Forum:SH Archive/Canon and Morality

(The portion of this discussion between the lines was copied from Talk:Light side of the Force. The topic may go beyond the scope of that article, and this forum seemed more appropriate)

--- Throughout this article, the Potentium is described as "misguided". Would it be better to say something like the Jedi interpretted the Potentium as being misguided? ~ Jaywin
 * True, not neutral. That fix seems good.  -Fnlayson 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the damnable Power of the Jedi Sourcebook and its OOU description of the Potentium as misguided? DarthMRN 21:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Face it, people, the Potentium is evil. Not only does Vergere show this, it's even stated clearly in canon. Evir Daal 06:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Some important points are being raised here. Specifically, what is the relationship between canon and declaring what is good and evil? The issue, in a sense, revolves around a fact-value distinction. We can certainly agree that canon is the last word on what the Potentium "is" within the Star Wars universe, (e.g., a morally relativistic and/or solipsistic-like philosophy). We can even agree that canon is the last word on how characters within the Star Wars universe "valued" the Potentium, (e.g., the Jedi believed that the Potentium philosophy was "evil" or "misguided"). However, what I would argue, (and I believe this is the crux of the matter), no one can canonize the value of this perspective to the reader. In other words, as a reader, I am free (along with everyone else) to make my own value-judgement on the merits (or lack there of) of this particular philosophy. When this article states explicitly that the Potentium is "evil" or "misguided", then that says to me that a particular philosophical position (i.e., set of values) is canon to the reader, which is unjustifiable. Thus, my argument is that any value judgements made about the Potentium in this article should be explicitly stated as being from the perspective of the characters within the Star Wars universe. Jaywin 16:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) - Thanks for the response. However, even though there's much of what I agree with in your statements, I don't believe your response addressed the point I was trying to make. This is probably my fault, since my above statement, "no one can canonize the value of this perspective to the reader," was a bit ambiguous. Let me rephrase it this way:
 * No, since the SW universe is fictional, it can have an objective definition of good and evil. Compare Dark Side/Light Side to the alignment system in D & D, if you are familiar with that. A character may view himself any way he likes, but that does not really say anything about his alignment. The inherent morality of the campaign world assigns him his alignment, judging his actions and intentions by its own set of standards (and in the SW case, this would be those of Lucasfilm). So just as a Blackguard in D & D still is evil even if he thinks himself good, a Potentium follower in SW remains evil and/or misguided even if she thinks she's good. While this might not be entirely realistic, that's how it is, and we're supposed to follow canon. Think of it as the Force's own judgment of the Potentium, if you will. Evir Daal 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one can canonize the value of this perspective, (or the value of any perspective, for that matter), from the perspective of the reader.

Consider the following set of statements. I would assume that most people would intuitively say that the answer to statement #3 is, "No, of course not". However, I would argue that the manner in which statement #1 is framed implicitly suggests that the answer to #3 is "Yes".
 * 1) An article states that the Potentium is "evil" and "misguided".
 * 2) A person who reads the article likes the Potentium perspective.
 * 3) Does that imply that the reader is "evil" or "misguided"?

Now consider this set of statements: I would assume that most people would intuitively say that the answer to statement #3 is, "Yes, of course". However, I would argue that the manner in which statement #1 is framed implicitly suggests that the answer to #3 is "Yes" as well.
 * 1) An article states that the Potentium is "evil" and "misguided", from the perspective of the Jedi.
 * 2) A person who reads the article likes the Potentium perspective.
 * 3) Does that implicitly mean that the reader is free to decide for themselves whether or not they agree with the Jedi perspective?

Though this all may seem a bit overboard to some, I think these questions that I'm posing capture the spirit of George Lucas' intentions of what he was trying to accomplish with Star Wars. Star Wars is a morality play framed as a Campbellian Hero's Journey. I've heard Lucas state on more than one occassion that he hoped that his films would facilitate, in part, philosophical reflection and discussion on the part of the viewers. So my overall general question is this:
 * Here at Wookieepedia, should the manner in which articles with moral/ethical statements be framed in such a way as to capture the spirit of Lucas' intentions? If so, does the manner in which a moral/ethical statement is framed help facilitate or impede philosophical reflection and discussion on the part of the readers? Jaywin 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)