There have been a couple of blogs of late regarding moral ambiguity in Star Wars, one in particular regarding the differences between Jedi and Sith.

I'm not going to launch into a whole philosophical blog on morality and truth- seeing as I've already done a blog series on that topic and really don't have anything left to say about it- but I do feel the need to post an alternative view regarding Jedi and Sith philosophies. I could easily turn this into the Never-Ending Blog, so I'll try to keep this one succinct.

The first observation that people pick up is that, for an order that claims to preserve truth and justice, the Jedi do an awful lot of shading and coloring of the truth- while the Sith seem to be the ones who are always stating the facts (with the sole exception of Palpatine's address to the Senate regarding his 'emergency powers'). The more you think about it, the stranger it seems- honesty, in general, is usually considered a respectable and admirable virtue (with the exception of when someone asks you 'does this make me look fat?) and lying seen as a dishonorable and despicable vice.

But truth (or more so the uncovering of it) is not such a simple matter as that. In Palpatine's speech to the Senate, he states, "I love democracy. I love the Republic." But even these aren't lies in a direct sense of the word. After all, what reason would he have to hate democracy? It's been his main tool of corruption and manipulation from the beginning! In a despotic government or monarchy, he certainly would have had a tougher time concealing his identity while simultaneously attempting to overthrow power. Palpatine tells the truth on a regular basis, but his words are layered with hidden meanings and near double-entendres. So we see here that simply stating the truth is not always right.

And then there's Yoda- when he was first introduced to us in ESB, we had absolutely no way of knowing that this bizarre little adaptation of a Kermit the Frog puppet was in fact a revered Jedi Master, nor does Luke. Yoda doesn't tell Luke, either- he keeps up the game until Luke finds out for himself. ...Frighteningly similar to how Palpatine concealed his identity from Anakin until Anakin drew the conclusions on his own.

So based on this comparison, how are Yoda's actions any better than the Emperor's? The difference is subtle, but clear; the difference isn't so much in what is being said, but why, through the intentions behind their actions as well as the consequences.

The Emperor manipulated those around him- by telling the truth- for his own personal gain. There are no questions about his motives. He wants to overthrow the Senate, destroy the Jedi, and become the supreme ruler of the galaxy with his new apprentice at his side. And, all the way, he seems to be telling the truth. But does this make his intentions any more acceptable?

Yoda, on the other hand, seems to maintain a ruse not for his own gain, but for the benefit of Luke as well as the benefit of the galaxy. Another example of this is Mr. Miyagi from the Karate Kid. He agrees to teach Daniel-san the art of self-defense in exchange for chores performed by his student. After a while, it seems that Mr. Miyagi has lied; each and every chore that Daniel-san has performed have not once been repaid with karate lessons. But it is soon revealed that in Mr. Miyagi ordering Daniel-san to perform endless chores that seem mundane and routine, only to reveal at the end that each chore- that each seemingly lie- was in fact a cleverly disguised lesson and that, in fact, Mr. Miyagi had been teaching Daniel self-defense all along. (With the added side-bonus of the teacher having a shiny car and spiffy backyard.)

So we see then that in the telling of truth is not so much the virtue in and of itself- but why and when it is done. This is the deciding factor between the Jedi and the Sith.

Comments welcome as always.