In watching Star Wars (1977) by George Lucas, for about the 27th time in my life, the moral and political positions of the Skywalker family, are much more apparent. Before reading Thomas Nagel's "War and Massacre", the motivations for galactic conflict seemed to be a rather elementary fight, but now understanding the stance of both a Utilitarian and Abosolutionist standpoint, the dynamic of moral justification comes into account at a fundamental level.
In the case of Luke Skywalker, he finds motivation in joining the fight against the Galatic Empire, Darth Vader, and the world-killing Death Star after his family life with Uncle Ben on Tatooine is obliterated by the Empire in search of intel for their own political agenda. This chain of events opens Luke into the new mindset of the Utilitarianism way of thinking. He is told by the rebels and Ben Kenobi that in order to create a sense of "balance in the galaxy" he must join the war to create peace. Per Nagel's ideas presented, the Utilitarianism ideology states, "that if faced with the possibility of preventing a greater evil by producing a lesser, one should choose the lesser evil" (355).
While Luke is first presented as a rather simple and almost meek farm boy with dreams to go into space with friends, when he is presented with the movement of the Alliance that becomes greater than himself, he practically jumps at the chance. Suddenly, he transcends his farming personality and thus becomes a fulled fledged soldier for the Rebel Alliance. He turns in his time on Tatooine for shooting merciless at the opposition, the Galatic Empire.
But Nagel presents a bit of concern for said action upon this ideology. That even with a cause is widely accepted (such as the Rebel Alliance), when taking a step back the root actions presented under this ideology should be evaluated closer on the moral spectrum. Along with Nagel, "Intending Harm" author Shelly Kagan writes that "there is something particularly signification about those cases where the harm is countenanced because of the fact that it is a vehicle" (336). This idea shows a different side of Luke's new ideology. That while he has abandoned his previous life and motivations, he has adopted a morally "right" cause to stand behind and commit himself to. Kagan continues to emphasize that one's moral alignment is based on the individual's goal of an action that does harm, i.e Luke and the Alliance shooting up the Death Star left and right.
While a movement like the Rebel Alliance stands for a morally "good" goal, that is for the best interest of most people of the galaxy, they are not quite Nagel's Absolutists that stand for the death of none. These rebels, and now Luke Skywalker himself, become part of the Utilitarian idea that still inflicts harm of ones in the Empire, but for the greater good.
It's interesting that you saw both sides as Utilitarian, rather than the "good" Absolutism that Nagel writes of favorably. Especially as we would assume that as the Rebel Alliance is presented as good, they are more easily assumed as Absolutist.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing, strangely enough. If looking at the Death Star versus Alderaan when it comes to their destruction, although there may be noncombatants aboard the Death Star, there is certainly noncombatants populating Alderaan.
One is a military target and basic fort, while the other is destroyed for information. In this case, I would posit that the Empire is far more Utilitarian than the Rebellion, insofar as defining the justification for destruction.
Yet I do agree, upon closer examination, the Rebels do lean towards Utilitarian in their reasoning of, as you say, "the greater good" and the question is one perhaps more complex than I considered!
I really enjoyed reading this post! It is very thoughtful! I struggled with this topic a lot after watching the movie. While Luke and his friends are the "heroes" and fighting for the "greater good," it seems as if they are still more in line with the utilitarian ideas, as opposed to the absolutist ideals. However, I think the doctrine of double effect cannot be overlooked. While Luke's destruction of the Death Star does result in death, death is NOT the intention of his actions. This simple fact separates Luke and the Jedi from the utilitarians and makes them absolutists. They may despise Vader and his followers, but their intention is not their deaths but is instead the destruction of the machine that is bringing about so much torture to the galaxy and the downfall of the current government system. When Luke destroys the Death Star, the death of those onboard was the result of his actions but not his intention. His intention was to stop the destruction of planets. This key difference still keeps Luke in line with the absolutist view, even though his actions did result in death.
ReplyDeleteMichelle, I really enjoyed your perspective of Luke's decisions in a moral argument. I have also seen Star Wars way too many times to count but I also never considered the internal moral argument Luke must have gone through to make the decision to leave and join a war. I agree that Luke is very much in the utilitarianism mind set the good consequences outweighs the negative action.
ReplyDelete