Poll: Would you own a servant (or "slave", for the dramatic)?

[Lightknight]

Wait, like a machine? That's not even technically slavery/servant-hood. That's just owning a tool or piece of equipment.

Why not own one that is more efficient at multiple things? I currently own a lot of specialized machines that are basically my servants. Dishwasher, Cat litter auto-scooper, and such.

As long as the device wasn't being mistreated and didn't desire to do something else, then why would it matter?

I would have moral qualms about an actual flesh+blood being. Designing an organic life form like that would be unethical to begin with so I certainly wouldn't support that financially.

But a robot? Hells yeah I would. But it also wouldn't be called a slave anymore than my current toaster is.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Can you prove they are sentient? Because from what I've seen from most experts in the field, cats don't qualify as sentient.

As someone who has lived with an assload of cats for the majority of my life, I would state they very much qualify as sentient. Even if they aren't, I can't stop loving these little bastards!

Oh I love cats too, and have 2 of them right now. But the issue was a poster was calling people in this thread hypocrites for "owning sentient creatures" while decrying the act of owning a sentient creature. Considering that by every actual scientific definition of sentient, I'm pretty sure cats don't qualify, it makes his holier than thou stance fairly moot, and contrary to the actual discussion.

Loving the cats is another issue entirely, and has no bearing on whether or not they are sentient.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sentient
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sentient

Holier than thou you said?

Fun fact, science fiction typically uses an incorrect definition of sentience, but makes the generally accepted arguments based on their definition. So linking the actual definition is not a particularly strong argument just because you are not actually addressing the issue at all.

You are basically saying "the point is moot", someone says "I agree, there is no reason to discuss it." and you respond with "Ah-ha! Moot actually means subject to debate and dispute! I win!" Though I am not sure you did this intentionally.

This is done because no good word exists to convey the actual ideas that people are trying to get across. Because it is a really complex issue. For a good example, watch "The Measure of a Man" a Star Trek TNG S02E09. In this episode there is a court hearing to determine if Data is property. This is particularly noteworthy to the discussion at hand, because without his emotion chip (which he will not get for years) Data does not meet the technical definition of sentient. He does not have emotions or desires as we understand them. But you are going to have a hell of a time convincing me that this justifies owning a being like Data.

But I am just going to use the incorrect definition going forward because I need a word.

The trick is that there is no line. Like so many things you cannot create a clearly defined test that puts all sentient things on one side and all not sentient things on the other. However, this does not mean that certain things do not clearly fall in one category, while other things clearly fall in the other. Biologists deal with this all the time. But just because you cannot draw an exact line in the sand does not make the categories incorrect or arbitrary.

Going further, most would agree that a person is deserving of more respect and rights than a cat, which is deserving of more respect than a cow, and a cow in turn deserves more respect than an ant. And with good reason. The question of what respect they deserve is an interesting one. Most people will draw the property line somewhere between the cat and the human, and I agree with that assessment.

I personally like the Issac Asimov position: "There is no right to deny freedom to any object with a mind advanced enough to grasp the concept and desire the state." But even this leaves open a very interesting point: What if the object can understand freedom, but does not desire the state? Is it ok to own such a being? And secondarily, is it ok to create such a being?

This is essentially the question asked by our good friend Paragon Fury.

I got to go, but I'll finish this up later.

Edit: Made a slight mistake: Data does not meet the originally intended use of sentient. The original point was that establishing sentience is assumed to establish the ability to suffer, and that if a thing is capable of suffering we should not cause it to suffer. The argument was originally made with the point of animal ownership in mind.

Data is not capable of suffering, hence the argument does not apply to him. This is what I meant.

 

[happyninja42]

Can you prove they are sentient? Because from what I've seen from most experts in the field, cats don't qualify as sentient.

As someone who has lived with an assload of cats for the majority of my life, I would state they very much qualify as sentient. Even if they aren't, I can't stop loving these little bastards!

Oh I love cats too, and have 2 of them right now. But the issue was a poster was calling people in this thread hypocrites for "owning sentient creatures" while decrying the act of owning a sentient creature. Considering that by every actual scientific definition of sentient, I'm pretty sure cats don't qualify, it makes his holier than thou stance fairly moot, and contrary to the actual discussion.

Loving the cats is another issue entirely, and has no bearing on whether or not they are sentient.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sentient
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sentient

Holier than thou you said?

Ah, I see, you are using the literal definition of sentient, referring specifically to the senses. Just like how someone asking if you are sensual, and they mean "are you inclined to interpret the world with your senses, not using information". I actually took a sensuality test once online, thinking it was "how sexy minded are you" but no, it was things like "If you see what you think is a leather coat, how do you determine if it's actually leather? Do you A: Read the Label, B: Smell it to see if it smells like leather, etc." or "You have a carton of milk, you don't know if it's spoiled or not. Do you A: Read the expiration date, B: Smell it, etc" So yeah, in that context of the word "sentient", then you are correct.

However, since most people don't use sentient to mean "have sensory organs that are used to perceive the world", and actually use it to mean "is intelligent and conscious, having an individuality and personal identity, basically a human individual, or equivalent", just like we usually use sensual to mean "sexy stuff", then I still disagree with your statement. But yes, you do have a holier than thou attitude with how you worded your post.

It was proving a point, giving the definition of a word to someone who is calling you stupid is a pretty acceptable practice I'd imagine.

And the point is still valid how does owning a creature differ from owning a robot?

Point of fact, I didn't call you stupid. Don't put words in my mouth or I will stop being polite. I don't take kindly to inflamed misrepresentations of what I say.

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

Absolutely not. I have far too much anxiety when someone else is doing something for me. I'm one of those people that has to do something for themselves to make sure it's done right, even if the person who was trying to do it for me was way more "qualified". I can't even go to a restaurant and have someone wait on me! I'd rather just get up and pick up my own damn food, I would just need someone to cook it for me, preferably still in a kitchen where I can't see them.

Well...unless it came to cleaning. Then yes, I would love to have someone help with cleaning. But then I wouldn't consider them much of a servant, just someone who is helping me.



Wait, wait, wait...I keep thinking more about it. I guess if they were REALLY into serving me. Like, obsessive anime servant. I guess that's kind of what we're going for here, isn't it?
I don't know, something in my messed up head is clicking right with the idea of a super cute girl doing things for me, but then I know for a fact I'd feel obligated to do just as much, if not more, in return.

You know what, no, still too much anxiety. I'll leave it as some kind of sick fantasy and move on.

 

[kasperbbs]

If that servant actually wanted to cook me dinner and do the laundry then why the hell not. Forcing someone to clean up my shit against their will would be messed up though.

 

[pookie101]

its not sci fi, its not the distant past.. there are around 36 MILLION men, women and children are kept as slaves right at this moment

so fuck no

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

(Continued from earlier) My personal position mirrors the Issac Asimov position: "There is no right to deny freedom to any object with a mind advanced enough to grasp the concept and desire the state." But what if the object grasps the concept but does not desire the state? Issac Asimov came up with a solid moral principle there, but I think it can actually be made more general:

"There is no moral basis for denying the reasonable request of a mind that truly understands the request they are making."

It is morally justifiable to deny a request if meeting the request cannot be reasonably met, however. But we have to clearly and objectively state why the request is being denied. A vague notion of "it is wrong" is not enough.

For example:

Denying equality to a person based on the color of their skin or lineage cannot be morally justified.
Denying the right of religious worship, so long as that worship does not cause others issue, cannot be morally justified.
and so on.

So given Paragon Fury's stipulation that the individual in question wants to be a slave, I am going to re frame the question:

Is there a right to deny slavery to any object with a mind advanced enough to grasp the concept and desire the state?

Is requesting to be a slave, with the assumption that the mind is fully capable and fully understands what it is asking for, a reasonable request? I would say no, for three specific reasons.

First, we cannot truly know if the mind is capable. Requesting slavery is a sufficiently odd thing that it makes me wonder if there is something wrong with the mind or that some outside influence (poverty and desperation, coercion, brainwashing) is at work. I think it is possible that a capable mind would make such a request, so this alone is not enough reason to deny it, but in combination with the rest of the points I think this is important.

Two, accepting slavery into a society for any reason is dangerous. It sets a precedent that is ripe for abuse. Requesting that slavery be introduced into a society, a necessary part of becoming a slave, is not a reasonable request. This is where point 1 comes back - a sufficiently desperate person might become a slave just because it is the only way to survive, and in order to do so they would likely be willing to lie and claim that they simply wish to be a slave. Since we cannot truly know the mind of others we cannot provide adequate protection against the possibility of the system being abused.

Three, slavery can be sufficiently simulated as a paid servant. I see no need to take the above risks. For the good of society, the object in question is just going to have to be paid and have rights.

The thing is, this is not all just hypothetical. Brains are just computing devices, and there is no reason to supposed brains are inherently superior to circuit boards. In fact, there is every reason to suppose that they are, essentially, the same. Both are just variations on a Turing machine. They may or may not be better now, but it is reasonable to assume that given time we will exceed the brain with our computers AND develop software sufficiently complex to be called an advanced mind. We will likely create this mind with a purpose in mind and instill a desire to act toward that purpose, probably with an inbuilt desire to remain subservient to it's creators. We might even do so on accident.

We should really already have these questions decided and laws in place so when we finally do this we know how to act toward this mind.

 

[happyninja42]

I don't see why you'd regard the use of slave as dramatic, because that's exactly what you this is. The only difference between slavery as we see it in the real world and the sort of thing you think would be great is that the former is obviously the result of external force and coercion, but the latter is less obvious, but still there. Creating a sapient being with a biological or technical imperative to serve you is no less you forceful. They're very being and individual selves have been twisted by design for the sake of their future owner's convenience; they're forced to live not for themselves but for whoever buys them at the not-slave market.

Obviously I wouldn't own it and I'd find anyone who would to be a despicable human being who's doing little more than living the dream of every slaveholder in American history.

Oh come on, slavery is a global thing, don't try and make it sound like it's an American only thing.

 

[Erttheking]

A race of beings created to WANT to serve?

There aren't enough words for how messed up that is. It's basically mass brainwashing. I'll take a mindless android, but the second the thing is capable of thinking and feeling it deserves basic rights.

 

[happyninja42]

Oh come on, slavery is a global thing, don't try and make it sound like it's an American only thing.

I wasn't, I just don't know enough about the happy dreams of slaveholders of other areas of the world to presume to speak about whether they too dreamed of their slaves being perfectly happy to serve them due to their inherent biology.

The answer is, "Sort of." Traditionally slavery was justified in a variety of means, but all of then render the slave a sub-human object. MOST are not concerned with the concept of a happy slave to begin with, since a despised tribe or ethnic group, a disgraced warrior, and so on do deserve respect in those cultures to begin with. "Slave" is just the lowest possible run on the social ladder, and happiness isn't in it. American slavery also, more frequently than with appeals to a "happy slave", simply treated the slave as sub-human property. That was the point of a slave.

Drawing national lines is ridiculous here. Not to mention that the American slaves were the product of a vast international cooperative, it was hardly an "American" phenomenon.

I would guess that at least on some level you would want "happy" slaves, with happy in this case meaning "not likely to revolt against their situation", because that would cut into your profits as a slave owner. So I think it's likely a concern to some degree. Maybe not with all cultures in their handling of slaves, but you don't want them to get too unsettled.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

A race of beings created to WANT to serve?

There aren't enough words for how messed up that is. It's basically mass brainwashing. I'll take a mindless android, but the second the thing is capable of thinking and feeling it deserves basic rights.

How about this variation: We do not create such a race, but we discover them?

Say it is the future and humans are out traveling the galaxy and we stumble on a world where in the original inhabitants have all been wiped out, lets say by a biological WMD. However, before being wiped out they created a slave race that the WMD did not target. These people were created to be slaves and designed to want to be such. For the past several hundred years these people have been miserable because they don't have anyone to be slaves to, but they have been maintaining themselves as a slave race for the future possibility that they might one day again have that opportunity. Humanity discovering them is cause for planet wide celebration, because finally they have someone who can be their masters again.

The questions:

If we are capable of removing the compulsion to be a slave, should we even over their express objections? And when I say express objections, I mean that these people would see it as a horrible act of violence against them.

And if we are unable to remove the compulsion, how do we treat these people? Is it more ethical to enslave them, or leave them to suffer?

 

[Risingblade]

So like the house elves in Harry Potter?

 

[Politrukk]

Can you prove they are sentient? Because from what I've seen from most experts in the field, cats don't qualify as sentient.

As someone who has lived with an assload of cats for the majority of my life, I would state they very much qualify as sentient. Even if they aren't, I can't stop loving these little bastards!

Oh I love cats too, and have 2 of them right now. But the issue was a poster was calling people in this thread hypocrites for "owning sentient creatures" while decrying the act of owning a sentient creature. Considering that by every actual scientific definition of sentient, I'm pretty sure cats don't qualify, it makes his holier than thou stance fairly moot, and contrary to the actual discussion.

Loving the cats is another issue entirely, and has no bearing on whether or not they are sentient.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sentient
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sentient

Holier than thou you said?

Ah, I see, you are using the literal definition of sentient, referring specifically to the senses. Just like how someone asking if you are sensual, and they mean "are you inclined to interpret the world with your senses, not using information". I actually took a sensuality test once online, thinking it was "how sexy minded are you" but no, it was things like "If you see what you think is a leather coat, how do you determine if it's actually leather? Do you A: Read the Label, B: Smell it to see if it smells like leather, etc." or "You have a carton of milk, you don't know if it's spoiled or not. Do you A: Read the expiration date, B: Smell it, etc" So yeah, in that context of the word "sentient", then you are correct.

However, since most people don't use sentient to mean "have sensory organs that are used to perceive the world", and actually use it to mean "is intelligent and conscious, having an individuality and personal identity, basically a human individual, or equivalent", just like we usually use sensual to mean "sexy stuff", then I still disagree with your statement. But yes, you do have a holier than thou attitude with how you worded your post.

It was proving a point, giving the definition of a word to someone who is calling you stupid is a pretty acceptable practice I'd imagine.

And the point is still valid how does owning a creature differ from owning a robot?

Point of fact, I didn't call you stupid. Don't put words in my mouth or I will stop being polite. I don't take kindly to inflamed misrepresentations of what I say.

Well then I now understand where the misunderstanding came from.
I was indeed taking that definition as a jumping point for my reaction which may have seemed a bit lame/fishing but was actually wholly serious.

ThatOtherGirl has helped me understand the opposite point of view (and why/how the other interpretation is used).

 

[Politrukk]

Can you prove they are sentient? Because from what I've seen from most experts in the field, cats don't qualify as sentient.

As someone who has lived with an assload of cats for the majority of my life, I would state they very much qualify as sentient. Even if they aren't, I can't stop loving these little bastards!

Oh I love cats too, and have 2 of them right now. But the issue was a poster was calling people in this thread hypocrites for "owning sentient creatures" while decrying the act of owning a sentient creature. Considering that by every actual scientific definition of sentient, I'm pretty sure cats don't qualify, it makes his holier than thou stance fairly moot, and contrary to the actual discussion.

Loving the cats is another issue entirely, and has no bearing on whether or not they are sentient.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sentient
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sentient

Holier than thou you said?

I think it was more like, picking a fight for no reason other than picking a fight. Going to the dictionary as your first choice kind of seals that deal.

It was proving a point, giving the definition of a word to someone who is calling you stupid is a pretty acceptable practice I'd imagine.

And the point is still valid how does owning a creature differ from owning a robot?

No, you were trying to:

...illicit a reaction...

(sic)

Something you'd been repeatedly called out for in this thread. You took a ridiculous, obvious position to try and get a rise, and had and have nothing else to offer, clearly. If you want a conversation, don't start with deception and trying to get a reaction.

Nope there was a difference in understanding of the definition being used which in retrospect made me seem a bit like a prick but I couldn't fathom how others could bypass what seemed a perfectly normal point whilst handling the definition I had in mind.

So I apologize if it seemed like a shitty reaction but I was actually serious in the point I was trying to hold.

 

[happyninja42]

Well then I now understand where the misunderstanding came from.
I was indeed taking that definition as a jumping point for my reaction which may have seemed a bit lame/fishing but was actually wholly serious.

ThatOtherGirl has helped me understand the opposite point of view (and why/how the other interpretation is used).

So now that we are on the same page as to the usage of the word sentient in this discussion, what are your thoughts on the question as presented by the OP?

So like the house elves in Harry Potter?

Were they made to be servants? Or is that just the niche they decided to fill in the magic society? Though I would give them at least a bit of a pass, in that "it's magic". If they were "naturally" in this context, meaning magically made by just, magic, and not a person, to be servants, then well, that's just how they were naturally made. Serving would almost be instinct to them. If they chose to be servants as a society, because they felt this was the best course of action for them as a species, well, they made that choice and so I would have less issue with having one of them as a servant. If they were specifically crafted by some ancient wizard, to be servants, and the wizard compelled them to want to serve, no matter what, then yes, I would have huge issues with the concept.

But if it's similar to "Dwarves like to dig and do blacksmithing, because they're dwarves, and that's just what dwarves naturally tend to do", then it's not really the same situation. But again, I don't recall much about the house elves, so a refresher would be appreciated.