You have to accept the rules put forward in the setting of the world, to judge them within the context of the world itself. You can't apply outside morality to make an inworld judgement. Sure, on the face of it as well, the fact Jedi basically use Child Soldiers, taking their Padawans with them into dangerous situations would be considered horrible by real world standards.
But then we don't live in a world where people are born with magical powers that can hurt everyone around them... and Where the Forces of Good and Evil are tangible.
We know in the rules of the world as it's established, Jedi are Good and Sith are bad.
The internal morality of the prequels isn't even consistent in the slightest. The Jedi are implied to be flawed in some way, but it's unclear what the right policies and choices are supposed to be.
Crucially, the Jedi claim to support democracy, but democracy in the setting is portrayed as dysfunctional. Both Sidious and the Separatists are more popular and successful at democratic negotiation than the Jedi. The Jedi never successfully turn public opinion against any of Gunray, Dooku, Grievous, or Palpatine. When the Separatists appear to be gaining popularity, their solution is always to try to kill the Separatist leader rather than to help people and win more allies to their side. When it is revealed that Palpatine is a Sith, rather than try to get him democratically impeached, they try to assassinate him. It's not even clear that this is their flaw -- it seems implied that allowing them to speak freely would allow them to gain more allies and grow in popularity, so it's best that they be silenced by force.
Even if the setting were consistent, though, that doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't call out what I'm seeing in real world terms. For example, within the setting, Jar Jar is a popular lovable skamp, whose political speech was well received. That doesn't mean I have to regard him that way, though -- either in a Star Wars game or in how I talk about him.