Emporer Palpatine was a good guy:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Except I can point out that Kantian ethics would not suggest that droids are the same as humans. You did not even try to justify it by ethics. You just appeal to humanity's amorality and "shit happens."

OK, so Kantian ethics (which I'd admit not to be too familiar with) says droids are not the same as humans. Does Kantian ethics say whether an alien species would be the same as humans? And if so, what distinguishes a sapient alien species from a sapient droid?

NO MORE RL EXCUSES. Either justify it YOURSELF or drop it. Don't try and say, "Well what about this..." That doesn't cut it. That's how Shep responds to everything he hates in N&P.

I'm arguing from a standpoint of ethical relativism. Under my current ethical scheme, I agree slavery is bad, OK? But I also recognize that societal norms may be different in the GFFA, and of course the Imperial GFFA.

This is like someone trying to forment opposition against Nazi Germany by saying "their killing millions of Jews" and you'd automatically conclude they are wrong or exaggerating because they are providing an assertion to support their position.

Yes, I'd be skeptical. You are poisoning the pot by saying something we know the answer to already backed by a ton of research and by bringing up the Nazis to gain an emotional leverage. But suppose it is 1940 or so and some known anti-Nazi came up and blathered that, I'd demand he bring up real collaborative evidence before taking him at face worth.

And besides, this case has no quantifier. It is more like that anti-Nazi saying "they are killing Jews" in 1940. I'd say "OH yeah? How many?"

Sorry, you haven't brought any evidence that its untrue or unreasonable. Propoganda is a crutch we fall upon when circumstancial and other evidence makes something highly unreasonable and a party controlling the presses would have reason to alter it.

OK, it is nationalizing. At what rate? One in a trillion?

And you haven't a shred of evidence, so who gives a fuck.

You mean you are doubting that Biggs is anti-Imperial and seems to want Luke to join him in the Rebel Alliance someday?

Vader's whim is above the law (obviously since he contradicted the "dismantle on sight" order for IG-88). A Customs desk jockey on Imperial Center is not the same thing as Lord Vader looking for Luke Skywalker.

But the law is also explicit. The best way I think to rationalize it is that Bounty Hunters just generally tend to have looser regulations. Theft and murder, after all, are still normally crimes even in the Empire, but clearly Bounty Hunters are exempt.

Well you're obviously not paying attention then, since they are licensed members of an organization, the Bounty Hunters' Guild, and they can pass clearly identified on Imperial Center. There is simply no evidence for this assertion other than the fact they are treated like low-lifes. It does not follow that low lifes must be criminals. Concede.

So now they are a guild. I'd concede they aren't exactly criminals, but they are clearly borderline.

And besides, it doesn't mean they have anything to hide. It just means truly free enterprise is anathema to totalitarian regimes.

They are really an anathema to almost all regimes. You can't even enforce work regulations on companies that are under your radar. Sure, you might really be clean, but if I'm a government guy and I see a company trying to slip under by radar, I'd be checking him out first.

[Illuminatus Primus]

OK, so Kantian ethics (which I'd admit not to be too familiar with) says droids are not the same as humans. Does Kantian ethics say whether an alien species would be the same as humans? And if so, what distinguishes a sapient alien species from a sapient droid?

Do it yourself. I'm tired of your appeals and generalized ethics laziness. You have resources available to you.

I'm arguing from a standpoint of ethical relativism. Under my current ethical scheme, I agree slavery is bad, OK? But I also recognize that societal norms may be different in the GFFA, and of course the Imperial GFFA.

In other words, your posts are based on maybes and conjecture of all colors. We have external ethics by which we can analyze the GFFA SoDwise, just as we have political knowledge by which to judge the competency of our various powers. You're inconsistency I find disturbing.

Yes, I'd be skeptical. You are poisoning the pot by saying something we know the answer to already backed by a ton of research and by bringing up the Nazis to gain an emotional leverage. But suppose it is 1940 or so and some known anti-Nazi came up and blathered that, I'd demand he bring up real collaborative evidence before taking him at face worth.

Its a ridiculously high burden of proof all too convienent in a situation where the background is very vague.

Besides, its broadly and completely contrary to the canon policy. You lose.

And besides, this case has no quantifier. It is more like that anti-Nazi saying "they are killing Jews" in 1940. I'd say "OH yeah? How many?"

Please. This is the kind of semantical nitpicking which is simply absurd. This is like having someone say the U.S. government is increasingly socialist and expecting them to be referring to the USPS.

OK, it is nationalizing. At what rate? One in a trillion?

Incom, KDY, SFS were all nationalized to various degrees. Do your homework; you're the one shitting on the validity of the claim.

You mean you are doubting that Biggs is anti-Imperial and seems to want Luke to join him in the Rebel Alliance someday?

Right Kaz. Everytime anyone says anything unpopular about the Empire you suggest that its probably untrue - which you did here. Now you've slightly slid to whining about quantifiers.

The point stands. Its canon and you have no evidence require shoehorning. You take things at face value unless you have a compelling reason to do otherwise.

But the law is also explicit. The best way I think to rationalize it is that Bounty Hunters just generally tend to have looser regulations. Theft and murder, after all, are still normally crimes even in the Empire, but clearly Bounty Hunters are exempt.

No shit. They're fucking licensed.

So now they are a guild. I'd concede they aren't exactly criminals, but they are clearly borderline.

There we go. Concessions are good.

They are really an anathema to almost all regimes. You can't even enforce work regulations on companies that are under your radar. Sure, you might really be clean, but if I'm a government guy and I see a company trying to slip under by radar, I'd be checking him out first.

And again, you appeal to the authority of government. Personally, I do not give a flying fuck about what a government simply declares from its pulpit. If the regulations are wrong, than I don't pity the government when people break the law to avoid them. I find socialism distasteful, and I'm inclined to agree with Lando.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Do it yourself. I'm tired of your appeals and generalized ethics laziness. You have resources available to you.

The idea that Kantian ethics supports you is yours. Actually, it is your application of Kantian ethics. Honestly, I'm reading stuff about Kant's idea of "Categorical Imperative", but I have yet to locate the part which allows you to apply it in such a way that allows an entire sapient class to be rendered property to the extent that they can be freely memory wiped (killed), while allowing another sapient class to be treated as equals to your own species. Maybe I just hadn't fully understood Wiki's explanation yet, so perhaps your example would help me with that too.

To put it another way, you have just said "Science could be used to show how Alderaan was destroyed with at least 1E38J class energy." While true, you are supposed to be able to explain how science is applied to derive that figure, and do so on request at least on some level.

In other words, your posts are based on maybes and conjecture of all colors. We have external ethics by which we can analyze the GFFA SoDwise, just as we have political knowledge by which to judge the competency of our various powers. You're inconsistency I find disturbing.

OK, by modern external ethics, the Empire's slavery is bad. Never denied that from the start (which you should know if you had been reading).

But IMHO the base problem is with the GFFA as a whole. That's why I used the pre-19th century real world attitude with slaves as an example. Yes, slavery is bad, but the guys weren't evil in that they were simply following the standards of the time. Little things like Solo Command show that despite the NR trying to cover it up and blaming Zsinj and how Coruscant's racism against nonhumans is "legendary" (Wraith Squadron), racism in the GFFA is something buried under a piece of tissue paper. All the Empire was look away while the humans (apparently the dominant species) took away that tissue paper.

Its a ridiculously high burden of proof all too convienent in a situation where the background is very vague.

Fortunately for Biggs, he has you. The point is that you just don't take one side's story without collaborative evidence.

Besides, its broadly and completely contrary to the canon policy. You lose.

The canon policy mandates that I cannot deny that's what Biggs said, which is different from "What he says must be literally true." He said he was going out on a freighter and not a class II frigate too, you know.

Incom, KDY, SFS were all nationalized to various degrees. Do your homework; you're the one shitting on the validity of the claim.

OK, conceded. And since I think over-nationalization is a bad thing, that's another bad mark.

And again, you appeal to the authority of government. Personally, I do not give a flying fuck about what a government simply declares from its pulpit. If the regulations are wrong, than I don't pity the government when people break the law to avoid them. I find socialism distasteful, and I'm inclined to agree with Lando.

More than appealing to it, I'm looking at the entire matter from the governmental point of view as well.

[SirNitram]

While I'm not sure why whether or not Kantian Ethics supporting the droid slavery is important or not(Really, it's not like it's the only moral system), I am curious as to how one can claim it supports droid slavery, when it includes such phrases as:

"Act to treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end-in-itself and never as a means."

Unless one wants to be a semantical cunt about the use of the word humanity. I welcome an explanation of how Kantian ethics indicate the droids aren't to be treated like humans, and indeed, how it's fine to treat them as means.