Who shot first?
Jedi Emeritus George Lucas betrayed a warped concept of cowboy ethics, self-defense and ethics generally in a recent Hollywood Reporter interview in which he was quizzed about his technological fixes on the original Star Wars trilogy. The topic was the shooting of Greedo in the bar, when Han Solo blasts away at the green, fishy porcupine-like villain, who has a gun pointed at him:
Lucas: Well, it’s not a religious event. I hate to tell people that. It’s a movie, just a movie. The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo [who seemed to be the one who shot first in the original] to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.
Lucas’s idea of what constitutes a “cold-blooded killer” runs counter to law, common sense, and ethics. If someone is pointing a gun at you, that is an imminent threat that justifies deadly force on your part. Shooting Greedo is self-defense, pure and simple. It is also fair and ethical. Lucas, who stole from every source under the double sun to create his iconic science fiction trilogy, borrowed a lot from Westerns without understanding them. It is true that the Cowboy Code, as typified by Gene Autry’s version, demanded that the good cowboy never shoot first. That obviously didn’t apply when the cowboy in the black hat had a gun pointed at him and his finger on the trigger, however.
Western heroes often shot first when the bad guys had made their intentions clear and were armed. In “The Magnificent Seven,'” the Seven’s leader Yul Brenner shoots Mexican bandit Eli Wallach before he can get a shot off, because Wallach is pointing two guns at him. In the same film, fragile gunslinger Robert Vaughn bursts into a room full of bandits and shoots them all, not waiting to be shot at first. And in the most Cowboy Code-violating scene of all, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” has Duke Wayne saving greenhorn Jimmy Stewart from being killed by the psychopathic Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin) by picking off the bad guy with a rifle from a dark ally across the street—Liberty never knew what hit him. And John Wayne was never a cold-blooded killer. (Though in a “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In” appearance, he said, “An old cowboy once told me to shoot first and ask questions later. I wanted to ask him why, but I had to shoot him first.” But I digress…)
Now, there are other traditions of screen heroes that having Han fire after Greedo does satisfy. Firing second means Solo is quick on the draw and a better shot than the villain (though none of the villains in “Star Wars” can hit the side of a barn), and also means that he had things under control all along. In that scenario, he is like Shane (Alan Ladd), who always shoots second (in fact, he gets shot, perhaps fatally) in the final show-down but kills multiple bad guys anyway because he is lightning fast and never misses.
Those who, like George Lucas, believe that shooting someone who has a loaded gun pointed at you is murder will doubtlessly be heard from if, as it seems increasingly likely, Israel decides to take out Iran’s nuclear weapon capabilities without waiting to see if Iran will make good on its pledge to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
And, like George, they’ll be wrong too.
[Thanks to Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a. Instapundit, for the link)
Ethics Alarms 
Star Wars – First-Strike-Capability – Nuclear War – Israel/Iran … brilliant.
You’ve outdone yourself on this one, Jack. This rather reminds me of the phrase repeated by the character (lawyer) played by Denzel Washington in the movie “Philadelphia” : “Would someone please explain it to me … like I was a six year old?” Why is it so very difficult to make those in Washington and the American public at large see the simplicity of the issue?!
“[N]one of the villains in “Star Wars” can hit the side of a barn.”
That is because their weapons are clumsy and random. The villains who used more elegant weapons (for a more civilized age) were much more effective.
Those who, like George Lucas, believe that shooting someone who has a loaded gun pointed at you is murder will doubtlessly be heard from if, as it seems increasingly likely, Israel decides to take out Iran’s nuclear weapon capabilities without waiting to see if Iran will make good on its pledge to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
And, like George, they’ll be wrong too.
I can’t agree with this, as the external actors in the nuclear action greatly change the dynamics of the situation. If Han and Greedo had the shared knowledge that Greedo killing Han would cause someone else in the bar to immediately kill Greedo (and Greedo favored his life), then Han’s shot would be unethical.
“[A]nd Greedo favored his life.”
Given what has happened to bounty hunters in the Star Wars films (decapitated by a Jedi, shot by Han, eaten by a Sarlacc), this does not necessarily follow.
Oh, it absolutely wasn’t the state of affairs in the story.
I was just noting that for this to be a parallel for the Israel/Iran situation, we’d need those counterfactuals, and I believe they would change the ethical calculus of the situation.
Surprise! (maybe) I agree with your point here, tgt.
tgt for once we agree. I was going to agree with Jack until he got to the Israel/Iran part.
That’s the thing about preemptive warfare. It’s the best and most effective way to win a war, but it can be hard to justify after the fact.
I’m sorry, but I’ll never get on board with a preemptive U.S. strike against Iran. (I shouldn’t say never, but the bar is set high, like a failed attempt.)
For Iran to use a nuclear weapon on Israel, they’d have to have a total disregard for Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iraq. Every one of those nations might experience a direct negative consequence from such action.
If we think that Iran is attempting to take out all 7 of those nations, then we can begin the discussion. Until then, its all posturing.
But who suggested that?
I said Israel, and if I were the Prime Minister of Israel, and a nation that had openly advocated the destruction of my country was about to get the nuclear capacity to do so, AND was a theocracy with a faith that believes in eliminating infidels, I would use military force to prevent that from happening.
And if I didn’t I should be kicked out of office.
You said Israel, but it doesn’t matter. Because of the damage to nearby countries that Iran is friendly with and because of the immediate response that Iran knows would come from the U.S., the threat to Israel is not credible.
I’m with Jack on this issue. I think it DOES matter. And I don’t really think any country with large factions of people who have jihadist tendencies care who else is hurt when they set their aim on a target they wish to destroy. If they believe it is serving their religion, they believe all deaths are justified and their own deaths (when they are suicide missions) are glorified.
If you’re justifying starting a nuclear war, you need to back up your opinions with evidence of some kind. Why are these Jihadists any different than the U.S. Millitary commanders who say we’re fighting a holy war in Afghanistan?
You may also notice that the powers that be are never the people going out on suicide missions. You’re arguing that the decision makers would knowingly kill themselves… not just be willing to lose some of their troops in their fight.
“If you’re justifying starting a nuclear war, you need to back up your opinions with evidence of some kind. Why are these Jihadists any different than the U.S. Millitary commanders who say we’re fighting a holy war in Afghanistan?
You may also notice that the powers that be are never the people going out on suicide missions. You’re arguing that the decision makers would knowingly kill themselves… not just be willing to lose some of their troops in their fight.”
Yep.
Right. Easy for you to say. I’m sure it makes all the Jews feel confident, since no crazy people have ever tried to exterminate them before, to know that wise heads who live in the US are confident that they are safe as safe can be.
What’s the antecedent for that last “they”? Either way, it’s a poor comment.
Israel (not “the Jews”) should be confident because of the overwhelming evidence of U.S. support. Iran knows the U.S. would back Israel if they were attacked, and Israel knows that Iran knows this.
You also missed something pretty major. While we could understand if Israel attacked Iran, that doesn’t mean it would be ethical or necessary.
Disagreeing with tgt here. Iran and Israel both know that the U.S. (despite its capability) is ultimately unreliable and lacking credibility, let alone will, to back up an ally or friend that is attacked, let alone take pre-emptive action. That’s a major reason why the risk of another Mideast holocaust is ratcheting-up – not because of internal political or technological developments within either Iran or Israel, but because of the solid historical record of U.S. (and other “powers’”) behavior. Whomever the U.S. comes to aid will receive (if anything) too little, too late – just like when Germany’s Nazis got their “solutions” rolling.
My preferred U.S. attitude toward the ascendant Mideast nuclear powers is what I liken to “tough love” of a parent and resident adult, in a neighborhood full of James Dean juveniles: They’re on their own now; whatever power I have is irrelevant to them at best, self-poisoning meddlesome and controlling at worst. So as far as their conflicts with each other are concerned, I’m either an out-of-touch elitist, or just another, bigger bully. So the U.S. “ultimatum” to each and all of them is (or should be): Arm-up, if you wish, but it’s YOUR choice. Grow up, or die.
Of course, some (not I) might argue that the U.S. is obligated to play the Kowalski role played by Clint Eastwood in the movie, Gran Torino. Halftime in America, indeed. And all we are seeing is the coach’s harem of his cheerleader whores, and no game plan.
What world are you living in? The failure to act in Germany has caused us to act since then.
I guess it’s not like the U.S. has ever waged a full scale war to protect a tiny ally from a muslim country…
Same world as you. You’re getting faked-out.
By my evidence based belief that the US defends its allies and intervenes all over the world?
Apparently, the first gulf war never happened.
Well try this on for size, not only would Iran have to be confident that the U.S. (despite all evidence and rhetoric to the contrary) will let the use of nukes on their friend pass, but they would also have to be sure that Russia and China would let it go. The second we let one country use nukes without retaliating, the whole mutual assured destruction check on nuclear war goes out the window. Maybe the U.S. would chicken out, but would all 3 of these superpowers do so?
The threat to Israel is only credible if you believe the leaders of Iran don’t care about their own lives… and that would be a first in the history of earth warfare.
I may have partly clarified below. I apologize for taking discussion so far into national policy and strategy considerations on a tangent from discussion of ethics.
I don’t know yet what to believe about what the leaders of Iran care about. But I do believe that many previous aggressors in the history of earth warfare, including in recent times, have shown terrible recklessness about their own lives as well as the lives of others.
But I do believe that many previous aggressors in the history of earth warfare, including in recent times, have shown terrible recklessness about their own lives as well as the lives of others.
“Recklessness about their own lives” isn’t the same thing as being completely suicidal. Many leaders have made poor choices that led to a downfall they did not forsee, but doing something that obviously will necessitate their near immediate death? Not so much.
I was too blunt and thus unclear in saying, “Grow up, or die.” “Grow up, or else expect to get yourself killed, sooner or later” says what I meant more clearly and precisely.
When you say threat do you mean the threat from retaliation from Israel or the threat from setting off a nuclear device in Tel Aviv?
Any device that Iran delivers to Te Aviv is going to pose a small threat to the surrounding countrys. The bigger question is how do the surrounding Arab nations react. I think that they would turn on Iran in a heart beat.
I personally think the threat that Iran would use a device is small but with the Iranians in power you never know.
You left out the example of William Munny , Clint Eastwood, in Unforgiven when he goes into the bar and shoots the unarmed bartender for “decorating his bar with my friend.” Now THAT is a cold blooded killer and in my mind fully justified for doing so.
Pingback: Greedo Ethics | Ethics Alarms « Ethics Find