Star Wars - The Clone Wars ... Have you ever thought about the Ethics? [Archive]

The Big Dice

2010-11-11, 11:35 AM

I assumed it was Jedi Masters who left the order. Many trainees have likely left the order over being too weak in the Force, not skilled enough, not smart enough, etc.

Being able to leave is just crazy. Take these people and train them in powers and skills with weapons that most people can't match. Give them an ascetic lifestyle and support them through any difficult times or stuggles with temptation that they might have.

Then let them loose into the world and watch them self destruct spectacularly. Taking quite a few people with them when the pressures of non institutionalized life gets too much to bear and they go on a suicide by cop lightsaber rampage.

If you look closely at things, the ethics of the Jedi are terrible things. They'd sooner take a child away from his parents than free slaves in the outer rim?

hamishspence

2010-11-11, 11:39 AM

If you look closely at things, the ethics of the Jedi are terrible things. They'd sooner take a child away from his parents than free slaves in the outer rim?

Pretty much. As agents of the government, they can't just go around freeing slaves from other countries by force. Unless they want to provoke reprisals from, say, Hutt Space.

Qui-Gon points this out to Amidala in Episode 1- they've been assigned to protect her- but not to interfere directly in disputes between systems.

Obrysii

2010-11-11, 11:40 AM

It does suggest here that the Lost Twenty were Jedi Masters rather than Jedi Knights:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_Twenty

Still, the point remains, that the Jedi are raised almost from birth to believe in servitude as an ideal- and many go into the Agricultural Corps if they don't have the ability to become Jedi Knights.

Yep. That's why, although abandonment wasn't disallowed, it was taboo.

If you look closely at things, the ethics of the Jedi are terrible things. They'd sooner take a child away from his parents than free slaves in the outer rim?

It is. I mean - by the end of the Old Republic, the Jedi are pretty terrible. Most people don't realize it within the setting, but they're just as corrupt as any senator.

Why do you think that Palpatine flat-out told the Senate that the Jedi were trying to take over? That's the sort of corruption that was likely "obvious" to most well-informed people in the Republic. That the Jedi claim to be guardians of justice but really have horrifying ethics.

On a side note, I assume that unless you fled without saying anything, you'd be required to hand over your lightsaber upon giving up on the Jedi Order.

hamishspence

2010-11-11, 11:43 AM

It is. I mean - by the end of the Old Republic, the Jedi are pretty terrible. Most people don't realize it within the setting, but they're just as corrupt as any senator.

Might not go that far- but by becoming the servants of the Republic, they opened themselves to becoming complicit in the abuses of the Republic.

In the first book in the Corellion Trilogy Mon Mothma suggests the Jedi should not be "ivory tower" but should get involved- should live lives as ordinary citizens as well as being Jedi- and not separate themselves from the population.

While written well before the prequel movies, this seems remarkably prescient.

One could say the Jedi had a severe case of My Country Right Or Wrong:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyCountryRightOrWrong

and only stopped obeying when it was clear the Sith were in charge.

EvilSun

2010-11-11, 12:06 PM

They've been under the supervision of the Republic since the Ruusan Reformation:
Whaaa, I just LOVE it when they change things that way. First the Jedi Order was independent, now it is practically a branche of the Republic :smallfurious:

pendell

2010-11-11, 12:22 PM

Now, i have been a great SW fan for a long time, and lately I have had quite some trouble with the new SW movies and the SW -The Clone Wars animes.

I mean seriously, basically the whole plot of the movies and the series centers around a child army being used as slaves by the "oh so nice" Jedi Knights. Have you ever wasted a thought about that ?

Many people have. Lots of people don't like her books, but the constant theme of slave army runs throughout the Republic Commando series of books. Escape networks and all the rest of it.

For that matter, I suspect that disapproval of the clone army is implicit in Lucas' treatment of the series as well. Note that the Jedi were killed by that same clone army. Them that live by slaves die by them.

Somehow, I don't think that was coincidental.

Something else worth mentioning: Ever notice that the Rebel Alliance, the Heroes of the original Lucas trilogy, don't use clones or droids?

Why not? They could certainly use some help in the numbers department. They are chronically outnumbered by the Empire. According to the EU novels, by contrast, the Separatists constantly outnumbered the Republic forces in the Clone Wars despite controlling fewer star systems. This is because they cranked out droids from factories in very large numbers.

So why don't the original trilogy rebels crank up clone vats or droid factories themselves? Not because they didn't have the technology to portray it onscreen. Droids were onscreen in the OT and Princess Leia mentioned the 'clone wars' in Ep. IV.

I think the answer is that the Rebels were fighting for freedom. And part of being free is doing your own work, taking care of your own chores.

Children are taken care of by parents, and don't worry about a living. Other people do they're worrying for them. Children have more pleasure in some ways but far less freedom.

The rebels are fighting for their freedom, which means they have to do their own fighting, even if that means numerical disadvantage. Because if they turn to robots or clones, they are making themselves slaves -- maybe not to Palpatine, but to whomever is doing their work for them while they live a pampered existence.

And thus I believe it is a sign of corruption that, in the Clone Wars era, the Republic's citizens won't fight for themselves. They get clones to do their killing for them. They've turned their backs on responsibility, preferring lives of pleasure and luxury. They won't do their own work, so they've given control and responsibility over to others on their behalf.

Thus, Palpatine didn't really take away their freedom. They had already given their own freedom away, gladly, 'with thunderous applause'. The Empire simply confirmed in name what had already happened in heart, generations, perhaps, before Palpatine was even born.

And thus it is a sign of corruption that neither Separatists nor Republic will do their own fighting. And it is a sign of redemption that the Rebel Alliance is willing to do it's own dirty work.

It seems to have been an attitude in our Middle Ages that the main distinction between a 'free man' and a 'slave' is that free men are entitled to bear arms. I point you to Andrew Fletcher (http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=1965) for one example of this attitude. It is an attitude that seems to have spilled into the Star Wars universe. The Republic and the Separatists gave their arms into the hands of clones and droids on their behalf -- they thus became the slaves of Palpatine, the master of both clones and droids.

By contrast, the rebels took up their own arms, fought their own battles,behaving as free men, and because they did so, they won their freedom.

So , yes, I think it's been thought about quite a bit. It's a serious undercurrent both in the movies and in the EU franchise.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

EvilSun

2010-11-11, 12:49 PM

So why don't the original trilogy rebels crank up clone vats or droid factories themselves? Not because they didn't have the technology to portray it onscreen. Droids were onscreen in the OT and Princess Leia mentioned the 'clone wars' in Ep. IV.

Maybe you remember the books bevore the 2nd Star Wars hype - especially the books by Timothy Zahn (the Thrawn triology), which states that after the Clone Wars cloning technology was forbidden and not employed since the wars. Naturally, at that time the StormTroopers were normal special forces, not cloned Mandalorians. Also, there used to be "Clone Masters" - the whole fluff about the Clone Wars was far less detailed and actually pointed into another direction entirely. The reused some terms from that era, like the "Spaarti Cylinders".

Reverent-One

2010-11-11, 12:54 PM

That said, a lot of readers thought she misapplied the blame to the Jedi Order, where in fact the Republic were the ones who decided to use the clones,

Where is this said? Yes, the Republic gives Palpatine emergency powers to create an army, but we see no discussion on the use of the clones. And as the Jedi are the ones who (officially) know about the clones, the only way for Palpatine to know about them is if the Jedi tell him, at which point they should have brought up the issue of the use of slaves and done something about it. At best they're as guilty as the Republic is.

pendell

2010-11-11, 12:57 PM

Maybe you remember the books bevore the 2nd Star Wars hype - especially the books by Timothy Zahn (the Thrawn triology), which states that after the Clone Wars cloning technology was forbidden and not employed since the wars.

The Rebels aren't noted for being law-abiding people , willing to obey the Empire's laws even to the point of sacrificing military advantage. Isn't the entire Rebellion outside the law? Killing government officials, destruction of government property, illegal financial deals .. why NOT break the law against cloning, too? What's Palpatine going to do , shoot them twice?

Also, what law is there against battle droids?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

The Big Dice

2010-11-11, 01:04 PM

Maybe you remember the books bevore the 2nd Star Wars hype - especially the books by Timothy Zahn (the Thrawn triology), which states that after the Clone Wars cloning technology was forbidden and not employed since the wars. Naturally, at that time the StormTroopers were normal special forces, not cloned Mandalorians. Also, there used to be "Clone Masters" - the whole fluff about the Clone Wars was far less detailed and actually pointed into another direction entirely. The reused some terms from that era, like the "Spaarti Cylinders".
This is just one more example of how Lucas pays no attention to the EU, other than what it does for his bank balance. A large part of what makes Zahn's trilogy work is simply retconned out of existence by Episode 2.

Reverent-One

2010-11-11, 01:07 PM

EvilSun

2010-11-11, 01:08 PM

The Rebels aren't noted for being law-abiding people , willing to obey the Empire's laws even to the point of sacrificing military advantage. Isn't the entire Rebellion outside the law? Killing government officials, destruction of government property, illegal financial deals .. why NOT break the law against cloning, too? What's Palpatine going to do , shoot them twice?

Because the rebellion was a political movement from the start, with ex- senators at the top tiers of it... who may very well have been aware of the problems with cloning troops. as a first point. Secondly, the rebellion always had ressource problems - even clones need food and water, as well as ships to transport them. Beside that, the rebellion was a movement from within, they had supporters but no official members on planetary scale (would have made it easy for the imperial forces to destroy it). Basically it was a civil war, with the rebellion working hard on convincing planetary gouverments to join them or at least support them - planetary assaults were rare indeed, since that wasnt the point of the whole rebellion.

Civil wars are not won by strenght of arms but by the support of the populance. Palpatine was able to form an Empire because basically no one cared and really didnt experience any difference between those 2 gouverments - take as example NAZI germany ... if you look closely at it, formally there werent many changes at all (for further information i would advice to read Fraenkels analysis) for most people.

Mando Knight

2010-11-11, 01:44 PM

I mean seriously, basically the whole plot of the movies and the series centers around a child army
The clones aren't children. Temporally, they might be only ten years old at the outbreak of the Clone Wars, but physically and mentally they're adults. Compare the clones to the actual children in the series: Ahsoka in particular, being a main character. Ahsoka is rash and childish in some of her decisions (though being a Jedi she does adapt pretty well to being a military commander), but Rex is characterized as basically an ideal field officer.

EvilSun

2010-11-11, 02:29 PM

The clones aren't children. Temporally, they might be only ten years old at the outbreak of the Clone Wars, but physically and mentally they're adults.
The clones are 10 years old. Humans are not mature after 10 years. No, they just are not. Go in any school you want and take any 10 year old you want. That 10 year old wont be mature. And no, psychological maturity has nothing to do with physical maturity - you just are not grown up just because your body is grown up. Do you know "Progeria"? Children mature 4-5 times the normal speed - and guess what? They are not mature at all despite their bodys being 20 at 5 years.

And yes, clones will be different - everyone will be different if he learns to kill and endure military drill from the age of 3 or 4.

And dont let me start on taking years away of a living being (acceerated growth).

LOTRfan

2010-11-11, 02:49 PM

Also, what law is there against battle droids?

Not sure if someone answered this already, and if they have I apologize for repeating it, but military-grade battle droids were rendered illegal shortly after the Clone War Holdouts of the Outer Rim ended, roughly between 18 and 12 BBY. Since the formal Rebel alliance was formed around BBY, they would have to be reduced to using what few unclaimed battle droids were left.

I do agree, however, with your statement about the rebels fighting for their own freedom as opposed to relying on machines/clones.

Gortog, SRU

2010-11-11, 02:57 PM

Yep. That's why, although abandonment wasn't disallowed, it was taboo.

It is. I mean - by the end of the Old Republic, the Jedi are pretty terrible. Most people don't realize it within the setting, but they're just as corrupt as any senator.

Why do you think that Palpatine flat-out told the Senate that the Jedi were trying to take over? That's the sort of corruption that was likely "obvious" to most well-informed people in the Republic. That the Jedi claim to be guardians of justice but really have horrifying ethics.

On a side note, I assume that unless you fled without saying anything, you'd be required to hand over your lightsaber upon giving up on the Jedi Order.
I don't think they were entirely corrupt, but their actions (crashing a ship into the planet in the opening of ep 3, starting a war in the end of ep 2, even meddling all through ep 1, and then attacking the chancellor) made them seem worse to the people. Also, for an interesting view, check out...
http://www.darthsanddroids.net/
It treats Star wars like a role-playing game, and is pretty funny.
Also, there wasn't much actual fighting going on, evident by the death star assault. Did you see hundreds and hundreds of fighters disgorging from massive battle cruisers when they blew it up? no. there was about 30 ships against that battle station. The fighting between the empire and the rebellion was largely political, and the real combat was thin and dispersed until the death star got blown up. That's when everything went to the SW equivalent of hell. Also, it's fun to look at things from the empire's point of view sometimes.

hamishspence

2010-11-11, 03:06 PM

This is just one more example of how Lucas pays no attention to the EU, other than what it does for his bank balance. A large part of what makes Zahn's trilogy work is simply retconned out of existence by Episode 2.

There's at least one short story set in the Clone Wars (written by Zahn) that manages to get Spartii cylinders to work with Episode II and III- the Kaminoans weren't the only ones creating clones.

So, even after Episode II and III, there's been ways of making some of the material compatible again.

The biggest problems are dates, not material- the date of the disaster on Honoghr (Noghri planet) had to be retconned so it would fit in with the Clone Wars timeline.

What happened with the clone army was- Kenobi finds the army on Kamino, reports it to the Jedi Council- including that the Kaminoans had said "This army is for the Republic"- the Council reported it to the Senate- and the Senate passed emergency powers on Palpatine, legalizing the use of the clone army.

So it's not a case of it being a Jedi army, or a Jedi decision to use them- it is a Republic army.

pendell

2010-11-11, 03:10 PM

Not sure if someone answered this already, and if they have I apologize for repeating it, but military-grade battle droids were rendered illegal shortly after the Clone War Holdouts of the Outer Rim ended, roughly between 18 and 12 BBY. Since the formal Rebel alliance was formed around BBY, they would have to be reduced to using what few unclaimed battle droids were left.

This is a universe where a six-year-old child can build a sapient talking robot out of used parts in Watto's junkyard. That can't be put down to Anakin's Midi-Chlorians, either. Force Sensitivity seems to get you nowhere with robotics. No, that was natural talent.

I simply refuse to believe that the Rebellion can't find a few people in their ranks with the ability to either build new droids or re-purpose existing ones. For example: What if we were to simply start mass-producing R2 units and giving them combat programming instead of their normal programming? R2D2 certainly demonstrated combat potential, and he was a service droid. Imagine a couple bazillion rolling off a factory line ...

Hmm .. maybe that's where the Dahleks came from in the Dr. Who universe. But I digress ...

.. in any case, if the Rebellion can build Mon Calamari cruisers and X-wings, and if they can repair R2 astromech droids, then they can certainly build new ones. In a universe where children build sapient droids as science projects, it shouldn't be hard for dedicated engineers to design a combat droid from the ground up. Then find some planet with lots of asteroid mining in the outer rim to set up an automated factory. Then crank out battle droids. Or crank out service models with combat programming. So what if the Empire steps on one? A galaxy is a big place. While they're finding one, you're scouting and building ten more. You can even build robotic scouts and automated factories to do the self-replicating thing, discovering and exploiting resources without human intervention. The Empire shuts one down, five more spring up elsewhere in the Outer Rim. Rinse and Repeat until the droids don't even need weapons. You simply bury stormtroopers under metal.

The technology and expertise to do this exists in the SW universe. If the Rebellion is not pursuing such a strategy, it is because they choose not to. Not because they can't.

I don't understand why some think "illegal" means "it can't be done." Did a supernova obliterate Hutt Space or something? Spice trading is illegal, too. So are death sticks. I'm pretty sure the sale of starfighters to Rebels or the production of starfighters by them is also illegal. "Illegal" doesn't mean "impossible". It just means "costs more".

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Dienekes

2010-11-11, 03:28 PM

Mando Knight

2010-11-11, 03:49 PM

The clones are 10 years old. Humans are not mature after 10 years. No, they just are not. Go in any school you want and take any 10 year old you want. That 10 year old wont be mature. And no, psychological maturity has nothing to do with physical maturity - you just are not grown up just because your body is grown up. Do you know "Progeria"? Children mature 4-5 times the normal speed - and guess what? They are not mature at all despite their bodys being 20 at 5 years.

Except that the clones are stated to be mature at 10 years of age, and all canon evidence leads to a definite answer that in the Star Wars Galaxy, accelerated-growth clones can be psychologically matured at the same rate as their physical maturing, with the psych problems (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Clone_madness) relating to hyper-accelerated growth being closer to insanity than mere immaturity.

hamishspence

2010-11-11, 04:08 PM

on the Jedi Order- Mon Mothma's advice to Luke rings pretty strongly:

"I believe, and believe strongly, that the Republic needs Jedi who get their hands dirty, that are part of the Republic's daily life. Jedi that live in ivory towers might be more dangerous than no Jedi at all.

You need look no further than our very recent history to see that it has been the Dark Jedi that have sought isolation. To be a Jedi of the Light, a Jedi must be one with the people. There must be a Jedi on every planet, a Jedi in every city- not a few planets full of Jedi and nothing else.

There must be Jedi doing what ordinary folk do- Jedi who are ordinary folk. There must be Jedi doctors and judges and soldiers and pilots- and politicians."

Frozen_Feet

2010-11-11, 04:35 PM

Except that the clones are stated to be mature at 10 years of age, and all canon evidence leads to a definite answer that in the Star Wars Galaxy, accelerated-growth clones can be psychologically matured at the same rate as their physical maturing, with the psych problems (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Clone_madness) relating to hyper-accelerated growth being closer to insanity than mere immaturity.

In other words: genetically engineered supersoldiers don't follow normal human growth patterns. They are designed to be mentally fit for war.

I also feel saying clones got parts of their life "cut out" to be fallacious; there are naturally creatures who live less than humans on average. What's important is whether that life is good, and I don't see shortened lifespan in comparison to normal humans as something that'd prevent happy life from a clone.

Reverent-One

2010-11-11, 04:54 PM

What happened with the clone army was- Kenobi finds the army on Kamino, reports it to the Jedi Council- including that the Kaminoans had said "This army is for the Republic"-

The Kaminoans said that's what the Sifo-Dyas told them, which could mean that's merely what the Sifo-Dyas intended to with the army, assist the republic, not that the Republic is the owner of the army. Given that until Attack of the Clones, the Republic didn't have legal provisions for an army and Sifo-Dyas did it in secret, it seems more likely that it was merely his intentions.

the Council reported it to the Senate-

How is that known? They obviously reported it to palpatine, but I haven't seen anything to indicate they reported it to the Senate as a whole.

and the Senate passed emergency powers on Palpatine, legalizing the use of the clone army.

Legalizing the creation of an army, not specifically the use of the clones as slaves, which the Senate potentially didn't even know about.

So it's not a case of it being a Jedi army, or a Jedi decision to use them- it is a Republic army.

Again, at best, even if you're right that the whole Senate knew about the Clones, the Jedi are just as responsible since they just they just handed over the keys to the army to Palpatine/the Senate without doing anything to try to make it a non-slave army.

I also feel saying clones got parts of their life "cut out" to be fallacious; there are naturally creatures who live less than humans on average. What's important is whether that life is good, and I don't see shortened lifespan in comparison to normal humans as something that'd prevent happy life from a clone.

Being slaves? Not being able to have a family as normal people do (not being able to see your kids grow up and such)?

hamishspence

2010-11-11, 05:00 PM

How is that known? They obviously reported it to palpatine, but I haven't seen anything to indicate they reported it to the Senate as a whole.

Didn't one of the senators say something like "The time for debate is over! Now we need that clone army." or something along those lines, before the Emergency Powers act was passed?

Reverent-One

2010-11-11, 05:04 PM

Didn't one of the senators say something like "The time for debate is over! Now we need that clone army." or something along those lines, before the Emergency Powers act was passed?

That is a good point.

*Makes note to check that*

hamishspence

2010-11-11, 05:15 PM

it is true that slavery was illegal in the Republic:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rights_of_Sentience

though Kamino itself wasn't a member at the time. Which may raise a few questions as to whether the Grand Army were slaves or not.

On the clone army- here, it mentions the Senator that "pressed for its use"

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ask_Aak

Frozen_Feet

2010-11-11, 05:16 PM

Being slaves? Not being able to have a family as normal people do (not being able to see your kids grow up and such)?

Being a slave is a matter wholly separate from their shortened lifespan, and misses my point by a mile.

I was talking solely about their shortened lifespans. Even if their lifespan is cut to only quarter of the ordinary (25 years or so), that would not prevent them from having a family or enjoying raising kids. Physical maturity at ten means they'll get to watch their kid grow up to 15 if they're lucky in the mate department, so while they might not quite see their kids grow up to be "adults" (assuming their tinkered genes would not affect their offspring), they'd still be able to lead a happy life with them.

Even if they were mayflies, that would not prevent them from living happily for whatever timespan they would exist. Being unable to do some things doesn't automatically translate to crappy existence, especially when contrasted with no existence at all. Because of this, I don't think it's automatically a bad thing to give life to persons whose lifespan falls short of some magical standard.

snoopy13a

2010-11-11, 05:52 PM

The Kaminoans said that's what the Sifo-Dyas told them, which could mean that's merely what the Sifo-Dyas intended to with the army, assist the republic, not that the Republic is the owner of the army. Given that until Attack of the Clones, the Republic didn't have legal provisions for an army and Sifo-Dyas did it in secret, it seems more likely that it was merely his intentions.

I was always under the belief that Sifo-Dyas was actually Emperor Tooth Decay aka Ole Yellow Teeth posing as a Jedi.

Overall though, it is important to note that the Jedi aren't directly calling the shots during the end of the Old Republic. They act as advisors, diplomats, warriors, and troubleshooters not policy-makers.

Decision-making is reserved for senators such as the wise Jar-Jar Binks or the virtuous Senator Palpaltine.

hamishspence

2010-11-11, 05:57 PM

I was always under the belief that Sifo-Dyas was actually Emperor Tooth Decay aka Ole Yellow Teeth posing as a Jedi.

In the early drafts, he was- but this was changed:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sifo_Dyas

The Big Dice

2010-11-11, 06:16 PM

The complete lack of explanation behind who created the clone army and why is one of the things that really gets my goat with the prequel trilogy. In the same way that the Republic goes to war with planets that want to leave it.

If you stop to look at the "politics" of the prequels, none of it makes any sense at all. You're better off reading Darths and Droids.

TheEmerged

2010-11-11, 06:32 PM

Wait wait wait... okay we can talk about how the slavery issue was never stated in word, but you can't say the Clone Wars cartoon never dealt with the issue of how the clones felt/were treated.

The very first episode of the first season? Has Yoda talking to the clones about how they are individual souls.

The second episode of the first season? Has one of the clones complaining about how nobody values them/they were born to die, and the jedi reminding them that HE cares about them (and, I'm sure, talking about how some of his best friends are clones).

Another very early episode (within the first 5, if I remember) again deals with the fact that the clones felt like they were being treated like second-class citiziens.

So it might not have been dealt with *in depth*, or portrayed with the level of angst some hoped... but saying it wasn't dealt with isn't correct either.

pendell

2010-11-11, 07:12 PM

Pendell (and to a lesser extent most others on the thread), you're trying to use logic in Star Wars. It won't work.

If you're going to ask why the Rebels didn't create advanced military droid troops, you are going to have to ask what the real purpose of them is. Or even what the purpose of starships and fighters are. Really this is all terribly suboptimal. How are the mandalorians considered so fearsome when really as soon as one of their fleets appeared in a relatively technologically advanced society they should be nuked to smithereens? Guided missiles should be more efficient and far less expensive than starships, and armies both droid and otherwise. And don't even get started on that impractical hunk of junk the Death Star.

The real reason is George didn't think of it or didn't care. Just keep reciting the mantra and it'll all be fine.

I really shouldn't rise to the bait, but I'm going to. I'm afraid I must disagree with you.

I think that George Lucas has thought of it. In the time of Ep. IV, he'd thought of clones fighting in wars. He'd also thought of droids in combat. Every X-wing at the battle of Yavin had an astromech aboard -- but to assist , not to fight. They could have easily done so.

I don't think that's just a coincidence. Lucas had a logical reason for this, but that reason has to do with the logic of myth, what makes a good story, not the logic of science or tactics.

The point of Star Wars is to be a modern myth. Lucas said as much. Because of that, the things in Star Wars have to make sense from a mythical perspective, if in no other way.

Case in point: Ewoks beating storm troopers, or the Death Star exploding above Endor. These things make no sense from a scientific or military perspective, but they make a great deal of sense from a mythical perspective. Plucky heroes beating invincible armada. Dungeon collapse after the hero wins. It all makes logical sense when looked at with storyteller's logic.

Because of that, I believe Lucas had thought of both droid armies and clone armies for Ep. IV and made a deliberate choice, for his myth, that the Rebels should use neither.

What is the myth? Well, Lucas is telling a story about freedom vs. tyranny, plucky heroes vs. stonehearted villains.

In such a myth, it doesn't make sense for plucky heroes to get slaves to do their killing for them. No, the heroes are fighting for freedom, and that means they do their own killing.

As I said: From the logic of storytelling, it all makes sense. The Republic and the Separatists are corrupt, and so get slaves, mercenaries, and droids to do their fighting for them.

The rebellion is young and idealistic and free; therefore they do their own fighting, as befits free men.

I contend that is not a mistake or a coincidence or a lack of thought on Lucas' part. I think that it's a deliberate choice, made in accordance with storyteller's logic. And fits in with all the other political/philosophical stuff about Republic and Empire that Lucas put into Star Wars.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Dienekes

2010-11-11, 08:04 PM

I really shouldn't rise to the bait, but I'm going to. I'm afraid I must disagree with you.

That's fine, watch a show and take from it what you want.

Case in point, I got not a thing of what you said when watching Star Wars or the prequels. Sure I saw the heroes beating the unbeatable, and I understand that tactics and technology weren't going to make sense (they rarely do in movies, why pick on it for this one?)

However, I don't see Lucas writing an epic on the positive qualities of reduced gun control. I can see where you're coming from, if I squint enough. And it can be explained well enough for it to make sense.

What I do see is Lucas capitalizing on the sudden surprising popularity of Boba Fett and decide to tie in him with the whole Clone Wars thing that was left suitably vague. I definitely see using droids as another means of expressing his universe and as a means of using the same trick of the original series (faceless mooks so we don't feel pity for them) in a different way.

The prequels never bring up the use of slaves or droids as a negative, nor do the originals make it seem that killing things yourself is a good thing. In fact, Yoda seems to say just the opposite, and is presented in such a way that the audience seems like they're supposed to see him as a wise, just figure.

Now if you see the series as you do, more power to you. I do not, and am skeptical about trying to make the series be defined by something not really noticeably brought up.

EvilSun

2010-11-12, 01:46 AM

Except that the clones are stated to be mature at 10 years of age, and all canon evidence leads to a definite answer that in the Star Wars Galaxy, accelerated-growth clones can be psychologically matured at the same rate as their physical maturing, with the psych problems relating to hyper-accelerated growth being closer to insanity than mere immaturity.

It really is quite simple - are clones human beings or not? If they are, your points all are republic propaganda - human beings do not mature in 10 years. Given the right training and indoctrination they can be "mature" in those trained areas, but they are not going to be mature in any "normal" sense.

{Scrubbed}

Dienekes

2010-11-12, 07:41 AM

It really is quite simple - are clones human beings or not? If they are, your points all are republic propaganda - human beings do not mature in 10 years. Given the right training and indoctrination they can be "mature" in those trained areas, but they are not going to be mature in any "normal" sense.

This is a false dichotomy. There is no evidence pointing out that they are somehow not mature from what I remember. They certainly act mature in each appearance they make, and since we're already using genetic treatments and time of maturity is largely based on DNA only Lucas can say if they are or are not. Besides maturity rates have nothing to do with being classified as human or not, all that matters is whether they can reproduce with other humans. If they can, no matter how different from normal humans they are, reaching maturity whenever, they are still considered human.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Notably that's not what he said here. All he claimed in the section you quoted was that living for 1/2 the normal lifespan and reaching maturity at 10 do not mean they're going to be miserable. Especially when the only alternative is not being alive at all.

He is not saying that they all will be happy, just as not all normal humans are happy with their lives. He does not appear to have even stated he was for the use of a clone army, just that of all the possible negative aspects of the cloning process the shortened life span bothers him the least. Especially when you find life forms in this galaxy last for a thousand years or only 30, their lives do not become meaningless just because they die too late or too early.

Brother Oni

2010-11-12, 07:59 AM

It really is quite simple - are clones human beings or not? If they are, your points all are republic propaganda - human beings do not mature in 10 years. Given the right training and indoctrination they can be "mature" in those trained areas, but they are not going to be mature in any "normal" sense.

They're not human though, they're Mandalorian.

You're also saying that chronological age is the standard for determining maturity. Animal species that have shorter lifespans mature far quicker than humans do - take chimpanzees for example. Sexually mature at 8-9 years, they generally only live to about 30 - would you call a 10 year old chimp a child?

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

The clone soldiers aren't raised as humans, so they're not raised with the expectation of a different life, only to be forced into a life of military service.

As for 'organic droids', considering the sapience demonstrated by Star War droids, that's not too far off the mark, yet it's not considered a violation of their rights to deactivate or wipe their memories back to factory standards, simply because droids have no rights.
To the standard republic inhabitant, they're no more special than a machine to us - would you thank your car's sat nav after it'd guided you to your destination?
You can't judge the situation by your morality, you have to judge it by theirs to see how ethical it is.

{Scrubbed}

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It's already happened on Earth if you think about it. Conscription is the best example and it's continued on in various countries as 'compulsory military service'.

Unfortunately expanding on this in any more detail would break board rules.

EvilSun

2010-11-12, 08:01 AM

{Scrubbed}

They certainly act mature in each appearance they make, and since we're already using genetic treatments and time of maturity is largely based on DNA
I am really sorry, but you are totally wrong in this case. Maturity - beside the physiological fiew - has nothing at all to do with DNA. Check out developmental psychology and advanced brain anatomy for references. The brain develops a whole life long - producing new synapse connections and changing from the very start of life - through experience and use. If you clone a human and you let him artificially mature to the age of 20, you will have have human with the body of a 20 year old and the brain of a newborn. Personality has to develope and shape itself, it isnt hardwired into the DNA as you seem to think. Dont believe me? Check out Progerie and twin experiments.

And no, its not possible to simply download a certain personality into a brain - said personality is based on a different brain, even if its genetically identical.

{Scrubbed}

kamikasei

2010-11-12, 08:04 AM

It really is quite simple - are clones human beings or not?
I'm amused that anyone could consider this a simple question in the Star Wars universe.

If you clone a human and you let him artificially mature to the age of 20, you will have have human with the body of a 20 year old and the brain of a newborn. Personality has to develope and shape itself, it isnt hardwired into the DNA as you seem to think. Dont believe me? Check out Progerie and twin experiments.

And no, its not possible to simply download a certain personality into a brain - said personality is based on a different brain, even if its genetically identical.
You cannot possibly have any basis for asserting what the fictional imprinting technology used together with the fictional cloning and growth acceleration technologies in the fictional Star Wars setting, none of which are particularly carefully thought out or consistent or plausible, are capable of. Certainly not with this degree of confidence.

EvilSun

2010-11-12, 08:07 AM

You cannot possibly have any basis for asserting what the fictional imprinting technology used together with the fictional cloning and growth acceleration technologies in the fictional Star Wars setting, none of which are particularly carefully thought out or consistent or plausible, are capable of. Certainly not with this degree of confidence.

Do the clones in Star Wars all have the same personality?

Brother Oni

2010-11-12, 08:10 AM

Do the clones in Star Wars all have the same personality?

Judging by Republic Commando, they start out the same, but develop in different ways, thus by the time they're in active service, they have different personalities.

kamikasei

2010-11-12, 08:11 AM

Do the clones in Star Wars all have the same personality?
I don't know. I don't really care. I do know that, whatever the answer may be, its explanation will not have much to do with real-world genetics or psychology.

edit: Actually, to be fair, I should respond to a couple of other points. My basic point here is that the whole situation is sufficiently poorly defined - because it was come up with by someone who wasn't thinking through the implications in detail and didn't understand the relevant science in enough detail to see all those implications anyway, and further fleshed out by multiple contributors none of whom were being particularly consistent with one another (nor necessarily any better-qualified to hammer the work as a whole in to plausible consistency than Lucas) - that it's pointless to say "this is terribly wrong in exactly this way, because exactly this is what's going on!". Nothing about it is that exact. We don't have enough detail about how the technologies being used actually work; we don't have the knowledge the people using the technology in-universe do; and worst of all, we can't even take the descriptions we do have of how it works as authorative enough to disregard the results. If the writers want clones that work one way, and vaguely describe technology that would produce clones that work a different way, it doesn't really make sense to say that their "how" is correct and their "what" is not, and what's "really" going on is the unfortunate implication we drew from the "how". Neither is more real than the other.

That said,

time of maturity is largely based on DNA
is indeed incorrect.

As for 'organic droids', considering the sapience demonstrated by Star War droids, that's not too far off the mark, yet it's not considered a violation of their rights to deactivate or wipe their memories back to factory standards, simply because droids have no rights.
To the standard republic inhabitant, they're no more special than a machine to us - would you thank your car's sat nav after it'd guided you to your destination?
You can't judge the situation by your morality, you have to judge it by theirs to see how ethical it is.
I disagree. You have to look at the context to work out how likely what we see as something unethical here makes it that the perpetrator would also do some other thing we consider unlikely there. That just means recognizing that ethics is not a single line with all actions at particular points along it. You have to look at the context, too, depending on your approach to ethics, because actions don't stand alone independent of their consequences based on their environment. That doesn't stop me from judging an act as ethical or not based on my ethics, or make it an error to do so. It doesn't much matter to me that the Republic may consider it all right to say sentient drones and cloned humans don't have rights, I'll still regard that as horribly unethical.

Dienekes

2010-11-12, 08:30 AM

being mature and being mature are 2 totally different things. Take african child soldiers - sure, they are "mature" in many aspects... they need to be to survive. But they are children. Taking away childlike environment (by training them for war from birth on) doesnt make them mature.

Very true, this however doesn't mean squat when compared with the technological advances of star wars.

I am really sorry, but you are totally wrong in this case. Maturity - beside the physiological fiew - has nothing at all to do with DNA. Check out developmental psychology and advanced brain anatomy for references. The brain develops a whole life long - producing new synapse connections and changing from the very start of life - through experience and use. If you clone a human and you let him artificially mature to the age of 20, you will have have human with the body of a 20 year old and the brain of a newborn. Personality has to develope and shape itself, it isnt hardwired into the DNA as you seem to think. Dont believe me? Check out Progerie and twin experiments.

How the brain even functions is based on DNA. Different animals reach mental maturity at different ages based on how their DNA has shaped their brain. The human brain is formed in such a way that it takes a long long time to develop.

Personality does develop through time, in an unmodified human brain. When we're using "science" to modify it all bets are off until we are given a reason to believe that problems never shown or mentioned in the source material actually exist.

And no, its not possible to simply download a certain personality into a brain - said personality is based on a different brain, even if its genetically identical.

It's not possible to move faster than light. It is not possible to make beams of light switch directions inexplicably in outer space. It is not possible for the Force to even exist. Yet we let Star Wars do all this, I don't see any reason why flash maturity is any less believable.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Then do please enlighten me.

hamishspence

2010-11-12, 08:37 AM

It's worth remembering that pinning the blame on the Republic for using the army, or the Jedi for leading it, while having some justice in that:

"they should have asked how the army was created or what conditions the clones have to live under"

misses the point that a larger share of the blame lies on those who created, or helped create- the army.

Sifo-Dyas- for contacting the Kaminoans.
Jango.
Dooku (and Sidious).
The Kaminoans.
And the Mandalorians who willingly agreed to train the clones- including the "hero" of the Republic Commando series- Kal Skirata.

EvilSun

2010-11-12, 08:47 AM

I don't know. I don't really care. I do know that, whatever the answer may be, its explanation will not have much to do with real-world genetics or psychology.
The thread is about the ethics in SW CW - maybe it went a bit off topic with all the scientific stuff, however, its about real world ethics we are discussing, not "SW- ethics". So, naturally, we have to judge from our own perspective - reducing all to "its fictional, so....." really is or was not the question of the thread to start with. I was posting in reaction to an ethical fiew based on science - and I damn well think that neither pointless nor off topic, because it has to do with the ethics we have and interpret into this fictional universe.

If your agenda is to strangle the discussion by going into the meta perspective of "its not real anyway" - ok keep doing so. Dont count on me to react to your posts then however.

They're not human though, they're Mandalorian.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalorians
Jango Fett was quite clearly a human.

{Scrubbed}

How the brain even functions is based on DNA. Different animals reach mental maturity at different ages based on how their DNA has shaped their brain. The human brain is formed in such a way that it takes a long long time to develop.
the human brain doesnt stop developing. Its the most plastid organ of the body... it changes for the entire life.

{Scrubbed}

hamishspence

2010-11-12, 08:54 AM

It would probably be fair to say that the methods used by the Kaminoans in creating the clone army (including elimination of the even slightly "defective" and genetic engineering to improve various traits and reduce others, among many other things)

would have them up on numerous charges of human rights violations in a modern court.

And maybe the Republic, for using them, would face similar charges.

But the Jedi Order, as a subdepartment of the Republic's Judicial department- do they bear the same culpability as the Republic leadership, and the Kaminoans, for not investigating more thoroughly?

kamikasei

2010-11-12, 09:03 AM

The thread is about the ethics in SW CW - maybe it went a bit off topic with all the scientific stuff, however, its about real world ethics we are discussing, not "SW- ethics". So, naturally, we have to judge from our own perspective - reducing all to "its fictional, so....." really is or was not the question of the thread to start with. I was posting in reaction to an ethical fiew based on science - and I damn well think that neither pointless nor off topic, because it has to do with the ethics we have and interpret into this fictional universe.

If your agenda is to strangle the discussion by going into the meta perspective of "its not real anyway" - ok keep doing so. Dont count on me to react to your posts then however.
Take a look at my edits to that post.

My point is not that "it's fictional, so it doesn't matter". My point is that it's fictional, so it's unreasonable to assume that your knowledge of real-world science and the unintended implications of the half-assed explanations offered in the text actually add up to a legitimate moral problem that may simply not exist depending on all the stuff we don't and can't know.

It's pointless to make bold statements about the real-world ethics of fictional scenarios when those scenarios just aren't sufficiently well-defined to justify that confidence.

I mean, apparently the Kaminoans are able to produce fully-grown physically adult humanesques highly trained and competent in soldiering in a space of ten years, on an industrial scale. Given this, I think it's presumptuous to say they couldn't possibly have the technology and understanding of neurology and psychology to put those clones through an accelerated process of emotional development too; and I think it's flat-out silly to assume that someone with altered genes and altered development sufficient to reach physical maturity in a decade isn't going to follow a very different course to emotional maturity than a normal human preteen anyway, even without deliberate work in that area.

On the other hand it does look like I was reading your responses to shaky claims put forward by others as direct comments on the SW universe itself, which was overhasty and for which I apologize.

Frozen_Feet

2010-11-12, 09:20 AM

It's clear from the introduction of the clones that their psychology is modified as well. The Kaminoans directly state they have accelerated learning capacity, as well as increased obeyance towards authority. As such, they form a distinct sub-group with Mandalorian Homo Sapiens, akin to how dogs differ from wolves, or dogs of one breed differ of those of other breeds; they are genetically compatible, yes, but they grow to maturity at different rates and have notably differing mental faculties. The clones obviously count as humans, and it doesn't matter the slightest when discussing their potentially quickened maturity. Again, they were designed to grow up quickly, and for war. We have no reason to doubt Kaminoans couldn't do their damn job.

I don't get how it's cynical to believe a life of 20 years can be a worthwile endeavor. Yes, the clones could've been given 'normal' life expectancy, but I still don't see how the practice is inherently evil. I believe that even with half of 'normal' life expectancy, a clone could lead a full life - if anything, my viewpoint is idealistic, not cynicist.

In any case, I still think it foolish to hold 'normal human lifespan' as some sort of magical standard - there are countless species that live either less or more than humans, and in Star Wars universe, many such creatures are sapient as well. A clone might die at 25, but his Oblagoban *) brother-in-arms might've been father of ten at 5, and retiring at 12. Never mind that there's still poverty in Star Wars universe and quite a lot of humans live in conditions where their life expectancy can't be much higher, regardless of their genetic heritage. Again, what matters is quality of life, not longevity.

Just to clarify, I do think that purpose-breeding a military of mayfly cannonfodder is wrong - weight on cannonfodder. Neither mayflies or martial training, even from early age, strike me as inherently wrong, as it'd still be possible for the clone to live a full and happy life, and exercise free will, at least as much as any other soldier.

In any case, the blame for creating the army, and whatever ethical ramifications that might have, doesn't really fall on the Republic. They used it only because it was already there - created through a ploy of Sidious and Dooku. Someone here wondered who made the army and why - I always thought that was bloody obvious from the movie. Sidious arranged it as a gambit to get himself an unquestioning force, and duped the Jedi to accept them on their side.

(* species invented from wholecloth

Brother Oni

2010-11-12, 10:01 AM

I disagree. You have to look at the context to work out how likely what we see as something unethical here makes it that the perpetrator would also do some other thing we consider unlikely there. That just means recognizing that ethics is not a single line with all actions at particular points along it. You have to look at the context, too, depending on your approach to ethics, because actions don't stand alone independent of their consequences based on their environment. That doesn't stop me from judging an act as ethical or not based on my ethics, or make it an error to do so. It doesn't much matter to me that the Republic may consider it all right to say sentient drones and cloned humans don't have rights, I'll still regard that as horribly unethical.

I'm confused by your point here. I'm effectively saying that you must take the context of the situation into account when judging the ethicality of a situation, and you seem to agree with me, then change your mind at the end.

Are you trying to say that although you should take context into account, a person can declare a situation is unethical based solely on their personal experiences?

If you are, then may I propose that an uninformed opinion, or one founded on incorrect information, is of no practical value to the situation at hand and merely serves to confuse the issue.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalorians
Jango Fett was quite clearly a human.

Wrong link (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jango_Fett), but I stand corrected on the base genetics, however see my point below.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

As Frozen_Feet has mentioned, the clones have been modified at a genetic level for adaptation to warfare, therefore it can be argued they are an entirely new sub species, Homo Sapiens Mandalorian, as it were. The traits of this new sub species is accelerated learning, reduced lifespan, a predisposition towards authority and a preference towards warfare (technically some of these traits are cultural, but nature versus nurture is a separate argument).

I’ll remind you again to keep your tone civil. Launching personal attacks and insulting other posters is not the best way to get your point across.

{Scrub the quote, scrub the quote}

Why 'naturally' must we discuss it from our point of view? We’re not allowed to interpret the situation from the in-universe point of view?

EvilSun

2010-11-12, 10:04 AM

Take a look at my edits to that post.
I just did, a good addition.

On the other hand it does look like I was reading your responses to shaky claims put forward by others as direct comments on the SW universe itself, which was overhasty and for which I apologize.
No problem, I in turn am sorry for reacting a bit harsh to your post.

I mean, apparently the Kaminoans are able to produce fully-grown physically adult humanesques highly trained and competent in soldiering in a space of ten years, on an industrial scale.
But they are not - they produce clones that are brought up as soldiers. I think i can clearly remember seing kids in the movies being tought (well, whatever they were learning). The Kaminoans did not produce soldiers to start with but clones that aged double to speed of normal humans which where then brought up and educated to be soldiers. The troops we see in the Clone Wars are the endproduct of 10 years of training, not vatgrown soldiers. Remember, even when aging 2 times the speed of a normal human, they still need 10 years to grow up into proper physical fighting condition.

It's clear from the introduction of the clones that their psychology is modified as well. The Kaminoans directly state they have accelerated learning capacity, as well as increased obeyance towards authority.
Even if I am in danger of repeating myself but: Psychology is NOT determined by genes. You can merely change disposition to a certain degree, but there simply is no gene that determines your obeyance to authority.

Mandalorian Homo Sapiens
Mandalorians are a culture, not race :)

The clones obviously count as humans, and it doesn't matter the slightest when discussing their potentially quickened maturity. Again, they were designed to grow up quickly, and for war. We have no reason to doubt Kaminoans couldn't do their damn job.
But the point is the ethical side of it all... is it ethical to mass produce living, intelligent beings of your own race to be used to fight wars? And no, they wil never live a "normal" live, because "normal" humans are not bred for fighting at the age of 10.

Neither mayflies or martial training, even from early age, strike me as inherently wrong, as it'd still be possible for the clone to live a full and happy life, and exercise free will, at least as much as any other soldier.
And i think your are really really wrong in your fiew. "Normal" soldiers know civil live, clone soldiers dont. Normal soldiers dont learn to fight and kill at the age of 2 or 3 - clones do. Clones have and never will learn anything else than to fight and kill - and that is something that just isnt the case with "normal" soldiers.

In any case, the blame for creating the army, and whatever ethical ramifications that might have, doesn't really fall on the Republic. They used it only because it was already there - created through a ploy of Sidious and Dooku.
The moment you pick up a weapon you take responsibility for what happens. It really does not matter who made the weapon.... if you use it, its your decision, not someone elses.

EvilSun

2010-11-12, 10:08 AM

Wrong link, but I stand corrected on the base genetics, however see my point below.
Nah, it was the right link, my point was to show you that the mandalorians are a culture, not a race.

Why 'naturally' must we discuss it from our point of view? We’re not allowed to interpret the situation from the in-universe point of view?
Because of the thread title? Though I have to admit (again) that maybe i really didnt get the point across very well.

new sub species, Homo Sapiens Mandalorian, as it were. The traits of this new sub species is accelerated learning, reduced lifespan, a predisposition towards authority and a preference towards warfare (technically some of these traits are cultural, but nature versus nurture is a separate argument).
They only would be a "subspecies" if they could pass on those traits when fathering childs.

hamishspence

2010-11-12, 10:13 AM

The moment you pick up a weapon you take responsibility for what happens. It really does not matter who made the weapon.... if you use it, its your decision, not someone elses.

That's the thing though- it wasn't the Jedi's decision to use the clones- it was the Republic's.

Now it was the Jedi's decision to follow orders, and lead the clones- but that's a slightly different thing- the morality, or otherwise, of "following orders"

And there are nuances. Did the Jedi know it was immoral? Should they have been expected to know it was immoral? Should they have refused to follow orders until they knew more about the nature of the clone army?

It's not as simple as "the Jedi agreed to lead them, therefore they are as morally culpable as those that created them."

Jan Mattys

2010-11-12, 10:13 AM

And i think your are really really wrong in your fiew. "Normal" soldiers know civil live, clone soldiers dont. Normal soldiers dont learn to fight and kill at the age of 2 or 3 - clones do. Clones have and never will learn anything else than to fight and kill - and that is something that just isnt the case with "normal" soldiers.

I happen to agree with EvilSun. Add on top of what he already said that "normal" soldiers, except in a few cases (namely, forced conscription), exert some sort of control over their life and their choice to be soldiers.

Clones never had that choice in the first place, because they never knew there was a choice to make.

Which brings home my point: early indoctrination takes away free will just like slavery. Just because you don't use a bullwhip, it doesn't mean you are not a slaver.

And there are nuances. Did the Jedi know it was immoral? Should they have been expected to know it was immoral? Should they have refused to follow orders until they knew more about the nature of the clone army?

It's not as simple as "the Jedi agreed to lead them, therefore they are as morally culpable as those that created them."

True. But it's as simple as answering "Yes" to all the questions of the first paragraph, though. I mean, if you are the paladin of good, I expect better from you than to lead an army of indoctrinated slaves just because you are not directly responsible for their indoctrination in the first place. Blindness and carelessness are not good traits for supposed Champions of Good, imho.

hamishspence

2010-11-12, 10:16 AM

Which brings home my point: early indoctrination takes away free will just like slavery. Just because you don't use a bullwhip, it doesn't mean you are not a slaver.

Similar arguments could be applied to the Jedi Order- they are indoctrinated practically from birth, and don't actually get paid for their lifetime of service.

So- the Jedi Order could be seen as just as much the Republic's victims, as the clones.

I mean, if you are the paladin of good, I expect better from you than to lead an army of indoctrinated slaves just because you are not directly responsible for their indoctrination in the first place. Blindness and carelessness are not good traits for supposed Champions of Good, imho.

That's the thing though- one could say that the Jedi have never been "paladins of good" but have been indoctrinated into obedience and service to the Republic.

Qui-Gon's "I didn't actually come here to free slaves" comment to Anakin may hint at this.

kamikasei

2010-11-12, 10:26 AM

But they are not - they produce clones that are brought up as soldiers. I think i can clearly remember seing kids in the movies being tought (well, whatever they were learning). The Kaminoans did not produce soldiers to start with but clones that aged double to speed of normal humans which where then brought up and educated to be soldiers. The troops we see in the Clone Wars are the endproduct of 10 years of training, not vatgrown soldiers. Remember, even when aging 2 times the speed of a normal human, they still need 10 years to grow up into proper physical fighting condition.
That's actually what I said. They can produce fully-grown, competent soldiers in ten years.

I think the disconnect here might be that you see those ten years of training as simply teaching them to fight, whereas I assume that it includes shaping their mental, psychological, and emotional development as well.

Even if I am in danger of repeating myself but: Psychology is NOT determined by genes. You can merely change disposition to a certain degree, but there simply is no gene that determines your obeyance to authority.
Are we sure the Kaminoans limited themselves to tinkering in the clones' genes and biological development, though? Again, I assumed that they had a program of psychological conditioning. And really, this is one of those cases where if the explanation offered for the visible end-product doesn't add up, I think it makes more sense to amend the explanation: the writers thought it was plausible to say that the clones were genetically preprogrammed to develop mentally in a certain way; this is daft; since we do in fact see an army of clones all mentally developed in that certain way, it's simplest to assume the programming wasn't just genetic.

Jan Mattys

2010-11-12, 10:31 AM

Similar arguments could be applied to the Jedi Order- they are indoctrinated practically from birth, and don't actually get paid for their lifetime of service.

So- the Jedi Order could be seen as just as much the Republic's victims, as the clones.

That's the thing though- one could say that the Jedi have never been "paladins of good" but have been indoctrinated into obedience and service to the Republic.

Qui-Gon's "I didn't actually come here to free slaves" comment to Anakin may hint at this.

I suppose you are right, technically.

The problem might just be perception, though. Jedi are often described as enlightened, with a superior awareness of the moral risks involved in bad behaviour, very savy of the risks of pursuing personal interests, and having a somewhat stronger will.

Not al of them, of course, but being Star Wars a Universe strongly founded on dichotomies (Good vs Bad, Light vs Dark...), it's hard to see Jedi as victims or as less-than-aware puppets whose strings are pulled by others (with the exception of Palpatine, but that's a special trait he gains for being the BBEG).

hamishspence

2010-11-12, 10:41 AM

Victims of themselves, might have been a part of it.

They became part of the Republic government (subdivision of Judicial department) around the time of the Ruusan Reformation (1000 years before the Clone Wars).

It was at that same time, that some of the recommendations made by previous generations of Jedi, became standard operating procedure- training children from infancy, the rule of non-attachment, and so on.

(Those recommendations had been around long before- and during some periods, they became traditions- but they weren't "locked in" until then).

In the novelization of Revenge of the Sith, one of the few things that rings completely true in Palpatine's lectures to Anakin about the Jedi Order, is that their indoctrination from birth limits their ability to choose.

On "training from birth"- this case:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/%22Baby_Ludi%22_custody_case

shows that once the Jedi have a Force-sensitive child (originally thought to have been orphaned in a disaster) they don't give it back even if the mother emerges. Possibly based on the idea that Force-sensitives can't be safely raised by anyone other than the Jedi, if "awakened to the Force".

Frozen_Feet

2010-11-12, 12:11 PM

Mandalorians are a culture, not race :)

How so? You assume humans that have lived separated on planet other than Earth don't have genetic, physiological and psychological differences to normal terran. Even if they are not a race, genetically speaking, they're still a breed of their own, with potentially vast differences from the norm.

This goes doubly for the clones. Genetic inheritance can affect basic psychology - this is evident from wolves and dogs, and even from ordinary humans when compared to mentally ill or disabled ones. Your insistence that this is not the case runs counter with modern neurophysics.

Biologically, dogs and wolves are the same species. However, the brains of an adult dog are mostly on the level of a wolf pup, increasing their dependency of humans. Adult dog is to a wolf what a person with Down's syndrome is to a healthy human, roughly speaking. However, dogs are vastly better at interpreting and following human-created signals and orders - even better than primates, despite being objectively less intelligent.

That's what breeding can do. Your telling me that Kaminoans couldn't achieve this with technology vastly superior to ours, while we succeeded in it thousands of years before we knew what DNA is?

And i think your are really really wrong in your fiew. "Normal" soldiers know civil live, clone soldiers dont. Normal soldiers dont learn to fight and kill at the age of 2 or 3 - clones do. Clones have and never will learn anything else than to fight and kill - and that is something that just isnt the case with "normal" soldiers.

Still missing the point by mile. Age and longevity is irrelevant, what matters is the quality of their training. One can be taught to be a 'normal soldier' in span of 6 monts, even with non-accelarated learning and growth. It'd be easy to integrate 'humane' values to their training program, and give them enough mental space and freedom to be things other than a soldier.

Because it is their training that is wrong, not their physiological or genetic quality. Their shortened lifespan is an issue wholly separate from their slavery, like I stated aeons ago. (:smalltongue:) I can train a hunting dog that's horribly neurotic and miserable, or a hunting dog that's happy, well-fed and lively as ever. Both die at 10.

Your also wrong when you say 'normal soldier don't learn to fight and kill at the age of 2 or 3' - a clone at the age of 2 or 3 is equivalent to a normal human at the age of 5 or 6, just like a 1-year-old dog is, within its own species, equivalent to a 14-year-old human in its physical and mental development. There have been, and are, cultures that start martial training at that age. Within Star Wars universe, we have the Jedi, like has already been noted. If you view that as unethical, fine - to me, it boils down to specifics of their training.

Brother Oni

2010-11-12, 12:36 PM

Nah, it was the right link, my point was to show you that the mandalorians are a culture, not a race.

While I agree that Mandalorians are a culture, they're also a people. The earliest recorded history of them including humans would be from the Mandalorian Wars, nearly 4 thousand years before the Clone Wars.

The assumption that humans have remained completely unchanged over that time, with absolutely no adaptation to space travel or life on different planets is a dangerous one to make.

However Jango Fett was born to Outer Rim humans not to Mandalorians, so technically speaking he's pretty much baseline stock human, making the genetic material he donated, and hence the clones, baseline humans.

However the modifications made to them during and pre gestation clearly makes them human only in a specific sense of the term - chimpanzees share 96% of human DNA and they're not classed as human. If the Kaminoan modifications meet or exceed this ~5%, it could be argued that they're no longer human.

On a practical level, Clone troopers are probably about as human as the other famous genetically engineered super soldiers: Space Marines from Warhammer 40K and the Spartans from Halo.

Because of the thread title? Though I have to admit (again) that maybe i really didnt get the point across very well.

How about "Star Wars - The Clone Wars: A consideration under modern ethics"?
The only issue is that the modern yardstick for ethics is listed under either the UN or Geneva Conventions and discussion of these points would likely fall under board forbidden territory of politics.

They only would be a "subspecies" if they could pass on those traits when fathering childs.

Mules are sterile, yet they're classified as a separate sub species.

Starbuck_II

2010-11-12, 12:50 PM

They certainly act mature in each appearance they make, and since
we're already using genetic treatments and time of maturity is largely based on DNA only Lucas can say if they are or are not.

No. Where are you getting your facts?

Base maturity might be DNA, but other influences arise.

Aggression = faster majurity. There is a huge plethra of studies proving this with animals.
Humans are animals basically so we too mature faster with more aggression. You can get a greater amount of testosterone based on how you are raised (higher testosterone affects aggression).

There are huge ranges for maturity in humans. Both your environment and your genetic code matters (Nature/Nuture).

Closet_Skeleton

2010-11-12, 01:04 PM

I mean seriously, basically the whole plot of the movies and the series centers around a child army being used as slaves by the "oh so nice" Jedi Knights. Have you ever wasted a thought about that ?

The Jedi are following orders just as much as the clones are. This isn't their plan and some of them are uneasy about it.

"Jedi serve others rather than ruling over them, for the good of the galaxy"

(Apparently a rather recent rule, since there was a period, which ended 1000 years before Clone Wars, where, for several centuries, every Supreme Chancellor was a Jedi.)

That period was a time of unceasing war where there wasn't anyone else to be Supreme Chancellor. It doesn't tell you about what Jedi used to be like but about what the galaxy used to be like. The Jedi were still trying to serve the good of the galaxy.

Something else worth mentioning: Ever notice that the Rebel Alliance, the Heroes of the original Lucas trilogy, don't use clones or droids?

Except they do, as copilots in all their fighters and as mechanics and medics and tactical aids.

How are the mandalorians considered so fearsome when really as soon as one of their fleets appeared in a relatively technologically advanced society they should be nuked to smithereens?

1. They're called shields, most space opera ships can surivive nukes pretty easily.

2. The Mandalorians used to nuke planets from space without landing a single soldier all the time.

The clones aren't slaves, they're drafted professional soldiers. That's a whole seperate moral arguement. Its hasn't been stated in any source that I know of that the clone troopers weren't going to get retirement homes and pensions after they were no longer needed or too old to fight, but by then it was the Empire and nothing good was going to happen to the clones anyway.

Frozen_Feet

2010-11-12, 01:25 PM

However the modifications made to them during and pre gestation clearly makes them human only in a specific sense of the term - chimpanzees share 96% of human DNA and they're not classed as human. If the Kaminoan modifications meet or exceed this ~5%, it could be argued that they're no longer human.

A person with Down's syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome) is 100% human, but has great mental and physical differences to a healthy human.

A saluki (http://dogbreedswiki.com/images/dogst/Saluki2.jpg) has completely different physique and mentality than a dachshund (http://www.greatdogsite.com/admin/uploaded_files/thumbnails/dachshund336x_1190779212500.jpg), and both are very different when compared to their progenitor (http://www.jon-atkinson.com/Large%20Images/La_Grey_Wolf2.jpg). They're still the same species. Their genetic differences are about as great as me and my neighbour, yet they grow to be as different from each other as the clones are shown to be from ordinary humans.

The clones don't need to be genetically different at all. Simply growing in stronger or lesser gravity would affect their body structure to the point that they could be mistaken for a separate species.

Lets face it - the Kaminoans have superhuman genetical engineering skills. Making inhuman humans is well within their scope. We have their word that the the clones have different psychology, and all canon evidence points to this being true.

pendell

2010-11-12, 01:29 PM

A lot of the discussion seems to center on to what extent clones are different from standard human beings -- whether they are organic automata, or human beings with a particular set of genetics.

Republic Commando and the rest of the EU takes the second view, writing off the Kaminoan's "totally obedient, taking any order without question" as sales-speak, the sort that advertises "world's finest hamburgers" at every local hamburger joint.

HOWEVER, while that is the vision of the authors of the EU, that is not necessarily the viewpoint Lucas took. He's told us repeatedly that he pays no attention to the EU and does not consider it binding. This has required significant retooling in some cases (Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy, which originally assumed clones were the bad guys) and the occasional author departing under a cloud (Karen Travis).

The EU and Lucas' vision are two different things , by his design.And I just haven't seen enough of Lucas' films after Ep. 3 to draw any conclusions.

Nor is real-world science and understanding of genetics or behavioral psychology must use. So far as I can tell, Star Wars genetics have as much in common with real world genetics as star wars physics (light sabers, planet busting superlasers, FTL drive that doesn't turn the spaceship crew into jelly from sudden acceleration, artificial gravity) does to real-world physics, and SW computer science (strong AI you can build in a junkyard) has to do with real-world CS. Which is, very little.

In the real world, if you tried to make genetic clones and make them fighting soldiers in ten years, you would get a very messed-up bunch of kids. They might be able to function on the battlefield or in an army, but they would be complete wrecks outside of that narrow sphere of functionality.

Which would not be incompatible with what I've seen in the movies. The Kaminoans never promised several million happy, well-adjusted people. They just promised an obedient army in ten years time. But I digress.

But that's real world. If Lucas wants to say it's possible to make an army of well-adjusted, obedient clone soldiers in ten years who are thrilled about their lot in life and wouldn't happen any other way, well, that makes no more sense than lightsabers do, but in-universe it's at least possible.

But there is one datum point in-universe that tells me that manufacturing clones is wrong.

The original donor, Jango Fett, was human.

Which means that , if the clones really are nothing more than organic droids, then you've taken something that was human and genetically engineered it to something less than human. Jango's offspring had the opportunity to be, like Boba Fett, completely human beings. If the Kaminoans took that genetic material and altered it into something less -- an organic battle droid, a mindlessly obedient meat machine -- that nonetheless looks and acts humans but is missing that essential core, that bit which knows right from wrong, that bit which thinks for itself -- if they have taken something human and made from it something less than human -- then IMO that is a literal crime against humanity. An action so vile and repulsive that it's on the same scale with the destruction of Alderaan. Moreso if these poor creatures are able to reproduce and their offspring are the same way. Is that Palpatine's dream? To replace the humans of the GFFA with this -- mindlessly obedient travesty?

Well.. that's horrible. It's off the scale of horror, actually, as far as I'm concerned.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Mordaenor

2010-11-12, 01:33 PM

I apologize if this point was made but:

Point of clarification: Are we arguing about, in a universe in which swords can be made of pure energy, ships can travel faster than light, and a percentage of the population, large enough to be considered a whole class of people, is born with telepathy, telekinesis, AND clairvoyance, whether or not they have the technoloy to create clones that can be fully mature by age 10? Just checking here.

Regarding why the Rebels didn't use clones or droids: Because they were heroes in a work of fiction told for our benefit. Honestly, would the story have been as good if it were about freedom fighters who used droids and clones to fight? Heroes tend to be more heroic when they are "hands on."

Dienekes

2010-11-12, 03:48 PM

No. Where are you getting your facts?

Base maturity might be DNA, but other influences arise.

Aggression = faster majurity. There is a huge plethra of studies proving this with animals.
Humans are animals basically so we too mature faster with more aggression. You can get a greater amount of testosterone based on how you are raised (higher testosterone affects aggression).

There are huge ranges for maturity in humans. Both your environment and your genetic code matters (Nature/Nuture).

You see and I was always under the impression that DNA determines when a species is generally ready for maturity. The nature is simply filling in the specifics. Which is why a human is never as mentally mature at 6 months as a comparative giraffe would be, are DNA will not allow it. Now we as humans can vary greatly on our maturity but the framework of it is pre-defined.

Maybe I'm wrong though. This isn't my area of expertise at all.

kamikasei

2010-11-12, 03:56 PM

Maybe I'm wrong though. This isn't my area of expertise at all.
It is much, much, much more complicated than that. Genes are part of how an organism develops, but not all of it. And development is not cleanly separated from other aspects. Different animals have differently-structured brains capable of different things. There's no reason to think you could simply make a human grow up more quickly without altering what it was capable of once it did mature - not for the body, and certainly not for the brain.

AstralFire

2010-11-17, 04:21 PM

As far as I know, Jedi -never- forcibly took children from parents. They just asked the parents to give them up for 'adoption', so to speak. Those are different.

Frozen_Feet

2010-11-17, 04:51 PM

It's also good to remember jedi are a diverse bunch, consisting of varied species - I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised if there's a sapient species in Star Wars universe that has parenting habits reminescent of turtles or fish.

That is, children are left to a random hole in the ground as eggs, and are born and grow up alone.

Because of the fact that jedis have significant inhuman membership, evaluating their education tactics from solely human point of view is fallacious. There might be species for which jedi training could only be beneficial, with no ethical problems, and others with which there could be scores of new dilemmas that haven't been touched upon in this thread yet.

I mean, in EU, there was a Tusken jedi, who only overcame his natural bloodlust and became a contributing member of the republic due to his jedi training; without it, he'd just become yet another raider.