morality is subjective and not universal, who is to decide what is moral, and what by what right or privilege are they to do so.
I feel this is used as an excuse way too much. For me good and bad are not baseless subjective assessments - we aren't philosophical idea's posting on forums, we are biological systems which seem to share a concept of pleasure and pain (in various different system modalitites).
I think that there is the primary baseline in the human (living?) experience which exists as probably the root duality. If anyone has ever experienced outright bliss then you'll know everything is good, even if its bad, because everything is pleasure.... even pain. Pain exists because it's a foundation of our body to determine healthy behavior in an external environment. Healthy means to promote longer life (not pleasure).
These then can be externalized to represent the system and expressed in terms/amounts of 1. creating pain in another, and 2. limiting ones freedom's to exist as an individual biological system.
Note that does not mean pain is always bad, because sometimes it is required to increase health which seems to indicate point 2 takes priority over point 1.
Perspective is important, but so is awareness and promotion of those basic elements which to me constitute what the United Nation's tries to define as human rights.
Then the next level up from the individual perspective is personal relationships, local relationships and non-local relationships. It is in these relationships that morals, ethics and law's tend to emerge as necessary because people operate as individuals and a system to allow some concept of balance between individual basic imperatives needs to be in place to stop conflict. The complexity becomes staggering as the number of participants increases, and so we get a trillion shades of white as just many reasons for them to be called a trillion shades of black!!!
For me that's a foundation for assessing concepts like morality to link back and promote those individual parameters of subjective good and bad. The difficulty arises in the complexity of the factors at play in a decision.
I do not think those factors are open to individual interpretation as much as people like to think - as people are not able to engage in the complexity very much. They are only acting on the limited set of decisions before them. This to me says there is room in all peoples decisions to act morally, to know good from bad. If you cannot tell the difference then find out more information. Often times the best course of action is not judgmental but diplomatic, because de-escalting a cycles of judgment allows room for knowledge to be better gathered, contextualized and integrated into decision making.
I'd say there is no good reason to be bad 'at the same level'. People often use different levels of complexity to find reason's to negatively assess a more personal level, and thus create a sense of justification. To top it all off, this assumes both mental rationality and no duty of authority, such as determining concepts like justice - that is another layer of complexity on top of complexity!!!
For me this is where focus, knowledge and wisdom come into play. Focusing on comparable levels of complexity in causality, having knowledge to understand your own reality in more accurate terms with a functioning and engaged empathy, and the wisdom to determine the most accurate 'best' action. To me this is a big part of being a Jedi. Not perhaps about being right or the best, but trying to promote it within oneself and others.
Fighting for peace is about stopping (in the least harmful way possible) people who are trying to force that above mentioned concept of 'dark'.
Firstly 'fighting' is the application of an authority granted by some community so we are talking about systems of judgement which should be structured to be moral (
Laws of War
etc). When it gets to that point of directly impacting the root duality of pleasure/pain and freedom/disease in terms of fighting someone, such as assassination then it really is a finite point which whilst ideally very removed (LOTS of other options attempted before this point) then it starts to reach a point where they are either being executed for something they did (condition A ) or assassinated for something they might do (condition B ). I think condition A is unnecessary, an ineffective punishment and ignores the potential for new information to change the assessment; and condition B to be, at best, a quantitative decision on the likeleehood of an individual to undertake a particular course of action.
In reality this assessment is almost impossible!? In reality I'd guess condition B is inappropriate and a failure to let the situation get to the point (where the target was in a position to take that course of action.....), so at that point it might become the duty of that person to assume the failure of the system promotes the decision making to themselves, and therefore they would have to take the shot given the authority granted by the people under threat by that person and the fact they are there pointing some weapon at what must therefore be a likely threat - but that is right at the tip of the spear in a worst case scenario and most all others would revert back to de-escalation of violence, finding out information.. basically calming and controlling the situation by removing a capacity for harm. I've written too much to make sense anymore - anyone who got this far needs a few of them cookie's!!!
