Star Wars and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy Series) - Kevin Decker [53]
So when is it okay to manipulate someone’s will? One reasonable answer is: when that person already has diminished autonomy. In the attempt to protect children, for instance, we often cultivate attitudes in a manner analogous to brainwashing (we also may deceive them in the process). Perhaps this applies to the death-stick dealer, perhaps not. He is apparently young, and has made some bad choices, and so may warrant protection from himself. Another reasonable answer is: environmental manipulation of another’s will is okay when it is necessary to protect others from the person to be manipulated. This is the thinking behind ordering someone into therapy as part of their sentence for criminal behavior, and certainly could apply to the death-stick dealer.72
The manipulation of a person’s will, genetically or environmentally, is not the only way to get them to do what you want. Another way is to use the desires they already have, by making them an offer “too bad to refuse”—this is a clear case of coercion. When Lando Calrissian betrays Han Solo and his companions, he admits that he does it under threat from Darth Vader. Extraction of information under threat of torture—as Vader does to Han shortly thereafter—is another example. Such coercion seems to be always wrong.
Yet another way to get someone to do what you want is to use the desires they already have, by giving them an offer too good to refuse—call this inducement. It seems we are more comfortable morally with inducement than with brainwashing. Indeed, I think that our intuitions tend to go in opposite directions in the two cases: we find inducement more morally problematic the less autonomous the induced individual is. The rather childlike Jar-Jar Binks is induced into supporting Chancellor Palpatine’s grab for power by his overweening desire to play an important role in the Senate.
This leaves us with an interesting question. Given that there’s nothing inherently bad about producing the clones in the first place, even with genetic manipulation, might the clones be victims of brainwashing or inducement? And if so, are they any worse off than other combatants in warfare? Are they perhaps better off? Can such treatment be justified, in virtue of its role in warfare? To answer, we need to examine the ethics of warfare in general.
War: What Is It Good For?
Warfare involves death, injury, and myriad other kinds of suffering. The battles spectacularly depicted in Star Wars are entirely typical in this regard. Warfare is inherently bad. But this doesn’t mean warfare is always wrong. Sometimes it’s permissible to do inherently bad things, such as killing a human being in genuine self-defense.
It is sometimes claimed that morality doesn’t apply in warfare, a view with the strange name of “realism.” If true, realism would of course have the consequence that in warfare you can do no wrong, no matter how much harm you do, or to whom. In this respect, “realism” is hopelessly unrealistic.
Equally implausible is absolute pacificism: the view that all violence, and especially killing, is wrong. We are shocked that Obi-Wan allows Vader to kill him. We do seem to allow that a person may lay down their own life for a noble cause, if they so choose. Notice, however, that if absolute pacificism is correct, then you are obligated to let an evil attacker kill you, and moreover to let them kill anyone else. It is hard to reconcile this judgment with the claim that lives are of equal value. If your life is as valuable as your attacker’s, then it’s permissible to choose yours over theirs by killing in self-defense.
It will come as no surprise, then, that the standard approach to the ethics of warfare is in fact modeled on permissible violence between individuals. In order for violence against another to count as genuine self-defense,