Star Wars and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy Series) - Kevin Decker [26]
Here’s an interestingly ambiguous scenario. We have two characters, each of whom is acting on what he thinks is best for everyone. We know Obi-Wan better, so we’re more likely to trust his judgment, but we also know that the information provided by Dooku is accurate. Dooku sees a corrupt government, controlled by pure evil; rebellion, he thinks, is the only possibility of keeping the galaxy from falling under the complete sway of those hidden forces. Although Obi-Wan objects to this possibility, we can easily imagine that Dooku would be joined by an independently-minded Jedi like Qui-Gon Jinn, who was only too-eager to ignore the advice of the Jedi Council with respect to Anakin Skywalker.
On the other hand, because Obi-Wan completely trusts the capacity of the Jedi Council to detect the Sith, he sees only a rebel, looking after his own interests and those of his cronies. The only evil he sees is that of the separatist rebellion itself. However much Obi-Wan’s intentions are good, he fails to see the greater danger. His arrogance in his own knowledge and in that of his leaders leaves unquestioned his misguided assumptions. Dooku understands that the “Dark Side of the Force has clouded their [the Jedi Council’s] vision,” and he knows that drastic action is needed to avert catastrophe, so he’s willing to take enormous risks for the good of all.
We have, then, a conflict between people with different views of what is needed to advance the good, neither of whom is in a position to convince the other of his point of view. The dispute is a conflict of visions, based partially on a conflict in knowledge. Each man acts reasonably given the information he has, relying most on those whom he trusts. Each is thus acting out of good intentions, yet one must have unwittingly become a tool of evil. Without further information, such conflicts can’t be resolved, and so one of them must be horribly mistaken. In such scenarios lie great moral tragedies.
To be a great tragedy, however, each side must be acting out of good will, but one unwittingly aids evil. Unfortunately, such an interestingly ambiguous scenario is not the one we actually find in Attack of the Clones. By the time we see him with Obi-Wan, we already know that Dooku is no idealist and that he does not have any good intentions. The Trade Federation will join the separatists only if Padmé Amidala has been eliminated, and Dooku has assured Nute Gunray that his hired assassin, Jango Fett, will not fail. His participation shortly thereafter in the attempt to execute Obi-Wan, Padmé, and Anakin leaves us no room to think that he was ever acting for good. The later revelation that Dooku is actually the Sith apprentice Darth Tyrannus is thus hardly surprising. It is merely an irony that Dooku exercises his deception by telling an important truth, while Obi-Wan later conveys a deeper truth by lying to Luke about the death of his father.44 Dooku, as it turns out, is not morally ambiguous at all: he’s simply a subtle instrument of evil. The movies thus miss the opportunity to teach an important moral lesson: sincere people can honestly disagree about the correct moral course.
“I’m a Jedi . . . I Know I’m Better Than This”
On the face of it, the most morally ambiguous character in the Star Wars saga must be Anakin Skywalker. He changes from an innocent and good-hearted