Star Wars and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy Series) - Kevin Decker [28]
We could try to argue that the killings, though horrendous, are at least somewhat morally ambiguous. We can distinguish between dispositions and character traits that lie behind an action and the consequences of the action itself. As Mill puts it, “the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much to do with the worth of the agent.”46 We can then argue that Anakin, by acting out of love for his mother, is acting from a good disposition. A world in which people love their parents and their children so much that they are willing to go to great lengths to save them is a morally better world than one in which people lack such feelings. People are more likely to develop a strong moral character, and to have richer lives in general, when they are capable of such great and unconditional love for others. The development of such attachments is thus a great moral good. The hatred Anakin feels towards the Sand People, we could then argue, is a natural outcome of having such a great love. They have slowly and painfully tortured Shmi, and Anakin reacts passionately and violently to their brutality.47 So, although destroying the Sand People was wrong, we could argue that Anakin’s reaction is a byproduct of a character trait that is generally virtuous. We could then still think of Anakin as a good person.
What Anakin does, however, can bear no such justification. First, to massacre many for the sake of one is egregiously disproportionate. Indeed, to kill any innocent person just to save a family member is morally dubious. We should always “act so that we treat humanity . . . always as an end in itself and never as a means only,” as the great Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant puts it.48 By sacrificing innocent people to save our loved one, we are using them merely as tools for our own purposes. We do not respect them as full human beings with their own goals and values, but as something expendable whenever they get in our way. Moreover, to do so when those actions will not even help our loved one treats the Sand People in just the way Anakin thinks of them: “They’re like animals and I slaughtered them like animals.” Anakin’s capacity to treat people as mere beasts is such a fundamental moral flaw that his capacity for love can’t redeem his character.
Second, and more importantly, for all the good it creates, the love of family is not always a good moral motive. Certainly, love is a powerful motive, and it can be difficult to control. In addition, the capacity to love is itself intrinsically good, and it thereby creates a great good in people’s lives. Besides being good in its own right, it can also help to generate other goods. It teaches us to look at the world from the point of view of others and to take into account the interests of those outside us.
Yet despite its great potential, love can also be morally selfish. Han, remember, is a better person because he loves, but his moral perspective is still limited. When we focus our attention exclusively on those we love, we can become blind to the anguish of others. They can cease to exist for us morally. Indeed, too often, we fail to think of outsiders as human at all. The exclusive love of our own families and our own groups is the root cause of the intolerance that leads to too many of the great crimes committed by humanity. So Anakin’s love makes his anger understandable, but what he does with that anger is no less horrible because love lies behind it.
Anakin’s murder of the Sand People is, then, in no way morally ambiguous. It’s simply the first of Anakin’s many future acts of barbarity. We are supposed to see Anakin’s actions as a result of his all-too-human love for his mother and hatred