical affection, seeing passion as a powerful and wonderful thing. Yes, they wield Hatred, Anger, and Fear as blunt tools to master the Force, but they can also use positive emotions, such as Love, Joy, and Attachment, to wield the same powers and abilities.

2. Many look down on the Sith, seeing only individuals such as Palpatine or Malgus as representatives of the entire organization. Yes, some who wield the Dark Side of the force delve into the wrong areas, and become corrupted by it's unconteollable power.. But it seems that these individuals have cast a dark light over the entire Sith organization. Not all Sith are necessarily evil.

3. They have lightning.

 

All in all, I believe that the Sith are the true gems of the galaxy. What do you think?

As an organization, from a Western moral standpoint, the Sith are evil. Through and through. I will not debate this.

At the same time, there's nothing in your post that it necessarily incorrect, and I would agree that the Jedi Order along with the Republic have been complicit in genocides and numerous crimes the galaxy-over. Belsavis, for instance, where Republic scientists conduct racist and barbaric experiments against alien prisoners. The Jedi Civil War, where the Jedi Council resigned the Order to hypocritical pacifism as Mandalore the Ultimate conquered and slaughtered countless innocents in a crusade of glory and bloodlust (origins of Revan). And yes, as you noted, the Great Hyperspace War -- where the Jedi and Republic attempted genocide against the Sith (inspiration for Revan's droid army specifically programmed to terminate any organic being with "Sith genetic material", 98% of the Imperial population -- another ploy in which the Republic and Jedi were complicit).

It is repeatedly expressed throughout Star Wars Legends that the source of the Sith's utter contempt for the Jedi originates with the closing events of the Great Hyperspace War. The galaxy, I suspect, would be a very different place had the Republic negotiated terms of surrender with the defeated Sith Empire. Sith respect strength, and the Republic had proven theirs. However, memories of genocide echo through generations; this is what fueled Vitiate's rise to power.

So yes, the Sith's hatred does have historical precedence. And yes, it is a potential point of sympathy. To the Sith, the Republic and Jedi are an existential threat, and they have a score to settle.

I won't make the case for how the Sith Order and the Empire are evil. Personally, I don't tend to think in terms of "good" and "evil" (having read Nietzsche). But as I stated, for the purposes of this conversation, the Sith Order is evil (slavery, racism, torture, subjugation, oppression, etc.). But we have to remember, as a logical axiom, that individuals are not necessarily defined by the collective. And so we must ask: what defines a Sith?

A Sith is most clearly any Force-sensitive being who contemplates, subscribes to, and acts in accordance with the Sith Code. (Traditionally, a Sith would also be trained in the art of lightsaber combat.) Yes, the Sith have their roots in heredity and tradition, and this plays a greater or lesser role depending on the time period we're discussing, but this is largely irrelevant to the point I'm about to make.

The Sith Code

Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion I/we gain strength. Through strength I/we gain power. Through power I/we gain victory. Through victory, my/our chains are broken. The Force shall set me/us free!

What is inherently evil about Passion? Nothing.

What is inherently evil about Strength? Nothing.

What is inherently evil about Power? Nothing.

What is inherently evil about Victory? Nothing.

What is inherently evil about Freedom? ...Nothing.

What matters are the choices a Sith makes, and how those choices are informed by the Code. Do you kill a foe in cold blood, or offer mercy in exchange for his loyalty? The Sith Code offers no definite answer to this situation. Both paths are viable. And yet, could it not be through Strength that a Sith shows mercy, and could this not add to his Power? (Without spoilers) Recall Lord Rathari in the Sith Warrior story. If you spared him, you will understand my reasoning.

Is peace a lie? Philosophically speaking, perhaps. Peace is an illusion. Worse, a self-delusion. Peace is stagnation. When one is at peace, one has no incentive to grow; to evolve; to become more.

"Conflict forces one to better oneself. It forces change, growth, adaption, evolution… or death." ―Yuthura Ban

Indeed, there is only passion. For what compels men to action other than passion? The Jedi are hypocrites. To be emotionless is to be passionless, and to be passionless is to be a nihilist of the truest form. How can a Jedi claim his values are true and just while proclaiming "there is no emotion"? One cannot VALUE without emotion! The true Jedi must admit and believe that truth, knowledge and justice are of equal value as falseness, ignorance and injustice.

"A single, unifying code can be derived from the Sith philosophy. The Jedi have a code, and we exiles know it well. But we also know it is full of inadequacies and half-truths." ―Sorzus Syn

...Or in the words of the Empire's Wrath, "The entire [Jedi] Order is mired in falseness."

No, there is nothing inherently evil about the Sith. Moreover, their philosophy is superior to that of the Jedi -- as the Jedi Code is rooted in cognitive dissonance.

So why are there so many "evil" Sith tromping around the galaxy murdering everything with a heartbeat, you ask?

Two reasons:

I. Culture & Institution

The current incarnation of the Sith Order is rooted in the teachings of the restored Sith Academy on Korriban. These teachings are those passed down by ancient Sith Lords, canonized by the modern Sith intellectual aristocracy, and enforced through overseers and instructors. However, adhering to these teachings only initiates one into the Sith Order -- they do not make one a SITH. And to the question, many of these teachings are precisely to blame for the "evil" within the Sith Order and the Empire by extension.

II. Control & The Dark Side

Simply put, it takes equal if not greater strength and self-control to control the Dark Side of the Force than it does the Light Side, at least for most humanoid species with naturally aggressive instincts. Weak-willed individuals may use the Dark Side of the Force, but they will not control it; rather, it will control them. They will succumb to those primal emotions from which the Dark Side feeds and be reduced to their base nature of impulse savagery and aggression. The power of the Dark Side becomes a drug. It becomes the end, not the means. These individuals will never achieve freedom, for they are enslaved in a most ironic fashion. The strong-willed Sith does not sacrifice his sanity. He understands that the Dark Side is a tool, but also a creature to be tamed. But the Korriban Academy does not produce strong-willed individuals, rather it produces hedonists, schemers and brutes. Again, a flaw of the Institution of the Sith rather than the Sith as an ideal. (As a tangent, it is the difference between these two types of people what determines whether one is susceptible to the Jedi Mind Trick/Force Persuasion or resistant to its influence.)

Of course, a strong-willed Sith like Darth Baras is still "evil", but he is the exception here; and again, a reflection of the Culture of the Sith. Machiavelli, of course, was as sane a man as Leonardo da Vinci. Darth Marr is also strong-willed, yet Darth Marr is driven by PRINCIPLE, not mere hedonistic hunger for power.

On a personal note, I would consider Darth Marr to be Nietzsche's equivalent to the Übermensch for the Sith. In my opinion, Marr (and a certain playstyle of the Sith Warrior) embodies everything that makes the Sith unique and superior. If the Korriban Academy produced more Sith like Darth Marr, the Empire would know total victory.

Addressing the Dark Side of the Force

The Dark Side, simply defined, is that knowledge of the Force forbidden by the Jedi. Ancient Jedi and Sith described the dualistic nature of the Force as the "Bogan" (Dark Side) and the "Ashla" (Light Side). But the Force is a physical phenomenon, and such things in and of themselves are neither good nor evil in the same way that gravity is neither good nor evil. Good and evil are defined in terms of ACTION, of INTENT; these things being the concern of sentient beings, not nature itself.

So the question becomes what emotions the Dark Side feeds on, the actions those emotions inform, and the context in which those actions are taken. THIS determines "good" and "evil", not simply use of the Bogan. The Dark Side is a tool, nothing more. Tools are neither good nor evil, it is how one uses them. Is a hammer evil? No. Is a hammer evil if it is used for murder? No. It is he who wields the hammer.

...

"It is our goal to be stronger, to achieve our potential and not rest upon our laurels. We are the seekers, not the shepherds." ―Yuthura Ban

Let your hate run through you.

Hate is evil.

The Sith as a whole are evil. Their whole society is based around being evil. Enslaving others? Evil! Murder? Evil!

Yes, there are individual Sith (and Jedi in the case of the Jedi Order) who buck their system, but at that point they're not so much Sith but Sith in name only.

Ashara herself considers herself Jedi, because she was trained as Jedi, but the Jedi don't consider her Jedi anymore. JK turns a Sith into a Jedi. The story as a whole forgets times when they have the Jedi accept others and other times talk about how they're never anything else

Two universals societies consider evil...murder and stealing (from one's own community...other communities can be considered fair game ). The Sith murder and steal from their own and consider it as how to gain their own personal power.

Sith are evil.

Let your hate run through you.

 

Hate is evil.

 

The Sith as a whole are evil. Their whole society is based around being evil. Enslaving others? Evil! Murder? Evil!

 

Yes, there are individual Sith (and Jedi in the case of the Jedi Order) who buck their system, but at that point they're not so much Sith but Sith in name only.

 

Ashara herself considers herself Jedi, because she was trained as Jedi, but the Jedi don't consider her Jedi anymore. JK turns a Sith into a Jedi. The story as a whole forgets times when they have the Jedi accept others and other times talk about how they're never anything else

 

Two universals societies consider evil...murder and stealing (from one's own community...other communities can be considered fair game ). The Sith murder and steal from their own and consider it as how to gain their own personal power.

 

Sith are evil.

Sorry, this is entirely too simplistic. How is hate evil?

The peasant hates the cruel king, and this is evil? It is of course the hatred, the strife and contempt which drives the peasant to rebellion.

How snobbish and supercilious it would be for some coddled millennial pseudo-moralist to -- from a position of financial leisure and bodily autonomy -- condemn the ISIS sex slave for detesting her abusers and wishing death upon them.

Hatred is not evil. It is the actions through which one channels his hatred which we judge as being either good or evil.

Emotion, all emotion, hatred included, can be channeled in many ways. Through violence and force, yes, but also through art and revolution. And even violence can be a necessary instrument.

And just to say, I'm not sure you even read my original post.

Of course I read it. Also, I would have thought it obvious the type of hate I meant when I said it.

I'm not a millennial

I thought your writing on it came out as a version of good and evil are just made up things for people to put into boxes. I never agreed with that line of thinking. To many people know what is evil without being taught it is. Sith are bullies in general. They even say in the game how you must do bad things to be Sith.

Anyone's passion can be anything? Passion makes you strong? Pffft...not if that passion is for peace.

Sith are evil.

Of course I read it. Also, I would have thought it obvious the type of hate I meant when I said it.

 

I'm not a millennial

 

I thought your writing on it came out as a version of good and evil are just made up things for people to put into boxes. I never agreed with that line of thinking. To many people know what is evil without being taught it is. Sith are bullies in general. They even say in the game how you must do bad things to be Sith.

 

Anyone's passion can be anything? Passion makes you strong? Pffft...not if that passion is for peace.

 

Sith are evil.

There is not a single mass murdering fascist regime in the history of modern civilization that did not believe it was working toward peace. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and atrocities are committed in the name of kindness, love and faith.

And yes, "anyone's passion can be anything". And no, a passion for peace does not make one good.

The idea that one can even posses a passion for peace is oxymoronic if peace is a state a tranquility and calm. The two are antithetical in practice.

There is not a single mass murdering fascist regime in the history of modern civilization that did not believe it was working toward peace. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and atrocities are committed in the name of kindness, love and faith.

 

And yes, "anyone's passion can be anything". And no, a passion for peace does not make one good.

 

The idea that one can even posses a passion for peace is oxymoronic if peace is a state a tranquility and calm. The two are antithetical in practice.

Peace: freedom from or the cessation of war or violence

So, passion for a non violent life style. Guess what. Sith don't like that. They consider it un-Sith like. It's stated by Baras to the JK.

It's also one of the failings of TOR. They go about killing LS leaning force users, then ignore the SI and SW who are. Made even funnier when DS Jaesa goes on a killing spree of LS Sith, yet the LS SW stays alive.

If there was one failing with Star Wars, it's not a matter of if the Sith are evil or not, because we know they are (unless we're saying taking slaves...of any kind...is some how perfectly good) even if some are more redeeming than others, it's that Star Wars doesn't give us the middle side to well.

Voss and Zakuul seem to be a bit more neutral leaning and just as powerful in the force. So that throws the whole "must be one side or the other to be powerful" So, why would Sith figure you have to be dark side (which requires evil acts) to be powerful int he force, with evidence to the contrary?

Peace: freedom from or the cessation of war or violence

I would suggest that the Sith Code is referring to the falsity of "peace of spirit", that is, calmness or serenity, rather than the falsity of "non-war".

Rewrite the first line with that in mind:

Calmness/serenity is a lie, there is only passion.

That does seem to make more sense (but it is bad poetry because neither "calmness is a lie" nor "serenity is a lie" will flow as nicely as "peace is a lie"(1)).

And yes, we can decide things, act, and so on, while calm, while passionless. The Jedi Code, in effect, says that Jedi *must* do that because the calm / serenity will lead to better decisions. (But deciding something because "look at the poor thing, how terrible that this thing has happened" leads you toward a decision fuelled by the passion of pity instead of the passion of rage or hatred - but that's implied to be just as bad from a LS/DS point of view. Listen to the JC story's Activation Protocol speeches on Tython.)

The Sith themselves are evil, because they do evil things. The Sith Code, as suggested, does not directly advocate evil as such, but does advocate a way of conducting yourself that steers you to the Dark Side.

(1) Poetry is a thing of the ear, of the spoken word, not of the written word. We write down poetry to record it for the future, but its value is in how it *sounds* when spoken, not how it looks when written.

Personally, I don't tend to think in terms of "good" and "evil" (having read Nietzsche).

Oh, this is interesting. It's always nice to see someone looking into the philosophy behind these things. I wonder if we can -

coddled millennial pseudo-moralist

Never mind. Zero to ad hominem in two posts.

Peace - An illusion

Passion - Another illusion.

Strength - Define strength? another illusion.

Power - An illusion.

Victory - Yet another illusion.

Freedom - Oh look, another illusion.

anyone who can read between the lines can clearly see the sith have an idealogy based on lies and hypocrisy just like the Jedi.

How can one gain power when it isn't even real, you can force the issue and kill someone, you can use force powers, but that isn't power, that is just someone murdering another person trying to inspire a psychological response of fear and terror which is also an illusion if one decides to stop grasping for it. so in the end what has a sith really accomplished? one can't take power, one can't give power, one can't use the power they have because it doesn't exist.

Never mind. Zero to ad hominem in two posts.

Oh Internet... Can you please learn what an ad hominem is, Internet?

ad hominem

ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/

adverb & adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

"an ad hominem response"

2. relating to or associated with a particular person.

"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

directly from google search: "ad hominem meaning".

Peace: freedom from or the cessation of war or violence

Sorry, I don't get my definitions from a blog, and I'm pretty sure Star Wars doesn't, either.

peace

NOUN

 

1. Freedom from disturbance; tranquillity:

‘he just wanted to drink a few beers in peace’

 

2. A state or period in which there is no war or a war has ended:

‘the Straits were to be open to warships in time of peace’

But I'm pretty sure the Jedi Code isn't flat out denying the reality that there is war. The Jedi are defenders of the Republic. They lead armies and destroy the Republic's enemies. Every padawan is trained and prepared for violence. "There is peace" refers to an internal condition of the individual Jedi -- definition 1. -- , not his external environs. And as I already explained, one cannot holds values without emotion unless one is an unfeeling droid acting on programming. Humans cannot even make decisions without emotion, this is a fact of neuropsychology.

ad hominem

ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/

adverb & adjective

 

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

"an ad hominem response"

 

2. relating to or associated with a particular person.

"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

 

directly from google search: "ad hominem meaning".

Correct!

Good thing I did address his/her argument and didn't use "coddled millennial pseudo-moralist" as my argument for why s/he is incorrect.

Good thing I didn't even call him/her a "coddled millennial pseudo-moralist".

Good thing you now know what an ad hominem is so you will be less hasty to toss around the term in the future.

Glad we're all so intellectual honest here.

Sorry, I don't get my definitions from a blog, and I'm pretty sure Star Wars doesn't, either.

 

 

But I'm pretty sure the Jedi Code isn't flat out denying the reality that there is war. The Jedi are defenders of the Republic. They lead armies and destroy the Republic's enemies. Every padawan is trained and prepared for violence. "There is peace" refers to an internal condition of the individual Jedi -- definition 1. -- , not his external environs. And as I already explained, one cannot holds values without emotion unless one is an unfeeling droid acting on programming. Humans cannot even make decisions without emotion, this is a fact of neuropsychology.

They go on to say in the story how peace equals war. "We've signed a treaty, we're at peace." "Peace is a lie."

On the starting planet, they go on and on about how you have to do bad things. Do good things and they tell you, we (the sith) don't do that.

Murder is evil. It's also the Sith's way of life.

On the starting planet, they go on and on about how you have to do bad things. Do good things and they tell you, we (the sith) don't do that.

I addressed this when discussing the culture and institution of the Sith. I stated in the first line of my original post that the Sith as an institution is evil from a Western moral standpoint, and that I would not debate this.

Correct!

 

Good thing I did address his/her argument and didn't use "coddled millennial pseudo-moralist" as my argument for why s/he is incorrect.

 

Good thing I didn't even call him/her a "coddled millennial pseudo-moralist".

 

Good thing you now know what an ad hominem is so you will be less hasty to toss around the term in the future.

 

Glad we're all so intellectual honest here.

Okay; would you like to explain what you did mean by that passage in your post?

No matter how strong your will, your passion for justice and right, you can NOT tame and control the Dark Side of the Force. Even Frodo succumbed to the power of the One Ring. It's the same seductive power that pushes and controls. You THINK you're in charge, but you are just a slave to violence and powerful evil

Passion alone is insufficient. One must know code and principle. Like Darth Marr. This is why he was able to become a Force ghost after refusing Valkorian's promise of power (which he shouldn't have been able to do, according to your logic). It was not a Light Side decision, the point was that Marr was without fear, possessed conviction in something other than himself, and was beyond the petty temptation of power for its own sake. Marr was a master of the Dark Side, and yes, he was in CONTROL of himself and his destiny.

And LotR is not relevant here.

Okay; would you like to explain what you did mean by that passage in your post?

It's remarking on how it would be ignorant for certain people with very limited life experience to make declarations regarding what is universally "good" or "evil". Like the native urbanite pacifist who asserts that "killing is evil" and therefore "people who kill are evil".

I was reminding the individual I was responding to of this potential short-sightedness, because I believe s/he is guilty of it.

Found a video that goes over it here:

The entire moral philosophy of the Sith is evil.

-Might makes right

 

-Power should go only to those strong enough to take and hold it

 

- The role of the weak (a.k.a. non force users) in a civilized society is to serve their betters (force users)

 

- Fascism good, Democracy bad

 

-It is better for a leader to be feared than loved by his subjects

 

-There is nothing inherently wrong with slavery.

 

-War and conquest are good and desirable

 

-Love and altruism are weaknesses. Ruthless self-interest a strength

 

-Betrayal and murder are acceptable tools to moving up the social ladder, so long as you are strong and cunning enough to get away with it and hold onto your new position

 

-Mass murder and genocide are acceptable if they further your goals

Are there others I'm forgetting?

The Sith aren't just evil villains, they're of the mustache-twirling variety.

It's remarking on how it would be ignorant for certain people with very limited life experience to make declarations regarding what is universally "good" or "evil". Like the native urbanite pacifist who asserts that "killing is evil" and therefore "people who kill are evil".

 

I was reminding the individual I was responding to of this potential short-sightedness, because I believe s/he is guilty of it.

This is more or less what I thought. Here's the problem.

The first part suggests that a hypothetical person who argues that (for example) hate is evil has his or her argument disqualified, not because of the content or merits of the argument itself but because of your assessment of the arguer and his or her life experiences. This attacks the arguer rather than the argument.

The second part indicates your suspicion that the other person in your debate is "guilty" of the "ignorance" represented by the coddled millenial etc., which is at best a veiled form of accusation. For a parallel example, saying "I suspect you are an idiot" is not very different from simply saying "you are an idiot."

Now, there was much more to your rebuttal than just this ad hominem argument, and for my own part I am sorry for the tone of my initial post in this thread, which was not at all constructive. I should have joined the discussion properly and assumed good faith on everyone's part, which I did not. So for what it's worth I apologise to you (and everyone else here) for my earlier attitude.

Now, where were we? Dark space wizards?

It's remarking on how it would be ignorant for certain people with very limited life experience to make declarations regarding what is universally "good" or "evil". Like the native urbanite pacifist who asserts that "killing is evil" and therefore "people who kill are evil".

So, in other words your post was "1)... directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

I was reminding the individual I was responding to of this potential short-sightedness, because I believe s/he is guilty of it.

Hmm,... You mean your post was "2. relating to or associated with a particular person."

It seems that with the "coddled millennial pseudo-moralist" remark you managed to encompass both meanings of ad homenum. Great job!

Back on topic.

I think your ideas are very interesting, Ziggoratt. However, they (correct me if I am wrong) seem to rest on the assumption that the Dark Side of the Force is a tool, rather than an inherently evil power. Whether or not this assumption is correct depends on the metaphysics of the Star Wars universe, which could be anything. It is entirely possible that the Force is dualistic in nature, and that good and evil DO exist as separate entities. In such a reality, the individuals would be the tools of the Force, rather than vice versa, similarly to the Zoroastrian and Christian mythologies. Unfortunately, we would never know on which of these two metaphysical realities the Star Wars universe is based.

Passion alone is insufficient. One must know code and principle. Like Darth Marr. This is why he was able to become a Force ghost after refusing Valkorian's promise of power (which he shouldn't have been able to do, according to your logic). It was not a Light Side decision, the point was that Marr was without fear, possessed conviction in something other than himself, and was beyond the petty temptation of power for its own sake. Marr was a master of the Dark Side, and yes, he was in CONTROL of himself and his destiny.

 

And LotR is not relevant here.

We have force ghosts who are not like Marr at all. Inquisitor story line is filled with them.

Marr became a force ghost, because the plot wanted it. Vader was dark side, he became a force ghost. Unless we're saying one action can make someone light again, in which case, the game should have had some event by now that granted a massive amount of light side points Maybe there's something that gives massive dark side too.

The power (the force) may be neutral, but as it's been stated, it can be corrupted. Notice, none of the Dark Lords say "What? No. I'm a good person. The dark side of the force, isn't bad, it's just misunderstood."

It's about using all the evil ways one can, to channel the force, for more power. Enslave that twi'lek, torture that twi'lek, it'll only fuel your power with the dark side.

It is however sexier. More seductive. Who doesn't love a bad boy/girl, you know, untill they start to look like a walking corpse from all the dark side corruption, but it beats that goody two shoes Jedi.

Now, this isn't to say there aren't evil Jedi or good Sith. This isn't to say channeling emotion should equal dark side. TOR shows one can channel emotion and still be LS, however we also see, those powerful in the force who do channel emotion, are more likely to succumb to the dark side. It becomes to easy to use the power to do bad things...like revenge. Throw a tantrum. Etc.

Though I don't see why you consider it a western ideology on what is evil. It's pretty universal in the world. "Murder person in cold blood is evil." Mind you, murder does not equal killing.