"Idealism. Hesitation can and will get you killed."

"Looking for a third alternative only translates to hesitation if you're incompetent and not a very good advance planner."

"Suit yourself."

"I often do, Jedi code or no."

"Through victory, freedom."

"Through knowledge, I gain victory," she retorts.

"I'll not dispute the validity of that."

"I find both codes so terribly incomplete and simplistic."

"Nuance is not their primary purpose. A simple, concrete reminder of the basis of each ethos."

"Yes, and I think both bases are incomplete and simplistic."

"What would your philosophy look like?"

"It'd involve the fact that sapient beings respond to incentives and that there's no objective morality so it's absurd to ascribe ethical value to emotional states."

"Emotional states are the prelude to physical action."

"Well, I'm pretty sure that varies from person to person? You can take physical action based on a conscious choice you made long before regardless of moment-to-moment emotions—unless that's what you mean, in which case yeah."

"In my experience, both observational and personal, moment-to-moment emotions can very easily overwhelm any premeditated decisions."

"Very easily, yes, but I am pretty certain that is also something that varies from person to person—and I would not be so short-sighted as to then create a whole moral code that says that's bad and evil. Or one that enshrines it as the ideal state of mind."

"If you include too much variation, no one will take it seriously. People differ, yes, but part of the codes' purpose is to unify them into a cohesive whole regardless."

"Can the cohesive whole not be something like 'do that which will bring the most good to people, according to people themselves instead of some lofty goal you decided was morally superior'?"

"How do you define 'most good'? Why should you trust people to have an accurate assessment of what would be best for them? What if what is best for one person is worst for someone else? "

"Respectively: by whatever metric the person themself defines as good; I definitely trust whoever's living inside a brain to know said brain better than anyone not living there, on average, and most of the time someone thinks they know what's best for other people the end result looks suspiciously like they're getting what they want and are happy and the person they're supposed to help aren't; and you compromise where you can and fall back on social rules that are agreed upon by everyone beforehand where you can't."

"Abstract, complicated, and uninspiring. The Sith offer me unlimited power, the Jedi promise universal understanding. What do you have? 'Do what you want, as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone'? You would have as many creeds as you had followers, assuming any cared enough to take up such a cause."

"I have 'find the means to satisfy your desires' for the supermajority of the population, and the statistical anomalies that are completely incapable of living like that are free to go found their country elsewhere," she shrugs. "Sapients are in fact complicated and fitting them into simple boxes is doomed to fail."

"You don't have any boxes at all. Nothing to differentiate yourself. This is not a unifying philosophy."

"'Respect other people and satisfy everyone's preferences' is a unifying method, it's absurd to try to come up with unifying content, people are in fact different. Trying to pretend one solution will fit everyone will cause the majority of them to suffer."

"People are all the same. Any differences you see are surface-level at best. If you take a man from Dromund Kaas and a Senator from Coruscant and a farmer from Dantooine and you hold them over the precipice, an inch from death, they will all say the same thing. Hold the same fear in their minds."