I've heard it said, on the streets, in other blogs, and elsewhere, that Mace Windu was wrong to have tried to kill Palpatine. That this was not like a Jedi. Yes, even as we acknowledge this, we still cheer him. And, if he had succeeded, he would have been darkened in some tragic way.

Was he wrong?

Looking only at the moment of choice, whether or not he had actually defeated Palpatine, was this wrong?

Reflexively it seems straightforward. Killing is wrong, right?

Well, yes and no. Killing is sometimes wrong. After all, if someone attacks you, with obvious intent to do harm, is it wrong to defend yourself, if doing so will obviously mean your assailants death?

Consider too, Yoda and Obi-Wan's killing of clone troopers in Revenge. Are the clones somehow less than other humans? May they be killed without consequence?

Consider that in A New Hope millions are killed when the Death Star destroys Alderaan. Later, Luke destroys the Death Star. One we clearly say is wrong, the other, right. Is this inconsistent? Or, is there something more to be considered, some distinction between these two. The destruction of Alderaan, was the callous, calculated killing as a demonstration of power. It wasn't even to get information from Leia, Tarkin made that perfectly clear. The location of the rebel base she gave was a lie, but Tarkin wasn't about to consider another target. Alderaan made a better demonstration of the power of the Death Star. And Luke destroying the Death Star? In doing so he stopped the slayings that would have continued had the Death Star survived.

Consider instances in our own history, like Count Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg's attempt to kill Adolf Hitler with a briefcase bomb. Was he wrong to try to do so? What if he had succeeded? Would any of us say that he was wrong? Not many, that much is sure.

"Thou Shall Not Kill."

So, what is the distinction, when is killing wrong? After all, almost every religious and philosophical tradition condemns it, right?

Actually, no, killing is not universally condemned. Indeed, that classic phase in the Ten Commandments "Thou Shall Not Kill.", in the original Hebrew reads more like, "Thou Shall Not Commit Murder."

So, what is the distinction? It's in the intent. Anakin knew, at least before succumbing to the Chancellor's deceptions, to paraphrase, "Jedi use their power to help others" and "The Sith think only of themselves." When Jedi must kill, it is only defend others, not to benefit themselves.

"Good is a point-of-view"

All right, so if the distinction between killing and murder is in the intent. What about those whose philosophy says that everyone else is evil? Is it not good for them to kill everyone who is evil and out to do harm, from their point-of-view.

This is a much different question than "is killing wrong?", now we are asking, "is killing right?"

Who would defend killing as right? As good? Who in our own history has done so? When has killing been called "right and good"? The Nazis? Stalin and his purges?

It seems that those, who most would call evil, are the ones to say that killing is good or right.

So, we can safely say that while killing is not always condemned as wrong, it is almost never accepted as right and good. Even if you are forced to defend yourself against an assailant and in the end kill your assailant, I dare say, few would say this was good. But, we would rather say that it was merely necessary, a result of the other's wrong.

"The oppression of the Sith will never return" to paraphrase master Windu.

Mace Windu wasn't wrong, he had tried to defeat and capture Palpatine. For which, he got a face full of lightning. How do you capture someone who can do this? Any attempt to do so would clearly require that he drop his defense in order to do so. This in mind, his first intent failed, there was but one last option. We can see the conflict in Mace's eyes as he is forced to choose, not the good choice, merely the necessary one.

I wonder, was it right for Anakin to stop Mace?