Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith

I saw the movie. The rapid transformation, which Anakin Skywalker went through from being a Jedi into a servant of the dark side of the Force, caused me to feel the unsettling feeling of someone thrown into a new situation in life, which he was not prepared to handle.

There are some moral issues illustrated by the movie, but since they are spoilers, I am discussing them in attached notes.

RSS feed | Trackback URI

2 Comments

Comment by tddpirate
2005-05-24 21:11:01

There was a scene, in which Anakin Skywalker and another Jedi were fighting Lord Sith. Anakin has already sold out to Lord Sith, but this was not known yet.
The other Jedi was winning the battle and was going to kill Lord Sith. Anakin stopped him by using the ruse of the requirement for due process of law. Of course, it is impossible to continue a battle if time out needs to be taken in order to hold a proper court trial.
Lord Sith escaped alive to commit much more acts of violation of law and cause death and misery to millions and millions of living creatures.

There is an ancient Jewish saying, which says that if one shows mercy to those, who are unworthy of mercy, then eventually one becomes cruel to merciful people.

(http://livejournal.com/users/tddpirate)

 
Comment by tddpirate
2005-05-24 21:23:41

It is understandable that a man may be prepared to sell the world in exchange for several more years of joy with the woman he loves.

However, in real life, there are cases, in which people are so obsessed with the life of one person that the lives of more than one person are lost.

To rescue an injured soldier during battle, how many other soldiers should risk their lives?
This is easy one to decide in principle. Armies fight better when soldiers are assured that if they get injured, a lot of effort will be spent rescuing them. An army, which values its soldiers' lives, is less liable of losing battles and lives due to demoralization. So in the long range, it is cost-effective to risk the lives of a group of soldiers in order to rescue a soldier, who was injured in a battle.

Another question is whether a pregnant mother should be allowed to abort her fetus and under what circumstances. In the past, medical practice was not as developed as it is today. So abortions were very risky to the life of the pregnant woman. It was much risky to abort than to allow the pregnancy to come to term. So it was no brainer to ban abortions, especially as the major reason to have an abortion was to avoid loss of honor (or even of life due to violation of “family honor”).
Nowadays, there is slightly more risk in continuing the pregnancy than in performing an abortion during the first trimester of the pregnancy. On the other hand, social mores and availability of foster parents have changed. This means that there is less social risk associated with continuing the pregnancy to term - the woman is less likely to be stigmatized or killed. If she cannot raise the child and is willing to bear the emotional trauma of separating from her newborn child, then the child is likely to be adopted and properly raised.
So the moral issues surrounding abortion are different today from what they were in the past.

(http://livejournal.com/users/tddpirate)

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.