So I will be getting a little pedantic here, thus bare with me, please. Also, I have to disclaim that I for one find it, let's say, pretentious to be able to just declare what all Jedi believe, especially considering that TOTJO is a place where nobody would ever be called less of a Jedi for not believing any particular of these points; that to the point, where I have seen people who frequent this place argue that the death penalty may be defendable on, say, financial grounds, as if that were at all relevant, and I have seen people argue absolute morality (though be it not the absoluteness of moral concepts, as it were) on this very site, too.
Now on we go to my trademark nitpicking (i.e. take it with a grain of... well, of sugar, really for splitting hairs is what this is and not strictly any definitive disagreement):
To start off with a genuine hair-splitting exercise, the first line doesn't say "everything in the universe" but "all life within [the Force]". It says that Jedi believe in that Force, not necessarily that it is present throughout all of existence, though undoubtedly a great number of Jedi believe that, too.
The second line doesn't say much about respect. One could argue that the human person is more than its flesh and extend the proposed sanctity thereof to mean a prescription of respect, but the text does not quite grant that on its own, and we might be better off stretching it as little as possible. I think the line only says that we ought not damage anyone mentally (as opposed to physically covered in the previous line).
The fourth line says that we believe in a society that does not discriminate on the mentioned grounds. I suppose by extension some other grounds may be added to the list. However, nobody can be commanded to accept anyone. We are, individually, free to reject anyone for any reason. However, society and large should not on principle reject people of particular superficial properties. In other words, we believe in equality before the law and peaceful coexistence under it.
The next line also I don't find says anything about either respect or benefit. The Ethic of Reciprocity is more than a clear reference to the Golden Rule, since both are technical terms used to refer to the same thing. The rest of the line points to the different conceptions of morality beside and despite it. It does not say that all are applicable to some extent or another, let alone that we individually ought seek them out and find our best mix, although that is a view defensible by itself. In my opinion the line cautions us against prejudice and preconception. People are different and we ought not expect everyone to behave in the ways we deem proper at all time nor judge them on the strictest forms of our own standards as if they were the only ones before we have at least a rudimentary understanding of their moral reasoning.
Not much to add to the third last line. Where the third line proposed compassion as a guiding principle in forming societal laws, no other line includes acceptance and at this point I concede that maybe what we mean by that word isn't quite the same thing. Maybe what you mean is what I'd call acknowledging, we'd be on the same page with what the line seems to say. Accepting to me sounds like being less critical and more welcoming than that, both of which have their place in principle but also should be applied with moderation in practice.
And to wrap it up I shall nitpick the word "follow" in your interpretation of the second last line. If by that you mean that we should be free to believe and think as we do and whenever we do, I agree that this seems to be what the line is saying. Follow can also mean follow through with, however, and seeing as the line speaks specifically of the freedom of conscience, I don't think it means to advocate the right to do all sorts of potentially dangerous rituals people keep constantly coming up with.
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Topic Author
