But couldn’t not taking a side produce or prolong suffering due to inaction? Wouldn’t under that definition disillusioned Luke be correct in no longer fighting? I think these philosophical questions are what the characters should be struggling with, but as the ultimate answer for me it doesn’t track, doesn’t resolve anything and I question how it even forwards the narrative. So much about Star Wars is about choosing trust and love and that being an active thing that even puts you in danger but it’s the right thing to do, balance as neutrality clashes against that for me.
It is not that a Jedi shouldn’t act, but they should carefully chose when to act. They must think rationally and not let their emotions get the better of them. They can have emotions, but must take care in how they act on them. For instance, in a war, they might elect to save one person or a small group because they can on that occasion. But they must realize that they can’t save everyone and they can’t endlessly fight someone elses battles for them. Acting in a decisive way to end a conflict or restore peace is one thing, but trying to police all of creation would be impossible. They can’t be everywhere so they must act where it will do the most good. That is really what Yoda was saying in TESB when he advised Luke not to go rescue his friends. That is what Luke was trying to teach Rey in the deleted scene. That is how Qui-gon and Obi-wan acted in TPM. Jedi don’t travel around randomly righting wrongs because there are too many to wrongs and too few Jedi. They are there to steer the course of things and maintain the balance in the galaxy. Guardians of peace and justice. They must be neutral because there is so much that they can’t do. If a Jedi happens to be around and acts to change the outcome, it is a rare thing. They are looking at the larger picture. All the OT and PT dialog confirms it.