Starwars: dirty fighting and moral duty

   In Starwars (1977), the Empire goes after the rebels by attacking them through bureaucratic operation, rather than attacking the source of the hostility itself. This Idea is outlined in Nagel's War and Massacre. According to Nagel attacking a more vulnerable and harmless peripheral of a target, in order to weaken the target itself is unacceptable. He demonstrates this quite clearly, giving examples of everything from boxing matches to political campaigns. In a campaign, a politician might go after an opponents family troubles, which bear no threat, in order to blackmail the opponent himself, all the keeping in mind the old idea of the "ends justifying the means."
  In Starwars, this idea is taken to insidious degrees, whenever the empire decides to destroy Princess Lea's home planet, in order to first divulge information from her, and then in order to simply test the weapon. In no philosophy is this action justified. Even with defenders of utilitarianism, the ends must be justified, however, in this scenario, the ends were essentially evil in all facets.
  Just as the pure evil was demonstrated in the film, the even more rare instance of pure good was demonstrated in the film as well. In The Metaphysics of Morals Immanual Kant explains that in order for an action to be purely good, it must:

1. Be without ulterior Motives
2. Have a thoroughly moral quality, even if the ends have a negative impact
3. If they are done only out of respect for Moral Law.

Whenever Han Solo decided to join the fight against the deathstar, not only did he not have ulterior motives, but he was acting in direct conflict with his own self interest (surviving and clearing his debts). This was the only act of pure good that I noticed in the film, just as the destruction of  Lea's home planet was the only act of pure evil. This is due to the fact that both of these acts were thoroughly pure with no regard to the consequences.